I'll like to start a debate about the brain in Dzogchen. The brain has long been seen as being something like an office, home of the consciousness but not home of the mind. And yet you can see that the larger the brain the more reflexive self-awareness a being has. Enlightenment seems possible for us with large brains but not for smaller animals who have mind but lack the capacity. Then there are a series of questions which might be useful for the debate:
Is the brain being changed when we do meditation? Can awareness be tied to a type of brain activity? What would we perceive without a brain? What is the difference between a brain-based awareness and an experience of the true nature of mind? How would we distinguish the two?
If a master suffers from a stroke or a brain disease would that effect their 'realization'?
Recent studies have shown how experienced meditators access and use a different part of their brain during meditation. In light of this, is meditation brain-based? With the difference between good meditation and bad meditation biologically based. In dream yoga what is seen? Is it merely that we activate a part of our brain that wouldn't normally be activated when we sleep? How is it that we 'see' things in the bardo without a brain? And so on.....
I think this is a particularly important debate and in away is related to how far we can separate ordinary mind from nature of mind. How far does the activity of ordinary mind reach into our real nature?
I hope we can discuss these things. It would be of great benefit to me personally.
The Blessed One said:
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.