Reincarnation

[millipodium]

tharpa,

Just as for you the idea that the mind is not seated in the brain seems bizarre, let me assure you that for me the idea that it is seems no less bizar...(snip).

Hey Trevor. Sorry about your stuff. Did you hear about that radio host who stayed up several days in a row as a stunt? He was permanently damaged from it. I can't remember his name now.

[tharpa]

Trevor, I appreciate the personal, direct nature of your last post and value it.

To conclude you wrote: "Quite simply, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a one-to-one correspondance between mind and brain. If you don't believe this, sample a few hits of d-lysergenic acid or pop a couple pills of MDMA (both drugs whose only agency is the transmitters in your brain)."

imho it's more like a 'kneebone connected to the thighbone etc. etc.' My main position here has consistently been that there is no one main seat of consciousness (the brain being posited) rather that
a) the essential nature of awareness is non-local
b) of course there are aspects in the body that related to how to individuate-localise it, indeed this is one if not the main function of having a physical existence in the first place.

The argument really is not about whether or not the brain relates with mental and other functions, simply that is not the 'seat of consciousness'. Again, I recall the TV analogy: if you break the set you might conclude that the set was producing the image since clearly you can no longer watch the movie. This is a perfectly reasonable, logical and seemingly incontravertible position. Except that it's wrong. The set is not the source of the movie. At all. Even though its processes are necessary in order to perceive it and without such processes no movie can be seen at all. Without certain organs and functions, we cannot live. However my contention is that consciousness is not produced in the body alone, there will be no 'mentron' discovered just as there will be no 'graviton'. Mind and awareness are a combination of a translocal, non-physical 'field' of sorts along with individuated 'physical' (the TV set analogy) existence/being, which is also why when you break TV set A, this does not mean that TV set B in another room stops broadcasting the movie.

Without knowing much about the drugs and seratonin etc. and taking your word for it, is it not true to say that the effects of seratonin instigate processes that then effect the whole body-mind matrix? For example, I do know that LSD affects mainly certain types of sugar-related processes in the brain, but the effects of taking the drug (at least at first until you get used to it and it has no more effect!) go far beyond the brain-mind alone.

So a) the whole matrix is far more inter-related
b) the nature of mind itself is not a physical-only process so
c) there is no one single 'seat' of mind, either in the sense of generating thought/mind, or being the main repository of such function.

Again, though, there is no need for all of us to agree or to force one view upon another. I might find yours or another person's view ludicrous, but that does not mean that I regard the person as worthy only of being insulted because they disagree.

It doesn't even really matter who is right or wrong, because ultimately we are just discussing thought-form which reflect a view. One cannot attack someone for their view, which is why, for example, there are nine yanas (at least) in the Buddhadharma, to accomodate the different ways in which individuated existence is seen/experienced. A truth for one person might not work as truth for another, even if there is - absolutely (and ONLY absolutely) speaking - one overall reality.

I would take issue with one small phrase of yours in relation to that One Reality where you said 'one substance'. Any substance is part of the local-individual-particular principle and therefore by definition on the relative, i.e. non universal and non-absolute level.

The trick in advanced contemplation is to tap into perceiving directly the essential nature of any particular thing/situation. That essential nature is universal, i.e. the 'isness', 'thatness' or 'dharmata' of whatever (which is both a thing and a state of experience co-existing) is actually universal. This is how individuals with bodies and karmic beings can actually 'transcend' their limitations simply by paying greater attention to what is actually and always there.

The fish stops swimming through the water to catch its next meal and suddenly becomes aware of the ocean in which it always exists. The animal awakes to the essential nature of its situation, which never changes fundamentally. Although various thoughts and feelings continuously arise, the underlying nature of awareness never changes on iota, nor essentially from individual to individual, even though on the relative level every moment and every individual is totally and utterly unique with no end of limitless, particular variegations.

The palette might remain the same, but the paintings that can come from it are always different.

[Kevin Solway]

Thinking the body is the producer of consciousness is like thinking the TV set is producing the program.

Ultimately God/Nature (the All) is the creator or producer of all things. Saying that any particular thing is a creator or producer is done only for convenience.

Enlightenment is not something that is either produced or possessed.

Since an enlightened person is not the same as an ignorant one, and it is possible for an ignorant person to become enlightened, your statement is false. Nature produces enlightenment in enlightened people.

Someone on the first bhumi of enlightenment, for example, is 'enlightened' by definition, but is not a Buddha by any means, rather a bodhisattva on the bhumis, i.e. think on the level of the Path of Seeing, but I might be slightly off on that one.

It doesn't matter which definition of enlightenment we use - either the first bhumi, or beyond the tenth bhumi - it is possible for an ignorant person to attain enlightenment if the causes are in place.

Well, apart from the fact that flies clearly are sentient and have consciousness

Having sense perception does not equate with having consciousness. A fly has sense perception, and therefore is sentient, but is probably not conscious.

You sound like you agree with the ridiculous Buddhist notion that only sentient beings reincarnate.

A Buddha is simply a person with an enlightened consciousness, which is to say that their consciousness is free of delusions. Such a thing happens if Nature wills it.

???!!! A new god? With a will? Somewhere or everywhere? When? Is this will constant and unchanging or does it vary from place to place. Are rocks shareholders?

When I wrote that sentence, I thought to myself, "I wonder if tharpa is intelligent enough to understand this sentence? Surely so. I'll leave it in out of respect for tharpa's intelligence."

I was wrong to do so.

It is only a figure of speech to say that Nature has a will.

Cause and effect is blind.

The one term "consciousness" is perfectly fine.

Then why did you suddenly bring in the deus ex machina Nature - not to mention her 'will'?

To show you that you don't have to call it "consciousness". Calling it "Nature" or suchlike (eg, Dharmakaya, Brahman, the All), is perfectly fine. There's no need to confuse it with consciousness, which is something it, as a whole, doesn't have.

Absolutely not. The point is that the essential nature of consciousness is not based in the physical

You seem to have a very low opinion of the physical. This opinion of yours with regard to the physical is unjustified.

In the words of Ramakrishna, "There is no Infinite apart from finite things."

what do you think is meant by the old buddhist saying:

'wisdom resides in the body'. ?

