Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Consciousness is nothing more than experience. Experience need not relate to self or other, i.e. need not be of duality. The realization of Nirvana is not the cessation of consciousness.
That is incorrect. Consciousness is the experience of duality.
The realization of Nirvana is not the cessation of consciousness, it is the realization that consciousness can not be ceased because it does not exist.
If you want to debate this fine, but I ask you a simple question. How can you claim consciousness is not based on duality when it intrinsicly implies that the subject is conscious of an object. If there is nobody to be conscious, and nothing to be conscious of, how can you call it consciousness?
There is eye-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness and mind-consciousness. These do not cease when the mind realizes the state of non-clinging and non-dual thinking.
To say consciousness does not exist is to say nothing exists separately, and this is true. Yet these experiences themselves, this consciousness or awareness, still happens; still occurs.
I think that the distinction is meaningful. There are a whole range of different terms used in the Sanskrit, Pali and Apabrahmsha source languages that tend to get glossed just as consciousness. Consciousness (vijnana) is typically considered as a dualistic phenomena, while wisdom (buddhajnana, rigpa, etc.) is not. It is true from the point of view of Yogacara Madhyamaka that the ear-, eye-, nose-, etc. consciousnesses do not cease upon realization because realization is specifically of the form of dharmadhatu wisdom: Nothing has arisen, nothing abides, nothing needs to cease.
Buddhism helps us how to be good human beings first. Most of us can't even get by everyday without resenting some "lesser person" let along talk about enlightenment.
Buddhism's goal, as far as I can see, is to end suffering. This is done by meditation, generally, which changes one's mind/brain.
If technology were to progress to the state where you could manipulate your own consciousness, wouldn't this be a much more efficient path to enlightenment?
Absolutely! If that manipulation could lead to enlightenment. I have manipulated my consciousness plenty, but so far, most of all of the attempts have taken me further from enlightenment in the long run.
And when asked this same question, the Dalai Lama, also said that yes, he would be glad to use another safe and effective means for attaining enlightenment.
Voyager, you wrote; "The absence of a state of mind would be death, which would imply mass suicide is our best course of action."
Most of the Buddhism that I have studied has strongly suggested that death is not a path to the absence of a state of mind. The states of mind that occur after death are varied, and dependent on many factors including the state of mind during life.
Suicide has been said to lead to a tormented suffering state of mind.
I am strongly doubt technology can replace cultivation to reach enlightenment. If a quick and instanteous way is possible, Buddhas and Mahasattvas would have helped us in that way already. Buddha would say a Dharani that enlightens everyone in a instant if he could. But that is not the case.
You can already manipulate your consciousness. Does it lead to enlightenment? With the right touch and letting go you can release yourself from avoiding emotions. If technology can make this easier then it would be creating merit that lead to the conditions that make it easier to cut the root of suffering. For example in a pure land or even say in the an environment that does not overwhelm the seeker with suffering it is easier to attain enlightenment. We already have such technology ie the internet and devices such as itouch to have more access to the dharma for those who cannot travel to a teacher. The danger is that we don't ponder the dharma but rather use the dharma to gratify our ego.
Simply a means to an end? Seems so. Enlightenment is no state of mind - were it so it would certainly not be enlightenment - neither is it an endpoint - it is beyond mind - beyond suffering - beyond striving - beyond desire - beyond achievement. Buddhism's purpose is to end all suffering? Not literally - rather to liberate all from uncertainty about inherent reality - THAT suffering - THAT misunderstanding. One needn't be strapped in a machine and altered by some means to get up from that chair different than they sat down. Who one thinks one is changes every moment - albeit imperceptibly - but then what is perception but a construct dependent on that which is perceived and a healthy, functioning organ - one of billions. What difference if a machine or practice propels one to enlightenment when enlightenment is misperceived? Suppose one doesn't even "know" when one is enlightened as a tenet of that very enlightenment? Enlightenment,Nirvana, Dharma, Buddha, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Precepts, et al are too frequently held dogmatic and deified as concepts of a precious, shining pure land spiritual path or sacred tradition with mystical and cosmological implications - when in fact they are very ordinary - even mundane - at their core - designed to help those who seek see beyond appearances.
Not being enlightened, I have no clue what Enlightenment really is.
However, the neuroscience of spirituality is being intensely studied. What they're finding is that people in a "spiritual" state, be it meditators or those deeply in prayer, exhibit certain patterns of brain activity. Therefore, for a person to feel things like unity with the universe, ultimate freedom or all-encompassing love, the neurons in the brain need to fire in a certain way. Which isn't surprising, as more and more phenomena of our consciousness are being understood as tied to particular brain operations.
I know, I know, many will say that Enlightenment is no state of mind but I think that is true only from the philosophical point of view and is said by teachers in order to get their disciples to drop their obstructing patterns of thinking-- from the biological point of view, whatever you experience is a state of mind and the mind for us mortals is made possible by the electro-chemical phenomena of the brain. It is therefore conceivable that at some point a sophisticated drug will be created that will put anyone in that "spiritual" state of mind. It could be that people will be able to take that "Buddhex" drug on a regular basis (say, daily) and be rid of suffering while being completely lucid for as long as they keep taking it. Or, perhaps, they could develop a course of treatment, surgical or otherwise, that'll achieve the effect permanently.
...But assuming that "Buddhex" treatment has no side effects (a hefty assumption to make), will it provide the ultimate achievement? And won't there be daring people who'll get curious about the state of "plain humanity" that "Buddhex" whisked them out of without any effort on their part? And won't those pioneers want to venture back into the stages that the treatment conveniently skips, following that universal calling for a quest? In trying to answer the question we come to a paradox, which we usually do, when we try to understand our own consciousness.
