Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 Hiya ! Just to add a few comments to the reposting of Sunder and the statement by Ramana Maharshi. > Ramana Maharshi [Talks, pp. 561-564] also explains it like- wise: > ".....The state of the j~naanii is : atijaagrat [beyond wakefullness] > and atisushhupti [beyond sleep]. It is the state of perfect awareness > and of perfect stillness combined.; it is also the interval between > two successive thoughts.....If you are free from thoughts and yet > aware, you are That Perfect Being." It's very interesting for someone trained in neuroscience to read Ramana's comments on the Self, thoughts and sleep, since they are very clear and unique in that they were reached by observation alone (as opposed to experimentation) but still reflect much of what modern neurobiology is just starting to unravel. Like the Buddhist traditions, Ramana uses the word "thought" for "verbal expressions" as witnessed in the mind. Thoughts and verbalization are deeply tied to the sense of personality and self, the mind witnesses verbalizations and identifies with them, or rather, the emotions = bodily reactions stored in the brain's memory that are their basis. Both verbalizations = thoughts, emotions and memory, which all form the sense of self in the mind, have their physical origins in separate areas of the brain and also in the interplay (=synergy) between these areas. When the conscious mind has become aware that it is not thoughts, but the witness of these, I suspect that a slight change in status of the brain area(s) that have the physical responsibility of thoughts and emotions and their synergy has taken place. It is my suspicion that the part of the brain which coordinates language (verbalizations) and memory (emotion) has started to sense itself, and it is this sensing of its own impulses that is the biological reflection of awareness of the consciousness that thoughts and emotions arise from and on, what Tibetan Buddhism calls base mind = kunzhi. In the sleeping brain, temporary changes during dreaming and dreamless sleep take place compared with the situation in the waking brain. Verbalizations are less and of a more image oriented nature than during waking. These nightly changes in interplay between the brain areas responsible for thoughts and emotions, may make it easier to become aware of the awareness present in dreaming, dreamless sleep and waking when the conditions for awareness of the awareness beyond thoughts and emotions have been met in the brain. What may be the conditions necessary for this kind of awareness? Verbalization and emotion in the brain are tied to the function of memory and the processing of memory, and much energy may be spent in processing and releasing memory in dreams and waking by creating the internal sense impressions of dreams. Perhaps when enough memory has been released, the energy no longer used in recreating supressed sense impressions in order to release tension in the mindbody, will automatically be available for use by the brain area responsible for awareness of the base awareness and the awareness behind thoughts and emotions is revealed once and for all to itself. It is doubtful that an increase in energy in the brain areas generating and responsible for the base consciousness can be forced in any way... These were just my thoughts on the biological basis for Awakening and Self Awareness. I realize for some the idea that Self Awareness also has a physical counterpart in the brain is not only doubtful but slightly blasphemous, I therefore present these ideas as sketches and thoughts to ponder on if there is a personal interest done in all frindliness and fascination of both Self Awareness and neurobiology. Love, Amanda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 Hi Amanda, Interesting ideas you are writing about! Playing Devil's Advocate for a second. <Devil'sAdvocateModeON> Let's say we *could* map something in the brain that accompanied something happening to the person. And let's say that this event is called jnana. OK. What then? It is another matter altogether to claim as you do here (is it you or are you quoting?): Thoughts and verbalization are deeply tied to the sense of personality and self, the mind witnesses verbalizations and identifies with them, or rather, the emotions = bodily reactions stored in the brain's memory that are their basis. Which is the basis of which? On one hand, the physical science of nuerobiology operates under the unfounded assumption that there is a physical realm and a non-physical, and that physical events cause non-physical events. On the other hand, idealistic metaphysics argue (don't assume, but tackle the question head-on) that physical events are epiphenomena of ideas. Ideas are the fire, physical events are the smoke. Which would you choose?? What use is this info? To force the re-arrangement of the molecules and thereby force jnana? Or measure and certify jnana by gauging the position of the molecules?? <Devil'sAdvocateModeOFF> The entire discussion between the <Devil'sAdvocateMode> ON and OFF tags trades on the dualism between jnana and ajnana. And the disciplines of nuerobiology and idealism trade on the fundamental dualisms between mind/matter, and idea/physicality. But they differ as to which side they take as fundamental. That is one reason why when I was between undergrad and grad schools, I changed my major from physiological psychology to philosophy - I came down on that side of the dualism! Love, --Greg At 06:58 PM 11/5/01 +0000, you wrote: Hiya ! Just to add a few comments to the reposting of Sunder and the statement by Ramana Maharshi. > Ramana Maharshi [Talks, pp. 561-564] also explains it like- wise: > ".....The state of the j~naanii is : atijaagrat [beyond wakefullness] > and atisushhupti [beyond sleep]. It is the state of perfect awareness > and of perfect stillness combined.; it is also the interval between > two successive thoughts.....If you are free from thoughts and yet > aware, you are That Perfect Being." It's very interesting