Putting enlightenment in a jar

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg !

 

Thanks for the link and the book tips.

Austin's book is one I have been aware of for a long time and have

wanted to read. I may look into it if I can get it for a reasonable

price.

 

While Swami Rama's work and other similar work is interesting and

shows that biofeedback and hatha yoga techniques can and do affect

the brain and its functions from the outside in so to speak, the area

of investigation is different from the one I proposed. I would want

to address the question of self reference directly, not what happens

in the areas controlling physiological reactions.

>Sometimes though, the questions are also considered by

> those on the spiritual path, maybe from a controlling

motive. "HHHmmm,

> Swami Rama did it by meditation. And now we understand the exact

position

> of each molecule in this enlightened state. Now, if we can only

bring

> about this same molecular configuration (from chemicals, etc.),

then we

> could save maybe 30 years per person of meditation practice! We

could put

> it in a jar and sell it!"

 

That's the good thing about being unaffiliated and only

presenting ideas as a private person, there is no one to come up with

a business plan for developing the "method" if someone not trained in

science should get the idea that the knowledge was sufficient to try

and impose control of the mind. From psychiatry and the treatment of

mental illness, it's easy to see that trying to get the brain and the

mind to behave as one would like it, too via chemical means, is at

best only partially sucessful, even for relatively well researched

illnesses such as depression and anxiety.

 

Still, seeing the number of fads and selling points in spiritual

salesmen, it would come as no surprise if an attempt like that was

made.

 

 

Thanks again for the book tips !

 

 

Love,

 

A.

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

 

I like the private person that you are, and am glad you are here to talk

about these interesting things instead of cooped up in an academic lab

somewhere.

 

Ah, now I see what you were getting at:

>I would want to address the question of self reference directly, not what

>happens

>in the areas controlling physiological reactions.

 

And I agree that Swami Rama's demonstrations were not addressing

this. Now, this self-reference idea is interesting. And it presents a

thorny problem that immediately is beyond the scope of biological research.

 

That is, self-reference is a blanket term. What, where in the body/mind

complex would one look for the self referred to? Is it a thought, feeling,

emotion, kinesthetic or muscular state, an arrangement of neural

molecules? Any research along these lines would have to define at least as

a working hypothesis some sort of XYZ configuration in the body that is

self referred to. So imagine that one could gather people with no

self-reference left (call them Group A), and compare their XYZ with the XYZ

of those with strong habits of self-reference (Group B). Maybe a

difference would be found. So Group A's molecules look one way, and Group

B's molecules look another way.

 

What would that tell us??

 

Love,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

>Now, this self-reference idea is interesting. And it presents a

> thorny problem that immediately is beyond the scope of biological

>research.

 

Heh heh...

I suspect that's why I'm not cooped up in a lab anymore but left the

hard thinking to those in the lab and chose to spend my energy in

another kind of play instead.

> That is, self-reference is a blanket term. What, where in the

body/mind

> complex would one look for the self referred to? Is it a thought,

feeling,

> emotion, kinesthetic or muscular state, an arrangement of neural

> molecules? Any research along these lines would have to define at

least as

> a working hypothesis some sort of XYZ configuration in the body

that is

> self referred to.

 

 

Yeah I agree on that. The search for the self would need a definition

of it and that again would depend on how thorough the "preproduction"

search for the self had been.

 

Publications have been made (but I have no direct citations) after

attempts at finding the area responsible for self reference, based on

damage in patients and probably according to personal interest of the

researchers.

 

Self is in biology (the few times the question is addressed), defined

as recognition of own body and thoughts as separate from that of

others (give and take a few other parameters). Whereas this may be

viewed as incorrect and inaccurate from the view of nondualism or

advaita, it conforms with the definition of self in western culture,

and could be seen as merely a verbal refinement of it.

 

As I understood from the person I spoke with about the

neurobiological work that had been published, various areas in the

brain involved with language processing, emotional response and

memory storage were the areas that had been under resarch. The work

had turned out to be inconclusive, perhaps due to a lack of

experimental methods, perhaps due to the definition of self that had

been used as foundation for the work, I don't know.

>So imagine that one could gather people with no

> self-reference left (call them Group A), and compare their XYZ with

the XYZ

> of those with strong habits of self-reference (Group B). Maybe a

> difference would be found. So Group A's molecules look one way,

and Group

> B's molecules look another way.

>

> What would that tell us??

 

In my eyes it would say little more than what is apparent from these

results; that there is a difference, that lack of self reference is

something that can exist, that biological existence is not dependent

on self reference and that the lack of self reference, since present

in humans, is something that has been maintained throughout

evolution.

 

That in itself would not say anything new that various teachers and

spiritual traditions have not already been saying. The new thing

would be the methods (if at all possible, but this is hypothesizing)

through which these insights were gained and the further interest in

the issue of self reference (or the lack of) it may spark.

 

The idea of self is deeply ingrained in Western civilization, one

could say that entire cities and countries have been built based on

it. Because of this, most ppl are only willing to confront the

question of self when in some sort of existential crisis and after

long time of suffering and that is understandable and it's not

something I'm going to address here.

