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 and Death
Greeting friends. This is my first post on your forum.
Over time, I have figured out some things of what Buddha had tried to teach. Namely, the cycle of life, impermanence, and of karma. All that I know is from what I see, hear, and realize. I want to know what happens to the consciousness that has been residing in my body since I was born. I know that I was once born, that my body is ever-changing, that my actions have consequences, and that I will die. I know that my body will decompose, the material from which new life will eventually emerge. I feel the same that is true for my body, is true for my consciousness. That my consciousness was once born, that it is ever-changing, that thinking has consequences, and that the consciousness that is here today, will one day be gone.
But then what? How does consciousness decompose? How does it enter into new consciousness? Perhaps some who have spent more time may enlighten me with his or her realizations.
*
Over time, I have figured out some things of what Buddha had tried to teach. Namely, the cycle of life, impermanence, and of karma. All that I know is from what I see, hear, and realize. I want to know what happens to the consciousness that has been residing in my body since I was born. I know that I was once born, that my body is ever-changing, that my actions have consequences, and that I will die. I know that my body will decompose, the material from which new life will eventually emerge. I feel the same that is true for my body, is true for my consciousness. That my consciousness was once born, that it is ever-changing, that thinking has consequences, and that the consciousness that is here today, will one day be gone.
But then what? How does consciousness decompose? How does it enter into new consciousness? Perhaps some who have spent more time may enlighten me with his or her realizations.
*
0
Comments
It's difficult for us to conceive things that are more complex processes than even our intelligence can comprehend. Some believe consciousness persists, others believe it does not; me, I'd like to simply say "I don't know" and only say things for certain that I actually know for certain.
Let go of the "self" that is false (Non-Self in Buddhist-speke), realize what you can, and admit to yourself what you don't or can't know.
Thank you o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o. I did not mean to imply that consciousness is a thing, but it is something. My understanding is that in the same way a human body is never the now as it was before or will be in the future (through movement, biological growth, decay, etc.), the same is true of consciousness. That is to say that the human body is not a thing, since it is ever-changing, but it is something since human personality and knowledge are growths that take during a human life. Human consciousness, like human personality is something, but not a thing, since it will cease to exist at some point.
I must read the article you linked me to a few more times, since the way it's written confused me. It seems to confirm what I see and know, but does not answer my question. Consciousness does not transmigrate across entities. This would be as naive as saying the atoms that make up one body decay and all of a sudden rematerialize into a new baby or squirrel upon death.
I believe that the words we speak from consciousness, which allow for new life to be possible (emission of carbon dioxide for trees, e.g.) also allow for new consciousness to be possible. I don't believe it's possible to separate consciousness from living, and I do believe karma drives the cycle of consciousness as much as it does the cycle of life. I could be completely wrong, but science has completely confirmed the cycle of life (we start from atoms, grow from atoms, decay into atoms, and new life uses those same atoms).
How does new consciousness use the stuff from which old consciousness was made from?
Could you please clarify what you mean by "It's not ever-present in our lives."?
I agree that focusing on this particular subject may be a distraction from the truth, but my way to realization is by means of knowledge.
The body is dependent upon the elements of earth, wind, fire & water whereas consciousness is dependent upon the functioning of a sense organ.
As body & consciousness arise in different ways they probably end in different ways.
Best wishes
despite all of the myriad 'buddhist' theories, in reality, there is nothing more to it than that...
:cool:
This is explained in Tibetan Buddhist teachings on the bardo and this teaching by Ontrul Rinpoche, based on Tsele Natsok Rangdrol's "Mirror of Mindfulness" may help.
THIS is the answer I was searching for! I will most likely want to know more in the future, but this satisfies me for now.
Using the PC analogy above:
Conciousness is what you get in a computer when that computer senses, thinks, plans, imagines, perceives, cogitates or any other mental event (loosely capture by the aggregates-for).
When the computer is off, so is the conciousness.
When it is on, the same.
There is no thinker, only computation.
