Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Very well said! What gives birth to thought? How is thought born?? rr , "El Spook" <nagrecha@v...> wrote: > > Dear List, > > It's my two bit opinion but I believe that the birth of > knowledge is thought, > > So, first, thought (thinking) gives birth to an idea which > is then refined to something called theory. > This theory is expounded and mellowed, much in the manner > this discussion is going and practicable ideas or theory is then > utilised practically. > This practice is repetitively refined into what is called > skill. > Skill is then refined with other streams of knowledge adding > inputs into what is called science. > Science again is used to refine and evolve the original base > theory into a more efficient method of utilisation which is then > called technology. Technological advancement incidentally crowns > the top when at that stage the original theory and its practice have > a very large user base and from this user base, we have the > birth of exponents who lend individual colour, their own expression > of what they are able to envisage in this technology or science > and this is then art. > In short, the art level allows for freedom of individual > expression within the boundaries of "science", may / may not be be > aided by technology, and is unique within the comforting and > conforming realm. > > Thusly, we have evolution from the idea to the art. > > Ajay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 BTW, In my earlier post, I went full circle from thought to thought. I mean, from individual thought seeding thought and resulting in more thought until it is "artistic" thought. Ajay p.s Tanvir, sorry on this non jyotish interlude. I hope all is well with you with this tsunami thing. Hows Bangladesh affected? Its not in the news so far. Considering its got some 2000 km of Bay before anything can reach, I hope its OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 Currently fashionable ideas on the mind argue that thinking and language are evolutionary traits, just like webbed feet and wings. The Thinking and Language traits just happen to have a wider range of application (leading to more humans surviving than the planet can support). In this view, the idea that animals are somehow better off than humans may not be teneble, because mind, language, logic, pollution and Jane Fonda comes from nature. There are also arguments to the effect that plants are as intellgent as other organisms, only their actions are spread across time (plants avoid other plants' roots, they "plan" to grow into gaps that provide sunlight in rainforests etc.). One take on the silence the meditators clamour for is that it is a "switching off" of the brain's "background buzz". Brain imaging of expert meditators have shown that their brain activity can sometimes be 60% lower than other humans. Whether such browning out of the brain leads one to God is a different question. It depends on what the brain does, the nature of knowledge (first-person/subjective Vs. third-person/objective). The argument made in the spirituality thread essentially claims that the first kind of knowledge is superior to the second, and all advances made via the second can be achieved by the first. I am not that sure, I think they feed different inclinations in humans, or we would've seen wheelbarrows and scotch tape in ancient India. Ram , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > In the jungle of waves and particles, awareness to that fleeting wisp > of consciousness we call a thought, perhaps. As you indicated, it > might very well be that these do not arise out of volition, though > awareness is often if not always born out of will. > > But there must be a zone of silence that meditators clamour for, the > zone of thoughtlessness, when or where the jungle stands still. Where > trees do not fall, even when no one is listening. > > > > , "El Spook" <nagrecha@v...> > wrote: > > > > That was a superb question. > > > > In fact, the question itself, being thoughtful gives birth to a > > whole new lot of thought on thought on the birth of thought. > > > > > > Thought itself I believe is not born of a free volition but is the > > question that is asked as we go through a karmic cycle of many > lifes > > and deaths in order to experience all that a soul needs to discover > > in its journey, till one day, it merges back into the creator, just > > like a wayward sheep returns to its fold having temporarily enjoyed > > the benefit of freedom from the flock. > > Thought is the result of the spillover of karmic consciousness that > > is left behind as memory unretentive (is it?) that draws you back > > into the comfort of the experienced. > > Anything that is "created" or "discovered" is the result of a > > current epoch, an age that is currently prevailing as in Kal Youg, > > but this does not imply it was hitherto unknown or unexperienced or > > undiscovered. Since Bell "invented" the phone and technology mass > > produced it, and Marconi likewise with the wireless, we have seen > > both evlove from two distinct channels into one converged > refination > > called cellular, but this does not imply it wasnt ther. Since two > > inventions inspired a third, what seeded them? It was thought alone > > that seeded thought. > > > > The complexity of your questions lies in a very simple yet thought > > provoking answer. As Humans, we have comlicated our life with > logic, > > religion, science and comprehension. Are animals unworthy or lower, > > they do think and they do it more uninhibited than we can. They > > impart skills without schools, grace without the power to > comprehend > > it and fulfil the same physical functions as a human could or > would. > > > > We are said to be mentally superior, but I feel the animal closer > to > > sprituality since it does not perform for reason, it merely in a > > basal, banal existence as a co-lifeform on this planet goes through > > life and death impassively without , cigarettes, > alcohol, > > nuclear power or even pizza, coke and a knowledge of healthy > > lifestyle, etc., It doesn't need a Jane Fonda video to stay in > shape > > but thinks intelligently when it comes to performing its functions. > > > > It doesn't need a doctor to advise a CAT scan because it follows > one > > simple rule... if the pain doesn't go away, I will and I'm prepared. > > > > Food for Thought? Anyone? > > > > Ajay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 The 'browning out' (great example!) may not lead to God, but it does create the canvas for the faint image of divinity to become apparent. And for all we know, the faint image could just be a faint projection from the source of awareness, the meditator! As the noise outside dies down, we become more aware of our thoughts, and when those become faint perhaps the background that is divine gets a chance to squeak its faint presence. That is about where the real 'work' of the soul begins, I suppose! A thread can only be as strong as the weakest link contributed by its fibers. RR , "vargottama" <vargottama> wrote: > > Currently fashionable ideas on the mind argue that thinking and > language are evolutionary traits, just like webbed feet and wings. The > Thinking and Language traits just happen to have a wider range of > application (leading to more humans surviving than the planet can > support). > > In this view, the idea that animals are somehow better off than humans > may not be teneble, because mind, language, logic, pollution and Jane > Fonda comes from nature. There are also arguments to the effect that > plants are as intellgent as other organisms, only their actions are > spread across time (plants avoid other plants' roots, they "plan" to > grow into gaps that provide sunlight in rainforests etc.). > > One take on the silence the meditators clamour for is that it is a > "switching off" of the brain's "background buzz". Brain imaging of > expert meditators have shown that their brain activity can sometimes > be 60% lower than other humans. > > Whether such browning out of the brain leads one to God is a different > question. It depends on what the brain does, the nature of knowledge > (first-person/subjective Vs. third-person/objective). The argument > made in the spirituality thread essentially claims that the first kind > of knowledge is superior to the second, and all advances made via the > second can be achieved by the first. I am not that sure, I think they > feed different inclinations in humans, or we would've seen > wheelbarrows and scotch tape in ancient India. > > Ram > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > > > In the jungle of waves and particles, awareness to that fleeting wisp > > of consciousness we call a thought, perhaps. As you indicated, it > > might very well be that these do not arise out of volition, though > > awareness is often if not always born out of will. > > > > But there must be a zone of silence that meditators clamour for, the > > zone of thoughtlessness, when or where the jungle stands still. Where > > trees do not fall, even when no one is listening. > > > > > > > > , "El Spook" <nagrecha@v...> > > wrote: > > > > > > That was a superb question. > > > > > > In fact, the question itself, being thoughtful gives birth to a > > > whole new lot of thought on thought on the birth of thought. > > > > > > > > > Thought itself I believe is not born of a free volition but is the > > > question that is asked as we go through a karmic cycle of many > > lifes > > > and deaths in order to experience all that a soul needs to discover > > > in its journey, till one day, it merges back into the creator, just > > > like a wayward sheep returns to its fold having temporarily enjoyed > > > the benefit of freedom from the flock. > > > Thought is the result of the spillover of karmic consciousness that > > > is left behind as memory unretentive (is it?) that draws you back > > > into the comfort of the experienced. > > > Anything that is "created" or "discovered" is the result of a > > > current epoch, an age that is currently prevailing as in Kal Youg, > > > but this does not imply it was hitherto unknown or unexperienced or > > > undiscovered. Since Bell "invented" the phone and technology mass > > > produced it, and Marconi likewise with the wireless, we have seen > > > both evlove from two distinct channels into one converged > > refination > > > called cellular, but this does not imply it wasnt ther. Since two > > > inventions inspired a third, what seeded them? It was thought alone > > > that seeded thought. > > > > > > The complexity of your questions lies in a very simple yet thought > > > provoking answer. As Humans, we have comlicated our life with > > logic, > > > religion, science and comprehension. Are animals unworthy or lower, > > > they do think and they do it more uninhibited than we can. They > > > impart skills without schools, grace without the power to > > comprehend > > > it and fulfil the same physical functions as a human could or > > would. > > > > > > We are said to be mentally superior, but I feel the animal closer > > to > > > sprituality since it does not perform for reason, it merely in a > > > basal, banal existence as a co-lifeform on this planet goes through > > > life and death impassively without , cigarettes, > > alcohol, > > > nuclear power or even pizza, coke and a knowledge of healthy > > > lifestyle, etc., It doesn't need a Jane Fonda video to stay in > > shape > > > but thinks intelligently when it comes to performing its functions. > > > > > > It doesn't need a doctor to advise a CAT scan because it follows > > one > > > simple rule... if the pain doesn't go away, I will and I'm prepared. > > > > > > Food for Thought? Anyone? > > > > > > Ajay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2004 Report Share Posted December 28, 2004 I agree! BTW, since this discussion has gone all the way between science, art and consciousness, some of you may find this link interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lectures.shtml I highly recommend listening to all 5 lectures, not only because the lecturer is Indian, but also for the insight, scholarly rigour, perspective and humour. His book is also worth reading. Ram , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> wrote: > > The 'browning out' (great example!) may not lead to God, but it does > create the canvas for the faint image of divinity to become apparent. > And for all we know, the faint image could just be a faint projection > from the source of awareness, the meditator! As the noise outside > dies down, we become more aware of our thoughts, and when those > become faint perhaps the background that is divine gets a chance to > squeak its faint presence. That is about where the real 'work' of the > soul begins, I suppose! > > A thread can only be as strong as the weakest link contributed by its > fibers. > > RR > > > , "vargottama" > <vargottama> wrote: > > > > Currently fashionable ideas on the mind argue that thinking and > > language are evolutionary traits, just like webbed feet and wings. > The > > Thinking and Language traits just happen to have a wider range of > > application (leading to more humans surviving than the planet can > > support). > > > > In this view, the idea that animals are somehow better off than > humans > > may not be teneble, because mind, language, logic, pollution and > Jane > > Fonda comes from nature. There are also arguments to the effect that > > plants are as intellgent as other organisms, only their actions are > > spread across time (plants avoid other plants' roots, they "plan" to > > grow into gaps that provide sunlight in rainforests etc.). > > > > One take on the silence the meditators clamour for is that it is a > > "switching off" of the brain's "background buzz". Brain imaging of > > expert meditators have shown that their brain activity can sometimes > > be 60% lower than other humans. > > > > Whether such browning out of the brain leads one to God is a > different > > question. It depends on what the brain does, the nature of knowledge > > (first-person/subjective Vs. third-person/objective). The argument > > made in the spirituality thread essentially claims that the first > kind > > of knowledge is superior to the second, and all advances made via > the > > second can be achieved by the first. I am not that sure, I think > they > > feed different inclinations in humans, or we would've seen > > wheelbarrows and scotch tape in ancient India. > > > > Ram > > > > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > > > In the jungle of waves and particles, awareness to that fleeting > wisp > > > of consciousness we call a thought, perhaps. As you indicated, it > > > might very well be that these do not arise out of volition, > though > > > awareness is often if not always born out of will. > > > > > > But there must be a zone of silence that meditators clamour for, > the > > > zone of thoughtlessness, when or where the jungle stands still. > Where > > > trees do not fall, even when no one is listening. > > > > > > > > > > > > , "El Spook" > <nagrecha@v...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > That was a superb question. > > > > > > > > In fact, the question itself, being thoughtful gives birth to a > > > > whole new lot of thought on thought on the birth of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought itself I believe is not born of a free volition but is > the > > > > question that is asked as we go through a karmic cycle of many > > > lifes > > > > and deaths in order to experience all that a soul needs to > discover > > > > in its journey, till one day, it merges back into the creator, > just > > > > like a wayward sheep returns to its fold having temporarily > enjoyed > > > > the benefit of freedom from the flock. > > > > Thought is the result of the spillover of karmic consciousness > that > > > > is left behind as memory unretentive (is it?) that draws you > back > > > > into the comfort of the experienced. > > > > Anything that is "created" or "discovered" is the result of a > > > > current epoch, an age that is currently prevailing as in Kal > Youg, > > > > but this does not imply it was hitherto unknown or > unexperienced or > > > > undiscovered. Since Bell "invented" the phone and technology > mass > > > > produced it, and Marconi likewise with the wireless, we have > seen > > > > both evlove from two distinct channels into one converged > > > refination > > > > called cellular, but this does not imply it wasnt ther. Since > two > > > > inventions inspired a third, what seeded them? It was thought > alone > > > > that seeded thought. > > > > > > > > The complexity of your questions lies in a very simple yet > thought > > > > provoking answer. As Humans, we have comlicated our life with > > > logic, > > > > religion, science and comprehension. Are animals unworthy or > lower, > > > > they do think and they do it more uninhibited than we can. They > > > > impart skills without schools, grace without the power to > > > comprehend > > > > it and fulfil the same physical functions as a human could or > > > would. > > > > > > > > We are said to be mentally superior, but I feel the animal > closer > > > to > > > > sprituality since it does not perform for reason, it merely in > a > > > > basal, banal existence as a co-lifeform on this planet goes > through > > > > life and death impassively without , cigarettes, > > > alcohol, > > > > nuclear power or even pizza, coke and a knowledge of healthy > > > > lifestyle, etc., It doesn't need a Jane Fonda video to stay in > > > shape > > > > but thinks intelligently when it comes to performing its > functions. > > > > > > > > It doesn't need a doctor to advise a CAT scan because it > follows > > > one > > > > simple rule... if the pain doesn't go away, I will and I'm > prepared. > > > > > > > > Food for Thought? Anyone? > > > > > > > > Ajay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Just curious, has this issue ever been resolved one way or the other??? 