for someone trained in neuroscience to read Ramana's comments on the Self, thoughts and sleep, since they are very clear and unique in that they were reached by observation alone (as opposed to experimentation) but still reflect much of what modern neurobiology is just starting to unravel. Like the Buddhist traditions, Ramana uses the word "thought" for "verbal expressions" as witnessed in the mind. Thoughts and verbalization are deeply tied to the sense of personality and self, the mind witnesses verbalizations and identifies with them, or rather, the emotions = bodily reactions stored in the brain's memory that are their basis. Both verbalizations = thoughts, emotions and memory, which all form the sense of self in the mind, have their physical origins in separate areas of the brain and also in the interplay (=synergy) between these areas. When the conscious mind has become aware that it is not thoughts, but the witness of these, I suspect that a slight change in status of the brain area(s) that have the physical responsibility of thoughts and emotions and their synergy has taken place. It is my suspicion that the part of the brain which coordinates language (verbalizations) and memory (emotion) has started to sense itself, and it is this sensing of its own impulses that is the biological reflection of awareness of the consciousness that thoughts and emotions arise from and on, what Tibetan Buddhism calls base mind = kunzhi. In the sleeping brain, temporary changes during dreaming and dreamless sleep take place compared with the situation in the waking brain. Verbalizations are less and of a more image oriented nature than during waking. These nightly changes in interplay between the brain areas responsible for thoughts and emotions, may make it easier to become aware of the awareness present in dreaming, dreamless sleep and waking when the conditions for awareness of the awareness beyond thoughts and emotions have been met in the brain. What may be the conditions necessary for this kind of awareness? Verbalization and emotion in the brain are tied to the function of memory and the processing of memory, and much energy may be spent in processing and releasing memory in dreams and waking by creating the internal sense impressions of dreams. Perhaps when enough memory has been released, the energy no longer used in recreating supressed sense impressions in order to release tension in the mindbody, will automatically be available for use by the brain area responsible for awareness of the base awareness and the awareness behind thoughts and emotions is revealed once and for all to itself. It is doubtful that an increase in energy in the brain areas generating and responsible for the base consciousness can be forced in any way... These were just my thoughts on the biological basis for Awakening and Self Awareness. I realize for some the idea that Self Awareness also has a physical counterpart in the brain is not only doubtful but slightly blasphemous, I therefore present these ideas as sketches and thoughts to ponder on if there is a personal interest done in all frindliness and fascination of both Self Awareness and neurobiology. Love, Amanda. /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 Heh heh, I feel like I'm up for an exam now OK, let's see if I can make some reply to this, however limp and incoherent to the devil's advocate. , Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > <Devil'sAdvocateModeON> > Let's say we *could* map something in the brain that accompanied something > happening to the person. And let's say that this event is called > jnana. OK. What then? I asked myself the same question while typing that up of course. Part of it may have been to just get the ideas on paper, that would be the self centered and rather limp reason. But hey, at least it's honest. The other reason would be to put a new angle on Jnana, just something added to the multitude of voices that are already out there about it, there is variation... it was a fun thing to put to words. The ideas would be disputed by Vedantins and neurobiologists alike of course with each coming from their own traditions and viewpoints. The last reason would be, which ties in with your comment below, to spark a discussion whether there is a biological reflection of Jnana (note that I say reflection here, I do not claim that neurobiology precedes Jnana) and whether Jnana could be discussed independent of the spiritual or religious lexicon. > It is another matter altogether to claim as you do here (is it you or are > you quoting?): It's me. > Thoughts and verbalization are deeply tied > to the sense of personality and self, > the mind witnesses verbalizations and > identifies with them, or rather, the emotions > = bodily reactions stored in the brain's memory > that are their basis. > > Which is the basis of which? Maybe that sentence was unclear. The idea was that emotions are the basis for verbalizations and that some long term memories (stored emotions) are the bases for verbalizatins as well. Some verbalizations can have momentary emotion as basis of course, not all verbal thoughts are based on long term memories. >On one hand, the physical science of > nuerobiology operates under the unfounded assumption that there is >a > physical realm and a non-physical, and that physical events cause > non-physical events. On the other hand, idealistic metaphysics argue > (don't assume, but tackle the question head-on) that physical events are > epiphenomena of ideas. Ideas are the fire, physical events are the smoke. Hmmmm.... that could be true of neurobiologists in general... that there is an assumption that there is a physical realm seperate from the non-physical and that the events in the physical realm always give rise to the non physical. However, there is also the knowledge that it is difficult to gain information of the physical world apart from what signals the brain does gain from its sensory apparatus. The brain and mind does not sense the physical "outer" world directly but receives