Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:55 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:33 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
Acchantika wrote:

Just keep in mind that if the Buddha hadn't earnestly challenged the notions presented to him, he'd still be a Hindu.


You think I sound like a blind faith Buddhist, how so? :smile:

/magnus

_________________
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
All buddhist paths (including Dzogchen) are inferred until one has a direct experience that isn't brain-based. This is really something amazing. An experience going beyond brain. If we say that it is only conditioned mind that is transcended in the sense that it is replaced with an understanding of our real nature then we can't be sure that this 'real-nature' discovery is brain-based or not. Can you see how deep this question goes? It's pretty much a crucial question which can't easily be ignored if one is interested in genuine realization.
In Dzogchen almost all of the secret methods for having direct experience are related to overcoming attachment to the brain. So this is really not a trivial point at all. One must accept that ALL brain-based experiences are falsely drawn. I can see how this realization might be quite frightening for many but this is where the path leads.
Separating nature of mind from ordinary mind conceptually is not so difficult - but separating nature of mind from empty/appearing brain is in a whole different league.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: Globe
Andrew108 wrote:
All buddhist paths (including Dzogchen) are inferred until one has a direct experience that isn't brain-based. This is really something amazing. An experience going beyond brain. If we say that it is only conditioned mind that is transcended in the sense that it is replaced with an understanding of our real nature then we can't be sure that this 'real-nature' discovery is brain-based or not. Can you see how deep this question goes? It's pretty much a crucial question which can't easily be ignored if one is interested in genuine realization.
In Dzogchen almost all of the secret methods for having direct experience are related to overcoming attachment to the brain. So this is really not a trivial point at all. One must accept that ALL brain-based experiences are falsely drawn. I can see how this realization might be quite frightening for many but this is where the path leads.
Separating nature of mind from ordinary mind conceptually is not so difficult - but separating nature of mind from empty/appearing brain is in a whole different league.

OK Andrew. Here is the flipside. Can nueroscience explain how consciousness itself comes into being based on [brain] matter? I don't think it can. Why? Consciousness is not solely based on matter. In the human experience, it uses the brain because of the physiology of the human race. In devas, it does not use a brain per se. In the bardo, it does not use a brain. Those Anagamis in the pure abodes only consist of mentallity, no material base whatsoever in their experience, and so on.

Kevin

_________________
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं

http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/336-je-tsongkhapas-great-stages-of-the-path
http://www.ripple.org
http://caretoclick.com/save-the-rainforests/donate-clicks-likes-and-tweets-to-fight-climate-change-and-deforestation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Virgo wrote:
Consciousness is not solely based on matter.

The consciousness that gets purified is the one that is not solely based on matter. The nature of mind is not based on matter. Then in terms of realization - the realization is not based on matter.
But neuroscience can identify different types of brain activity that correspond with different types of meditative capacity. The fact that different parts of the brain are active during samahdi is telling me that meditative stability can be brain-based. If one were to mistake meditative stability for realization then that would be a problem. In terms of genuine realization should there be a difference in the way the brain is working if in fact nature of mind is not matter bound?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Andrew108 wrote:
This reminds me of part of a song my teacher sang - ''let go and go where no-mind goes'....Let go into spaciousness - go as far as the brain can go - then leave it there. Then where are you? Where is ego? So the brain and it's cognitive scope only goes so far but nature of mind goes much further in that it collapses whatever view or experience we want to hold onto.
This has been a very interesting discussion for me and very useful thanks.

In losing nature busy mind get satisfactions.

Then no holding onto is. Lets' sing.
:anjali:

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am
Posts: 292
heart wrote:
Acchantika wrote:

Just keep in mind that if the Buddha hadn't earnestly challenged the notions presented to him, he'd still be a Hindu.


You think I sound like a blind faith Buddhist, how so? :smile:

/magnus


I wasn't trying to imply that. Just that reincarnation and the explanantion of its operation by Tibetans are not the same, such that examining one does not mean refuting the other.

_________________
...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Posts: 1999
Location: France
I found all that discussion ... totaly alienistic ! :alien:

As ChNN explains it clearly, brain is "only" a senses storage unit. What happens is that the "mind" in his deluded version uses it as being "I" ... this is samsara. In his non-deluded version, mind (which is not the storage unit) extract stored information when it needs to speak of the past. Never this storage unit is used as a central unit.
It's like to make the mistake to see your Disk Drive as being your UC.

:techproblem:
Sönam

_________________
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Sönam wrote:
As ChNN explains it clearly, brain is "only" a senses storage unit.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I think it is more than that. I think concepts are also brain-based. Would you agree?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Andrew108 wrote:
Sönam wrote:
As ChNN explains it clearly, brain is "only" a senses storage unit.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I think it is more than that. I think concepts are also brain-based. Would you agree?