It could mean many things. I need to know the context in which the words appear.

Texts on how to actualise 'enlightenment', co-emergent wisdom and so forth.

Give an specific example of it's use.

[Edited for spelling]

[Kevin Solway]

the essential nature of awareness is non-local

If this were true then all things would have awareness. All things are not aware. Therefore your statement is false.

[Iolaus]

Hello Trevor,

I'll never use my real name online again.

People talk about whether God is both immanent and transcendent. This is a different meaning than you gave. I have no particular problem with your usage, but when they say God is transcendent, they mean outside of nature.

Once the so-called supernatural is understood, then it is also nature.

Right, and so I am predicting that when we understand where certain things come from, such as ESP, they will be included in nature.

there cannot be a supernatural explanation of anything in the natural world,

Well, I was surprised that you said to Tharpa that monism was not confined to western philosophy. I rather thought monism was of the east, and that western religion, at least, is almost unable to accept or understand monism. Certainly I have tried with Christians to no avail. I have never talked to anyone of the islam-Judaic-Christian traditions that was in any way willing to entertain monism. Their belief in the supernatural states that God is outside nature. He set it up, but he is independent of it, above it. So how would you answer that?

Now, when I say materialist, I mean someone who believes that matter as we perceive it with our senes is all there is, that our universe and all its systems and life forms arose without purpose or mind, and that mind is confined to brain and evolved after brain, and that life is confined to chemistry of the body.

That is a lot of beliefs to confine to a single -ism.

Someone who believes that perception is all there is is a phenomenalist. Only the most radical of materialists believe that matter is all that there is, and nothing else. A non-teleological determinist would believe that everything arose without purpose. And only some kind of strict anti-mentalist would confine mind to brain and body chemistry, and not allow it to arise elsewhere.

These beliefs do not have to coexist in the same person, which makes attacking it all at once damn near impossible.

You're throwing out a lot of terms here. Are you a philosophy major? In my experience, those beliefs tend to come as a package. So far as I understand, those would be QRS beliefs. Would you consider Richard Dawkins a radical materialist?

Now, if you do not confine mind to brain and chemistry, where else do you think it is to be found?

Tharpa,

Absolute truth is indeed monist. But it does not exist without also relative.

I do agree and understand the both/and neither/nor position of reality. At the same time, duality must be resolved. So this is a work in progress for me. There are two possibilities. One is that duality consists of coequal forces held apart by, shall we say, the will of God. That would be typical yin-yang polarities. They are one, but they cannot come together, yet they are attracted. The other is that seeming dualities actually fold up into one. One example might be heat. For us, there is relative heat and cold. But in truth there is no state called coldness. There is only heat or its absence. Similarly, individuals exist within the one, or finite within the infinite.

I can't decide which is more plausible.

I think some of the problems in this thread with mind versus brain is that we are focusing on what the brain is responsible for, rather than on whether mind and brain are synonymous.

Also, Kevin seems to mean something closer to reason when he says consciousness. Whereas I mean awareness, and I do consider it a universal. I am not sure that it is excluded from inanimate objects, but certainly there is some sort of important divide between the animate and the inanimate. I think a fly or ameoba or plant has consciousness, but I wouldn't know how to quantify the difference.

By the way, people on dialysis do not lose their short term memory, and it would take about a week or more to die if your kidneys failed.

I would take issue with one small phrase of yours in relation to that One Reality where you said 'one substance'. Any substance is part of the local-individual-particular principle and therefore by definition on the relative, i.e. non universal and non-absolute level.

In that case, it has not been broken down far enough to its consituent parts. Once you get to the bottom of it, you should find one substance. We are way deeper in now than particles and so forth.

All things are not aware.

You really don't know that.

[Kevin Solway]

All things are not aware.

You really don't know that.

Awareness is a function of consciousness. Now consciousness requires memory. Therefore we can say with certainty that a memory itself cannot be aware, since it is only one of the causes of consciousness, and hence of awareness.

Therefore there are some things we can say with certainty do not have awareness.

For other things, such as rocks, we can only guess that they don't have awareness, based on what we observe.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

BoH,

Right, and so I am predicting that when we understand where certain things come from, such as ESP, they will be included in nature.

Yes, they will be. I will one-up you here, though, and say that when we finally do understand such things as ESP, we will find them to be something entirely different from both what hippies and hard-boiled materialists believe them to be. If either of those explanations were correct, then the issue would have been resolved by now.

He set it up, but he is independent of it, above it. So how would you answer that?

It's an attempt to take God out of the realm of Reality, and all the characteristics that a real entity must have (being part of a causal framework, not contradicting itself, etc.) to create a duality that is, by my definition, magical. This belief system is incoherent, because it allows a person to postulate the existence (or rather, super-/non-existence) of anything.

The moment is starts becoming coherent is the moment it becomes monist: when God is considered to be synonymous with "Reality", or when God is considered to be a part of reality.

You're throwing out a lot of terms here. Are you a philosophy major?

I'm a little bit embarassed to admit this, but I am indeed a philosophy major (although, I must also admit that I skip most of my classes and rarely do the assigned readings -- preferring instead to sit in a tea shop thinking or reading or writing. The university degree is basically a cover so I have time to do my actual hobby, which is real philosophy.) I don't always see all those beliefs together, so I was trying to see if I could come up with a single -ism that accurately described them all. I was doing it more for myself than for you. I don't think "materialism" quite cuts it.

During a walk earlier today, I realized that you are correct and those beliefs are a package: it is "physicalism", though. Materialism is not nearly so radical.

So far as I understand, those would be QRS beliefs.

I'm not certain. You'd have to ask the moderators. I do believe that physicalism works great as a clean default position, but taken to excess, it's the same as shutting your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and yelling.

Would you consider Richard Dawkins a radical materialist?

I think Richard Dawkins makes an awful lot of noise defending a position that doesn't need anyone to defend it. I would actually say that a lot of his popularity comes from the fact that he's mostly pomp and has a loud stage persona. His actual beliefs are probably a very mild form of the extreme beliefs he shows to a crowd.

I'm sure he's quite pleasant in small company.

Now, if you do not confine mind to brain and chemistry, where else do you think it is to be found?