the sensory signals reaching it from the sense organs. Thus, the view is that knowledge of Kant's "Das Ding Als Sich" (as single objects in the environment) cannot be reached. I tried to incorporate that in my discussion, but it tends to require a lot of neurobiological terms (would basically need to discuss the interplay between the different brain areas suspected to form the self) and that complicates language. If I have understood you correctly, I see what you mean about coming down on the side of philosophy and that these ideas "trade on the dualism between jnana and ajnana." Still, when working within either philosophy as well as neurobiology, one accepts some basic terms as foundations for discussion and work and they are taken as assumptions. I do see that the same is done in advaita and nonduality, only there some assumptions circumvent the impossibility of gaining knowledge of Das Ding Als Sich and leave it as it is seen, as the Tao Te Ching says: (and I paraphrase) "From whence issued this mother of the ten thousand things? That cannot be said." Thanks for the discussion Greg. Love, Amanda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 Hi Amanda, Thanks for posting this... fascinating! gill On 5 Nov 01, at 18:58, mumblecat wrote: > Hiya ! > > > Just to add a few comments to the reposting of Sunder and the > statement by Ramana Maharshi. <snip> > It's very interesting for someone trained in neuroscience to read > Ramana's comments on the Self, thoughts and sleep, since they are > very clear and unique in that they were reached by observation alone (as > opposed to experimentation) but still reflect much of what modern > neurobiology is just starting to unravel. <snip> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 Dear Greg -- You raise some important points here. A related point is that as long as I assume the physical body has some kind of status of its own as an object that can be regarded independently, as having its own separable characteristics which belong to it -- as long as I can make this assumption and find it validated perceptually -- then the "I" or "me" will construct itself as the one who navigates this particular body, or the one whom is processing the memories, plans, etc., that pertain to the success of this particular body in its relationships, various strivings and perceived needs, avoidance of threats, and so forth. Whew, that's a long sentence! The question that arises isn't new at all: is it possible for the "I" to question its very situation, and the presumptions made in order to situate it either as or in a physically separable being with specific qualities pertaining to "me" ... And of course, such questioning includes the related polar assumption, that somehow I could exist as "nonphysical" or "an idea" or "a spiritual being independent of physicality" .... Yet if both sides of this assumptive pattern drop -- who am I now? Now, where have I heard that question before? :-) -- Dan --- Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > Hi Amanda, > > Interesting ideas you are writing about! > > Playing Devil's Advocate for a second. > > <Devil'sAdvocateModeON> > Let's say we *could* map something in the brain that > accompanied something > happening to the person. And let's say that this > event is called > jnana. OK. What then? > > It is another matter altogether to claim as you do > here (is it you or are > you quoting?): > Thoughts and verbalization are deeply tied > to the sense of personality and self, > the mind witnesses verbalizations and > identifies with them, or rather, the emotions > = bodily reactions stored in the brain's memory > that are their basis. > > Which is the basis of which? On one hand, the > physical science of > nuerobiology operates under the unfounded assumption > that there is a > physical realm and a non-physical, and that physical > events cause > non-physical events. On the other hand, idealistic > metaphysics argue > (don't assume, but tackle the question head-on) that > physical events are > epiphenomena of ideas. Ideas are the fire, physical > events are the smoke. > > Which would you choose?? What use is this info? To > force the > re-arrangement of the molecules and thereby force > jnana? Or measure and > certify jnana by gauging the position of the > molecules?? > > <Devil'sAdvocateModeOFF> > > The entire discussion between the > <Devil'sAdvocateMode> ON and OFF tags > trades on the dualism between jnana and ajnana. And > the disciplines of > nuerobiology and idealism trade on the fundamental > dualisms > between mind/matter, and idea/physicality. But > they differ as to which > side they take as fundamental. That is one reason > why when I was between > undergrad and grad schools, I changed my major from > physiological > psychology to philosophy - I came down on that side > of the dualism! > > Love, > > --Greg > > > > At 06:58 PM 11/5/01 +0000, you wrote: > > > >Hiya ! > > > > > >Just to add a few comments to the reposting of > Sunder and the > >statement by Ramana Maharshi. > > > > > Ramana Maharshi [Talks, pp. 561-564] also > explains it like- > >wise: > > > ".....The state of the j~naanii is : atijaagrat > [beyond > >wakefullness] > > > and atisushhupti [beyond sleep]. It is the state > of perfect > >awareness > > > and of perfect stillness combined.; it is also > the interval between > > > two successive thoughts.....If you are free from > thoughts and yet > > > aware, you are That Perfect Being." > > > > > >It's very interesting for someone trained in > neuroscience to read > >Ramana's comments on the Self, thoughts and sleep, > since they are > >very clear and unique in that they were reached by > observation alone > >(as opposed to experimentation) but still reflect > much of what modern > >neurobiology is just starting to unravel. > > > >Like the Buddhist traditions, Ramana uses the word > "thought" > >for "verbal expressions" as witnessed in the mind. > Thoughts and > >verbalization are deeply tied to the sense of > personality and self, > >the mind witnesses verbalizations