Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
What about in the cases where a nonmeditator has suffered an accident and correctly reports what was happening around him while "unconscious". I heard of some examples where they could describe the operation while under full narcosis. In such case it can not be invalid cognition, but rather mental consciousness perceiving physical objects.5heaps wrote:i dont know much about out-of-body experiences as experienced by nonmeditators. it could be just that they are having invalid cognitions by a messing up of the sense organs, of external conditions, etc. for skilled meditators its a very clear, practical, methodical thing.
goodie wrote:Another question about cognition. Mental consciousness is aware of external reality through sense consciousness. But sometimes we are aware of sights, sometimes of sounds etc. Is it that at the moment when we are aware of sights:
a) only eye sense consciousness works
b) or is it that all five sense consciousnesses work all the time, but only one is perceived by mental consciousness
c) or is it that all five sense consciousnesses work all the time, all are percieved by mental consciousness, but only one is distinguished
d) something else
goodie wrote:But how does this work in the case of out of body perception? For example if a practitioner goes out of his body ...
5heaps wrote:yes, clairvoyance is using the mental consciousness without the aid of the much coarser sense consciousnesses to see sense objects (the lower schools predictably disagree a little bit -- different presentations of pramana)
i dont know much about out-of-body experiences as experienced by nonmeditators. it could be just that they are having invalid cognitions by a messing up of the sense organs, of external conditions, etc. for skilled meditators its a very clear, practical, methodical thing.
Extra-bodily States in Buddhism
Why would such a thing not be possible? Afaik even high practitioners of other traditions can achieve superpowers to go out of body and see actual things, not just subjective imagination.TMingyur wrote:goodie wrote:But how does this work in the case of out of body perception? For example if a practitioner goes out of his body ...
Sorry, but such things do not really exist. It is just a sort of subjective experience based on the body and mind (the aggregates).
I was not so much interested in this type since it's not "real" clairvoyance...Individual wrote:1) Clairvoyance through gross mind:...You see their shoes, clothes, body language, etc., and you already know a wealth of information about them. So much so that they can be shocked by how much you know.
... but more in this one, though I would disagree that there is no knowing, or that there is necessarily some other being who is doing this. Quote from Berzin: "With absorbed concentration and advanced yogic training, it is possible to make special use of this system to gain extraphysical and extrasensory powers, such as telepathy and clairvoyance."Individual wrote:2) Clairvoyance through subtle mind: In the subtle mind, there is no self-thinking, no asking and knowing, no subtle and gross, no using and not using clairvoyance. What is uttered is the clairvoyance for that moment. So it's not you who is clairvoyant; it is some other higher being or non-being that is using clairvoyance through you. You can't play with it or use it for personal gain, unless that is something that was meant to be.
I agree, it's easier to see illusion of dream in the dream than illusion of this world in this world At least some kind of illusions though - it might be equally difficult to percieve prasangika type of illusion in dream or in this reality.Individual wrote:You could say therefore that the waking world is more of a dream than the dream world, because in the dream world, the impermanent and impersonal nature of things is more obvious, but in the waking world, there is more of an illusion of self in things
goodie wrote:Yes. Your quotes reflect Mind Only, right? Do you know also for (possibly gelug) Sautrantika and Middle Way?Yeshe D. wrote:It depends on which cognitive model one is using.
Users browsing this forum: Tanaduk and 29 guests