I have no idea. My scientific background stops at chemistry and general brain structure. Those are already confusing, and more than detailed enough to serve my purposes (knowing what my medications do to my brain, or being able to read new scientific literature, etc.).

Descartes guessed there could be a soul that somehow interacted with the body. Hegel talked about some higher Spirit we tap into (like a radio transmission of consciousness that permeates the cosmos). Sartre suggested that there could be an actual break within being that gives rise to a nothingness that exists only for itself. These are all alternative theories, but it gives me a headache trying to sort them out.

[Cory Duchesne]

Likewise it's not funny when someone seriously believes that that long term memories are stored in the heart.

These things are more sad than anything.

That's a bit hyperbole, it's not fully understood yet what is stored and not stored in what is called the 'heart brain', the intrinsic cardiac nervous system. It can process information, has memory capability and can make decisions about its control independent of the central nervous system.

For example certain strong emotional memories (scars) might be part of this nervous system. Also some regulation of hormones and electromagnetic pulses are stemming from the heart area and could have great influence on the workings on the central nervous system.

Diebert, what you are saying sounds very true. I once had a very strange experience. One morning when I was 21, I suddenly remembered some really bad, rather immoral things I had done when I was in my teens. It was an incredibly painful moment, my rememberances were involuntary, they suddenly just started streaming through my consciousness and the power of this one particular memory, at that moment, caused me to feel the area around my heart physically constrict, tighten.

I literally felt my heart shrink as I remembered some of my pasts deeds. The event left me in a tremendous depression.

I think the sorrow was so strong because months before I had aggressively and quickly improved morally and intellectually in a very short span. I had radically changed who I was and experienced tremendous joy and felt like I was freed!

However, like I said, one morning my memories of my past deeds just involuntarily starting pouring out, and they just hit me like a ton of bricks causing a physical sort of sensation around my heart, a sort shrinking, constricting sensation.

[tharpa]

Re the nature of awareness is non-local: "If this were true then all things would have awareness. All things are not aware. Therefore your statement is false."

Kevin, really, that is silly logic and you know it.

In the last few posts on the thread it is clear that indeed we are not all discussing the same thing necessarily when using certain words.

For example, I have (sloppily) been interchanging consciousness and awareness and mind. It seems from recent remarks that Kevin is using the term strictly as something that is experienced by a living being/person.

I have been talking about the essential nature and essence of that consciousness, especially how in terms of essence it is part of a non-physical-based continuum.

Trevor: I am glad I was not confused by what you meant by substance being the basis. You still feel it will be a physical something. And yet think about it: by definition and using logic, we can observe that anything physical has location, and anything in one particular location is not in any others, and therefore is a particular, rather than a universal.

I think when we look at the consciousness principle in human beings, although clearly it is grounded in the body somehow (whether the seat is the brain or not is a side issue) in that each individual has different memories and viewpoints and so forth, nevertheless its essential nature is far more universal not just in principle (as in for example the water in my body is essentially the same as the water in yours or anyone elses) but also in 'actuality' in that again the nature of consciousness is non-local, i.e. it is more of a space than a form principle.

In modern terms, the word 'field' comes to mind. So the constituent properties of mind are that fundamentally it is more a wave or field phenomenon than a particle/physical one. This is why I am certain they will never find a 'mentron' and also no part of the body is the true seat of consciousness in terms of producing it, as if it were a physical offshoot of the biological mechanism of the body. It is not like we grew from ameobas to marsupials to hominoids etc. and at first there was no consciousness but gradually the physical organisms became sophisticated enough to produce it somehow. Rather the physical organisms are ways for certain styles/realms of awareness/motivation/karmic intentions in the relative spheres, to manifest their own styles of territory (aka sense of space and time, aka locality).

In this sense, and being extremely primitive perhaps, I would not take issue with the poster above who queried whether or not we can be sure that rocks don't have consciousness. I would say that they clearly do not, just as water does not, and yet I would say that they relate to the non-local awareness/mind field of Kevin's Nature in some way, or can be related upon and are not disconnected from it, and therefore deserve far more care and respect than we moderners tend to accord them. They are not totally 'dead' at all, put it that way, just as water and air are not 'dead'. In fact, they comprise the elemental vitality of the phenomenal world in which we live, so as such they are the elements of the life force from which we have fashioned the biophysical organisms we use to individuate and localise the consciousness/awareness capabilities - for a little while, until they dissolve back into the ocean of Nature again.

Thanks for that story of the heart.

The physicalism - materialism distinction is interesting. Although it is still my understanding that this is usually what is meant by materialism in the scientific context. Perhaps this was wrong.

The Goedel business gets back to the critique of science as in fact being a form of faith, aka 'scientism', because there are a-priori assumptions in the scientific method, assumptions that are not usually established scientifically but assumed, one main one (for most scientists though not all) being that the physical world as perceived by our senses is essentially real and solid as it appears to them. Quantum physics has proven that this is not actually true, but nevertheless this is the a priori assumption in most sciences. Since it is not deemed necessary to prove that, some say that science is a faith-based system masquerading as an objective, non-faith based 'scientific' one. There is some validity, I think, to this critique.

[tharpa]

K, example for 'wisdom resides in the body'.

'And remember, when practicing deep meditation or concentration, that wisdom resides in the body, so that regarding enlightenment as something outside or beyond the physical can become a hindrance.'

For example.

[tharpa]

K wrote: "and it is possible for an ignorant person to become enlightened,"

no such ignorant person existed before, during or after 'enlightenment'.

Or: there is no thing or substance known as enlightenment, just as there will never be found a graviton or mentron.

Enlightenment is a result and also, therefore, a situation. It is not a characteristic of a personality although the body-mind basis of an individual human being can either perpetuate what you call animal consciousness or open beyond that to dissolve the samsaric fixation process and allow something essentially non-individuated to blossom, even though that something is not a 'thing' per se.

This relates us back to the beginning of the thread where I believe at some point I asked:

who are what are we right now as beings?
If there is no self, what 'reincarnates'?

Also, since the fly question didn't take off (pun intended!), let me put it another way:

is there any difference in the underlying nature of 'consciousness' between the confused person and the Buddha's?

[Kevin Solway]

no such ignorant person existed before, during or after 'enlightenment'.