and identifies > with them, or > >rather, the emotions = bodily reactions stored in > the brain's memory > >that are their basis. > > > >Both verbalizations = thoughts, emotions and > memory, which all form > >the sense of self in the mind, have their physical > origins in > >separate areas of the brain and also in the > interplay (=synergy) > >between these areas. > > > >When the conscious mind has become aware that it is > not thoughts, but > >the witness of these, I suspect that a slight > change in status of the > >brain area(s) that have the physical responsibility > of thoughts and > >emotions and their synergy has taken place. > > > >It is my suspicion that the part of the brain which > coordinates > >language (verbalizations) and memory (emotion) has > started to sense > >itself, and it is this sensing of its own impulses > that is the > >biological reflection of awareness of the > consciousness that thoughts > >and emotions arise from and on, what Tibetan > Buddhism calls base mind > >= kunzhi. > > > >In the sleeping brain, temporary changes during > dreaming and > >dreamless sleep take place compared with the > situation in the waking > >brain. Verbalizations are less and of a more image > oriented nature > >than during waking. These nightly changes in > interplay between the > >brain areas responsible for thoughts and emotions, > may make it easier > >to become aware of the awareness present in > dreaming, dreamless sleep > >and waking when the conditions for awareness of the > awareness beyond > >thoughts and emotions have been met in the brain. > > > >What may be the conditions necessary for this kind > of awareness? > >Verbalization and emotion in the brain are tied to > the function of > >memory and the processing of memory, and much > energy may be spent in > >processing and releasing memory in dreams and > waking by creating the > >internal sense impressions of dreams. Perhaps when > enough memory has > >been released, the energy no longer used in > recreating supressed > >sense impressions in order to release tension in > the mindbody, will > >automatically be available for use by the brain > area responsible for > >awareness of the base awareness and the awareness > behind thoughts and > >emotions is revealed once and for all to itself. > > > >It is doubtful that an increase in energy in the > brain areas > >generating and responsible for the base > consciousness can be forced > >in any way... > > > > > > These were just my thoughts on the biological > basis for Awakening > >and Self Awareness. > > > >I realize for some the idea that Self Awareness > also has a physical > >counterpart in the brain is not only doubtful but > slightly > >blasphemous, I therefore present these ideas as > sketches and thoughts > >to ponder on if there is a personal interest done > in all frindliness > >and fascination of both Self Awareness and > neurobiology. > > > > > === message truncated === Find a job, post your resume. http://careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 , d b <dan330033> wrote: > Dear Greg -- > > You raise some important points here. > > A related point is that as long as I > assume the physical body has some kind > of status of its own as an object that > can be regarded independently, as having > its own separable characteristics which > belong to it -- as long as I can make > this assumption and find it validated > perceptually -- then the "I" or "me" > will construct itself as the one who > navigates this particular body, or > the one whom is processing the memories, > plans, etc., that pertain to the success > of this particular body in its relationships, > various strivings and perceived needs, > avoidance of threats, and so forth. > > Whew, that's a long sentence! > > The question that arises isn't new at all: > is it possible for the "I" to question > its very situation, and the presumptions > made in order to situate it either > as or in a physically separable being > with specific qualities pertaining to "me" ... > > And of course, such questioning includes > the related polar assumption, that somehow > I could exist as "nonphysical" or "an idea" > or "a spiritual being independent of physicality" Could such questions, arising frequently, suggest a case of "nondual autism"? > Yet if both sides of this assumptive pattern > drop -- who am I now? > > Now, where have I heard that question before? :-) > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2001 Report Share Posted November 6, 2001 Dear Amanda: I apologize for picking up the thread so late. I liked the correspondence between Greg and yourself and wanted to add something. You wrote: "In the sleeping brain, temporary changes during dreaming and dreamless sleep take place compared with the situation in the waking brain. Verbalizations are less and of a more image oriented nature than during waking. These nightly changes in interplay between the brain areas responsible for thoughts and emotions, may make it easier to become aware of the awareness present in dreaming, dreamless sleep and waking when the conditions for awareness of the awareness beyond thoughts and emotions have been met in the brain. What may be the conditions necessary for this kind of awareness? Verbalization and emotion in the brain are tied to the function of memory and the processing of memory, and much energy may be spent in processing and releasing memory in dreams and waking by creating the internal sense impressions of dreams. Perhaps when enough memory has been released, the energy no longer used in recreating supressed sense impressions in order to release tension in the mindbody, will automatically be available for use by the brain area responsible for awareness of the base awareness and the awareness behind thoughts and emotions is revealed once and for all to itself." I agree to a degree. The idea that it takes energy to create images which release tension from supressed memory can be assumed correct. The idea that one becomes aware of a base awareness sounds backward to me. Wouldn't the base