Requesting help understanding Buddhism proof regarding existence of consciousness outside brain

[PadmaVonSamba]

And just to be perfectly clear, we are talking about the esoteric definition of consciousness here - an awareness priori to the material, the cause of physical phenomena rather than a product caused by them.

Although materialists assert that physical matter produces consciousness, it is not necessarily the opposite view that consciousness produces physical matter.
Consciousness or awareness can simply coexist with physical matter, neither being the cause for the other.

[Seeker101]

And just to be perfectly clear, we are talking about the esoteric definition of consciousness here - an awareness priori to the material, the cause of physical phenomena rather than a product caused by them.

Although materialists assert that physical matter produces consciousness, it is not necessarily the opposite view that consciousness produces physical matter.
Consciousness or awareness can simply coexist with physical matter, neither being the cause for the other.

Given the allegory spoken by Buddha on how material phenomena is like the flowery distortion one sees around a candle light if you squeeze your eye, and how all other esoteric traditions besides Buddhism regards the physical world as the final product of multiple layers of distortions of higher worlds, this is where my definition is coming from.

But to be prudent for the sake of this discussion we can just say consciousness is something immaterial but has the ability to affect the material.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Ultimately there is no production or destruction of dharmas anyway. So, things can only come from one another in a relative sense, ultimately, there is nothing "creating" either the mind or the body, which are just designations anyway. IMO trying to make either claim - that the body produces the mind, or that the mind produces the body is somewhat missing the mark. There are no First Causes in Buddhadharma, period, such a notion is rejected no matter how you try to arrange it.

If we want to get relative though, it is actually lack of awareness (i.e. ignorance, Advidya) that "creates" existence as we experience it.

Anyway, the sort of proof that a materialist wants - empirical evidence of some mechanism for ghosts, spirits etc. which exist outside of perception is not really in Buddhism's wheelhouse. Buddhism is ultimately about direct seeing, which is not really a category in materialist thought, which tends to demand empirical evidence in form of measurable, quantifiable things for "proof of existence". I think that simply examining the obvious limitations of such a view is a good start.

[Seeker101]

Ultimately there is no production or destruction of dharmas anyway. So, things can only come from one another in a relative sense, ultimately, there is nothing "creating" either the mind or the body, which are just designations anyway. IMO trying to make either claim - that the body produces the mind, or that the mind produces the body is somewhat missing the mark. There are no First Causes in Buddhadharma, period, such a notion is rejected no matter how you try to arrange it.

No offense but to me it sounds completely semantics at this point.

Is not bubbles created by the ocean even though it is part of the ocean? No real water is produced or destroyed in the creation and bursting of bubbles but the form of bubbles themselves is definitely changed.

This might be getting off topic slightly but is not the First Cause in Buddhism the esoteric consciousness? The work of Buddhism is the removing of distortions (ignorance as you would call them) in the consciousness so as to stop manifestations (physical and otherwise) as to be liberated from any possible sufferings forever?

[muni]

I cannot so good explain this but as far as I understood: due to our ignorant habitual clinging to 'material world life', consciousness wishes to find parents and so experiences material body and material world.

If consciousness has a location, is just located in the brain, we could make a trip through that brain. I hope there is a seat then to take a rest.

Teachings are pointing to the importance of consciousness, the nature of our consciousness or mind.
A metaphor by Longchenpa is the mirror and its' reflections. Consciousness is the mirror, an immaterial vast mirror and whatever phenomena are the reflections in that immaterial vast mirror.

However because of our identification with the thinking and feeling body "we" are in a material world. And due to this body, there is condition. But we can as well by this body and mind realize our nature. Some may think if we reject the material world, we will be in trouble. However that is idea nihilisme. When consciousness' nature is realized, there is nothing to reject/accept, is said. There is even boundless impartial care for all and all because there is no any grasping. A mirror does not reject or grasp reflections, the sky does not reject, grasp anything, so is been said.

In meditation this can become more clear. In everyday can be difficult, due to habits.

Have a nice day.

[muni]

What does ‘experience’ actually mean?

The human brain is composed of:
Water 77 to 78 % ...

Oh I can barely swim.

[Seeker101]

Anyhow, I just want to say thanks to everyone who took the time to reply.

To those who might think I have argued in bad faith, I just want to say my personal belief is on the side of esotericism. I do practice western occult myself and have manifested results which I can't fully explain physically.

That been said both my parents are PhD physicists, so that gene is in my blood so to speak. The answer on the Western side towards the materialist paradigm is that no objective material proof is possible. Only through practice and conjuring synchronicities can one convince oneself the truth of the existence of higher worlds.