Shalome:)
Mat
Allan Wallace
What is reborn?
http://www.sbinstitute.com/16%20Teachings/What%20is%20rebornHow.mp3
http://www.sbinstitute.com/LecturesMP3.html
That was interesting, thanks, enjoyable:)
One caveat. One must remember when listing to such talks or reading such accounts, they are, as admitted, narratives based on reports from others. he uses concepts that are completely ambiguous. We have no reason to believe him over any christian, hindu, spiritualist, pagan viking etc narrative.
This is the problem, this guys talks with authority no single man is en tilted to. And we as buddhists, because of the assumption of spirituatual authority are much less likley to get all kalamasuttra on the spiritual leader. Its self propagating.
It was a good listen, nonetheless:)
Mat
I am sure many rational scientific Buddhists would listen to this talk and it would give them enough of an explanation to be able to lay down their worries about you know what.
But lets be clear that his explanation for this thing is that at the time of death our psyche goes and then what is left is the substrate conciousness.
"I belive everyone has their own individual soul.(13 mins through)
he speaks of the moment of death with the same kind of certainty. I just dont get it. This man is speamnking no differnt as if rebirtyh was heaven.
He admits he is using metaphor and hearsay.
"At death the Buddhist and the material part ways" he says. But then he speaks of non human substrate or repository conciousness.
What you need to ask yourself when liusteing to this is:
Are there any reasons to belive his explsinations other than the confortable fact they act as explanations for what wants to be explained.
e does the old @other scieteits have similar theories@ chestnut which is bollows.
Bavanga
It seems very hard for Buddhists not to get duialistic
When you die all processes shut down
You ahve lost your mind (psyche)
All that is left.
he is just maiing up this substrate as an explanitory role thoyghh.
I know this may sound flippant, but it is sincere:
You will find out when you die ... or not.
All you can know is from what you see, hear and realize.
We all try to get "ground", or a feeling of certainty, under our feet. Whether we say that we continue in some form after we die, or whether we say that we cease to be, both attitudes are an attempt to get ground. Understand that this need to believe either way about this issue is the last, strongest attachment we will tackle. And for now, realize that the question needs no answer. It will be what it will be.
Hey, I agree, and in essence that's the crux of all doubts and faiths and agnosticism, they all come down to this point.
This ultimate unknowable is trivial, by definition, as The Buddha said. It is pointless to debate it, a waste of precious time.
But this does not make all questions connected to the ultimate unknowable pointless, this is a naive mistake to make, but one that is made often.
We cannot know what happens at death, but we can use our reason and science and insight and dharma to weigh up the evidence for the various options, rather than blindly assuming one.
I believe that, overwhelmingly, the evidence points to the cold hard empty fact that this life is our only life. There is no real evidence to the infinitely more attractive idea that there is more to this life than this.
Food for thought,
Mat
Then we should really leave it at that. If dhamma to you is that which cannot be doubted, then how does holding a speculative (but "safe bet") belief fit in? This seems to contradict all your previous claims that you know with absolute certainty that there is no form of "rebirth" whatsoever and that this is the entire basis of the path to nibbana.
Also, the idea of literal Buddhist rebirth might seem attractive to you but clearly it is not to others... Otherwise they wouldn't be practicing Buddhism. You often make assumptions about what others believe and what their motives are.
The sutta (it should have linked you to the sutta MN38 rather than an article) says what DDhatu has said. It teaches how consciousness arises and ceases constantly throughout our day, as a sense organ meets an object. This is what I meant by a process rather than something ever-present.
I don't know if what he says is true but he appears sincere. His point was one will know oneself through direct experience by going into deep samadhi. This is not child's play and needs years of practise.
Anyway this may well explain why Karma and rebirth means different things to different people.
Because we cannot know with certainty it doesnt mean we cannot get close to that certainty. Sure we can never know in that trivial epic sense of maths: that there is no afterlife.
But science and reason all point to the fact that there is no afterlife and yet there is no evidence apart from some individual testimonies that there is any afterlife.
