Are they still Buddhists without Karma and other fantastics?
-
So what if you say that there is no past life? Life still goes on...right?Originally posted by january:you cannot say this kind of things. It does matter if xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, life still rolls on. does that means that every matter does not matter? cos life always go on.
it does not matter if poor people are dying, cos life still rolls on...
If you have enough courage and perserverence, i suggest you go beyond addictive mental masturbation and try to validate expereinces with your own reallife expereinces, before making sweeping conclusions about this and that.
Are you up to it? If not all is just paper talk aka 'zi sang tang bing.' -
Of course, the brain, the mind, the thought and the consciousness are not the same thing. For most of us, we don't go that far to make so deep a distinction but is good to do that so that we know what exactly they are and when they should be used, and in what context.
Otherwise, there will be a lot of misunderstanding and unncessary arguments. I, for one, always like to know exact definition and context in which a word or a phrase is used. The concept and even the parameters should be stated, then discussion should be confined within the concept and parameters. It is OK not to agree to the concept or parameters, but to contain the discussions, they are necessary, otherwise all sort of linkages and convulations set in. -
Afraid not..... This is the reality that normal people can understand....Originally posted by longchen:So what if you say that there is no past life? Life still goes on...right?
If you have enough courage and perserverence, i suggest you go beyond addictive mental masturbation and try to validate expereinces with your own reallife expereinces, before making sweeping conclusions about this and that.
Are you up to it? If not all is just paper talk aka 'zi sang tang bing.' -
Hi, beside agreeing wif what AEN had explained, wld like to add my 0.002 cents.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are missing the point. The point I made was why you take it that the way some people recommend, the things some people says, you take it as acceptable but not the way some other people recommend to you.
You said something about these people also tell you how you can do it/find out for yourself.
Well George Bush also tells you that you must accept, believe, discard all other ways and you will find out for yourself but you do not accept his way.
So the question is, what yardstick, standard do you use to determine whether or not you should test it out for yourself.
I remember reading in the sutta Zha AHan Jing that The Buddha was asked why is it that there are always sentien beings who refuse to see, listen, accept, the right paths or Dharma and Enlightened ones, even when they hv the oppotunities? Buddha explains that such sentien beings hv accumulated through many of their past lives the seed of ignorance which first started from being " fang yi" ( AEn, pls translated into English ?
). This Fang Yi, which leads to other factors of the 12 conditions which finally attribute to the cycle of sufferings, if continues throughout one's rebirths, wld eventually reach a stage where one wld totally lost the Wisdom to aquire right thoughts ( Zhen Jian). i.e even Buddha appears in front of him also no use liao. I think this explains why there r some extremely intelligent ppl with extremely low Wisdom. This is most unfortunate.
I'm not up to mark to explain this part of the sutta, so anyone interested pls asked ur dharma master for futher dicussion. My understanding is that one need wisdom - as in Buddhism wisdom ( Zhi ),not worldly wisdom, to be able to differentiate what to choose, to see, to listen , to follow, to test ,etc.
So u will need to know that the yardstick u choose is the "right" yardstick. Cos when u ask which yardstick, or standard to use, u r actually making a decision that a certain set of standard is a "non-baised" one, or "better" one. Then, is our decision correct? So go back to the chicken n egg question again - why we choose to accept this yardstick n not that yardstick, why we believe this person n not that person, why we take Bodhisattvas seriously n not George Bush, why we agree wif AEN n not January in BWB...etc
Wisdom( Zhi Hui) is very important n most difficult to cultivate. It need to be built up through many years, lives, even aeons for some sentien beings to develope. That's why we must practise whenever we hv the chance, and to be in the human realm is thus most fortunate as this is the only chance we can develope wisdom before it's too late, too late to even hv the basic ability to differentiate what is black or white, right or wrong, to practise the Dharma or not to. -
AgreedOriginally posted by cycle:Hi, beside agreeing wif what AEN had explained, wld like to add my 0.002 cents.
I remember reading in the sutta Zha AHan Jing that The Buddha was asked why is it that there are always sentien beings who refuse to see, listen, accept, the right paths or Dharma and Enlightened ones, even when they hv the oppotunities? Buddha explains that such sentien beings hv accumulated through many of their past lives the seed of ignorance which first started from being " fang yi" ( AEn, pls translated into English ? ). This Fang Yi, which leads to other factors of the 12 conditions which finally attribute to the cycle of sufferings, if continues throughout one's rebirths, wld eventually reach a stage where one wld totally lost the Wisdom to aquire right thoughts ( Zhen Jian). i.e even Buddha appears in front of him also no use liao. I think this explains why there r some extremely intelligent ppl with extremely low Wisdom. This is most unfortunate.
I'm not up to mark to explain this part of the sutta, so anyone interested pls asked ur dharma master for futher dicussion. My understanding is that one need wisdom - as in Buddhism wisdom ( Zhi ),not worldly wisdom, to be able to differentiate what to choose, to see, to listen , to follow, to test ,etc.
