Putting enlightenment in a jar (was "Mind working during sleep")

[Guest guest]

Yes Amanda, I enjoy the discussion too, your sensitivity, candor, kindness

and playfulness!

 

There was a long look into this kind of question with the investigations

they made into Swami Rama's brain states (see

http://www.kumbhamelatimes.org/swami/researcher.html). There are also the

researches done between brain science and Zen. There's a book called ZEN

AND THE BRAIN by James H. Austin. Here's what the Amazon reviewer said

about it (Brian Bruya):

 

EEGs show us that the act of exhaling helps physically

quiet the brain. Many other causal connections can be

found between Zen practices and the physiology of the

brain, and James H. Austin lays them out one by one,

drawing from his own Zen experiences and the latest

in neurological research.

--Brian Bruya

 

There are some other books such as

-THE ZEN BRAIN : A PSYCHOLOGY OF NATURAL EXISTENCE AND THE HUMAN

EXPERIENCE_ by Raven Walker

-THE MYSTICAL MIND : PROBING THE BIOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE by Eugene

G. D'Aquili, Andrew B. Newberg

-WHY GOD WON'T GO AWAY : BRAIN SCIENCE AND THE BIOLOGY OF BELIEF by Andrew

Newberg M.D., et al

 

And I totally agree that from within the standpoint of one of the

disciplines, these assumptions are part of the discipline's working

paraphernalia. 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!"

 

And of course most of these disciplines (even some so-called "advaita"

teachings) retain the notion, if not the ghost, of the "Ding An

Sich." They raise no question of *whether* it is, but seek to

characterize *what* it is. Some, as you say, (advaita teachings not

excepted), take Consciousness as that "Ding."

 

Dinglessly yours,

 

--Greg

 

At 09:12 PM 11/5/01 +0000, mumblecat wrote:

 

 

>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.