Also and importrantly the "evidence" for rebirth also supports heaven and all those other theories.
You misrespresent me, I have never said absolute certainty. Utter certainty, maximum certainty, as much as I can be, enough to underpin my other beliefs etc... yes. never absolute certainty, nobody can, not Dawkins of HH the Dalai Lamma.
Sure, but:
All religions mystify and "unobtainify" their practice, it is a part of how they dominate. I wish people were more aware of this process in their religions:(
Mat
Anyway this may well explain why Karma and rebirth means different things to different people.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure?
Near-Death Experiences: Evidence of Afterlife, Says Radiation Oncologist
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/717604
http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_consciousness.htm
eek that link requires joining medscape! Can you PM me the text please:)
I have been fascinated by NDE's and past life accounts for years, for sure not all have explinations.
I think we need to be extra skeptical with anything that requires a radical change of ontology, like this accounts imply. Keep the razor extra sharp, as it were:)
We can't explain all of them, for sure, but that doesn't mean there is an afterlife. Its important to see this iof you are going to investigate them wisely.
Also and importantly for we Buddhists, near death experiences are less compatible with dharma, than with say Christan theology.
For example, how do you explain in samsaric terms exactly what a near death experience is? It doesn't seem to fit in with even mystical dharmic views:)
Another example, how do you explain past life regression in dharmic terms? If a three year old girl really does have impossible memories of being a roman leagionare what kind of explanation would satisfy that that is also consistent with dharma? One might even argue that such accounts are actually agiants the idea of rebirth and instead support a christain soul or what have you...
Food for thought:)
Mat
Roxanne Nelson
Authors and Disclosures
Physician Rating: ( 64 Votes ) Rate This Article:
Print This Email this
INFORMATION FROM INDUSTRY
Effective non-narcotic, non-benzodiazepine treatment of insomnia
Explore a hypothetical case in insomnia
February 25, 2010 — What happens when a person dies?
It is a question that has been pondered since the beginning of the human race, and scientists, theologians, and everyone in between have offered their own beliefs and theories on the subject. But for Jeffrey Long, MD, a radiation oncologist in Houma, Louisiana, the answer to that question has become increasingly clear.
On the basis of his own research and that of many other investigators, he has become convinced that the phenomenon known as near-death experience (NDE) establishes the reality of an afterlife.
For more than 10 years, Dr. Long studied thousands of accounts of NDEs and created the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF), which has become the largest NDE research database in the world. Dr. Long's new book, Evidence of the Afterlife, which is based on more than 1300 accounts of NDEs that were shared with the NDERF, became a New York Times bestseller almost immediately after its release.
People from all walks of life have had near-death experiences, and that even includes some physicians.
"People from all walks of life have had near-death experiences, and that even includes some physicians," Dr. Long told Medscape Oncology in an interview. "It shakes them up, and it makes it difficult because they are inclined not to let it be known publicly that they've had this experience."
Although there is some variation, NDEs can loosely be defined as mystical or transcendent experiences reported by individuals who are either dying or clinically dead. Common experiences reported to Dr. Long and other investigators are feelings of peacefulness, the sense of leaving one's body, the sense of moving through a dark tunnel toward a bright light, a review of one's life, and meeting up with other "spiritual" beings. Some people have even clearly described their own resuscitations with remarkable accuracy, down to conversations that occurred outside the room and beyond normal hearing range.
Dr. Long first became interested in NDEs in 1984, when he read an article on the subject that was published in a medical journal. Several years later, the wife of a college friend relayed her own experience with it, when she nearly died of an allergic reaction while under general anesthesia. A decade later, he started the NDERF to better study it.
In general, the subject is highly controversial, especially the conclusion that NDEs offer proof of an afterlife. However, Dr. Long pointed out that feedback from his medical colleagues has been positive for the most part. "Everyone respects the success of the book and many of them have thought and wondered about this on their own," he said. "All of my colleagues who read my book were impressed, as it was intended to be scholarly."
