What takes rebirth: body or mind?

[oushi]

Gregkavarnos,
How predictable...
Small pseudo scientific TED talk for you:


Sit in peace.

[Astus]

Oushi,

Materialism - believing that everything is ultimately matter - is not a Buddhist view. In Buddhism the mind is not material.

[oushi]

Oushi,

Materialism - believing that everything is ultimately matter - is not a Buddhist view. In Buddhism the mind is not material.

Materialism is redundant here. No mind have ever experienced matter directly. To say that there is a matter, is a belief. Basic neurology explains the way information are transported to the brain. When I hit you with a rock, it's not rock that goes through you nervous system to your brain, although at the end your perceive it as a rock (if you are still conscious).

[gregkavarnos]

Oushi,

Materialism - believing that everything is ultimately matter - is not a Buddhist view. In Buddhism the mind is not material.

Materialism is redundant here. No mind have ever experienced matter directly. To say that there is a matter, is a belief. Basic neurology explains the way information are transported to the brain. When I hit you with a rock, it's not rock that goes through you nervous system to your brain, although at the end your perceive it as a rock (if you are still conscious).

Apart from 18 years of meditation I also have post graduate qualifications in Behavioural Science. The video you chose (which I have seen before) is the epitome of pseudo scienctific reasoning.

So now you are saying that it is not the mind that experiences, but the brain??? And let's say it is the brain (a material object which you claims experiences material phenomena), how does a material object (the brain) then transfer (if you will) it's experience to mind? If you say that the mind is the brain, then you are asserting a materialsist position which, by default, means that rebirth cannot occur since form (the body) cannot pass on to ones next birth.

[oushi]

Apart from 18 years of meditation I also have post graduate qualifications in Behavioural Science.

Good start! Now it is almost certain, that you are speaking pure truth. Sorry for sarcasm, but that's how I react when I see bragging in internet.

So now you are saying that it is not the mind that experiences, but the brain???

I cannot recall saying that, could you quote?

a material object which you claims experiences material phenomena

Could you quote this one too?

If you say that the mind is the brain

Certainly I can say that, especially because I didn't say that the brain is materialistic. Have you notice me posting: "Materialism is redundant here"?

[deepbluehum]

form (the body) cannot pass on to ones next birth.

It is the body that wanders in samsara. --Lord Jigten Sumgon

[gregkavarnos]

Good start! Now it is almost certain, that you are speaking pure truth. Sorry for sarcasm, but that's how I react when I see bragging in internet.

Bragging? I am merely giving you my qualifications for considering the TED video pesudo science.
This is the second time I am telling you to not engage in ad hominems, the next time I will be forced to issue a formal warning.

I cannot recall saying that, could you quote?

"No mind have ever experienced matter directly."

Could you quote this one too?

cf above.

Certainly I can say that, especially because I didn't say that the brain is materialistic.

So what are you saying the brain is then?

[gregkavarnos]

form (the body) cannot pass on to ones next birth.

It is the body that wanders in samsara. --Lord Jigten Sumgon

Care to elaborate?

[oushi]

Bragging? I am merely giving you my qualifications for considering the TED video pesudo science.

You are joking right?

This is the second time I am telling you to not engage in ad hominems, the next time I will be forced to issue a formal warning.

You are joking again!

"No mind have ever experienced matter directly."
Where do you see brain here? Can you mark it with red color please?

By your false statement you tried to refute my view by presenting it as incoherent with a buddhist view on reincarnation. Not cool man.

[deepbluehum]

form (the body) cannot pass on to ones next birth.

It is the body that wanders in samsara. --Lord Jigten Sumgon

Care to elaborate?

It is said: "The samsaric body circles."
The actual nature of mind is free of elaborations,
Is emptiness, is luminosity, is without grasping.
If it did not rely on the material or mental body,
How could there be any experiences of happiness or suffering by
the empty mind as such?
There are the actual bodies of the six types of beings
And the embodiment of habitual tendencies of the intermediate state,
That arise like a mirage, made from prāna.
Therefore, it is explained that the samsaric body circles.

Gongchig, II.4

[viniketa]

Small pseudo scientific TED talk for you:

The video you chose (which I have seen before) is the epitome of pseudo scienctific reasoning.

At least you both agree on this point, which is odd given that the talk is not psuedo science. In order for it to be so, she would have to purport to be doing science, which she is not. She is reporting an experience she had, and she just happens to be a scientist, so the experience has some science ideas mixed in. Not surprising.

I don't know how this started, but neither of you seems to be using that more compassionate side of the brain.

Let go, for both your sakes.

[viniketa]

It is the body that wanders in samsara. --Lord Jigten Sumgon

It is said: "The samsaric body circles."
The actual nature of mind is free of elaborations,
Is emptiness, is luminosity, is without grasping.
If it did not rely on the material or mental body,
How could there be any experiences of happiness or suffering by
the empty mind as such?
There are the actual bodies of the six types of beings
And the embodiment of habitual tendencies of the intermediate state,
That arise like a mirage, made from prāna.
Therefore, it is explained that the samsaric body circles.