4 years ago I heard people decry that the feeling of seeing light by tibetian monks was simply because the brain activity was reduced to faint minimum which caused this feeling and it has nothing spiritual about the process ... I have since been wondering about the same ! In nature, where a vaccum is created there is a greater tendency for all things to rush towards the vaccum to fill it ... Does this hold for thoughts per say? what if creating a vaccum of thoughts in the mind intensifies those thoughts that come in (single thoughts that are allowed in)? This reminds me of the homeopathy discussion we had sometime ago ... dilution and potentialization increases the healing capacity ! --- vargottama <vargottama wrote: > > I agree! > > BTW, since this discussion has gone all the way > between science, art > and consciousness, some of you may find this link > interesting: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/ > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lectures.shtml > > > I highly recommend listening to all 5 lectures, not > only because the > lecturer is Indian, but also for the insight, > scholarly rigour, > perspective and humour. His book is also worth > reading. > > Ram > > , > "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> > wrote: > > > > The 'browning out' (great example!) may not lead > to God, but it > does > > create the canvas for the faint image of divinity > to become > apparent. > > And for all we know, the faint image could just be > a faint > projection > > from the source of awareness, the meditator! As > the noise outside > > dies down, we become more aware of our thoughts, > and when those > > become faint perhaps the background that is divine > gets a chance to > > squeak its faint presence. That is about where the > real 'work' of > the > > soul begins, I suppose! > > > > A thread can only be as strong as the weakest link > contributed by > its > > fibers. > > > > RR > > > > > > , > "vargottama" > > <vargottama> wrote: > > > > > > Currently fashionable ideas on the mind argue > that thinking and > > > language are evolutionary traits, just like > webbed feet and > wings. > > The > > > Thinking and Language traits just happen to have > a wider range of > > > application (leading to more humans surviving > than the planet can > > > support). > > > > > > In this view, the idea that animals are somehow > better off than > > humans > > > may not be teneble, because mind, language, > logic, pollution and > > Jane > > > Fonda comes from nature. There are also > arguments to the effect > that > > > plants are as intellgent as other organisms, > only their actions > are > > > spread across time (plants avoid other plants' > roots, they "plan" > to > > > grow into gaps that provide sunlight in > rainforests etc.). > > > > > > One take on the silence the meditators clamour > for is that it is > a > > > "switching off" of the brain's "background > buzz". Brain imaging > of > > > expert meditators have shown that their brain > activity can > sometimes > > > be 60% lower than other humans. > > > > > > Whether such browning out of the brain leads one > to God is a > > different > > > question. It depends on what the brain does, the > nature of > knowledge > > > (first-person/subjective Vs. > third-person/objective). The > argument > > > made in the spirituality thread essentially > claims that the first > > kind > > > of knowledge is superior to the second, and all > advances made via > > the > > > second can be achieved by the first. I am not > that sure, I think > > they > > > feed different inclinations in humans, or we > would've seen > > > wheelbarrows and scotch tape in ancient India. > > > > > > Ram > > > > > > , > "rohiniranjan" > <rrgb@s...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > In the jungle of waves and particles, > awareness to that > fleeting > > wisp > > > > of consciousness we call a thought, perhaps. > As you indicated, > it > > > > might very well be that these do not arise out > of volition, > > though > > > > awareness is often if not always born out of > will. > > > > > > > > But there must be a zone of silence that > meditators clamour > for, > > the > > > > zone of thoughtlessness, when or where the > jungle stands still. > > Where > > > > trees do not fall, even when no one is > listening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "El > Spook" > > <nagrecha@v...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That was a superb question. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, the question itself, being > thoughtful gives birth to > a > > > > > whole new lot of thought on thought on the > birth of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought itself I believe is not born of a > free volition but > is > > the > > > > > question that is asked as we go through a > karmic cycle of > many > > > > lifes > > > > > and deaths in order to experience all that a > soul needs to > > discover > > > > > in its journey, till one day, it merges back > into the > creator, > > just > > > > > like a wayward sheep returns to its fold > having temporarily > > enjoyed > > > > > the benefit of freedom from the flock. > > > > > Thought is the result of the spillover of > karmic > consciousness > > that > > > > > is left behind as memory unretentive (is > it?) that draws you > > back > > > > > into the comfort of the experienced. > > > > > Anything that is "created" or "discovered" > is the result of a > > > > > current epoch, an age that is currently > prevailing as in Kal > > Youg, > > > > > but this does not imply it was hitherto > unknown or > === message truncated === Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile./maildemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 The discussion is indeed taking very interesting twists and turns. There can be a separate discussion regarding the thought process. Tibetan monks do concentrate on "Shunyata" (nothingness). Our own sages, seers have done