He acknowledged that not everyone agrees with his conclusions, but although "they may not agree, they feel that this is a significant point of view," he explained. "If they disagree, it may be due to factors such as their personal religious point of view or the scientific evidence. I can't blame them, because if someone had approached me 20 years ago, I would feel the same way."
Dr. Long believes that NDEs provide powerful scientific evidence that "makes it reasonable to accept the existence of an afterlife." Specifically, he cites "9 lines of evidence" that he has derived from his research.
"I find any 1 of them to be very strong evidence that there's an existence of life after death," Dr. Long explained. "But if you put all of them together, I think that the combination — in my opinion — becomes compelling."
The 9 Lines of Evidence From Evidence of the Afterlife
Crystal-clear consciousness. The level of consciousness and alertness during NDEs is usually greater than that experienced in everyday life, even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. In addition, the elements in NDEs generally follow the same consistent and logical order in all age groups and cultures.
Realistic out-of-body experiences. Out-of-body experiences are among the most common elements of NDEs, and what is seen or heard is almost always realistic. Even if out-of-body-experience observations include events that occur far from the physical body, and far from any possible sensory awareness of the patient, they are almost always confirmed to be completely accurate.
Heightened senses. Heightened senses are reported by most people who have experienced NDEs, and normal or supernormal vision has occurred in those with significantly impaired vision, and even legal blindness. Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs.
Consciousness during anesthesia. Many NDEs occur while a person is under general anesthesia, at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. Although there is speculation that these NDEs are the result of too little anesthesia, some result from anesthesia overdose.
Perfect playback. Life reviews in NDEs include real events that took place in the lives of those having the experience, even if the events were forgotten or happened before the person was old enough to remember.
Family reunions. During a NDE, the people encountered are virtually always deceased, and are usually relatives of the person having the NDE; sometimes they are even relatives who died before the patient was born.
Children's experiences. The NDEs of children, including children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults.
Worldwide consistency. NDEs appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs in non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those that occur in Western countries.
Aftereffects. It is common for people to experience major life changes after having NDEs. These aftereffects are often powerful, lasting, and life-enhancing, and the changes generally follow a consistent pattern.
Research and Different Viewpoints
The term "near-death experience" was coined by Ralph Moody, MD, PhD, in 1975 in his classic book Life After Life. Researchers have been studying NDEs for decades, and although most research has concluded that NDEs are real and unexplainable, the idea of consciousness beyond death has not been widely accepted.
"There have been over 20 different explanations of NDEs, and they cover any feasible physiological, biological, cultural, and psychological explanations you can think of," said Dr. Long. "But the truth is that not 1 of them makes any sense, even to skeptics, and that's why there are so many of them. None have been accepted as plausible, even by skeptics."
One proposed theory of the origin of NDEs is physiological changes in the brain, such as hallucinations caused by oxygen deprivation. Other theories are psychological, such as a reaction to approaching death, or are linked to a changing state of consciousness and cognitive functioning.
Kevin Nelson, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, has hypothesized that rapid eye movement (REM) intrusion contributes to NDEs. "The REM state of consciousness is, by its very nature and definition, activation of the visual system," he told Medscape Oncology. "The very first physiological sign of REM is pontogeniculoocciptal waves electrifying all levels of the visual system."
Because sleep-related hallucinations are most often visual, the REM system can account for the "heavenly" light so often reported in the NDE, he explained.
Dr. Nelson and colleagues investigated the lifetime prevalence of REM intrusion in 55 people who had experienced a NDE, and compared them with age- and sex-matched control subjects. They found that sleep paralysis and sleep-related visual and auditory hallucinations are substantially more common in people with a NDE. Although the results are preliminary, they suggest that REM intrusion could promote subjective aspects of NDEs and the often associated syncope (Neurology. 2006;66;1003-1009).
"The feeling of being in a tunnel and heading to the light can be explained by retinal ischemia, which causes blindness first in the periphery and preserves our central vision," said Dr. Nelson; "hence, the tunnel."
It's just that the brain is science, and anything beyond the brain is faith.