Gongchig, II.4

Interesting. This seems worthy of a separate thread...

[gregkavarnos]

This is the second time I am telling you to not engage in ad hominems, the next time I will be forced to issue a formal warning.

You are joking again!

Joking about issuing a formal warning if you engage in ad hominem for the third time? You realise that referring to somebody as a braggart in order to destroy the credence of their argument is an ad hom attack? Yes? So, no, I am not joking.

"No mind have ever experienced matter directly."
Where do you see brain here? Can you mark it with red color please?

You also said:

You simply have left and right brain hemispheres with separate awareness building one experience. On the left you have samsara, one the right you have nirvana, two separated by the gateless gate (special function of the right hemisphere).

Okay, I can understand you not reading or skipping over bits of my posts, but your own???

Not cool man.

Gregkavarnos's degree is in behavioral science, so maybe he meant that she was not behaving like a scientist?

Exactly! The only thing a single instance of an experience proves is that instance of the experience. Science is interested in rules and not exceptions. Unless, of course, the exception proves the rule wrong. But even in this case the exception has to be replicated to prove that the exception was valid.

At least you both agree on this point...

I don't know how this started, but neither of you seems to be using that more compassionate side of the brain.

Well, my dear viniketa, as oushi stated earlier I normally walk away from this conversation with him, now EVERYBODY can see why! I imagine the time for me to walk away again is nigh!

She is reporting an experience she had...

Actually I believe she is using her experience in order to justify split brain theory and at the same time using split brain theory to justify her experience. I studied split brain theory as part of my psychology degree back in 1987-89. It was dubious back then, and in the 20 odd years since then it has not ceased being dubious.

[viniketa]

She is reporting an experience she had...

Actually I believe she is using her experience in order to justify split brain theory and at the same time using split brain theory to justify her experience. I studied split brain theory as part of my psychology degree back in 1987-89. It was dubious back then, and in the 20 odd years since then it has not ceased being dubious.

Well, this is getting way off topic, now...

This particular talk is about experience rather than science. Relating her own experience to a theory is hardly "proof", but that isn't her point and isn't any different than what most scientists do.

So-called "split brain theory" may be dubious by some measures, but is hardly pseudo-science, as research is still ongoing to this day (see, for example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 181856.htm). There are entire textbooks on the topic. Certainly more "scientific" than the "god spot of the brain", which would at least be more on-topic.

If this is a real sticking point, rather than just another way for folks to take jabs at one another, opening a new thread to discuss might be a good option.

[viniketa]

So, is Jigten Sumgon basically saying "mind depends on brain"? Because it seems this is what Jill Bolte Taylor is saying of her experience: Brain changed, experience changed...

[Indrajala]

Topic reset.

Please keep things polite and relevant to the topic.

Don't take things personally.

As you were...

[Astus]

It is said: "The samsaric body circles."
The actual nature of mind is free of elaborations,

This sounds like separating buddha-mind from deluded mind, a simple dualism. But it's nothing to do with materialism, as he says that it relies on the samsarik material and mental body. As for his reference to prana, I leave that to those who believe in Tantra.

[gregkavarnos]

So, is Jigten Sumgon basically saying "mind depends on brain"? Because it seems this is what Jill Bolte Taylor is saying of her experience: Brain changed, experience changed...

I think the key to unlocking the statement is the term "mental body" (in combination with the "material") that Jigten Sumgon uses. That is, just because we hear the term "body" we should not instantly consider that he is talking about the physical body. I also think that he makes a distinction between samsaric mind and minds essential nature.

[viniketa]

I also think that he makes a distinction between samsaric mind and minds essential nature.

Not knowing the rest of the work, I will take both of your word for it...

Whether or not mind is totally dependent on brain, it's hard to deny that mind is affected by brain (and vice-versa, given research in neuroplasticity).

What is interesting about Jill Bolte Taylor's description of her experience are her words, beginning around 15:04:

...my spirit soared free like a great whale gliding through a sea of silent euphoria....

especially given that it was later found her hemorrhage was in the "speech center" of her brain.

While one of the dharma doors is sound, surely lack of sound (silence) is just as significant. Silent meditation techniques are known in a variety of practices. Many of our "higher order" thought processes take place in a linguistic mode. We are taught to "reside" in nature of mind that is free from such "conceptual" processes, descriptions of experience come down to "inexpressible". "Bare awareness" is free even of the most sub-conscious processing of neuro-electrical signals from the senses. Taylor basically found herself in a situation of non-meditative "silence" of linguistic and sensory data.

[PadmaVonSamba]

mind doesn't take rebirth in samsara.
mind doesn't go anywhere.
it is samsara that keeps reoccurring (takes rebirth) over and over again in the mind.
.
.
.