So u will need to know that the yardstick u choose is the "right" yardstick. Cos when u ask which yardstick, or standard to use, u r actually making a decision that a certain set of standard is a "non-baised" one, or "better" one. Then, is our decision correct? So go back to the chicken n egg question again - why we choose to accept this yardstick n not that yardstick, why we believe this person n not that person, why we take Bodhisattvas seriously n not George Bush, why we agree wif AEN n not January in BWB...etc
Wisdom( Zhi Hui) is very important n most difficult to cultivate. It need to be built up through many years, lives, even aeons for some sentien beings to develope. That's why we must practise whenever we hv the chance, and to be in the human realm is thus most fortunate as this is the only chance we can develope wisdom before it's too late, too late to even hv the basic ability to differentiate what is black or white, right or wrong, to practise the Dharma or not to.
-
Indeed Longchen,Originally posted by longchen:Hello People,
I think karma really exist.
Being able to trace the events into past lives, allows me to see the causes of my current conditions and difficulties. For example, I can see who my wife is in a previous life and why she is associated with me in this life. I also know certain people that i encounters in this life and how are they linked to me in previous life.
Sometimes, I really regret being so foolish in the past. They are really giving me alot of current life obstacles.
I think the precepts laid down by Buddha is a super foresight of his. The precepts can prevent one from getting negative consequences. However I think, at times, karma can also be acrued by being swept by life events and tides. Karma is indeed an extremely complex dynamics.
Just a sharing.
Buddha's wisdom is profound.
When we practice, we will realise the depth of Buddha's precision in the description of non-dual experiences and the workings of karma. Blessed are those that can have authentic experiences to verify Buddha's words,. Be steadfast in your practice and be strong even when there is setback. Good Luck! -
Originally posted by january:
The difference is that although Dr. Stevenson is academically qualified, he is also well aware of the limitations of the scientific method. He offered careful
Stevenson published only for the academic and scientific community, and his over 200 articles and several books—densely packed with research details and academic argument—are in places difficult for the average reader to follow. His research, over 3,000 study cases, provides evidence suggestive of reincarnation,[b]though he himself was always careful to refer to them as "cases suggestive of reincarnation" or "cases of the reincarnation type." [8]
Professor Stevenson himself recognized a problem with his argument for reincarnation: the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body.[9] Further, some have questioned his objectivity in drawing conclusions from his research.
[/b]
and respectful cases that suggest the possibility of reincarnation and tried to be as unbiased as possible; but many that are neither qualified academically nor scientifically just dismissed them outright. How sad and ignorant. I write out of my respect for him so that his effort will not be wasted and distorted, you need not reply. -
Hi Thusness,Originally posted by Thusness:Indeed Longchen,
When we practice, we will realise the depth of Buddha's precision in the description of non-dual experiences and the workings of karma. Blessed are those that can have authentic experiences to verify Buddha's words,. Be steadfast in your practice and be strong even when there is setback. Good Luck!
Thanks, man -
An Eternal Now:
The landmark experiments by Lashley that you cited are outdated. 1920s leh...
1. Lashley was unable to locate exact locations for memory in the brain. Why? Lack of precision in making the brain lesions. There are distinct brain systems for distinct memories.
This is the textbook i used for my course:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/Neuroscience/?ci=019514175X&view=usa
Basically the consensus in my psychology / neuroscience textbooks today is there are clear and distinct biological correlates of memory. Brain imaging studies show activation of distinct brain areas. Studies of patients with brain damage show very interesting memory losses, with specific categories at times (e.g. unable to name animals, unable to name tools) etc.
2. Overlap in memories. While the holographic memory theory is interesting, the biological explanation we have today is simple. High degree of connectivity between neurons. When you think of your birthday, you think of many other things...the people who attended your party, who wore what colour clothes, blah blah. This does not mean that there is no biological cause of memory. It just means the neurons are connected. When one is activated, it fires an action potential that excites connected neurons.
To put it bluntly, the evidence you quoted is outdated.
Ok having said that, I asked my prof this question in class:
"Ok so now we are able to find specific neurons for specific stuff. So isn't it true when we find out how all the neurons work, we can program a computer to work like the human brain?"
He said, "Well, it may come to the point where we have detailed every single neuron, but there is behaviour that still cannot be explained. That we must look to other explanations, not within the neurons themselves."
But we have not come to that point yet.
The conclusion is:
Biological evidence for the brain and behaviour is present, and increasing. It does not rule out the possibility of a non-material component of the mind, yet. But neither is there enough evidence to so confidently say that the mind is not material.
My point is, given the evidence we have today, we still cannot confidently say that "mind is material" or the "mind is not material". You may believe either, but that would be your personal choice. I'd rather choose to wait and see. Well, I hope to do research in this field, anyway. -
Originally posted by ilangobi:
As I have explained previously in my previous post and perhaps you have not noticed, formlessness of consciousness does not mean, in my case, being a ghostly invisible entity, or a soul. Buddhism does not suscribe to such a belief, that consciousness is a Self, a Soul, or an Entity, but a conditioned-arising-process, dependent originated. (though, it is also possible a person becomes reborn in the ghost realm) In Buddhism, we teach that no inherently existing self can be found. This is the teaching of no-self, or Anatta.
An Eternal Now:
The landmark experiments by Lashley that you cited are outdated. 1920s leh...
1. Lashley was unable to locate exact locations for memory in the brain. Why? Lack of precision in making the brain lesions. There are distinct brain systems for distinct memories.
This is the textbook i used for my course:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/Neuroscience/?ci=019514175X&view=usa
[b]Basically the consensus in my psychology / neuroscience textbooks today is there are clear and distinct biological correlates of memory. Brain imaging studies show activation of distinct brain areas. Studies of patients with brain damage show very interesting memory losses, with specific categories at times (e.g. unable to name animals, unable to name tools) etc.
2. Overlap in memories. While the holographic memory theory is interesting, the biological explanation we have today is simple. High degree of connectivity between neurons. When you think of your birthday, you think of many other things...the people who attended your party, who wore what colour clothes, blah blah. This does not mean that there is no biological cause of memory. It just means the neurons are connected. When one is activated, it fires an action potential that excites connected neurons.
To put it bluntly, the evidence you quoted is outdated.
Ok having said that, I asked my prof this question in class:
"Ok so now we are able to find specific neurons for specific stuff. So isn't it true when we find out how all the neurons work, we can program a computer to work like the human brain?"
He said, "Well, it may come to the point where we have detailed every single neuron, but there is behaviour that still cannot be explained. That we must look to other explanations, not within the neurons themselves."
But we have not come to that point yet.
The conclusion is:
Biological evidence for the brain and behaviour is present, and increasing. It does not rule out the possibility of a non-material component of the mind, yet. But neither is there enough evidence to so confidently say that the mind is not material.
My point is, given the evidence we have today, we still cannot confidently say that "mind is material" or the "mind is not material". You may believe either, but that would be your personal choice. I'd rather choose to wait and see. Well, I hope to do research in this field, anyway.[/b]Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
And therefore, I am also not denying the correlation that happens between consciousness and the brain.. but consciousness cannot be equated to the brain itself.
[b]
Like what the article said, formless doesn't mean it is a non-material formless mysterious something like a ghost in the machine, or that it has no effect on matter.
But rather that it cannot be defined or located as an objective reality!! Mind/Awareness cannot be defined as an objective reality. Yet it can be fully felt, and is very real... you know you are not just a machine. That is why that article said but it emphasises that it is unlimited, non-mechanistic and totally free from any structure or topology and it is pure awareness. And it is non-local by nature (such as what the holographic universe describes).... (continued in the post)
http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm
...The Right Hand reductionists (subtle reductionists) attempt to reduce intentional spaces to extensional spaces and then `locate' consciousness in a hierarchical network of physically extended emergents (atoms to molecules to cells to nervous system to brain), and that will never, never work. It gives us, more or less, only half the story (the Right Hand half).
David Chalmers (1995) recently caused a sensation by having his essay `The Puzzle of Conscious Experience' published by Scientific American, bastion of physicalist science. Chalmers' stunning conclusion was that subjective consciousness continues to defy all objectivist explanations. `Toward this end, I propose that conscious experience be considered a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic. The idea may seem strange at first, but consistency seems to demand it' (p. 83). It never ceases to amaze how Anglo-Saxon philosophers greet the reinvention of the wheel with such fuss.
But Chalmers makes a series of excellent points. The first is the irreducibility of consciousness, which has to be `added' to the physical world in order to give a complete account of the universe. `Thus, a complete theory will have two components: physical laws, telling us about the behavior of physical systems from the infinitesimal to the cosmological, and what we might call psychophysical laws, telling us how some of those systems are associated with conscious experience. These two components will constitute a true theory of everything' (p. 83).
This simple attempt to reintroduce both Left and Right Hand domains to the Kosmos has been considered quite bold, a testament to the power of reductionism against which so obvious a statement seems radical. Chalmers moves toward a formulation: `Perhaps information has two basic aspects: a physical one and an experiential one. . . . Wherever we find conscious experience, it exists as one aspect of an information state, the other aspect of which is embedded in a physical process in the brain' (p. 85). That is, each state has an interior/intentional and exterior/physical aspect. My view, of course, is that all holons have not just those two, but rather four, fundamental and irreducible aspects, so that every `information state' actually and simultaneously has an intentional, behavioural, cultural, and social aspect; and moreover, each of those aspects has at least ten basic levels -- much closer to a theory of everything, if such even makes any sense.
Chalmers goes on to point out that all of the physicalist and reductionist approaches to consciousness (including Daniel Dennett's and Francis Crick's) only solve what Chalmers calls `the easy problems' (such as objective integration in brain processes) leaving the central mystery of consciousness untouched. He is quite right, of course. The funny thing is, all of the physicalist scientists who are sitting there and reading Chalmers' essay are already fully in touch with the mystery: they are already directly in touch with their lived experience, immediate awareness, and basic consciousness. But instead of directly investigating that stream (with, say, vipassana meditation [Varela et al., 1993]), they sit there, reading Chalmers' essay, and attempt to understand their own consciousness by objectifying it in terms of digital bits in neuronal networks, or connectionist pathways hierarchically summating in the joy of seeing a sunrise -- and when none of those really seem to explain anything, they scratch their heads and wonder why the mystery of consciousness just refuses to be solved... -
(continued from the previous post)
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/boomeritis/sidebar_e/index.cfm/
..."Likewise, I can imagine that my consciousness is delivered to me by a complex brain mechanism of neurotransmitters, synapses, and the like, so that my consciousness is merely a byproduct, an epiphenomenonon—but that is merely a rational deduction, and even that deduction is known only in my immediate consciousness. This does not deny that the brain is involved in consciousness; it simply points out that unless the immediate reality of my own present consciousness is included in the equation, I am missing a reality that I cannot believably doubt in any event...