Dr. Nelson explained that the similarities between many NDE accounts exist because all people have similar brain biology. As for the feeling of leaving one's body, he pointed out that "out-of-body experiences are illusions that occur when our brain cannot integrate all of our sensations. They can be created by a trickle of electricity in the temporal-parietal region."
According to Dr. Nelson, brain physiology explains all the features of NDEs. "That is not to say that there isn't a reality beyond the brain," he said. "It's just that the brain is science, and anything beyond the brain is faith."
No Medically Explicable Explanation
In 2001, the Lancet published the results of a 13-year study of NDEs that was conducted in 10 different centers in the Netherlands (Lancet.2001;358:2039-2045). The study, one of the few to be conducted prospectively, tracked 344 cardiac patients who were successfully resuscitated after a cardiac arrest.
The researchers, led by Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel, MD, who was affiliated with Hospital Rijnstate in Arnhem at the time of the study, found that 62 patients (18%) reported NDEs. Of that group, 41 (12%) had what is referred to as core (or deep) NDEs.
At 2- and 8-year follow-ups, all surviving patients recalled their NDE experience almost exactly as they originally described it. The researchers found little difference between patients who had experienced a NDE and those who hadn't. They also noted that their findings failed to show any psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors that would have caused these experiences after cardiac arrest.
Even though the researchers were unable to uncover a medically explicable explanation for NDEs, they did acknowledge that neurophysiological processes must play some sort of role. But if NDEs are purely physiological — for example, caused by cerebral anoxia — then most patients who have been clinically dead should report one, they write.
Dr. van Lommel and colleagues note that there are similarities between NDEs and various other phenomena, such as electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe of the brain, but that those experiences usually consist of fragmented and random memories. In contrast, the recall after a NDE is clear and sequential.
NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind–brain relation.
"How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?" the authors ask, adding that "NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind–brain relation."
For the past several years, Dr. van Lommel has been lecturing all over the world on NDEs and the relation between consciousness and the brain. "It is a challenge to explain to physicians and medical students, in the many lectures I give, why I came to the conclusion that consciousness can be experienced during a period of a nonfunctioning brain," Dr. van Lommel told Medscape Oncology.
"The hypothesis that consciousness is a product of brain function has never been proven whatsoever," he said. "Most physicians are not aware of the medical literature about what happens in the brain during cardiac arrest, and what exactly is really known about how the brain functions."
He explained that, in the Netherlands, more and more physicians seem to be "open to the possibility of a facilitating function of our brain to experience consciousness, and our consciousness being nonlocal — not cemented in place or time."
"But, of course, many neuroscientists have great difficulty in changing their basic concepts," Dr. van Lommel added.
On a personal level, Dr. van Lommel acknowledged that there is no hard scientific proof of an afterlife, and there will never be. "But for me, it seems very likely because it has been scientifically proven that patients experience, paradoxically, an enhanced consciousness during a cardiac arrest and during a period of a temporarily nonfunctioning brain."
Acknowledging NDEs
Physicians need to be aware of NDEs, contends Dr. Long, especially oncologists and others who care for patients with life-threatening illnesses. "I would advocate that if patients bring it up, physicians be ready to talk about it," he said. "But patients are often hesitant, so it's best to wait until they are ready to share [their experiences]."
Patients might just hint around about their experience; under those circumstances, doctors need to be ready to ask and need to know the right response. "These experiences are medically inexplicable, and they can be powerfully life-changing," said Dr. Long. "If physicians don't have the experience or feel uncomfortable discussing them, they need to refer patients to sources and organizations that can help them."
Dr. Long feels that increasing his understanding of NDEs has helped him to be a better physician for his cancer patients. Individuals who experience NDEs often become kinder, more loving, and more accepting of others, and he has begun to reflect those same effects in his own life. He explained that he now "faces life with more courage and confidence."
Dr. Long emphasizes that his years of research have culminated in his own personal conclusion that there is an afterlife, but not everyone is going to be convinced of that. Instead, he urges people to consider the evidence and "come to your own conclusions."
