The entrance of wishlessness

[Sherab]

The importance/significance of the entrance of wishlessness/aspirationlessness/expectionlessness struck home when I saw this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

[Sherab]

Something related.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-mag ... video.html

[muni]

The importance/significance of the entrance of wishlessness/aspirationlessness/expectionlessness struck home when I saw this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Thank you for sharing, Sherab. One said something in this direction of the youtube. But then he had to go, we will talk next time he said. He passed away.

Outer-inner, subject-object.

Sentient beings think to have wishes, expectations; think they are the body, the brain and the adult owner of the aggregates, the controller. We seem to have some ground for the dance of imaginations (not bad not good, not neutral). But enlightenment is an idea, so wass thought. Or enlightenned mind was nothingness or entity.

So now this good news.

[Sherab]

@ Muni,

I don't understand your reply.

Anyway, I was trying to point out that because without wishlessness as an entrance, it would not be possible to defend the experience of enlightenment as non-delusionary in the face of modern-day experiments in neuroscience.

[muni]

@ Muni,

I don't understand your reply.

Anyway, I was trying to point out that because without wishlessness as an entrance, it would not be possible to defend the experience of enlightenment as non-delusionary in the face of modern-day experiments in neuroscience.

Yes. I corrected a bit, thank you for your patience.
I try to say; the illusions we grasp to are the entanglement in which we don't see. So very good the elaborations by scientifical research of before in which was rejection/acception by some can now widening and give prove.

Inner- outer; moon in water.

p.s The one who talked to me was doctor who explained it in this way: it is all the brain, 'you' cannot merely go out of the body (as mentioned on the youtube), it is just the impermanent brain (and so enlightenment merely an objective idea.) I didn't agree. Consciousness is not a derivation of material. Therefore I wrote 'we' are not the body.

Dalai Lama: " mind/consciousness; realm of subjective experience based on mere luminosity-knowing of nonobstructed nature of mind."

[Malcolm]

Consciousness is not a derivation of material. Therefore I wrote 'we' are not the body.

Well, from a Vajrayāna perspective it is more subtle than that i.e. mind and body have the same relation as a flower and its scent. They are inseparable; without one, there is not the other.

The mind/body dualism is a sutrayāna thing.

In Vajrayāna mind (སེམས) and the vāyu (རླུང) are completely inseparable. In the teaching of Dzogpachenpo, not only are they inseparable, but Guru Rinpoche remarks to Yeshe Tsogyal that mind and vāyu are synonymous with one another. You can discover this by reading the མཁའ་འགྲོ་སྙིང་ཐིག་རྒྱབ་ཆོས.

N

[muni]

Consciousness is not a derivation of material. Therefore I wrote 'we' are not the body.

Well, from a Vajrayāna perspective it is more subtle than that i.e. mind and body have the same relation as a flower and its scent. They are inseparable; without one, there is not the other.

The mind/body dualism is a sutrayāna thing.

In Vajrayāna mind (སེམས) and the vāyu (རླུང) are completely inseparable. In the teaching of Dzogpachenpo, not only are they inseparable, but Guru Rinpoche remarks to Yeshe Tsogyal that mind and vāyu are synonymous with one another. You can discover this by reading the མཁའ་འགྲོ་སྙིང་ཐིག་རྒྱབ་ཆོས.

N

I tried to explain a scientist his view on mind as merely brain activity without another derivation of consciousness than the dependence on body and no enlightenment could like 'after death', no continuum could... That person was not studying Buddhism, was no Tibetan doctor.
Then the discovering by science is clarifying what was before simple rejected by many.

No any separation. Awareness is not separate from emptiness.

[Sherab]

Then the discovering by science is clarifying what was before simple rejected by many.

It is generally accepted by neuroscientists that the mind or consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. So, no brain, no mind. Or no physical matter, no mind. The youtube video link that I posted reinforced the general neuroscience's position that mind or consciousness is solely due to brain activity. The various out-of-body experiences or visions seen by certain people are shown to be due to the interaction between their expectations (which is culturally conditioned) and the external magnetic stimulus. In short, under certain conditions, expectations leads to experiences and visions.

However to experience the enlightenment of a Buddha, a required condition is that you have to drop all wishes/aspirations/expectations. Therefore, the enlightened experience of a Buddha is not something that the results of the neuroscience experiments can disprove.

[ground]

It is generally accepted by neuroscientists that the mind or consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. So, no brain, no mind. Or no physical matter, no mind.

"Name and form" and "consciousness" condition each other. This is the buddhas teaching.

Kind regards

[Sherab]

It is generally accepted by neuroscientists that the mind or consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. So, no brain, no mind. Or no physical matter, no mind.

"Name and form" and "consciousness" condition each other. This is the buddhas teaching.

Kind regards

What, to you, is the thread all about? I am asking this because it seemed to me that you have not understood the discussion so far.