So we're back to where we started again. If no ignorant person exists then there's no point to anyone trying to rid themselves of their delusions and seek to live more truthfully.

You're stuck with that view.

there is no thing or substance known as enlightenment, just as there will never be found a graviton or mentron

There is indeed a thing called "enlightenment", and it has just as much reality as any other thing - that is, it is absolutely real, and it lacks inherent existence.

K, example for 'wisdom resides in the body'.

'And remember, when practicing deep meditation or concentration, that wisdom resides in the body, so that regarding enlightenment as something outside or beyond the physical can become a hindrance.'

It's simply saying that truth is not apart from the physical world.

It is akin to Jesus saying "The Kingdom of God is all around you, but you do not see it."

It is also the same as Ramakrishna saying "There is no Infinite apart from finite things."

This is speaking directly to the error you are making in trying to separate the physical from the spiritual.

the nature of awareness is non-local

If this were true then all things would have awareness. All things are not aware. Therefore your statement is false.

Kevin, really, that is silly logic and you know it.

Until you can see the logic of what I wrote above, and the fallacy of your argument, you will keep making the same error.

I have (sloppily) been interchanging consciousness and awareness and mind. It seems from recent remarks that Kevin is using the term strictly as something that is experienced by a living being/person.

It's not that you have been interchanging the words, but that you are yourself vague about what those terms mean, and you have made no attempt to define your special use of those terms.

Take consciousness for example. It is experienced by a living person. It's not experienced by a dead corpse, and it's not experienced by the whole of Nature.

If you want to redefine consciousness to mean something completely different, then you should come up with a different word for it, as the way I've used the word above is perfectly adequate.

I have been talking about the essential nature and essence of that consciousness, especially how in terms of essence it is part of a non-physical-based continuum.

Here you go again wanting to separate "essential nature" from the physical world.

You are making a very serious error in doing so.

A "non-physical-based continuum" is a contradiction in terms.

It's like saying "An Infinite, no part of which is finite".

By the way, do you accept the Buddhist idea that only sentient beings reincarnate, or do you reject it? If so, why?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

tharpa,

And yet think about it: by definition and using logic, we can observe that anything physical has location, and anything in one particular location is not in any others, and therefore is a particular, rather than a universal.

That is not the definition of physical that is commonly held, nor the one that I am using. If anything were shown to be in more than one location simultaneously, it would not mean it was a non-physical phenomenon: it would simply mean that certain assumptions about the nature of space or of body were incorrect.

By physical, I mean anything real that manifests itself. How it manifests itself is accidental.

However, you are right about one thing. Anything that is a thing, and not everything, is finite.

The physicalism - materialism distinction is interesting. Although it is still my understanding that this is usually what is meant by materialism in the scientific context. Perhaps this was wrong.

No, I'm quite certain that you were using materialism in the sense that most people use it. However, most people are not philosophers and don't need to be able to make careful distinctions between beliefs (whereas philosophers, whose primary subject matter is belief, need to be able to make distinctions constantly). Really, I think that -isms are dangerous in the hands of people who don't know the particulars of their use.

A person does not represent only one -ism, nor is he defined by his -isms. I can pretty easily think of a half-dozen -isms that can be used for Descartes, for instance, but each is meaningless out of context.

That said, "physicalism" is a far more extreme position than "materialism", though, and is probably the one that gets under your skin. (Don't confuse physicalism with "the belief in physics", though. These are very different things. Check a dictionary [preferably a philosophic one], if you don't know exactly what it means.)

one main one being that the physical world as perceived by our senses is essentially real and solid as it appears to them.

For most sciences, it is not necessary to believe otherwise. You can easily study the mating habits of white mice without constantly referencing the latest innovations in quantum theory. This does not make the results of the study any less valid.

Quantum physics has proven that this is not actually true, but nevertheless this is the a priori assumption in most sciences.

No, quantum physics has done no such thing. The idea that things are not as they first appear is fundamental to science, and is older than Aristotle (who criticized the opinion that we need to know everything in order to study anything by stating, essentially, 'only use the methods that are suitable to what you are studying.').

Since it is not deemed necessary to prove that, some say that science is a faith-based system masquerading as an objective, non-faith based 'scientific' one.

No, science works on various logical assumptions which are necessarily true. Even if we lived in a dream-world, science would still be able to figure out how to work with the dream-world stuff.

There is some validity, I think, to this critique.

The validity comes in the form of non-scientists and non-philosophers who hold science as a new gospel. It tends not to be the scientists who have "faith" in science -- scientific methods work with or without faith.

[tharpa]

no such ignorant person existed before, during or after 'enlightenment'.

So we're back to where we started again. If no ignorant person exists then there's no point to anyone trying to rid themselves of their delusions and seek to live more truthfully.

You're stuck with that view.

there is no thing or substance known as enlightenment, just as there will never be found a graviton or mentron

There is indeed a thing called "enlightenment", and it has just as much reality as any other thing - that is, it is absolutely real, and it lacks inherent existence.

K, example for 'wisdom resides in the body'.

'And remember, when practicing deep meditation or concentration, that wisdom resides in the body, so that regarding enlightenment as something outside or beyond the physical can become a hindrance.'

It's simply saying that truth is not apart from the physical world.

It is akin to Jesus saying "The Kingdom of God is all around you, but you do not see it."

It is also the same as Ramakrishna saying "There is no Infinite apart from finite things."

This is speaking directly to the error you are making in trying to separate the physical from the spiritual.

Well, I am glad we agree basically, even though apparently we don't. I have been maintaining all along that you cannot separate them fundamentally, but that also they are not the same, i.e. there is both particular and universal which together make up the whole. This is why there is no one place in the body which is the seat or source of 'mind' or consciousness because the essential nature of mind is non-physical-local-particular. This is why a (full traditionally-meant) Buddha achieves omniscience (although that too is a tricky term needing definition etc.).

the nature of awareness is non-local

If this were true then all things would have awareness. All things are not aware. Therefore your statement is false.

Kevin, really, that is silly logic and you know it.

Until you can see the logic of what I wrote above, and the fallacy of your argument, you will keep making the same error.