Thanks for that, a great read for sure.
Its very hard to make sense of, no doubt about that:)
I am inclined to think it is more likely to be the desperate dying brain's last experiences rather than that there is an afterlife.
Had I never hallucinated I might think differently.
Again, for Buddhists such accounts raise specific analytic-spirituial questions that buddhism will find harder to answer than christianity or Hinduism.
Thanks again for the article:)
Mat
It does not matter if we chose to believe something because it "feels good" or if we choose to believe it because we think we have arrived at an intellectual understanding. Attachment is attachment, no matter the mask it wears, and it doesn't matter whether we are attached to feeling good or attached to how clever we are.
The only solid criteria for Truth is direct experience.
If I remember a transition from past lives into this one (and if I am otherwise free from psychosis), then it is reasonable for me to say that I know that consciousness survives death. Otherwise, I'm talking through my hat.
If I am aware of dying and of my consciousness ceasing upon my death (and if I am otherwise free from psychosis), then it is reasonable for me to say that I know that consciousness does not survive death. Otherwise, I'm talking through my hat.
It is ridiculous to argue this topic. It only promotes entrenchment in attitudes that may well be wrong, regardless of the side we are arguing (unless we have direct experience as discussed above). It promotes arrogance and increases attachment to our emotional and intellectual selves. And it promotes judgmentalism, intolerance, impatience and criticism of/with our kind mothers. In short, it is not compatible with the practice of Buddhism nor with the words of Buddha who said , "find out for yourself".
I agree. But reality has a bearing on justified, true, belief:)
I do not agree. There are should be criteria for acceptance of any belief. For example, there is more reason to believe in evolution than ghosts.
>>>Attachment is attachment, no matter the mask it wears, and it doesn't matter whether we are attached to feeling good or attached to how clever we are.
I agree. And equally, if there is no rebirth then attachment to the idea that there is is attachment....
I disagree. You just need to understand the four noble truths to know there are truths beyond direct experience.
I think direct experience inst that good a yard stick to truth, to be frank.
I disagree:) I think there would be many other explanations for that seeming memory of a past life, especially when you take into account how much we humans want there to be more to life than this:)
I disagree. The Buddha provides a completely complete explaination of conciousness, it doesnt contain anything about rebirth. it is also completely compatible with science and psychology. So forgetting science and all of that, relying just on the skhanda theory of mind, we have a reason for why there is no rebirth. There is no thinker, only thoughts. nothing else, only thoughts.
I think we can get to a point where all these nasty side effects of the discussion can removed, but only if all sides are commited to right speach:)
I agree. unfortunately some doctrines of Buddhism do not seem open to the free critical investigation you allude to above.
by the way, i dont state doctrine, I merely mainly ask questions, and that is what I am going to do more, its less confrontational:)
With respect,
Mat:)
With all respect Mat, how come there are no question marks in your long reply?
I am replying to you and your points! I am not going to just speq questions, but I am not going to start in discussions other than asking questions, for the resons stated. This should make things less combustive - if you reply and talk, I will be as matter of fact as I can:)
Salome
Mat
You miss the point of the distinction between the trivially unknowable (is there a god, afterlife etc) and the spiritually/philosophically open.
For example, we cannot know for sure what happens at death, but we can look at the various options and see how they effect our dharma practice.
I may be wrong in saying this is my last life, but the spiritual benefit of that declaration is important to me in terms of my relationship with truth and peace.
Also, don't forget, I doubt everything the "buddha" says, he tells me nothing, he merely guides...
And how is your Dhammic practice affected by what you think?
No, you're absolutely certain it is, you've already said so, if you say so, and you believe this, I accept what you tell me, because you seem so certain.
.
But you seem to change your mind on this....so which is it? Are you Right, or are you wrong?
Also, don't forget, I doubt everything the "buddha" says, he tells me nothing, he merely guides...[/QUOTE]
Ah yes. How could we forget....?:rolleyes: