Simon E. wrote:Sorry I havent got the hang of selective quoting yet.
Its very easy. You write [.quote], without the dot
, before the part you'll be quoting and at the end you write [\quote], but use a / instead of a \.
I'll quote these sentences: "Correct use of quotes" and "is easy".
[.quote]Correct use of quotes[\quote]
now removing the dot and replacing the \ with a /
Correct use of quotes
and for the second
OK, these are the basics.
No Dechen Norbu, I dont believe that the primordial state is produced by the brain.
Neither do I believe that Rigpa is a product of the brain.
I do think that it is self evident that the constructs that we erect around the primordial state and around Rigpa are the result of brain activity.
So you admit awareness without physical support, as the primordial state is aware.
You haven't actually discussed how you reconcile the energy aspect of the base with your beliefs. Admitting the first and understanding the second would make fairly easy to admit the possibility of beings we can't detect with an untamed mind. We can't detect consciousness directly and that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you assume that there is awareness without physical support, you gave the first step to allow the possibility of beings without a physical support can exist. In Dzogchen we consider they have what is called a mental body, as we do while in the bardo.
I have actually discussed these matters with Rinpoche.
There is no problem.
As ChNN so often says, "we must pay respect".
We have his teachings and they are very clear. But something I'm sure I'll never see is ChNN imposing them or asking someone to accept them. That's up to the individual.
The problem only arises when one holds on to a religious view of Dharma.
I agree. And the problem with that view is that we risk conditioning experience due to our beliefs, among other things. We create limitations. These can come in many forms, as rejecting apriori the existence of beings/realms/processes we can't detect with an untamed mind while attributing our karmic vision a different ontological status. Religion takes many forms. You mentioned earlier Susan Blackmore and Dawkins. I see them as very religious people. Their religion is Scientism. Their metaphysics is Physicalism. They are the reverse side of the same coin of any other religious fundamentalist. What defines them and lumps them together is a passionate belief for metaphysical speculations they assume as being the truth.
Just as there is only a problem with Quantum theory if one holds on to a literalist view of Buddhist Cosmology. What is emerging from brain studies is every bit as repeatable and cohesive as what is going on at Cerne. At less cost..
The aim of Buddhadharma has very little in common with the aim of science. Science believes this reality you experience to be real. Buddhadharma considers it an illusion. From the start this creates a gap very hard to transpose.
What is emerging from brain studies are trivialities diguised as great discoveries. Granted that they have tremendous value in terms of medicine. That's beyond dispute. But in principle, it's known for a long time that brain functioning is interrelated with mental phenomena in several civilizations. People have been having accidents in their heads since the beginning of human history, so a relation between what's inside the cranium and mental phenomena has been apparent a long time ago. Now we are knowing the details. But this tells us nothing about the ontological status of consciousness for instance. I think you put too much faith in brain research when it comes to understanding what it still doesn't tell us. I've linked an article you should considering reading: http://www.edvul.com/pdf/VulHarrisWinki ... S-2009.pdf
Say, by any chance are you from the UK? The skeptic movement has the UK as an authentic stronghold. Pop science as presented there is extremely biased and this leads to a certain social mindset when considering this sort of subjects that may influence people without them really noticing. The belief in ghosts, devas, spirits or anything that even remotely smells paranormal is shunned vehemently by most academics (with some very bright exceptions as the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... on-cv.html
). I'm just asking because the UK is plagued with materialism fundamentalists (not your case) posing as skeptics.