Still, after having seen some of the posts here about recent works in

psychology that has touched the issue of self reference by addressing

the question of conscious control of will (the article Gloria posted

touches that briefly), it looks as if there is an interest in self

and self reference in science which is interesting. Neurobiological

methods or working within that field might add to the information

gained by that questioning.

 

 

 

Love,

 

A.

[Guest guest]

, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

>Now, this self-reference idea is interesting. And it presents a

> thorny problem that immediately is beyond the scope of biological

>research.

 

Heh heh...

I suspect that's why I'm not cooped up in a lab anymore but left the

hard thinking to those in the lab and chose to spend my energy in

another kind of play instead.

> That is, self-reference is a blanket term. What, where in the

body/mind

> complex would one look for the self referred to? Is it a thought,

feeling,

> emotion, kinesthetic or muscular state, an arrangement of neural

> molecules? Any research along these lines would have to define at

least as

> a working hypothesis some sort of XYZ configuration in the body

that is

> self referred to.

 

 

Yeah I agree on that. The search for the self would need a definition

of it and that again would depend on how thorough the "preproduction"

search for the self had been.

 

Publications have been made (but I have no direct citations) after

attempts at finding the area responsible for self reference, based on

damage in patients and probably according to personal interest of the

researchers.

 

Self is in biology (the few times the question is addressed), defined

as recognition of own body and thoughts as separate from that of

others (give and take a few other parameters). Whereas this may be

viewed as incorrect and inaccurate from the view of nondualism or

advaita, it conforms with the definition of self in western culture,

and could be seen as merely a verbal refinement of it.

 

As I understood from the person I spoke with about the

neurobiological work that had been published, various areas in the

brain involved with language processing, emotional response and

memory storage were the areas that had been under resarch. The work

had turned out to be inconclusive, perhaps due to a lack of

experimental methods, perhaps due to the definition of self that had

been used as foundation for the work, I don't know.

>So imagine that one could gather people with no

> self-reference left (call them Group A), and compare their XYZ with

the XYZ

> of those with strong habits of self-reference (Group B). Maybe a

> difference would be found. So Group A's molecules look one way,

and Group

> B's molecules look another way.

>

> What would that tell us??

 

In my eyes it would say little more than what is apparent from these

results; that there is a difference, that lack of self reference is

something that can exist, that biological existence is not dependent

on self reference and that the lack of self reference, since present

in humans, is something that has been maintained throughout

evolution.

 

That in itself would not say anything new that various teachers and

spiritual traditions have not already been saying. The new thing

would be the methods (if at all possible, but this is hypothesizing)

through which these insights were gained and the further interest in

the issue of self reference (or the lack of) it may spark.

 

The idea of self is deeply ingrained in Western civilization, one

could say that entire cities and countries have been built based on

it. Because of this, most ppl are only willing to confront the

question of self when in some sort of existential crisis and after

long time of suffering and that is understandable and it's not

something I'm going to address here.

Still, after having seen some of the posts here about recent works in

psychology that has touched the issue of self reference by addressing

the question of conscious control of will (the article Gloria posted

touches that briefly), it looks as if there is an interest in self

and self reference in science which is interesting. Neurobiological

methods or working within that field might add to the information

gained by that questioning.

 

 

 

Love,

 

A.

[Guest guest]

A, Gregory, mumblecat & Friends,

 

In his last post A says:

The idea of self is deeply ingrained in Western civilization, one

could say that entire cities and countries have been built based on

it. Because of this, most ppl are only willing to confront the

question of self when in some sort of existential crisis and after

long time of suffering and that is understandable and it's not

something I'm going to address here.

 

It seems silly to me to confine this idea of self to the West. The

problems with self are the very heart of all Eastern methods of

approach to enlightenment or Self. How we view the self and what we

decide to do in that light is also rapidly decreasing, for better or

worse.

 

The problem of self and Self, or the individual and the All, or God,

remains the only real problem that spiritual thought and practice

concerns itself witrh.

 

yours in the bonds,

eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, mumblecat@a... wrote:

>

> , Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

>

> >Now, this self-reference idea is interesting. And it presents a

> > thorny problem that immediately is beyond the scope of biological

> >research.

>

> Heh heh...

> I suspect that's why I'm not cooped up in a lab anymore but left

the

> hard thinking to those in the lab and chose to spend my energy in

> another kind of play instead.

>

> > That is, self-reference is a blanket term. What, where in the

> body/mind

> > complex would one look for the self referred to? Is it a

thought,

> feeling,

> > emotion, kinesthetic or muscular state, an arrangement of neural

> > molecules? Any research along these lines would have to define

at

> least as

> > a working hypothesis some sort of XYZ configuration in the body

> that is

> > self referred to.

>

>

> Yeah I agree on that. The search for the self would need a

definition

> of it and that again would depend on how thorough

the "preproduction"

> search for the self had been.

>

> Publications have been made (but I have no direct citations) after

> attempts at finding the area responsible for self reference, based

on

> damage in patients and probably according to personal interest of

the

> researchers.