that and still there are many doing that. The reason is not far to seek. I recall the extract from the paper delivered by Swami Vivekanand on “Hinduism” at the Parliament of Religions on Sep 19, 1893 (the everlasting truth): “Science is said to have proved that the sum total of all cosmic energy is always the same. Then, if there was a time when nothing existed, where was all this manifested energy? Some say it was in a potential form of God. In that case God is sometimes potential and sometimes kinetic, which would make Him mutable. Everything mutable is a compound, and everything compound must undergo that change which is called destruction. So God would die, which is absurd. Therefore there never was a time when there was no creation. …..creation and creator are two lines, without beginning and without end, running parallel to each other. God is the ever-active providence, by whose power systems after systems are being evolved out of chaos, made to run for a time and again destroyed. This is what the Brahmin repeats everyday ‘The sun and the moon, the Lord created like the suns and moons of previous cycles’. And this agrees with modern science.” Hence, the concentration on nothingness and this is where faint minimum, low brain activity comes in....that is dhyana (meditation) in its true form. With regard tospirituality the word evolves from spirit. Its frequent inter changeable use with religion, holy etc has led to the misunderstanding of this term. Spirit is in the body. We are not even aware of it, yet it is there. The truth of spirit and spirituality is not self-evident to the mind. Man seldom becomes mentally aware of the soul as something other than his body – he may only have some feeling of some of its effects on his nature. Commonly, half-effects of psychic pressures on the mental and vital parts, sometimes mixed with mental aspirations and desires, is mistaken for the soul, just as ego is taken for the self, although the self in its true being is both universal and individual in its essence. Similarly, a mixture of mental aspiration and vital enthusiasm and ardour uplifted by some kind of strong belief or self-dedication or altruistic eagerness is mistaken for spirituality. In essence spirituality is not a high intellectuality, idealism, an ethical turn of mind or moral purity and austerity, religiosity or an ardent and exalted emotional fervour, or a compound of these excellent things. A mental belief, faith or creed, an emotional aspiration, a regulation of conduct according to a religious or ethical formula are not spiritual achievement or experience. These things are of considerable value to mind and life; they are of value to the spiritual evolution itself as preparatory movements disciplining, purifying and giving a suitable form to the human nature, but they still belong to the mental evolution, the beginning of a spiritual realisation and experience. Spirituality is an awakening of the inner reality of our being, to a spirit, self, soul which is other than our mind, life and body; an inner aspiration to know, to feel to be that, to enter into contact with the greater Reality beyond and pervading the universe which inhabits also our own being, to be in communion with It and union with It, and a transformation of our whole being as a result of such aspiration, a growth into a new becoming or new being, a new self, a new nature. Views may vary with human understanding and capabilities.... surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv wrote: Just curious, has this issue ever been resolved one way or the other??? 4 years ago I heard people decry that the feeling of seeing light by tibetian monks was simply because the brain activity was reduced to faint minimum which caused this feeling and it has nothing spiritual about the process ... I have since been wondering about the same ! In nature, where a vaccum is created there is a greater tendency for all things to rush towards the vaccum to fill it ... Does this hold for thoughts per say? what if creating a vaccum of thoughts in the mind intensifies those thoughts that come in (single thoughts that are allowed in)? This reminds me of the homeopathy discussion we had sometime ago ... dilution and potentialization increases the healing capacity ! --- vargottama wrote: > > I agree! > > BTW, since this discussion has gone all the way > between science, art > and consciousness, some of you may find this link > interesting: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/ > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lectures.shtml > > > I highly recommend listening to all 5 lectures, not > only because the > lecturer is Indian, but also for the insight, > scholarly rigour, > perspective and humour. His book is also worth > reading. > > Ram > > , > "rohiniranjan" > wrote: > > > > The 'browning out' (great example!) may not lead > to God, but it > does > > create the canvas for the faint image of divinity > to become > apparent. > > And for all we know, the faint image could just be > a faint > projection > > from the source of awareness, the meditator! As > the noise outside > > dies down, we become more aware of our thoughts, > and when those > > become faint perhaps the background that is divine > gets a chance to > > squeak its faint presence. That is about where the > real 'work' of > the > > soul begins, I suppose! > > > > A thread can only be as strong as the weakest link > contributed by > its > > fibers. > > > > RR > > > > > > , > "vargottama" > > wrote: > > > > > > Currently fashionable ideas on the mind argue > that thinking and > > > language are evolutionary traits, just like > webbed feet and > wings. > > The > > > Thinking and Language traits just happen to have > a wider range of > > > application (leading to more humans surviving > than the planet can > > > support). > > > > > > In this view, the idea that animals are somehow > better off than > > humans > > > may not be teneble, because mind, language, > logic, pollution and > > Jane > > > Fonda comes from nature. There are also > arguments to the effect > that > > > plants are as intellgent as other organisms, > only their actions > are > > > spread across time (plants avoid other plants' > roots, they "plan" > to > > > grow into gaps that provide sunlight in > rainforests etc.). > > > > > > One take on the silence the meditators clamour > for is that it is > a > > > "switching off" of the brain's "background > buzz". Brain imaging > of > > > expert meditators have shown that their brain > activity can > sometimes > > > be 60% lower than other humans. > > > > > > Whether such browning out of the brain leads one > to God is a > > different > > > question. It depends on what the brain does, the > nature of > knowledge > > > (first-person/subjective Vs. > third-person/objective). The > argument > > > made in the spirituality thread essentially > claims that the first > > kind > > > of knowledge is superior to the second, and all > advances made via > > the > > > second can be achieved by the first. I am not > that sure, I think > > they > > > feed different inclinations in humans, or we > would've seen > > > wheelbarrows and scotch tape in ancient India. > > > > > > Ram > > > > > > , > "rohiniranjan" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > In the jungle of waves and particles, > awareness to that > fleeting > > wisp > > > > of consciousness we call a thought, perhaps. > As you indicated, > it > > > > might very well be that these do not arise out > of volition, > > though > > > > awareness is often if not always born out of > will. > > > > > > > > But there must be a zone of silence that > meditators clamour > for, > > the > > > > zone of thoughtlessness, when or where the > jungle stands still. > > Where > > > > trees do not fall, even when no one is > listening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "El > Spook" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That was a superb question. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, the question itself, being > thoughtful gives birth to > a > > > > > whole new lot of thought on thought on the > birth of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought itself I believe is not born of a > free volition but > is > > the > > > > > question that is asked as we go through a > karmic cycle of > many > > > > lifes > > > > > and deaths in order to experience all that a > soul needs to > > discover > > > > > in its journey, till one day, it merges back > into the > creator, > > just > > > > > like a wayward sheep returns to its fold > having temporarily > > enjoyed > > > > > the benefit of freedom from the flock. > > > > > Thought is the result of the spillover of > karmic > consciousness > > that > > > > > is left behind as memory unretentive (is > it?) that draws you > > back > > > > > into the comfort of the experienced. > > > > > Anything that is "created" or "discovered" > is the result of a > > > > > current epoch, an age that is currently > prevailing as in Kal > > Youg, > > > > > but this does not imply it was hitherto > unknown or > === message truncated === Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile./maildemo ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 I agree with pretty much everything said below, but would like to point to a set of western ideas that are leading in a similar direction. A good place to start is Surya's wondering (brain activity reduced to faint minimum, which caused this feeling. So there is "nothing spiritual" about the process, is it "just" brain activity?) Most of neuroscience assumes a materialist stand, which basically says all mental activity is physical activity, and learning about the physical activity will tell us everything about the mind (strong materialist version). This position leads to a rejection of the 'knower' as an entity separate from the body. One interesting variant of this position (Dennett, the best among the lot in philosophy right now) says that the idea of a 'knower' is a useful fiction, something that holds together humans as systems, and directs different system processes in an efficient manner. Further, we also think such 'knowers' exist in others, because that is useful in predicting how they would behave as systems. The usual analogy made is to the idea of centre of gravity, which has a quasi-real status. It is a useful concept, but if I ask you to go out and show me a couple of centre of gravities, it would be kinda hard to do. The notion of a 'knower' is like this. This position is very reminiscent of the idea of the self as maya (and, rightly, many people have called Dennett a Buddhist, though he seems to want to think that he came up with the idea first:). But this is as far as current philosophy goes. In an extraordinarily bold move, Indian spirituality pushes this one step further, which is: what happens if a system tries to dissolve this knowing self? Note that this move requires a certain systemic complexity -- you first need a knowing self, then knowledge of what it provides/does, the ability to control it, and then direct that self in a way that it dissolves itself. Monkeys and bacteria cannot do this, for instance. Given that the self is extremely useful for the system, and establishes itself right from childhood, it is not that easy to dissolve it. But assuming you can do it, two things could happen. One, your system crashes and you go mad. Two, you retain the system, but manage to see beyond the self, i.e. attain a different state of being. But this is going to be patchy, because you have to do a balancing act, between retaining control of the system and looking beyond it. This explains why most meditators report going in and out of bliss, and never being in it always. But the experience changes the system profoundly. Does this mean spiritual experience is "just" brain activity? If you buy crass reductionism, yes. In this view, spirituality is "nothing but" shutting down useless background chatter in the brain. But the process of doing