Alright, here goes:
statement: the nature of awareness/consciousness is not local.
comment: nature is a precise term, different from function, i.e your consciousness, which is a functional aspect in terms of a specific sentient being as you have defined it quite reasonably.
K's reply: if this were true, all things would have awareness.
Comment: not at all. The two statements are barely even related. Suddenly 'all things' come into it. Where from? Now I would say in relation to that extraneous issue that all (local-particular) things exist within the (trans-local) field of awareness. But that does not mean they 'have' consciousness.

So until you can follow a simple logical statement clearly, you will continue to misunderstand simple logical statements, introduce irrelevant elements into the equation, and jump to false conclusions.
[/quote]

I have (sloppily) been interchanging consciousness and awareness and mind. It seems from recent remarks that Kevin is using the term strictly as something that is experienced by a living being/person.

It's not that you have been interchanging the words, but that you are yourself vague about what those terms mean, and you have made no attempt to define your special use of those terms.

Take consciousness for example. It is experienced by a living person. It's not experienced by a dead corpse, and it's not experienced by the whole of Nature.

If you want to redefine consciousness to mean something completely different, then you should come up with a different word for it, as the way I've used the word above is perfectly adequate.

Agreed, but sometimes we have been discussing the nature of consciousness/mind, which although related obviously, is not the same. If you like, I have been trying to zero in on certain aspects of the many interdependent factors of what is called 'consciousness'. Since this is an open forum and many terms are not precisely defined therein, this sort of 'vagueness' in terminology is almost inevitable. And even in a specialist type situation with people from the same school of whatever, continuous refining of the terms would be par for the course. We saw this recently in the thread in terms of fine-tuning 'monism' and materialism etc. That is a sign that a discussion is getting somewhere, actually, as the interlocutors stimulate each other to think deeper about certain aspects. The conclusion is far less important than the contemplation and learning process. Path is more important than goal, in other words. The path IS the goal in some sense, anyway.
[/quote]

I have been talking about the essential nature and essence of that consciousness, especially how in terms of essence it is part of a non-physical-based continuum.

Here you go again wanting to separate "essential nature" from the physical world.

You are making a very serious error in doing so.

A "non-physical-based continuum" is a contradiction in terms.

It's like saying "An Infinite, no part of which is finite".

No, if you hold to everything being equally physical, or form essentially, then there is no space around any particular, the entire thing become one solid, unchanging chunk. So by physical I do not necessarily mean Nature (which is one of your words for Reality or the whole universe etc.), rather that which is particular and local, i.e. exists in one location in space and moment in time. Such a particular is not unversal.

Now mind is that part of our consciousness/being as a sentient being that is in fact part of the non-local continuum of space, that space which exists between all particulars in the universal. The essence of mind has no shape, form, location, substance or duration. The particulars are not separate from the universal, just as the body is not separate from 'mind'.

So there is a fantastic interplay here. Even though there is a universal/absolute principle at work, almost permeating if you will, any and every particular (being or thing), nevertheless the individual being, in the form of 'consciousness' which is indeed particular to each individual, can both be connected with the universal mind-space non-local aspect, which also being connected to the local one, aka the body.

An example for this is a traditional description of the Buddha's omniscience (about which of course there have been centuries of furious and delightful debate in all schools!), but most would agree with some of the earlier texts in which it is stated somewhere something like this:

' although the Buddha can fully see any knowable, he cannot see all knowables at once at the same time.'

The way I regard this statement is that even though a full Buddha has tapped into the universal space aspect of the overall continuum (or Nature if you will), still he too is grounded as a Buddha in the particular space-time location of being a particular human. So he could direct his awareness anywhere and everywhere to other particulars, but not all particulars at once.

In this way, sentient beings provide the ability for the universe to have a delightful conversation with itself. Although many beings use the priviledge of individuated perspective to create little hells, wretched ghettos, habit-and-fear-bound jungles, titan-dominated conflict, palaces of perfect bliss and so forth, fundamentally the entire affair is creative, good and marvellous.

[/quote]

By the way, do you accept the Buddhist idea that only sentient beings reincarnate, or do you reject it? If so, why?

Sounds reasonable, though I confess I have never heard that particular statement before. But like I said earlier on, I don't remember ever studying much about reincarnation. Karma, yes, but reincarnation never really came up much as a topic and nearly always comes up in discussions with non-buddhists for some reason.

But it seems that the root of the question gets to what your consciousness is, and I think your definition of it being something pertaining to an individual sentient being is perfectly workable (though as I have been trying to point out there are interdependent elements therein that are beyond that individual alone, just as there is the water element in an individual body that is beyond that individual alone and returns to the larger continuum/Nature when that body inevitably dissolves). So I would tend to agree/think that only sentient beings reincarnate.

However, that said, one could make the argument that certain mind forms and even objects reincarnate. For example, a statue that is made in more than one model. Or a book that is reprinted several centuries after it was first written. Such mind-forms or sense-forms are in that sense 'reincarnating'. But probably that is not the sense in which the word 'reincarnate' was being used in your question.

In fact, the basic definition of a tulku (nirmanakaya in Sanskrit) goes along with the above, in that a dharma text or rupa/statue is defined as a form of nirmanakaya. That does not mean, however, that it is the same as a sentient being of course. But there is more to the notion of tulku when dealing with a human one, therefore, than the individual sentient being involved, since texts and statues are also designated as 'tulkus' according to the tradition which has invented that term.

In other words, as with tulkus so also with individual sentient beings: although they do have particular existence as such in relative terms, such existence involves an interdependency of causes and conditions many of which are not included within that individual alone. Which is of course why it can be said that no true independent self can ever 'exist' as such, and/or why the Buddha pointed out as one of his core axia that 'all composite things are impermanent'.

[tharpa]

Trevor: thx again for another thoughtful post. I am running off now but wanted to respond briefly to one point above in terms of physicality etc. and how we don't see it in the same way.

That is fine. It is helpful, however, as I am sure you can agree, to go over the different views of the shared term. There is no need for us to agree necessarily, but first we must be able to understand what the other is saying in their own terms.