awareness (the real Self) be aware of awareness, or what is generally refered to as awareness? I think you are right in your implication that releasing supressed memories (as painful as they are) will result in this base awareness shining forth. I would suggest that "I" am aware of thoughts only when they end. For "me" to notice a thought the mind must be having the thought of "ME". Knowing that that is happening is the "base awareness". It just feels like being. To me Atma vichara is the stretching out of this feeling. If I am "offbase" here I would appreciate your comments. You wrote: "It is doubtful that an increase in energy in the brain areas generating and responsible for the base consciousness can be forced in any way..." I agree completely. Just the same, are you familiar with brainwave entrainment? I bought a David Paradise a few years ago. It uses light, sound, and electrical pulses to create desired brainwaves in each hemisphere of the brain. Inducing a high beta into the right side and a theta into the left produced a slow thought process with a high visual and holistic sensory input. It performed lots of cute tricks. It also taught me to fight through the desire to go to sleep when theta waves increased which had been a problem for me in meditation. After practising self enquiry for a while the little machine no longer worked. In other words, when the 'I am' is steady in the mind the induction pulses do not affect me. You wrote: ":) These were just my thoughts on the biological basis for Awakening and Self Awareness. I realize for some the idea that Self Awareness also has a physical counterpart in the brain is not only doubtful but slightly blasphemous, I therefore present these ideas as sketches and thoughts to ponder on if there is a personal interest done in all frindliness and fascination of both Self Awareness and neurobiology. Love, Amanda." Thank you for writing this. It was clear and fun. Love, Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2001 Report Share Posted November 6, 2001 Hi Dan, I agree with your related points. And of course the disciplines we were discussing, neurobiology and idealism, don't ask the later question you pose, about what happens when both sides of the assumption drop away. That's not in their charter, not their enterprise. Their enterprise is to look at phenomena through their particular lens. They don't look at the lens itself. Both these disciplines tend to be academic affairs - and who wants to theorize themselves out of a job?? :-) These disciplines construct and support the owner or appropriator of phenomena. "My" body, "my" mind, "my" ideas, "my" molecules. Sometimes people (in and out of these disciplines) seek to avoid the appearance of the appropriator by using (what modern philosophers call) "indexicals," such as "this body,from here,that mind,over there," etc. Yes this kind of talk does avoid pronouns like "I" and "thou," but when it is relied upon as being "entity-free," it's not. There's still a perceived center and locus. and when it's believed in, there's just as much a center or appropriator as with the truly believed "I"-owner. Wow! The old question - can the "I" truly question its own situation? The answers are old too! The "I" can never throw itself completely into the question, and will never get a true objective answer. For in framing the question and waiting for the objective answer to show up, this "I" has cleared some real estate on which to stand. It stands on this little island and surveys things, adjudicating the most comfortable answers. More subtleness might make the patch of land very small, but as long as there is any land at all, the only answers will be fictions. Completely throwing itself into the question would consist of the "vanishing-I" answer. The "I" disappears, comes home to rest, when it sees the impossibility of any true objective answer whatsoever, the impossibility of an enduring, safe patch of land. It disappears in the nonarising of the question. I actually would have been interested in that kind of thing when I studied idealism about 20 years ago. Juicy stuff, right up my alley. Even though the status of the "I" is a logical question in idealism, and even though I did pose this question myself in a gentle, quiet way, my studies just didn't go down that road. So the gentle question got lost in the shuffle... Shuffling off to bed now, --Greg At 03:32 PM 11/5/01 -0800, d b wrote: >Dear Greg -- > >You raise some important points here. > >A related point is that as long as I > assume the physical body has some kind > of status of its own as an object that > can be regarded independently, as having > its own separable characteristics which > belong to it -- as long as I can make > this assumption and find it validated > perceptually -- then the "I" or "me" > will construct itself as the one who > navigates this particular body, or > the one whom is processing the memories, > plans, etc., that pertain to the success > of this particular body in its relationships, > various strivings and perceived needs, > avoidance of threats, and so forth. > >Whew, that's a long sentence! > >The question that arises isn't new at all: > is it possible for the "I" to question > its very situation, and the presumptions > made in order to situate it either > as or in a physically separable being > with specific qualities pertaining to "me" ... > >And of course, such questioning includes > the related polar assumption, that somehow > I could exist as "nonphysical" or "an idea" > or "a spiritual being independent of physicality" >... > >Yet if both sides of this assumptive pattern > drop -- who am I now? > >Now, where have I heard that question before? :-) > >-- Dan > > >--- Gregory Goode <goode wrote: >> Hi Amanda, >> >> Interesting ideas you are writing about! >> >> Playing Devil's Advocate for a second. >> >> <Devil'sAdvocateModeON> >> Let's say we *could* map something in the brain that >> accompanied something >> happening to the person. And let's say that this >> event is called >> jnana. OK. What