Also, Excerpts from http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/11/27/wallace/index.htmlYou're saying we don't know for sure that the physical functions of the brain -- the neural circuits, the electrochemical surges -- are what produce our rich inner lives, what we call the mind?
Cognitive science has plenty of hypotheses that are testable. For instance, is Alzheimer's related to a particular malfunctioning of the brain? More and more, scientists are able to identify the parts and functions of the brain that are necessary to generate specific mental states. So these are scientific issues. But now let's tap into what the philosopher David Chalmers has called "the hard problem" -- the relationship between the physical brain and consciousness. What is it about the brain -- this mass of chemicals and electromagnetic fields -- that enables it to generate any state of subjective experience? If your sole access to the mind is by way of physical phenomena, then you have no way of testing whether all dimensions of the mind are necessarily contingent upon the brain.
But that is certainly the paradigm of the vast majority of neuroscientists and psychologists. The mind is nothing more than the brain, and what happens in the mind is strictly because of the physical mechanics of the brain. I'm sure most of these scientists would say it's absurd to talk about the mind functioning independently of the brain.
Well, when you have no possible means of investigating the mind as it might operate independently of the brain, then to even raise it as an issue is indeed absurd. But there is one avenue of inquiry that's been largely left out or simply repudiated. Right now, you and I have an ability to monitor our own mental states. Can we generate a mental image of an apple? Can we remember our mother's face? Can we recite the opening lines of the Gettysburg Address or some favorite poem? Are these mental images that you generate nothing other than brain states or parts of the brain? At this point, those are not even scientific questions because nobody knows how to tackle them.
You have called for a new field of study, what you call "contemplative science." What would that involve?
Contemplative science must live up to the rigorous standards that neuroscience, cognitive psychology, chemistry and physics have set for us. They've set the bar very high. So I'm a great admirer of the rigor and skepticism of science at its best. But William James, who's one of my intellectual heroes, suggested we have a triadic approach. We should study the mind by way of behavior and brain studies, but, first and foremost, he said, we should study the mind by observing mental phenomena directly. But what he didn't have, and neither did any of his contemporaries, was a rigorous methodology.
Is that what Buddhism offers -- a rigorous methodology?
Yes. I'm not saying we should fuse religion with science. Rather, we should select very specific methodologies from Buddhism and other contemplative traditions where the ability to monitor the mind has been honed over thousands of years -- beginning with the training of attention and then using sophisticated methods for investigating the nature of the mind, feelings and the very nature of consciousness itself during the waking state, the dream state, even during deep sleep. Now, because of the great advances in transportation and communications, we have easy access to the Taoist tradition of China, the Sufi tradition of the Near East, the Buddhist tradition of Tibet and Southeast Asia. I'm convinced this would add much greater depth and breadth to the types of questions that are raised in modern cognitive science.
In science, you have a hypothesis that's tested, and it can be disproved. Does that happen in Buddhism?
On its home turf, frequently not. But I'm also waiting for a neuroscientist to tell me how the hypothesis that mental states are nothing more than neural states will be repudiated. I don't see that as a testable hypothesis. So there's a fair amount of dogma, not in science per se but in the minds of scientists. Likewise, there's plenty of dogma in the minds of Buddhists. But Buddhism at its best -- and we go right back to the teachings of the Buddha himself -- encourages a spirit of skepticism. He said, "Do not take my statements to be true simply out of reverence for me. But rather, put them to the test." Well, if you do that, you should be able to repudiate them as well as confirm them. -
You've suggested that there might be certain functions of the mind, certain aspects of consciousness, that don't have a material foundation.
Yes.
Advanced contemplatives in the Buddhist tradition have talked about tapping into something called the "substrate consciousness." What is that?
Just for a clarification of terms, I've demarcated three whole dimensions of consciousness. There's the psyche. It's the human mind -- the functioning of memory, attention, emotions and so forth. The psyche is contingent upon the brain, the nervous system, and our various sensory faculties. It starts sometime at or following conception, certainly during gestation, and it ends at death. So the psyche has pretty clear bookends. This is what cognitive neuroscientists and psychologists study. They don't study anything more. And they quite reasonably assume that that's all there is to it. But as long as you study the mind only by way of brain states and behavior, you're never going to know whether there's any other dimension because of the limitations of your own methodologies. So here's a hypothesis: The psyche does not emerge from the brain. Mental phenomena do not actually emerge from neuronal configurations. Nobody's ever seen that they do.
So your hypothesis is just the reverse from what all the neuroscientists think.
Precisely. The psyche is not emerging from the brain, conditioned by the environment. The human psyche is in fact emerging from an individual continuum of consciousness that is conjoined with the brain during the development of the fetus. It can be very hampered if the brain malfunctions or becomes damaged.