[ground]

It is generally accepted by neuroscientists that the mind or consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. So, no brain, no mind. Or no physical matter, no mind.

"Name and form" and "consciousness" condition each other. This is the buddhas teaching.

Kind regards

What, to you, is the thread all about? I am asking this because it seemed to me that you have not understood the discussion so far.

I just picked the quote out of context and commented, my comment did not refer to the topic of the thread or the OP at all.


Kind regards

[Sherab]

What, to you, is the thread all about? I am asking this because it seemed to me that you have not understood the discussion so far.

I just picked the quote out of context and commented, my comment did not refer to the topic of the thread or the OP at all.


Kind regards

Many thanks for your honesty. Hope to see some contributions on the significance or non-significance of the entrance of wishlessness from you.

[ground]

Hope to see some contributions on the significance or non-significance of the entrance of wishlessness from you.

Well then ... clinging is the cause of wishing but some wishing actually does cause non-clinging (or "non-attachment"). In this sense some wishing may be said to be "the entrance into wishlessness".

Kind regards

[Sherab]

Hope to see some contributions on the significance or non-significance of the entrance of wishlessness from you.

Well then ... clinging is the cause of wishing but some wishing actually does cause non-clinging (or "non-attachment"). In this sense some wishing may be said to be "the entrance into wishlessness".

Kind regards

Please elaborate on "some wishing actually does cause non-clinging" and how this wishing is not a basis for a neuroscientist to say that whatever enlightenment experience there is, is nothing more than a delusion arising from the interaction of some conditioned expectations and certain physical conditions and activity of the brain.

[ground]

Please elaborate on "some wishing actually does cause non-clinging" ...

Wishing to be free from dukkha is the cause of right effort.

and how this wishing is not a basis for a neuroscientist to say that whatever enlightenment experience there is, is nothing more than a delusion arising from the interaction of some conditioned expectations and certain physical conditions and activity of the brain.

I do not refer to some experience wished for. Liberation is just absence of what there is liberation from.
Why should this not be a cause for anybody to say whatever they like?

Kind regards

[Sherab]

@ TMingyur,
Could you explain your understanding of the entrance of wishlessness?
I am asking to ensure that I will not end up talking pass you.

[ground]

"Entrance" is a metaphor because it is not like "to enter a room", i.e. first being "outside" and then - having passed the entrance - one is in the room. It is not like this. "Entrance" is the collection of causes and conditions that lead to cessation of past, cessation of future and cessation of present.

Kind regards

[Sherab]

"Entrance" is a metaphor because it is not like "to enter a room", i.e. first being "outside" and then - having passed the entrance - one is in the room. It is not like this. "Entrance" is the collection of causes and conditions that lead to cessation of past, cessation of future and cessation of present.

Kind regards

So what do you think the "entrance" or "door" of wishlessness means?

[muni]

Then the discovering by science is clarifying what was before simple rejected by many.

It is generally accepted by neuroscientists that the mind or consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. So, no brain, no mind. Or no physical matter, no mind. The youtube video link that I posted reinforced the general neuroscience's position that mind or consciousness is solely due to brain activity. The various out-of-body experiences or visions seen by certain people are shown to be due to the interaction between their expectations (which is culturally conditioned) and the external magnetic stimulus. In short, under certain conditions, expectations leads to experiences and visions.

However to experience the enlightenment of a Buddha, a required condition is that you have to drop all wishes/aspirations/expectations. Therefore, the enlightened experience of a Buddha is not something that the results of the neuroscience experiments can disprove.

Thank you. (interactivity-interdependency I saw) Dreamlike of phenomena however experienced. I see their the unsubstantial activity which is not merely in the brain or we should see inside the brain. Mind-object field= nondual.

When science can prove clearly a contradiction in a investigation, makes it no sense to hold on ideas, still when science cannot prove for example what is not observable than I feel no need to agree but let it open.

As usually going off topic. Like the "mind", even completely dependent on the coarse phisical body, doesn't derive from material, or we should have same conscious experiences as our parents. When the consciousness clarity-knowing begins, as basis for experience, not so directly to show.
Also even "mind" relies on body, the possibility on some levels for independently of coarse body, I let it open.

Back to topic. I know not the term wishlessness but it appaers as the gates of liberation through "recognizing" the emptiness, beyond attributes, beyond expectation-aspiration as you write; cannot be disproved.

"The enlightened mind is not consciously created, not a product of circumstantial condition" Dalai Lama.


no more fabrications to add. Saw your youtube in other way (mind -objective field, interdependence), my mistake!

[ground]

"Entrance" is a metaphor because it is not like "to enter a room", i.e. first being "outside" and then - having passed the entrance - one is in the room. It is not like this. "Entrance" is the collection of causes and conditions that lead to cessation of past, cessation of future and cessation of present.

Kind regards

So what do you think the "entrance" or "door" of wishlessness means?

It is a metaphor for a "cause" or "condition".

Kind regards