nowheat wrote:I would be interested in hearing how you perceive the relationship between the "ignorance" that's in the first step of dependent origination, and non-conceptual mental processes.
see last sentence at the bottom of this post.
nowheat wrote:I'm not a scientist, so I can't *show* you anything, but when the component parts of the brain are severely damaged, cognitive function ceases. The link between the two has been evident for quite a long time.
Yes, of course that's true, just as a mirror doesn't reflect properly if smashed. The human brain only provides the physical environment, the conditions for the movement of neurons and so forth that are required for the experience we have as humans. But the parts combined don't create the thoughts. Another analogy is a deer in the woods. The woods provide the conditions, the habitat, for the deer species to arise. But the deer do not grow on trees. However, we can also say that in fact the deer do grow on plants, because they eat the types of plants that grow in the woods & meadows. And the plants grow the way they do partly because of the impact of the animal population. The two arise together but one is not a direct byproduct of the other, Similarly, cognitive awareness arises when subject, object, and the interaction between them occur all at once. Now, you may ask, "who is the subject?" but I will address that below.
nowheat wrote: I can also understand, from a historical and scientific perspective, why it would be that these many component processes generate that sense of self -- evolution would quite naturally lead to the sort of complexity that develops that sense of self as a method of preserving the organism that passes on the genes.
Well, I don't understand that. Please explain to me how carbon and water, salt and so on generates a sense of self.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:It is that apparent reality which makes up this realm or that, this lifetime or that lifetime. If you are greedy in a past life, maybe you will be needy in this one.
nowheat wrote: Who is this "you"?
There isn't one, really. The "you" is simply the appearance which occurs, which ignorant beings take for real and which awakened beings see as illusory. Some Buddhists, I think some Navayana Buddhists, perhaps, see the various 'celestial beings' and hungry ghosts and so forth of traditional buddhism as metaphors, as personifications of concepts and ideas. Well, that is precisely what you are and what I am: personifications of concepts and ideas .
The term commonly used in Buddhism is, "a projection of mind".
Of course they are all made up, but you and I am too.
(This is the reply to the quote at the top of this post.)