But you're saying there are also two other aspects of consciousness?
Yeah. All I'm presenting here is the Buddhist hypothesis. There's another dimension of consciousness, which is called the substrate consciousness. This is not mystical. It's not transcendent in the sense of being divine. The human psyche is emerging from an ongoing continuum of consciousness -- the substrate consciousness -- which kind of looks like a soul. But in the Buddhist view, it is more like an ongoing vacuum state of consciousness. Or here's a good metaphor: Just as we speak of a stem cell, which is not differentiated until it comes into the liver and becomes a liver cell, or into bone marrow and becomes a bone marrow cell, the substrate consciousness is stem consciousness. And at death, the human psyche dissolves back into this continuum.
So this consciousness is not made of any stuff. It's not matter. Is it just unattached and floating through the universe?
Well, this raises such interesting questions about the nature of matter. In the 19th century, you could think of matter as something good and chunky out there. You could count on it as having location and specific momentum and mass and all of that. Frankly, I think the backdrop of this whole conversation has to be 21st century physics, not 19th century physics. And virtually all of neuroscience and all of psychology is based on 19th century physics, which is about as up-to-date as the horse and buggy.
So not everything in the universe can be reducible to matter, to particles?
According to quantum field theory, string theory and quantum cosmology -- cutting-edge fields of 21st century physics -- matter itself is not reducible to matter. And Richard Feynman, the great Nobel laureate in physics, commented very emphatically, "We don't know what energy is." He said it's not stuff out there that has a specific location. It's more like a mathematical abstraction. So matter has been reduced to formations of space. Energy is configurations of space. Space itself is rather mysterious. And so when I introduce this theme of a substrate consciousness, it's not something ethereal that's opposed to matter. Matter is about as ethereal as anything gets. But could there be this continuum of substrate consciousness that's not contingent upon molecules? From the Buddhist perspective, yes. But again, this frankly sounds like one more system of belief.
I have to say, you could put a religious spin on all of this. What you're describing as substrate consciousness sounds a lot like how people talk about God. There is some kind of divine presence that's outside the material world but somehow intervenes in our material lives.
I think we're jumping the gun there. In the Buddhist perspective, the substrate consciousness is individual. It's not some great collective unconscious like Jung talked about. In the Buddhist view, it's an individual continuum of consciousness that carries on from lifetime to lifetime. That's not God. Beyond that is this whole third dimension, the deepest dimension, called "primordial consciousness." This has certain commonalities with Christian mystical notions of God beyond the trinity. It has a thoroughly and deeply transcendent quality to it. And that's way beyond the pale of scientific inquiry. But when I speak of substrate consciousness, I think it would simply be a mistake to say that's God. If you want to relate this to something in Western religions, you might say it's the immortal soul. Christianity really has nothing to say about the existence of your continuum of consciousness prior to your conception. There's nothing in the Bible that says, where was Steve Paulson 70 years ago? Where did your stream of consciousness, your identity, your soul, come from? But Buddhism has a lot to say about this.
Here in the West, we have on the table three large hypotheses about the nature of human consciousness. One of these looks really good from a scientific perspective. Your consciousness is a product of the brain. Damage the brain and your consciousness evaporates into nothing. Now what's the experiment by which you repudiate that hypothesis? Well, all the mental states you're studying are by way of the brain, so the answer is nada. So it's not scientific and it's not testable, at least not yet. We have another major hypothesis. You die and your soul carries on to heaven or hell in the Protestant tradition. You go there and it's forever. Or in the Roman Catholic tradition, you have another couple of options -- limbo and purgatory. But these are all one-way tickets. You can't say, I didn't like it in purgatory and then come back. My point here is the Christian hypothesis is not testable scientifically. It may be true, but it's not a scientific hypothesis. -
first i would like to say there is NO Ecumenical movement of BuddhismOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:That is from the
Expansion of the Formula by Ven. Walpola Sri Rahula in 1981.
It was not the original agreement by the council. This is what one person said and not what the council agreed upon.
We KNOW that different people believe different things and that is why the council decided to come up with an Ecumenical statement , and in this Ecumenical statement , there was no mention of the fantastics.
all the School and tradition are pointing to the same destination ,nirvana
we are not in different directions , just different method
second i find it amusing as Ven Walpola dun represent Mahasangha of the theravada school ,which there is also Ven Ajahn Brahms and Ven Sayadaw
So the piece of info is silly does not have any effect on the Buddhist movement
wiki is challenged for its authenticity -
Originally posted by ilangobi:
your academic view on what the professor explain is flawed
An Eternal Now:
The landmark experiments by Lashley that you cited are outdated. 1920s leh...
1. Lashley was unable to locate exact locations for memory in the brain. Why? Lack of precision in making the brain lesions. There are distinct brain systems for distinct memories.
This is the textbook i used for my course:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/Neuroscience/?ci=019514175X&view=usa
[b]Basically the consensus in my psychology / neuroscience textbooks today is there are clear and distinct biological correlates of memory. Brain imaging studies show activation of distinct brain areas. Studies of patients with brain damage show very interesting memory losses, with specific categories at times (e.g. unable to name animals, unable to name tools) etc.