>

> Self is in biology (the few times the question is addressed),

defined

> as recognition of own body and thoughts as separate from that of

> others (give and take a few other parameters). Whereas this may be

> viewed as incorrect and inaccurate from the view of nondualism or

> advaita, it conforms with the definition of self in western

culture,

> and could be seen as merely a verbal refinement of it.

>

> As I understood from the person I spoke with about the

> neurobiological work that had been published, various areas in the

> brain involved with language processing, emotional response and

> memory storage were the areas that had been under resarch. The work

> had turned out to be inconclusive, perhaps due to a lack of

> experimental methods, perhaps due to the definition of self that

had

> been used as foundation for the work, I don't know.

>

> >So imagine that one could gather people with no

> > self-reference left (call them Group A), and compare their XYZ

with

> the XYZ

> > of those with strong habits of self-reference (Group B). Maybe a

> > difference would be found. So Group A's molecules look one way,

> and Group

> > B's molecules look another way.

> >

> > What would that tell us??

>

> In my eyes it would say little more than what is apparent from

these

> results; that there is a difference, that lack of self reference is

> something that can exist, that biological existence is not

dependent

> on self reference and that the lack of self reference, since

present

> in humans, is something that has been maintained throughout

> evolution.

>

> That in itself would not say anything new that various teachers and

> spiritual traditions have not already been saying. The new thing

> would be the methods (if at all possible, but this is

hypothesizing)

> through which these insights were gained and the further interest

in

> the issue of self reference (or the lack of) it may spark.

>

> The idea of self is deeply ingrained in Western civilization, one

> could say that entire cities and countries have been built based on

> it. Because of this, most ppl are only willing to confront the

> question of self when in some sort of existential crisis and after

> long time of suffering and that is understandable and it's not

> something I'm going to address here.

> Still, after having seen some of the posts here about recent works

in

> psychology that has touched the issue of self reference by

addressing

> the question of conscious control of will (the article Gloria

posted

> touches that briefly), it looks as if there is an interest in self

> and self reference in science which is interesting. Neurobiological

> methods or working within that field might add to the information

> gained by that questioning.

>

>

>

> Love,

>

> A.

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric,

 

This is a very good point you make. Not that it should need saying, but

the attachments, preoccupations and sufferings related to the self are by

no means a purely Western phenomenon. I have friends and acquaintances

from Japan, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea,

and other places., and it's the same thing in their countries. The

particular knots and bonds might have a different flavor, there might be

different customary ways of expression, but the afflictions are there just

as much!

 

Love,

 

--Greg

 

At 04:57 PM 11/7/01 +0000, EBlackstead wrote:

>It seems silly to me to confine this idea of self to the West. The

>problems with self are the very heart of all Eastern methods of

>approach to enlightenment or Self. How we view the self and what we

>decide to do in that light is also rapidly decreasing, for better or

>worse.

[Guest guest]

, EBlackstead@c... wrote:

> It seems silly to me to confine this idea of self to the West. The

> problems with self are the very heart of all Eastern methods of

> approach to enlightenment or Self. How we view the self and what we

> decide to do in that light is also rapidly decreasing, for better

> or worse.

 

 

Yes, I wouldn't at all disagree that problems with self is exists in

all cultures of the world and that the very problem forms the

foundation of Eastern spiritual practice. That was an inaccurate and

badly phrased statement which I retract with no hesitation.

 

For some, even acknowledging that the self represents a problem, is a

problem, and that practice is a problem as well. I won't say anything

about that, but merely suggest that sometimes desires and impulses

are not without purpose and seen from one perspective, there is

little difference between desire and what will spontaneously appear

by and of itself, what will be independent of inidvidual desire.

>How we view the self and what we

> decide to do in that light is also rapidly decreasing, for better

> or worse.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "rapidly decreasing" here.

 

Could you please clarify ?

 

 

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

[Guest guest]

Amanda & Friends,

 

how embarrassing to say something, believing that you have an

important idea in mind, and then find that you don't have any

coherent expression of what that idea was.

 

Still. It's better to see this uncomfortable fact sooner than later.

 

yours in the bonds,

eric

 

 

, mumblecat@a... wrote:

> , EBlackstead@c... wrote:

>

> > It seems silly to me to confine this idea of self to the West.

The

> > problems with self are the very heart of all Eastern methods of

> > approach to enlightenment or Self. How we view the self and what

we

> > decide to do in that light is also rapidly decreasing, for better

> > or worse.

>

>

> Yes, I wouldn't at all disagree that problems with self is exists

in

> all cultures of the world and that the very problem forms the

> foundation of Eastern spiritual practice. That was an inaccurate

and

> badly phrased statement which I retract with no hesitation.

>

> For some, even acknowledging that the self represents a problem, is

a

> problem, and that practice is a problem as well. I won't say

anything

> about that, but merely suggest that sometimes desires and impulses

> are not without purpose and seen from one perspective, there is

> little difference between desire and what will spontaneously appear

> by and of itself, what will be independent of inidvidual desire.

>

> >How we view the self and what we

> > decide to do in that light is also rapidly decreasing, for better

> > or worse.

>

> I don't understand what you mean by "rapidly decreasing" here.

>

> Could you please clarify ?

>

>

>

> Love,

>

> Amanda.