then? >> >> It is another matter altogether to claim as you do >> here (is it you or are >> you quoting?): >> Thoughts and verbalization are deeply tied >> to the sense of personality and self, >> the mind witnesses verbalizations and >> identifies with them, or rather, the emotions >> = bodily reactions stored in the brain's memory >> that are their basis. >> >> Which is the basis of which? On one hand, the >> physical science of >> nuerobiology operates under the unfounded assumption >> that there is a >> physical realm and a non-physical, and that physical >> events cause >> non-physical events. On the other hand, idealistic >> metaphysics argue >> (don't assume, but tackle the question head-on) that >> physical events are >> epiphenomena of ideas. Ideas are the fire, physical >> events are the smoke. >> >> Which would you choose?? What use is this info? To >> force the >> re-arrangement of the molecules and thereby force >> jnana? Or measure and >> certify jnana by gauging the position of the >> molecules?? >> >> <Devil'sAdvocateModeOFF> >> >> The entire discussion between the >> <Devil'sAdvocateMode> ON and OFF tags >> trades on the dualism between jnana and ajnana. And >> the disciplines of >> nuerobiology and idealism trade on the fundamental >> dualisms >> between mind/matter, and idea/physicality. But >> they differ as to which >> side they take as fundamental. That is one reason >> why when I was between >> undergrad and grad schools, I changed my major from >> physiological >> psychology to philosophy - I came down on that side >> of the dualism! >> >> Love, >> >> --Greg >> >> >> >> At 06:58 PM 11/5/01 +0000, you wrote: >> >> >> >Hiya ! >> > >> > >> >Just to add a few comments to the reposting of >> Sunder and the >> >statement by Ramana Maharshi. >> > >> > > Ramana Maharshi [Talks, pp. 561-564] also >> explains it like- >> >wise: >> > > ".....The state of the j~naanii is : atijaagrat >> [beyond >> >wakefullness] >> > > and atisushhupti [beyond sleep]. It is the state >> of perfect >> >awareness >> > > and of perfect stillness combined.; it is also >> the interval between >> > > two successive thoughts.....If you are free from >> thoughts and yet >> > > aware, you are That Perfect Being." >> > >> > >> >It's very interesting for someone trained in >> neuroscience to read >> >Ramana's comments on the Self, thoughts and sleep, >> since they are >> >very clear and unique in that they were reached by >> observation alone >> >(as opposed to experimentation) but still reflect >> much of what modern >> >neurobiology is just starting to unravel. >> > >> >Like the Buddhist traditions, Ramana uses the word >> "thought" >> >for "verbal expressions" as witnessed in the mind. >> Thoughts and >> >verbalization are deeply tied to the sense of >> personality and self, >> >the mind witnesses verbalizations and identifies >> with them, or >> >rather, the emotions = bodily reactions stored in >> the brain's memory >> >that are their basis. >> > >> >Both verbalizations = thoughts, emotions and >> memory, which all form >> >the sense of self in the mind, have their physical >> origins in >> >separate areas of the brain and also in the >> interplay (=synergy) >> >between these areas. >> > >> >When the conscious mind has become aware that it is >> not thoughts, but >> >the witness of these, I suspect that a slight >> change in status of the >> >brain area(s) that have the physical responsibility >> of thoughts and >> >emotions and their synergy has taken place. >> > >> >It is my suspicion that the part of the brain which >> coordinates >> >language (verbalizations) and memory (emotion) has >> started to sense >> >itself, and it is this sensing of its own impulses >> that is the >> >biological reflection of awareness of the >> consciousness that thoughts >> >and emotions arise from and on, what Tibetan >> Buddhism calls base mind >> >= kunzhi. >> > >> >In the sleeping brain, temporary changes during >> dreaming and >> >dreamless sleep take place compared with the >> situation in the waking >> >brain. Verbalizations are less and of a more image >> oriented nature >> >than during waking. These nightly changes in >> interplay between the >> >brain areas responsible for thoughts and emotions, >> may make it easier >> >to become aware of the awareness present in >> dreaming, dreamless sleep >> >and waking when the conditions for awareness of the >> awareness beyond >> >thoughts and emotions have been met in the brain. >> > >> >What may be the conditions necessary for this kind >> of awareness? >> >Verbalization and emotion in the brain are tied to >> the function of >> >memory and the processing of memory, and much >> energy may be spent in >> >processing and releasing memory in dreams and >> waking by creating the >> >internal sense impressions of dreams. Perhaps when >> enough memory has >> >been released, the energy no longer used in >> recreating supressed >> >sense impressions in order to release tension in >> the mindbody, will >> >automatically be available for use by the brain >> area responsible for >> >awareness of the base awareness and the awareness >> behind thoughts and >> >emotions is revealed once and for all to itself. >> > >> >It is doubtful that an increase in energy in the >> brain areas >> >generating and responsible for the base >> consciousness can be forced >> >in any way... >> > >> > >> > These were just my thoughts on the biological >> basis for Awakening >> >and Self Awareness. >> > >> >I realize for some the idea that Self Awareness >> also has a physical >> >counterpart in the brain is not only doubtful but >> slightly >> >blasphemous, I therefore present these ideas as >> sketches and thoughts >> >to ponder on if there is a personal interest done >> in all frindliness >> >and fascination of both Self Awareness and >> neurobiology. >> > >> > >> >=== message truncated === > > > > >Find a job, post your resume. >http://careers. > >/join > > > > > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2001 Report Share Posted November 6, 2001 Hi Greg! > I