2. The only thing that 'gets under my skin' viz. what I call the materialist approach is that they a) are not aware of their a prioris and b) tend to regard any challenge of them as essentially taboo, frequently resorting to denial, derision, ostracisation etc. of those who do not by the underlying assumptions. That sort of behaviour is nearly always the sign of a belief system being challenged, not a scientific theory.

For example, the suggestion that basic scientists will never be able to study the nature of mind using the relative tools and protocols of their tradition sends some of them into conniption fits. And yet science as we know it today has no method for analysing qualitative (i.e. awareness-based) data.

For example, science cannot measure or quantify the degree to which water is wet, nor can it either prove or disprove it. And yet the wetness quality of water is surely one of its main distinguishing characteristics. That and many other 'subjectively-derived' qualities. There are forms of noetic science - principally in Asia - that approach such material in a highly disciplined, systematic fashion (principally in the areas relating to logic and so forth), but they have more or less been rejected in recent centuries in the West and are not regarded as being valid pursuits within the 'scientistic' realm.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Actually, that is true. In the Western tradition, that qualia cannot be objectively studied is due to something known as "the hard problem of consciousness", a problem which is often considered insoluble (either because the methodological framework for exploring the problem has not yet been invented, or those that have been invented have not been accepted [you suggest that it's an unwillingness to accept Eastern methods: alternatively, it may simply be that the Eastern methods have flaws that make their answers no better than the Western ones]).

If you're curious, you can Wiki it. I once had a passing interest in it, but that was so long ago that I don't really remember the details.


Edit: What do you know? They mentioned the HPC in the "Nothing left to think about" thread.

[tharpa]

re: "[you suggest that it's an unwillingness to accept Eastern methods: alternatively, it may simply be that the Eastern methods have flaws that make their answers no better than the Western ones])."

No, I didn't suggest that - nor even think it actually. There are so few westerners familiar with such methods, let alone those fully trained in western scientific and academic disciplines etc. that I don't think it has really come up much. Francisco Varela is one such that come to mind, but even though he incorporated much from the buddhist noetic traditions in his pioneering work in the field of cognitive science, although he was a well trained and dedicated practitioner, he was not fully trained in advanced buddhist logics on the shedra/geshe levels etc..

As to whether or not they have flaws (and of course they do/will, but this will vary from place to place, time to time, school to school, specific aspect to specific aspect and so forth), first one would have to master the approach before rendering a judgment one way or another. In any case, they do have internal methods of verification, falsification and so forth, although based on a totally different view and method than the materialist scientific ones. It has to be that way.

Since it is noetically based, it cannot be analysed through abstract means alone, i.e. there is method/praxis assumed, the same sort of training/respect for an essentially subjective approach that is eschewed in the modern scientific method. So it will be quite some time before each side can understand the other. Although quite a few buddhist leaders have spent time studying science and consulting with scientists, they too have not been fully trained in the discipline, fundamentally see things from a different perspective and so forth.

I happen to think that both buddhist and classical daoist trained scholar-practitioners would have much to contribute to new types of system and other theories, including metaphysics, physics, mathematics and so forth. In other words, in the analysis and clarification of the a prioris and functions of certain specific scientific work. But again, this will not happen any time soon.

[Kevin Solway]

i.e. there is both particular and universal which together make up the whole. This is why there is no one place in the body which is the seat or source of 'mind' or consciousness

I have never said that the brain is the "source" of consciousness, but that it is the "seat" of consciousness. That's a completely different thing.

I am located on the seat I am sitting on, but the seat is not my source.

Consciousness appears to be located in the brain (to anyone who has investigated it with an open mind), so that's why we say the brain is the seat of consciousness.

The source of consciousness is many, many things.

because the essential nature of mind is non-physical-local-particular.

You keep saying this even though it has been proven to you that it is not the case.

Mind is something in particular, and it can be located in individuals.

Again, you are wrongly trying to separate the spiritual (the "essence of mind") from the physical (such as the body or brain).

Alright, here goes:
statement: the nature of awareness/consciousness is not local.

comment: nature is a precise term, different from function

Your use of terms such as "nature" and "essence" is too vague, since it could be said that the nature or essence of all things is non-local. In which case saying that the essence of consciousness is non-local is not really saying anything at all.

The essence of a brick is non-local as well.

Agreed, but sometimes we have been discussing the nature of consciousness/mind, which although related obviously, is not the same.

The nature of consciousness is that it is conscious.

If you want to talk about some other kind of nature or essence then you need to be more specific. Do you want to include all of the causes of consciousness in your "nature of consciousness"? In that case the nature of consciousness would have to include the whole Universe. Exactly the same as the nature of all other things.

That is a sign that a discussion is getting somewhere, actually, as the interlocutors stimulate each other to think deeper about certain aspects.

Well I hope someone reading this thread has been stimulated to think deeper, because I haven't.

The conclusion is far less important than the contemplation and learning process. Path is more important than goal, in other words. The path IS the goal in some sense, anyway.

I think you have a lot to learn when it comes to skill in means.

It's best to find out what level of understanding your interlocuters have before trying to benefit them, otherwise it's just a waste of time.

But perhaps you are just doing this to try and sort things out in your own head.

Such a particular is not unversal.

There's only one thing that's universal, and that's the Universe itself, Nature, or the Infinite.

All things are part of the Infinite. This is the same as the point I made above. That is, it doesn't really serve any purpose to single out consciousness as being part of the Infinite, since every thing is.

Now mind is that part of our consciousness/being as a sentient being that is in fact part of the non-local continuum of space, . . .

I think you are mis-using terms again. One person has an intelligent mind, and another person has a sluggish one.

You appear to be redefining "mind", or at least creating an additional definition, that the word "mind" can also mean the essence of consciousness. Creating a new definition which is unrelated to the normal one can create a lot of confusion.

But since the essence of consciousness is essentially no different to the essence of a brick, what's the point?

. . . that space which exists between all particulars in the universal.

Just a minute. Two sentences ago you said "If you hold to everything being equally physical, or form essentially, then there is no space around any particular."

That's exactly what I hold. There is no space around any particular. All is form. So where did this "space that exists between all particulars" come from? There is no such thing.

The essence of mind has no shape, form, location, substance or duration.

Yes, the same as the essence all things. I don't know why you want to focus on mind, rather than, say, a brick. It leads people to think that you hold the essence of consciousness to be different to the essence of brick, which, essentially, they aren't.