I don't see how -- concepts are the basic unit of measuring time in Buddhism. One concept lasts a kṣana, and a kṣana is 1/75th (00.0013) of a second.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Namdrol wrote:
I don't see how -- concepts are the basic unit of measuring time in Buddhism. One concept lasts a kṣana, and a kṣana is 1/75th (00.0013) of a second.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to say that concepts are too quick to be brain-based?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Andrew108 wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
I don't see how -- concepts are the basic unit of measuring time in Buddhism. One concept lasts a kṣana, and a kṣana is 1/75th (00.0013) of a second.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to say that concepts are too quick to be brain-based?


No, neurons transmit about at .5 m/s, whereas a concept, according to this, last about 1.3 m/s.

The neurons responsible for thinking, which reside within the gray matter of the brain, are not myelinated. They are very thin, and transmit at speeds around 0.5 m/s.
http://www.examiner.com/biology-in-chic ... z1Ygy6U7fa

What I mean is that irrespective of whether a mind has appropriated a coarse physical body or not, this is how long a thought endures i.e. 1.3 milliseconds.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Last edited by Malcolm on Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Seems like you didn't finish your last sentence. Could you elaborate.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Posts: 1999
Location: France
Andrew108 wrote:
Sönam wrote:
As ChNN explains it clearly, brain is "only" a senses storage unit.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I think it is more than that. I think concepts are also brain-based. Would you agree?


That what I said, concepts are part of the deluded mind ... using the brain to become "I"

Sönam

_________________
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
So they are both brain-based and deluded mind based?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Posts: 1999
Location: France
Andrew108 wrote:
So they are both brain-based and deluded mind based?


mind, in his deluded version, uses what is stored in brain (recently or before) to identify "I" and "others". What you call concepts is just the result of differenciation between "I" and "others".

Sönam

_________________
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
So deluded mind exists outside of the brain but has access to it?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Posts: 1999
Location: France
Andrew108 wrote:
So deluded mind exists outside of the brain but has access to it?


brain is a storage device ...

_________________
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Well it's been interesting debating these issues which stem mostly from 'provisional meaning.' 'Definitive' meaning on the other hand is something that I wouldn't question.
Here is a lovely quote:
''Sutras that teach emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, freedom from formation, nonorigination, nonarising, the absence of things, the lack of sentient beings, the lack of life force, the lack of person, the lack of self, and the doors to liberation are sutras of the definitive meaning.'' - 'Teaching of Inexhaustible Intelligence'.

Also from the Buddha's Descent into Lanka:
''Whoever conceives of things produced by conditions to be existent or non-existent is someone who holds the view of a tirthika. Know that they are a long distance from my teachings.''

So the brain as appearance/emptiness and definitive Dzogchen as spontaneous presence without defining characteristics.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm
Posts: 759
Firstly one does not misrepresent basic dzogchen teachings as his master's opinions that he is free to question. If someone is not a follower of Dzogchen then he is free to dismiss any dzogchen basic aspect or master he is not following. Secondly dzogchen is not madhyamaka abhidharma or vinaya to be debated as such, whether correctly or as often in this subforum incorrectly regarding mixing up the basics and then often giving advice and teachings to others with merely quoting conceptual ideas out of proper context. Thirdly the brain and body have specific explanations in Tantra and dzogchen as well as methods. As narraboth often says Namdrol is playing with you or more accurately being patient. However we are often taught to cut the root and the tree falls so no need to worry about the trunk and branches and once in the real state the path unfolds so no need to worry about the anatomy at this stage.

Finally this is all typical western way of forcing one's way through to the real nature by reducing all to mere concepts and now anatomy. Concepts are needed to start and continue with as is the precious rare human body which is in space and also the coarse mind which is in the 3 times but the truth is beyond. Reading such posts over the last month I often taught how it is true that vajrayana and mahamudra/semde suit most best and then Astus quoted a perfect passage in the mahamudra section. I would say to silent readers who are new to dzogchen generally we do not proliferate in dharma with personal untrained opinions and mixing up terms which have different and even sometimes opposing meanings in different yanas and not to be confused with so many contradictory opinions many of which are misleading and not to take all comments here as valid, including mine. Often reading conceptual proliferations backed by quotes out of context trying to force it's way through in experiential tantra/dzogchen dead-ends like a desperate blitzkrieg or systems analysis chart does more harm than good. This is not the way.

_________________
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am
Posts: 383
In my youth I did not stand on my head
For I feared that it injured the brain
But now that's it's perfectly clear I have none,
Why, I do it again and again

_________________
Lamrim, lojong, and mahamudra are the unmistaken path.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group