2. Overlap in memories. While the holographic memory theory is interesting, the biological explanation we have today is simple. High degree of connectivity between neurons. When you think of your birthday, you think of many other things...the people who attended your party, who wore what colour clothes, blah blah. This does not mean that there is no biological cause of memory. It just means the neurons are connected. When one is activated, it fires an action potential that excites connected neurons.
To put it bluntly, the evidence you quoted is outdated.
Ok having said that, I asked my prof this question in class:
"Ok so now we are able to find specific neurons for specific stuff. So isn't it true when we find out how all the neurons work, we can program a computer to work like the human brain?"
He said, "Well, it may come to the point where we have detailed every single neuron, but there is behaviour that still cannot be explained. That we must look to other explanations, not within the neurons themselves."
But we have not come to that point yet.
The conclusion is:
Biological evidence for the brain and behaviour is present, and increasing. It does not rule out the possibility of a non-material component of the mind, yet. But neither is there enough evidence to so confidently say that the mind is not material.
My point is, given the evidence we have today, we still cannot confidently say that "mind is material" or the "mind is not material". You may believe either, but that would be your personal choice. I'd rather choose to wait and see. Well, I hope to do research in this field, anyway.[/b]
so you mean when a monk is meditating ,he is daydream ?
of what basis you have and based on what do you assume Academic can explain Spiritual World ,Dear Mr Illangobi ? -
Fang yi is english for living a life of Wanton freewill (no regards for moral and social ethics )Originally posted by cycle:Hi, beside agreeing wif what AEN had explained, wld like to add my 0.002 cents.
I remember reading in the sutta Zha AHan Jing that The Buddha was asked why is it that there are always sentien beings who refuse to see, listen, accept, the right paths or Dharma and Enlightened ones, even when they hv the oppotunities? Buddha explains that such sentien beings hv accumulated through many of their past lives the seed of ignorance which first started from being " fang yi" ( AEn, pls translated into English ? ). This Fang Yi, which leads to other factors of the 12 conditions which finally attribute to the cycle of sufferings, if continues throughout one's rebirths, wld eventually reach a stage where one wld totally lost the Wisdom to aquire right thoughts ( Zhen Jian). i.e even Buddha appears in front of him also no use liao. I think this explains why there r some extremely intelligent ppl with extremely low Wisdom. This is most unfortunate.
I'm not up to mark to explain this part of the sutta, so anyone interested pls asked ur dharma master for futher dicussion. My understanding is that one need wisdom - as in Buddhism wisdom ( Zhi ),not worldly wisdom, to be able to differentiate what to choose, to see, to listen , to follow, to test ,etc.
So u will need to know that the yardstick u choose is the "right" yardstick. Cos when u ask which yardstick, or standard to use, u r actually making a decision that a certain set of standard is a "non-baised" one, or "better" one. Then, is our decision correct? So go back to the chicken n egg question again - why we choose to accept this yardstick n not that yardstick, why we believe this person n not that person, why we take Bodhisattvas seriously n not George Bush, why we agree wif AEN n not January in BWB...etc
Wisdom( Zhi Hui) is very important n most difficult to cultivate. It need to be built up through many years, lives, even aeons for some sentien beings to develope. That's why we must practise whenever we hv the chance, and to be in the human realm is thus most fortunate as this is the only chance we can develope wisdom before it's too late, too late to even hv the basic ability to differentiate what is black or white, right or wrong, to practise the Dharma or not to. -
Actually what Ven Walpola wrote was actually quite well written on the commonalities between Mahayana and Theravada, just that AndrewPKYap didn't understand it.Originally posted by bohiruci:first i would like to say there is NO Ecumenical movement of Buddhism
all the School and tradition are pointing to the same destination ,nirvana
we are not in different directions , just different method
second i find it amusing as Ven Walpola dun represent Mahasangha of the theravada school ,which there is also Ven Ajahn Brahms and Ven Sayadaw
So the piece of info is silly does not have any effect on the Buddhist movement
wiki is challenged for its authenticity
I think you misunderstood him. He has never intended to talk about spiritual, he is only talking about human mind.Originally posted by bohiruci:your academic view on what the professor explain is flawed
so you mean when a monk is meditating ,he is daydream ?
of what basis you have and based on what do you assume Academic can explain Spiritual World ,Dear Mr Illangobi ? -
bohiruci: Actually my position is not to say that spiritual explanations are wrong. Personally I am open to the possibility. I won't assume that science can explain the spiritual, rather, I will continue to search for the answers within science. And yes, I may fail.
An Eternal Now: Ah yes. Guilty as charged, I definitely did not read through your posts in detail. I just wanted to point out parts of what you cited which are inconsistent with what academics would believe today.
Ok i read through the interview part which you posted. This is what I think it's saying (correct me if I'm wrong):
Modern scientific approach today will fail in finding the seat of consciousness, because the approach itself involves the very consciousness it tries to seek.
Yes that does make sense, and it is a problem for anyone who wants to rationalize consciousness. Of course, if the problem wasn't difficult, it wouldn't be exciting either. Well, thank you for sharing! -
BTW for a more integral perspective concerning consciousness and psychology (and anything!) I would recommend reading Ken Wilber's book, such as The Integral Vision: A Very Short Introduction to the Revolutionary Integral Approach to Life, God, the Universe, and EverythingOriginally posted by ilangobi:[b]bohiruci: Actually my position is not to say that spiritual explanations are wrong. Personally I am open to the possibility. I won't assume that science can explain the spiritual, rather, I will continue to search for the answers within science. And yes, I may fail.