Also, above you seemed to define mind as the essence of consciousness, but now you are here talking about "the essence of mind". So what name do you want to give the essence of mind?

My opinion is that your thinking is far too complicated and confused.

' although the Buddha can fully see any knowable, he cannot see all knowables at once at the same time.'

While this is true, it doesn't get to the heart of what omniscience is. Omniscience means perception unrestricted by delusion. The ability to see the essence of all things.

By the way, do you accept the Buddhist idea that only sentient beings reincarnate, or do you reject it? If so, why?

Sounds reasonable, though I confess I have never heard that particular statement before.

Buddhism makes a big deal about "sentient beings", particularly Tibetan Buddhism. But sentient beings are essentially no different to all other beings, like bricks. They are all born and all die.

A story:

Ikkyu, the Zen Master, was very clever even as a boy. His teacher had a precious teacup, a rare antique. Ikkyu happened to break this cup and was greatly perplexed. Hearing the footsteps of his teacher, he held the pieces of the cup behind him. When the Master appeared, Ikkyu sked: "Why do people have to die? ". "This is natural" explained the older man. "Everything has to die and has just so long to live". Ikkyu, producing the shattered cup, added: "It was time for your cup to die".

[tharpa]

First, that last one was an excellent post. Thanks.

K wrote: "Yes, the same as the essence all things. I don't know why you want to focus on mind, rather than, say, a brick. It leads people to think that you hold the essence of consciousness to be different to the essence of brick, which, essentially, they aren't. "

Because we are/were discussing consciousness as you have defined it, namely as something pertaining to an individual being. I was not aware that bricks were regarded as beings and are regarded as possessing consciousness.

My point has been that sentient consciousness is itself a 'caused' phenomenon, but that some of the constituent causes are elements of 'mind' that are connected with what could be called the 'space' principle, or I have been referring to as non-local, non-particular.

Although the particular, i.e. the physical, is not separate from the Universal, yet they are different as well.

The particle-space thing comes from certain abhidharmic arguments, which of course you may not buy. They form also part of the argument for how no composite thing has inherent existence since it can be sub-divided into parts ad infinitum since no matter how small you drill down to, it will always have 4 sides a top and a bottom which can be distinguished thusly from each other.

So you are right, it is all One. Since the essence of consiousness is the same for a brick as a sentient being, i.e. the totally of space etc, there can be no one seat for consciousness just as there can be no individual consciousness either.

You are also right that my thinking is somewhat confused and overly complex. I have learned (not for the first time) that certain things are better left undiscussed. And I think I know why we rarely discuss incarnation in the buddhist tradition! At the same time, the conversation is getting circular, on your end as well, and I am not willing to continue endless point for point rebuttals, since often what is going on is either miscommunication or shifting the terms/subject ad infinitum. I enjoy sharing views. I am not interested in either cudgelling others or being cudgelled into somebody else's view through logic alone. Views don't work that way!

Speaking of views, I just read a new gem of a dharma book by Dzongsar Khyentse - whom I recommended you debate on your show or whatever, 'What makes you not a buddhist'.

I excerpt the four verses he uses for the four main chapters in the book:

"What makes you not a Buddhist?

If you cannot accept that all compounded or fabricated things are impermanent, if you believe that there is some essential substance or concept that is permanent, then you are not a Buddhist.

If you cannot accept that all emotions are pain, if you believe that actually some emotions are purely pleasurable, then you are not a Buddhist.

If you cannot accept that all phenomena are illusory and empty, if you believe certain things do exist inherently, then you are not a Buddhist."

And if you think that enlightenment exists within the spheres of time, space and power, then you are not a Buddhist.

p4.

He spends the rest of this little but pithy book going through those four main topics in some detail with great humour and precision.

Clearly you are not having fun, as you said expressly in your last post above somewhere in there. And therefore not learning either. Which is a terrible thing, since it might reduce you to being in the animal realm you so much despise!

So for your sake, I will desist, and you can continue your work in tearing down all modern buddhists as idiots whilst using the terminology from their tradition (which you claim to understand properly unlike them) without any objection on my part because you are right: one has to pick with whom one chooses to engage.

Carry on!

[Kevin Solway]

I have learned (not for the first time) that certain things are better left undiscussed.

I think there's a way to discuss even the difficult things that keeps it simple and doesn't introduce too many confusing terms.

Simple illlustrations, such as a candle lighting another candle, or a tea-cup breaking, can be used to convey extremely complex ideas.

And I think I know why we rarely discuss incarnation in the buddhist tradition!

It should be done, but in a naturalistic way, such as my illustrations above. It shouldn't be pretended that death is any different to the shattering of a cup. And it shouldn't be pretended that reincarnation is any different from the lighting of a candle with another one.

Tibetan Buddhism doesn't do this because Tibetan Buddhism doesn't believe it. By contrast, Zen Buddhism does (relatively speaking at least).

And if you think that enlightenment exists within the spheres of time, space and power, then you are not a Buddhist.

This last one is the one I dispute since its language is vague and misleading.

For if enlightenment doesn't exist within the spheres of time, then we'll have to come up with another word for the time a person becomes free of delusions, other than "enlightenment".

However it is true that the source of enlightenment is timeless, as is its object.

[tooyi]

"Put no barriers between you and where you are."

"A spark lights the flame but the candle will only burn as long as the wick."

"Because it is so clear it takes a long time to realise it. If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago."

[tharpa]

K wrote: "For if enlightenment doesn't exist within the spheres of time, then we'll have to come up with another word for the time a person becomes free of delusions, other than "enlightenment". "

Well, as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger as the latter suggested they make a stand against an approaching hoard of angry indigenus hostiles: 'what do you mean 'we', white man?!'

I plan to review the discussion of the entire thread before deciding whether or not I might still have something interesting/helpful to contribute. As I said before, it seems more circular or disjointed, even though there have been periods where contemplation of certain terms therein has been stimulating.