agree with your related points. And of course the > disciplines we were > discussing, neurobiology and idealism, don't ask the > later question you > pose, about what happens when both sides of the > assumption drop away. > That's not in their charter, not their enterprise. > Their enterprise is to > look at phenomena through their particular lens. > They don't look at the > lens itself. Both these disciplines tend to be > academic affairs - and who > wants to theorize themselves out of a job?? :-) True ... Losing their jobs, the only thing left is "being the stillness" ... not something for which someone is likely to offer a monthly paycheck ... :-) If a paycheck is wanted, one must offer something that someone "benefits" from gaining: whether ideas or physical labor ... something that "adds" something of value ... :-) > These disciplines construct and support the owner or > appropriator of > phenomena. "My" body, "my" mind, "my" ideas, "my" > molecules. Sometimes > people (in and out of these disciplines) seek to > avoid the appearance of > the appropriator by using (what modern philosophers > call) "indexicals," > such as "this body,from here,that mind,over > there," etc. Yes this > kind of talk does avoid pronouns like "I" and > "thou," but when it is relied > upon as being "entity-free," it's not. There's > still a perceived center > and locus. and when it's believed in, there's just > as much a center or > appropriator as with the truly believed "I"-owner. Yes, excellent point. The "I" is the necessarily inferred center point for a perception, once anything can be identified as something perceived. The "I" is there, whether discussed or not, any time something has been identified as perceptual object, any time there is location spatially and temporally. > > Wow! The old question - can the "I" truly question > its own situation? The > answers are old too! The "I" can never throw itself > completely into the > question, and will never get a true objective > answer. For in framing the > question and waiting for the objective answer to > show up, this "I" has > cleared some real estate on which to stand. It > stands on this little > island and surveys things, adjudicating the most > comfortable answers. More > subtleness might make the patch of land very small, > but as long as there is > any land at all, the only answers will be fictions. > Completely throwing > itself into the question would consist of the > "vanishing-I" answer. The > "I" disappears, comes home to rest, when it sees the > impossibility of any > true objective answer whatsoever, the impossibility > of an enduring, safe > patch of land. It disappears in the nonarising of > the question. Yes. The asking of the question is simultaneously a statement: this infinity has no place to locate itself ... And the question/statement must dissolve as you say. Many people seem to take such question as abstract, intellectual or philosophical, whereas its heart is the depths of being, a shattering of the most firmly held sense of orientation to time, place, and person. Can such "shattering" occur without anything being lost -- can one's natural being show its self-evident totality -- independent of any ongoing identification as "this body" or as "mind" or "awareness"? > I actually would have been interested in that kind > of thing when I studied > idealism about 20 years ago. Juicy stuff, right up > my alley. Even though > the status of the "I" is a logical question in > idealism, and even though I > did pose this question myself in a gentle, quiet > way, my studies just > didn't go down that road. So the gentle question > got lost in the shuffle... I don't know if I'm right about this, but my guess is your studies led down the road: "how can it be said that something exists" ... How would you describe the road down which your studies led? > Shuffling off to bed now, > > --Greg A new morning and a new day now, Dan! Find a job, post your resume. http://careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2001 Report Share Posted November 6, 2001 Hi Dan, >Yes, excellent point. >The "I" is the necessarily inferred > center point for a perception, once anything > can be identified as something perceived. >The "I" is there, whether discussed > or not, any time something > has been identified as perceptual object, > any time there is location spatially and > temporally. This is true. And the same goes all the way up and down the line - in every modality. As with spatially locatable objects, so also with subtle objects. The more subtle the object, the more subtle the "I" that apprehends it. A gross, physical object "over there," implies a gross, physical I "right here." A object like "the vastness, the vastness!!" implies a subtle apprehending subject. (A teacher I know has a toll-free line "1-800-VASTNESS"). It's built into the very notion of apprehension. >The asking of the question is > simultaneously a statement: > this infinity has no place to > locate itself ... > >And the question/statement must > dissolve as you say. > >Many people seem to take such question > as abstract, intellectual or philosophical, > whereas its heart is > the depths of being, a shattering of the > most firmly held sense of orientation to > time, place, and person. This is an interesting notion to me. Can something abstract and intellectual also ripple to the very heart of the matter? To the "heart" of the person's experience? And when the heartfelt shattering happens and the sense of separateness time, place, manner, being dissolve away, does the rippling affect the intellect? I'd venture to say that the ripple-effect can go either way if the person is thusly integrated. For some people, shattering from the thinking "side" is accompanied by a certain expansiveness of the world of experience. For others, thinking and feeling seem to go their separate ways. >Can such "shattering" occur without anything > being lost -- can one's natural being > show its self-evident totality -- > independent of any ongoing identification > as "this body" or > as "mind" or "awareness"? This question contains its own answer! If the self-evident totality shows itself, then this precludes any ongoing identification at all. It's not that identification with phenomena (body, mind) is "traded up" for identification with awareness. Rather, (and this is all contained in your phrasing of the question), identification itself makes way, melts away, for this totality. Instead of "identifying with nothing," it's "nothing identified." >I don't know if I'm right about this, > but my guess is your studies led > down the road: "how can it > be said that something exists" ... > >How would you describe the road down which > your studies led? It's a nice way to describe the course - by the questions asked. In my case, the questions were contemplated in all available moments of life, "answers" were deeply felt, and the ripples and rumbles worked their way through all of experience. In other words, I was serious about this stuff! Over decades, a course kind of took shape, like this- -where do things come from? -what are things made of? -why does it seem like they are "out there"? -I feel very very sad and lonely, though my life is going well. How can I feel whole and loved? -what is God made of? what are spirits made of? how can I better do what God wants me to do? -what am I? what is anyone? stripping off layer by layer, when does I, me, disappear? -what makes appearances in consciousness? why the gap between seer and seen? -who makes the best nachos? -how can I be nicer? -how can I serve and be helpful? A new morning and a new day now, >Dan! And a good one to you! --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2001 Report Share Posted November 6, 2001 Hi Greg -- I enjoyed reading your response. > ... (snip) And the same goes all the way up and > down the line - in > every modality. As with spatially locatable > objects, so also with subtle > objects. The more subtle the object, the more > subtle the "I" that > apprehends it. A gross, physical object "over > there," implies a gross, > physical I "right here." A object like "the > vastness, the vastness!!" > implies a subtle apprehending subject. (A teacher I > know has a toll-free > line "1-800-VASTNESS"). It's built into the very > notion of apprehension. Yes. And how is it that the nature of apprehension can be apprehended? Metapprehension? (Something like the concept of "metacognition", the way that people have a sense of what they know, how they learn, and so on ...) The *knowing* of apprehending, so that the interdependence of perceiver and perceived is evident -- so that the "I-center" of this perception becomes, in a way, an object (but not a real object, there aren't any) -- and how? I guess that's why the word "prajna" was invented :-) > (snip) ... Can something > abstract and > intellectual also ripple to the very heart of the > matter? To the "heart" > of the person's experience? And when the heartfelt > shattering happens and > the sense of separateness time, place, manner, being > dissolve away, does > the rippling affect the intellect? I'd venture to > say that the > ripple-effect can go either way if the person is > thusly integrated. For > some people, shattering from the thinking "side" is > accompanied by a > certain expansiveness of the world of experience. > For others, thinking and > feeling seem to go their separate ways. An interesting observation. When I said that people often take it as an intellectual or philosophical question, I meant that it can be treated as "bracketed" rather than "all-inclusive", as a question that is used as something to be debated for or against, and something to be put on the shelf while other things are considered ... Or the question can come from the depths, in which case there is the rippling you describe -- also there is the sense that every instant is that question, and is the "answer"'s presentness ... the depth of the intellect and depth of heart are the same, they aren't independent -- yet they can be "apparently" separable in the way you describe -- probably socially necessary to be able to treat as separable, at least in this culture the way it operates ... > This question contains its own answer! If the > self-evident totality shows > itself, then this precludes any ongoing > identification at all. It's not > that identification with phenomena (body, mind) is > "traded up" for > identification with awareness. Rather, (and this is > all contained in your > phrasing of the question), identification itself > makes way, melts away, for > this totality. Instead of "identifying with > nothing," it's "nothing > identified." Yes. Well-said! And instead of "identifying with Nothing" ... :-) > >I don't know if I'm right about this, > > but my guess is your studies led > > down the road: "how can it > > be said that something exists" ... > > > >How would you describe the road down which > > your studies led? > > It's a nice way to describe the course - by the > questions asked. In my > case, the questions were contemplated in all > available moments of life, > "answers" were deeply felt, and the ripples and > rumbles worked their way > through all of experience. In other words, I was > serious about this > stuff! Over decades, a course kind of took shape, > like this- > > -where do things come from? > -what are things made of? > -why does it seem like they are "out there"? > -I feel very very sad and lonely, though my life is > going well. How can I > feel whole and loved? > -what is God made of? what are spirits made of? > how can I better do what > God wants me to do? > -what am I? what is anyone? stripping off layer by > layer, when does I, me, > disappear? > -what makes appearances in consciousness? why the > gap between seer and seen? > -who makes the best nachos? > -how can I be nicer? > -how can I serve and be helpful? By putting the best nachos made on a silver platter and then standing out of the way! :-) Good talkin' with ya! -- Dan Find a job, post your resume. http://careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.