If indeed "Buddhex" leaves its recipients content and uninterested in those "lower" stages that "honest" practitioners had to go through, then it will have limited human nature, taken away from the freedom and spontaneity with which we are born and that we treasure so much. That can't be true Enlightenment, can it? If, on the other hand, even after taking "Buddhex", people will want to search for something else, such as the "lower" stages, then "Buddhex" will have failed to provide what it was supposed to provide by definition.
Jeez, should I have said all this? I think the very first sentence might have been enough. Merry Christmas, everyone
So glad you posted all that. You raise the immense question of our freedom and spontaneity, and I firmly believe that these are essential 'tools' in our lives and practice.
[ I certainly think I can come close. Technology is pretty unbelievable.
[would you say there may be a better method to eliminate suffering than the Noble Eightfold Path?
Why would anyone want to try to use technology to achieve the same that can be achieved by natural means? Technology, especially with regards to the brain, has a sketchy track record. (Remember lobotomies? Considered cutting -edge treatment in their day.) The goal of Buddhism, as I understand it, is Liberation for oneself and others. (We should start a "What is the Goal of Buddhism?" thread.) Technology and the medical and psychiatric systems still have a lot of bugs to be worked out of their systems. Are you sure you want to entrust your psyche/brain to them, not to mention their machines or drugs with unpredictable side effects?
Comments
Is the technology question completely irrelevant and impossible? Yes.
Tip: It isn't about modifying consciousness, it is about returning to a state in which there is no duality, and thus no consciousness.
The realization of Nirvana is not the cessation of consciousness, it is the realization that consciousness can not be ceased because it does not exist.
If you want to debate this fine, but I ask you a simple question. How can you claim consciousness is not based on duality when it intrinsicly implies that the subject is conscious of an object. If there is nobody to be conscious, and nothing to be conscious of, how can you call it consciousness?
To say consciousness does not exist is to say nothing exists separately, and this is true. Yet these experiences themselves, this consciousness or awareness, still happens; still occurs.
I see you modified your post with "consciousness or awareness". Awareness, of course. Consciousness, no.
And when asked this same question, the Dalai Lama, also said that yes, he would be glad to use another safe and effective means for attaining enlightenment.
Voyager, you wrote; "The absence of a state of mind would be death, which would imply mass suicide is our best course of action."
Most of the Buddhism that I have studied has strongly suggested that death is not a path to the absence of a state of mind. The states of mind that occur after death are varied, and dependent on many factors including the state of mind during life.
Suicide has been said to lead to a tormented suffering state of mind.
With the right touch and letting go you can release yourself from avoiding emotions. If technology can make this easier then it would be creating merit that lead to the conditions that make it easier to cut the root of suffering. For example in a pure land or even say in the an environment that does not overwhelm the seeker with suffering it is easier to attain enlightenment. We already have such technology ie the internet and devices such as itouch to have more access to the dharma for those who cannot travel to a teacher. The danger is that we don't ponder the dharma but rather use the dharma to gratify our ego.
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble1.htm
the word consciousness has been thrown about quite a bit. would anyone like to comment on the nature of consciousness?
current western science has no chance.
and you are missing on all the other phala!
However, the neuroscience of spirituality is being intensely studied. What they're finding is that people in a "spiritual" state, be it meditators or those deeply in prayer, exhibit certain patterns of brain activity. Therefore, for a person to feel things like unity with the universe, ultimate freedom or all-encompassing love, the neurons in the brain need to fire in a certain way. Which isn't surprising, as more and more phenomena of our consciousness are being understood as tied to particular brain operations.
I know, I know, many will say that Enlightenment is no state of mind but I think that is true only from the philosophical point of view and is said by teachers in order to get their disciples to drop their obstructing patterns of thinking-- from the biological point of view, whatever you experience is a state of mind and the mind for us mortals is made possible by the electro-chemical phenomena of the brain. It is therefore conceivable that at some point a sophisticated drug will be created that will put anyone in that "spiritual" state of mind. It could be that people will be able to take that "Buddhex" drug on a regular basis (say, daily) and be rid of suffering while being completely lucid for as long as they keep taking it. Or, perhaps, they could develop a course of treatment, surgical or otherwise, that'll achieve the effect permanently.
...But assuming that "Buddhex" treatment has no side effects (a hefty assumption to make), will it provide the ultimate achievement? And won't there be daring people who'll get curious about the state of "plain humanity" that "Buddhex" whisked them out of without any effort on their part? And won't those pioneers want to venture back into the stages that the treatment conveniently skips, following that universal calling for a quest? In trying to answer the question we come to a paradox, which we usually do, when we try to understand our own consciousness.
If indeed "Buddhex" leaves its recipients content and uninterested in those "lower" stages that "honest" practitioners had to go through, then it will have limited human nature, taken away from the freedom and spontaneity with which we are born and that we treasure so much. That can't be true Enlightenment, can it? If, on the other hand, even after taking "Buddhex", people will want to search for something else, such as the "lower" stages, then "Buddhex" will have failed to provide what it was supposed to provide by definition.
Jeez, should I have said all this? I think the very first sentence might have been enough. Merry Christmas, everyone
So glad you posted all that. You raise the immense question of our freedom and spontaneity, and I firmly believe that these are essential 'tools' in our lives and practice.
Why would anyone want to try to use technology to achieve the same that can be achieved by natural means? Technology, especially with regards to the brain, has a sketchy track record. (Remember lobotomies? Considered cutting -edge treatment in their day.) The goal of Buddhism, as I understand it, is Liberation for oneself and others. (We should start a "What is the Goal of Buddhism?" thread.) Technology and the medical and psychiatric systems still have a lot of bugs to be worked out of their systems. Are you sure you want to entrust your psyche/brain to them, not to mention their machines or drugs with unpredictable side effects?