For example, from your first few lines:
"Either one can be born in hell, or as an animal, in a future life after death, or these are mental realms of existence. They can't both be true. They are entirely different things. "

I have been trying to show that they are not different things at all, and in fact you have taken to castigating me for separating physical and mental. And yet you are the one who insisted on such an overly simplistic either/or logic - your main form of logic it seems. Of course, the answer to the above is that they are both true, since there is no inherent difference between them. Our actual life now is a 'mental' realm, as is the sense of body, place, time etc. That doesn't mean it is not 'real'. But it is real as essentially a manifestation of mind/space, not separate entities discretely existing apart from each other.

If it is true that the brain is the main physical 'seat' of consciousness as you say, then it is only true in this sense: 'the mind is the main seat of the brain.' In other words, the body is the emanation of the motivations behind the being along with that beings 'realmic' expression/experience of territory in relative space/location and relative time/duration. The body is the product, the manifestation of this 'mentality' (to use an overly generic word) rather than the mentality/personality being a product of the body. I would still contradict this as being too extreme in terms of an either/or dynamic, but it is helpful to counteract the primitive beliefs of the current materialist era.

Simplicity is excellent. Over-simplification or false generalisation, however, is not simplicity, but obfuscation.

As to that last point to which your above remark was in response, the book obviously goes through the basic Four Marks of Existence, which in some schools is the Three Marks:

Suffering, impermanance, egolessness and peace / nirvana.

Nirvana means cessation in the sutric schools from which these four marks come. It is the absence of further re-birth and thus overcoming being bound by cause and effect altogether. Literally it means 'snuffed out' or 'extinguished', not so much in terms of the process, but the result. In other words, it is the flame from that candle of reincarnation that you mentioned no longer burning at all. No more realms, no more birth, no more existence, no more space, no more time. Real death in other words. Now that is not all that is implied in that fourth teaching, but that is the literal meaning of the word nirvana and also how it is defined in the early sutric schools, i.e. that when the arhat died there would be no further incarnation/birth whatsoever.

The bodhisattva and other paths have further spices to add, but that remains the basic root notion of the nirvana principle: no more birth/existence/karma. At all.

[Kevin Solway]

Either one can be born in hell, or as an animal, in a future life after death, or these are mental realms of existence. They can't both be true. They are entirely different things.

I have been trying to show that they are not different things at all

There is a difference between being reborn as an actual cow grazing in the field and attaining a cow-like mentality.

No amount of dancing on your part can obscure this difference.

. . . it is the flame from that candle of reincarnation that you mentioned no longer burning at all. No more realms, no more birth, no more existence, no more space, no more time. Real death in other words. Now that is not all that is implied in that fourth teaching, but that is the literal meaning of the word nirvana and also how it is defined in the early sutric schools, i.e. that when the arhat died there would be no further incarnation/birth whatsoever.

Buddhas and fully enlightened people die just the same as any other thing in the Universe - just the same as a cup being shattered - exactly the same.

There's a Zen story that goes something like this:

A Zen Master asked his student, "Is a Buddha at the mercy of cause and effect?"

The student answered, "No".

Upon this answer, the student was then immediately reborn as a fox for a thousand lifetimes.

no more birth/existence/karma. At all.

Nirvana just means the extinction of delusions. This of course includes any delusions about birth and death. But birth and death still happen, and cups are still shattered.

[Blair]

tharpa, you argue from your intellect. As precious and cute as it may seem, your manner, its really just trash.

The wise man knows better, and will give you this;

You are a toad. Keep trying, you might become a human one day.

[tharpa]

Either one can be born in hell, or as an animal, in a future life after death, or these are mental realms of existence. They can't both be true. They are entirely different things.

I have been trying to show that they are not different things at all

There is a difference between being reborn as an actual cow grazing in the field and attaining a cow-like mentality.

No amount of dancing on your part can obscure this difference.

Oh, here I/we go again! No there isn't a difference, not fundamentally. There is no fundamental difference between a human-human, a human-animal, an actual animal and so forth. That is why we use the word 'realms' or in some cases 'bardos', which literally means 'in-between' or 'islands'. A human being is in a realm of body-mind-karma-intention etc. etc. no more and no less than is an actual cow. yes, there is a difference between a cow and a human being, just as there is a difference between a bottle of beer and a bottle of wine. Fundamentally, however, they are both bottles of stuff to drink.

. . . it is the flame from that candle of reincarnation that you mentioned no longer burning at all. No more realms, no more birth, no more existence, no more space, no more time. Real death in other words. Now that is not all that is implied in that fourth teaching, but that is the literal meaning of the word nirvana and also how it is defined in the early sutric schools, i.e. that when the arhat died there would be no further incarnation/birth whatsoever.

Buddhas and fully enlightened people die just the same as any other thing in the Universe - just the same as a cup being shattered - exactly the same.

There's a Zen story that goes something like this:

A Zen Master asked his student, "Is a Buddha at the mercy of cause and effect?"

The student answered, "No".

Upon this answer, the student was then immediately reborn as a fox for a thousand lifetimes.

no more birth/existence/karma. At all.

Nirvana just means the extinction of delusions. This of course includes any delusions about birth and death. But birth and death still happen, and cups are still shattered.

You want it both ways. 1. The cup is shattered. 2. birth and death still happens. The meaning of the cup analogy is that it is the container (i.e. body) the vessel of birth/living. When it is shattered, there is no more vessel, i.e. no more Kevins or cows or any other permutations. Now as I said, there are tricks around this, and the author of the quoted text hinted at them in language to which you objected: whatever permanence or continuity exists in the enlightenment-type mode, let us say, does so outside the realms of relative reality including space, time and so forth.

There never was birth; there never will be death; there can be no reincarnation at all.

Meanwhile, Mary is still chewing the cud. And 'philosophers' wonder whether she and they are the same or different.

So it has been; so it will always be. Thus life goes on, including the reincarnation of beings as cows and Kevins, even though there are no beings who are cows, and no human beings who are Kevins.

True reality is inconceivable. Utterly. Debating about whether or not reincarnation is physical or mental is irrelevant. Unless it provokes contemplation of the reality in front of us, the snowflake of 'reality' falling and dissolving on the skin of our upturned, wandering/wondering human and animal faces, gazing at 'timeless' stars whose lights burned out many millions of years ago, and yet which we see today - or at least 'believe' that 'we' see - and which of course we do see. Clearly.