I dug a bit harder in my questions hoping there might be a different answer here in the East, but I guess "hitting the cushion" is still the only possible answer at the end of the day.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The answer on the Western side towards the materialist paradigm is that no objective material proof is possible.

I would say, no…and yes.
And as I have mentioned previously, what the skeptic (materialist or not) ultimately finds ‘unprovable’ is the reincarnation of a self.
The thing is, buddhist theory says that there is no self, meaning no unchanging entity or essence that persists continuously for even a second. The experience we have of a “self” , a projection composed of aggregates, is in a state of perpetual regeneration. We are like web pages that won’t stop instantly reloading. So, of course, how can one prove that “I” am the same person as someone who lived years ago, when “I” am not even the same person who “I” was three seconds ago?

So, an entirely different set of questions need to be asked. If you aren’t getting satisfactory answers, the first thing to do is to examine your questions.
And yet, here I am.

I’ve mentioned before, I think the terms “REbirth” and “REincarnation” are misleading, because they suggest that something that is the exact same thing as it was before is coming back again.

The question that needs to be asked is, how do the actions of body, speech, and mind in this life create patterns (imprints) which are repeated, or freshly recreated by (or as someone in a subsequent life? And, is there any evidence of that actually happening?

The thing is, nobody questions that it is happening and observable moment to moment with everybody we know, and it occurs even though the body is changing constantly, cells dying and being replaced by new ones. So, at least it can be argued by deduction that the continuous arising of awareness is not dependent on continuous physical matter. And if that’s the case, maybe the question should be, why wouldn’t one naturally assume that “rebirth” is just as much of a fact as someone sitting next to you not suddenly morphing into someone else?

[Johnny Dangerous]

I think part of the problem is that materialists insist that things can only be measured objectively. Consciousness is subjective by definition. It is personal, intimate, and internal.

Wallace points out that in India the issue of consciousness was given a high priority in ancient times, and they developed highly refined understanding and techniques for tapping the power. He advocates for a modern network of professional meditators worldwide, established in cooperation with western scientists from the outset to help evaluate subjectively reported results.

The hope would be to introduce a scientific paradigm that includes subjectivity, rather than pro-actively excluding it from scientific observation. Wallace mentions very good reasons why the paradigm is not open to change at this time (such as professional death by non-publishing) and outright stubbornness.

Yeah, this is really the crux of it. Materialism as we are referring to it here basically insists that abstractions on how things exist are a kind of ultimate reality.

The trouble is, we cannot experience the abstractions, we are just somehow supposed to believe that (for instance) atoms and particles have some inherent value in explaining reality that subjective experiences don’t.

But again, we cannot experience atoms, so although knowledge of this kind is valuable, modes of thought that rely only on these things are a terrible fit to answer ‘big questions’ about consciousness, meaning, etc.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Ultimately there is no production or destruction of dharmas anyway. So, things can only come from one another in a relative sense, ultimately, there is nothing "creating" either the mind or the body, which are just designations anyway. IMO trying to make either claim - that the body produces the mind, or that the mind produces the body is somewhat missing the mark. There are no First Causes in Buddhadharma, period, such a notion is rejected no matter how you try to arrange it.

No offense but to me it sounds completely semantics at this point.

Is not bubbles created by the ocean even though it is part of the ocean? No real water is produced or destroyed in the creation and bursting of bubbles but the form of bubbles themselves is definitely changed.

Yes, things appear to arise and cease, that’s how appearances work. There is no claim on that phenomena do not appear this way, only that ultimate beginnings cannot be found, and that Buddhadharma acknowledges only one ultimate ending - liberation from Samsara.

This might be getting off topic slightly but is not the First Cause in Buddhism the esoteric consciousness? The work of Buddhism is the removing of distortions (ignorance as you would call them) in the consciousness so as to stop manifestations (physical and otherwise) as to be liberated from any possible sufferings forever?

What is “the esoteric consciousness”?

[curtstein]

Materialist view: There is no observable proof of subtle matter/bodies, consciousness can be explained purely through braincells and their function

T.H. Huxley, the famous biologist who first coined the word "agnostic", and who was most well known in his own time as "Darwin's Bulldog", might sound like an unlikely ally in the intellectual battle against rank materialism. But he was in fact an enthusiastic opponent of the materialists of his day. In particular, he very explicitly rejected the notion that consciousness can be "can be explained purely through braincells and their function", because, in his words:

“Matter” and “Force” are, as far as we can know, mere names for certain forms of consciousness.

See, for example, his On Descartes' "Discourse Touching the Method of Using One's Reason Rightly and of Seeking Scientific Truth" (1870)
https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/CE1/DesDis.html