An Eternal Now: Ah yes. Guilty as charged, I definitely did not read through your posts in detail. I just wanted to point out parts of what you cited which are inconsistent with what academics would believe today.
Ok i read through the interview part which you posted. This is what I think it's saying (correct me if I'm wrong):
Modern scientific approach today will fail in finding the seat of consciousness, because the approach itself involves the very consciousness it tries to seek.
Yes that does make sense, and it is a problem for anyone who wants to rationalize consciousness. Of course, if the problem wasn't difficult, it wouldn't be exciting either. Well, thank you for sharing![/b][/quote]
Close. You are almost right As Indian mystic Sri Ramana Maharshi said, ...Because you seek consciousness. Where can you find it? Can you reach it externally? You have to find it internally. Therefore you are directed inward. Again the 'Heart' is only the seat of consciousness or the consciousness itself...
Throughout the world, Mystics and Contemplatives are walking an inward journey to touch the deepest levels of Consciousness (the mystics who experience his own Presence calls it 'I AM' or God, etc, which is the seat of consciousness), and this can only be dealt by spiritual approach, and can only be understood intuitively and experientially. It is a form of 'touch'. Such peak experiences, transpersonal realisations, also being studied in 'transpersonal psychology'.
However, the emptiness nature of Consciousness must also be known (a higher level of realisation)... after which Consciousness is then realised to be non-dual (no subject-object separation), non-local, filling all spaces (the intuitive insight that all there is is consciousness, but there is no 'seat' of consciousness). Thusness said 2 years ago,
[quote]Originally posted by Thusness:
Hi longchen,
It is ungraspable not because the Ultimate Object cannot be the subject of observation; but rather there is really no such ‘ultimate object’ hiding behind anywhere. A ‘someone’ inside somewhere is from the very beginning a mistake. True authenticity comes when we realized that any form of ‘centricity’ is illusionary.
To experience the Pure Presence of Isness, “I AMness” must completely dissolve. The Pure Presence you experienced is non-local and has no-center. It becomes an ‘I AM’ due to linear mode of analysis. If you have time do explore into insight meditation and the essence of ‘Emptiness’
Regards,
Thusness -
So cycle's post of fang yi is not accurate.Originally posted by bohiruci:Fang yi is english for living a life of Wanton freewill (no regards for moral and social ethics ) -
(oops! wrong topic)
-
correct me if i interpret wrongly.. you keep asking why AEN or others accept some things from one group of people and not from the other group of people and they are trying hard to show you evidence. now i ask you why you accept the other group people recommendations different from AEN. And you also trying hard to protect your beliefs. it is like wearing each other shoes. their beliefs are diiferent from you. i understand the simple words, What you do not know does not mean its non exsistence.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are missing the point. The point I made was why you take it that the way some people recommend, the things some people says, you take it as acceptable but not the way some other people recommend to you.
You said something about these people also tell you how you can do it/find out for yourself.
Well George Bush also tells you that you must accept, believe, discard all other ways and you will find out for yourself but you do not accept his way.
So the question is, what yardstick, standard do you use to determine whether or not you should test it out for yourself.
For example, there are two independent lab in the world to test particle physics discoveries and why are there two? To verify each other's findings.
Not only do you tell people what they can do to achieve the results, the results must be measurable and not dependent on the imagination of the participants.
You see what a high standard it is? Without such high standards, it is very easy to go into a delusion mode.
Seriously, do you mean that you do not believe in Karma? If so, then its fine. Why must we try so hard to convince each other? the fact that many religions exist means different beliefs. All these efforts trying to convince one another will only result racist. See why terrorism arises? -
Ucchedavada(annihilation) contradicts all Buddhist traditions. Rebirth as a "metaphor" may be the opinion some people hold, but it is the clear policy of E-Sangha that rejection of rebirth, and those who do so, are suffering from wrong view. And I could care less what tradition they come from.
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=55666&st=0
Rejection of rebirth means "It doesn't really happen" on a conventional level.
N
-------
The Buddhist Critique of Sassatavada and Ucchedavada:
The Key to a proper Understanding of the Origin and the Doctrines of early Buddhism
Y. Karunadasa
The Middle Way, U.K., vol 74 & 75, 1999-2000
The early Buddhist discourses often refer to the mutual opposition between two views. One is the view of permanence or eternalism (sassatavada). The other is the view of annihilation (ucchedavada). The former is sometimes referred to as bhava-ditthi, the belief in being, and the latter as vibhava-ditthi, the belief in non-being. The world at large has a general tendency to lean upon one of these two views. Thus, addressing Kaccayana, the Buddha says: 'This world, O Kaccayana, generally proceeds on a duality, of (the belief in) existence and (the belief in) non-existence.' What interests us here is the fact that it is against these two views that Buddhist polemics are continually directed. What is more, all the fundamental doctrines of early Buddhism are presented in such a way as to unfold themselves, or to follow as a logical sequence, from a sustained criticism of sassatavada and ucchedavada. This particular context is sometimes explicitly stated; at other times it is taken for granted. Therefore, it is within the framework of the Buddhist critique of sassatavada and ucchedavada that the Buddhist doctrines seem to assume their significance. For it is through the demolition of these two world-views that Buddhism seeks to construct its own world-view. The conclusion is that it was as a critical response to the mutual opposition between these two views that Buddhism emerged as a new faith amidst many other faiths.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha263.htm -
huh?....you think emptiness/sunyata easy to understand ah? whatever the Council or non-Council or buddhists written are not the true representation of the true meaning of emptiness. all wrong view liao liao.
so IF you don't believe in rebirth, you must believe in randomlism ah? beings are just born to the world. some tall some short, some thin, some fat, some rich, some poor...etc. all Accidentalism ah.Beliefs that are contrary to the law of kamma
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/kamma6.htm
There are three philosophies which are considered by Buddhism to be wrong view and which must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of kamma:
1. Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous kamma (Past-action determinism).
2. Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
3. Ahetu-apaccayavada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).
got also wrong, no got also wrong...abide in non-dualism or Middle way,
/\ -
sigh....wu jwo e shr (five kinds of attachment) Indeed.
Five Turbidities
1) turbidity of kalpa, 2) turbidity of views, 3) turbidity of afflictions, 4) turbidity of beings, 5) turbidity of lifespan.
"What are the Five Turbidities? The first is the turbidity of the kalpa. Kalpa is a Sanskrit word that is interpreted as a 'division of time.' How does the kalpa become turbid? At the time of the five evil realms, the evil karma of living beings makes the kalpa turbid.
"The second turbidity is views. In the past, people saw everything as clean. But when the turbid kalpa arrives, people see things as unclean. The turbidity of views is composed of the Five Quick Servants: A view of the body, prejudiced views, views of prohibitions, views of views, and deviant views.
"The view of a body: all living beings are attached to having bodies. They love their bodies. 'I certainly have to take care of myself. I can't let anything happen to me.' They look upon their own bodies as extremely important. They want to wear good clothes, eat good food, live in a good place. They always look upon their bodies as priceless gems. Right, your body is a priceless gem, but if you misuse it, your priceless gem turns into something not even as good as excrement. Why? Because you tend only to its superficial aspects, and don't discover the true gem of you self-nature. All you know is that your body is yours, and you can't put it down. From morning to night you are busy on behalf of your body. That's the view of a body.
"Prejudiced views for one side or the other. If you don't favor emptiness, then you favor existence. In general, it means not being in accord with the Middle Way.
"The third 'quick servant' is the view of prohibitions. Precepts an turn into something bad when they are based on mistaking for a cause something that is not a cause. Such a mistake leads to the cultivation of unbeneficial ascetic practices. I explained earlier how some people imitate the habits of cows or dogs, or sleep on beds of nails, or undertake other unbeneficial ascetic practices. People who do this have a view of prohibitions. 'See me,' they think, 'I hold precepts.l None of you can do what I do; you can't compare to me.' They always have this arrogance in their minds.
"The fourth is the 'view of views', or 'grasping at views'. This is to mistake for an effect something that is not an effect. People with this problem think that they have obtained effects which they have not obtained.
"The fifth is deviant views. People with deviant knowledge and views are always thinking about things in an improper way. These are the Five Quick Servants, which comprise the turbidity of views.
"The third turbidity is the turbidity of the afflictions, which is composed of the Five Slow Servants: greed, hatred, stupidity, arrogance, and doubt. 'Greed' refers to an insatiable greed for pleasant experiences. You are greedy for the things you like. 'Hatred' is the dislike of unpleasant situations. 'Stupidity' means stupid false thoughts. 'Arrogance' refers to pride and self-satisfaction--the feeling that 'I am the greatest' and 'no one is equal to me'. Arrogant people have no courtesy towards others.
"'Doubt' refers to doubt of the genuine Dharma and preference for improper dharmas instead. Such people doubt the true and rely on the false. They doubt the proper Dharma and believe deviant dharmas.
"These are the Five Slow Servants, which comprise the third turbidity, that of afflictions. The existence of these five dull servants creates a lot of affliction.
"The fourth turbidity is that of living beings--let's not even try to express it. Why? Living beings are just too filthy, too unclean, too impure. You shouldn't think of yourself as being so terrific. Living beings are murky and turbid; there's nothing so good about them. But living beings think of themselves as something really special, despite the fact that hey comprise the fourth kind of turbidity.
"The fifth turbidity is the turbidity of a lifespan. Our mundane lives, our destinies, are impure." (SS III 205-207)
1) Ch. wu jwo , wu jwo e shr , 2) Skt. panca-kasaya, 3) Pali panca-kasaya, 4) Alternate Translations: five turbid realms, evil world of the five turbidities, five periods of turbidity, impurity or chaos of decay.
/\ -
another important note:
of all things that are empty in nature, there's one thing that is not . and that's Karma or the Law of cause and effect, my friend.
heard of what happen to the master who wrote that the Law of cause and effect is empty?
key word is in the "Law" (of change).
/\