it, and what it does to the system in knowledge terms (the faint revelation of divinity, as RR puts it), is beyond neuroscience. The good news is that many neuroscientists are Buddhists, and take the idea of meditation seriously. The bad news is that current philosophy and science have no way to capture the meditation process, and the first-person knowledge coming out of such experiences. We kinda hit the limits of materialism and scientific description hereabouts. The above story illustrates a point that a lot of Indians who reject western ideas seem to miss. Which is that there are many ways to reach the spiritual plane, including materialism (as a philosophical doctrine, not buying stuff). Indian ideas may have a long history, and it may be proven technology, but there is no harm in shopping around. Seeing other products helps you in assessing what is good about the one you use (or your ancestors used), and what is missing from it. Seeing how others use such ideas helps you in understanding your product better, maybe even how to use it better. By rejecting something outright, you lose the chance to learn from it. Walk other paths, they say traveling broadens the mind! :-) Ram PS: For those wanting to pursue this further, check out Dennett's "The Intentional Stance" and "Consciousness Explained". Not easy reading, given the subject matter, but he is a very entertaining writer. , Amitabh Shastri <amitabh_shastri> wrote: > > The discussion is indeed taking very interesting twists and turns. There can be a separate discussion regarding the thought process. Tibetan monks do concentrate on "Shunyata" (nothingness). Our own sages, seers have done that and still there are many doing that. The reason is not far to seek. I recall the extract from the paper delivered by Swami Vivekanand on "Hinduism" at the Parliament of Religions on Sep 19, 1893 (the everlasting truth): > > "Science is said to have proved that the sum total of all cosmic energy is always the same. Then, if there was a time when nothing existed, where was all this manifested energy? Some say it was in a potential form of God. In that case God is sometimes potential and sometimes kinetic, which would make Him mutable. Everything mutable is a compound, and everything compound must undergo that change which is called destruction. So God would die, which is absurd. Therefore there never was a time when there was no creation. > > …..creation and creator are two lines, without beginning and without end, running parallel to each other. God is the ever-active providence, by whose power systems after systems are being evolved out of chaos, made to run for a time and again destroyed. This is what the Brahmin repeats everyday `The sun and the moon, the Lord created like the suns and moons of previous cycles'. And this agrees with modern science." > > Hence, the concentration on nothingness and this is where faint minimum, low brain activity comes in....that is dhyana (meditation) in its true form. > > > > With regard tospirituality the word evolves from spirit. Its frequent inter changeable use with religion, holy etc has led to the misunderstanding of this term. > > > > Spirit is in the body. We are not even aware of it, yet it is there. The truth of spirit and spirituality is not self-evident to the mind. Man seldom becomes mentally aware of the soul as something other than his body – he may only have some feeling of some of its effects on his nature. Commonly, half-effects of psychic pressures on the mental and vital parts, sometimes mixed with mental aspirations and desires, is mistaken for the soul, just as ego is taken for the self, although the self in its true being is both universal and individual in its essence. Similarly, a mixture of mental aspiration and vital enthusiasm and ardour uplifted by some kind of strong belief or self-dedication or altruistic eagerness is mistaken for spirituality. > > > > In essence spirituality is not a high intellectuality, idealism, an ethical turn of mind or moral purity and austerity, religiosity or an ardent and exalted emotional fervour, or a compound of these excellent things. A mental belief, faith or creed, an emotional aspiration, a regulation of conduct according to a religious or ethical formula are not spiritual achievement or experience. These things are of considerable value to mind and life; they are of value to the spiritual evolution itself as preparatory movements disciplining, purifying and giving a suitable form to the human nature, but they still belong to the mental evolution, the beginning of a spiritual realisation and experience. Spirituality is an awakening of the inner reality of our being, to a spirit, self, soul which is other than our mind, life and body; an inner aspiration to know, to feel to be that, to enter into contact with the greater Reality beyond and pervading the universe which inhabits also our own being, to > be in communion with It and union with It, and a transformation of our whole being as a result of such aspiration, a growth into a new becoming or new being, a new self, a new nature. > > Views may vary with human understanding and capabilities.... > > surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > > Just curious, has this issue ever been resolved one > way or the other??? > > 4 years ago I heard people decry that the feeling of > seeing light by tibetian monks was simply because the > brain activity was reduced to faint minimum which > caused this feeling and it has nothing spiritual about > the process ... > > I have since been wondering about the same ! > > In nature, where a vaccum is created there is a > greater tendency for all things to rush towards the > vaccum to fill it ... > > Does this hold for thoughts per say? what if creating > a vaccum of thoughts in the mind intensifies those > thoughts that come in (single thoughts that are > allowed in)? This reminds me of the homeopathy > discussion we had sometime ago ... dilution and > potentialization increases the healing capacity ! > > > --- vargottama wrote: > > > > > I agree! > > > > BTW, since this discussion has gone all the way > > between science, art > > and consciousness, some of you may find this link > > interesting: > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/ > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lectures.shtml > > > > > > I highly recommend listening to all 5 lectures, not > > only because the > > lecturer is Indian, but also for the insight, > > scholarly rigour, > > perspective and humour. His book is also worth > > reading. > > > > Ram > > > > , > > "rohiniranjan" > > wrote: > > > > > > The 'browning out' (great example!) may not lead > > to God, but it > > does > > > create the canvas for the faint image of divinity > > to become > > apparent. > > > And for all we know, the faint image could just be > > a faint > > projection > > > from the source of awareness, the meditator! As > > the noise outside > > > dies down, we become more aware of our thoughts, > > and when those > > > become faint perhaps the background that is divine > > gets a chance to > > > squeak its faint presence. That is about where the > > real 'work' of > > the > > > soul begins, I suppose! > > > > > > A thread can only be as strong as the weakest link > > contributed by > > its > > > fibers. > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > , > > "vargottama" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Currently fashionable ideas on the mind argue > > that thinking and > > > > language are evolutionary traits, just like > > webbed feet and > > wings. > > > The > > > > Thinking and Language traits just happen to have > > a wider range of > > > > application (leading to more humans surviving > > than the planet can > > > > support). > > > > > > > > In this view, the idea that animals are somehow > > better off than > > > humans > > > > may not be teneble, because mind, language, > > logic, pollution and > > > Jane > > > > Fonda comes from nature. There are also > > arguments to the effect > > that > > > > plants are as intellgent as other organisms, > > only their actions > > are > > > > spread across time (plants avoid other plants' > > roots, they "plan" > > to > > > > grow into gaps that provide sunlight in > > rainforests etc.). > > > > > > > > One take on the silence the meditators clamour > > for is that it is > > a > > > > "switching off" of the brain's "background > > buzz". Brain imaging > > of > > > > expert meditators have shown that their brain > > activity can > > sometimes > > > > be 60% lower than other humans. > > > > > > > > Whether such browning out of the brain leads one > > to God is a > > > different > > > > question. It depends on what the brain does, the > > nature of > > knowledge > > > > (first-person/subjective Vs. > > third-person/objective). The > > argument > > > > made in the spirituality thread essentially > > claims that the first > > > kind > > > > of knowledge is superior to the second, and all > > advances made via > > > the > > > > second can be achieved by the first. I am not > > that sure, I think > > > they > > > > feed different inclinations in humans, or we > > would've seen > > > > wheelbarrows and scotch tape in ancient India. > > > > > > > > Ram > > > > > > > > , > > "rohiniranjan" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In the jungle of waves and particles, > > awareness to that > > fleeting > > > wisp > > > > > of consciousness we call a thought, perhaps. > > As you indicated, > > it > > > > > might very well be that these do not arise out > > of volition, > > > though > > > > > awareness is often if not always born out of > > will. > > > > > > > > > > But there must be a zone of silence that > > meditators clamour > > for, > > > the > > > > > zone of thoughtlessness, when or where the > > jungle stands still. > > > Where > > > > > trees do not fall, even when no one is > > listening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "El > > Spook" > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That was a superb question. > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact, the question itself, being > > thoughtful gives birth to > > a > > > > > > whole new lot of thought on thought on the > > birth of thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought itself I believe is not born of a > > free volition but > > is > > > the > > > > > > question that is asked as we go through a > > karmic cycle of > > many > > > > > lifes > > > > > > and deaths in order to experience all that a > > soul needs to > > > discover > > > > > > in its journey, till one day, it merges back > > into the > > creator, > > > just > > > > > > like a wayward sheep returns to its fold > > having temporarily > > > enjoyed > > > > > > the benefit of freedom from the flock. > > > > > > Thought is the result of the spillover of > > karmic > > consciousness > > > that > > > > > > is left behind as memory unretentive (is > > it?) that draws you > > > back > > > > > > into the comfort of the experienced. > > > > > > Anything that is "created" or "discovered" > > is the result of a > > > > > > current epoch, an age that is currently > > prevailing as in Kal > > > Youg, > > > > > > but this does not imply it was hitherto > > unknown or > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. > http://mobile./maildemo > > > > ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > Links > > > > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Well said! --- Amitabh Shastri <amitabh_shastri wrote: > > The discussion is indeed taking very interesting > twists and turns. There can be a separate discussion > regarding the thought process. Tibetan monks do > concentrate on "Shunyata" (nothingness). Our own > sages, seers have done that and still there are many > doing that. The reason is not far to seek. I recall > the extract from the paper delivered by Swami > Vivekanand on “Hinduism” at the Parliament of > Religions on Sep 19, 1893 (the everlasting truth): > > “Science is said to have proved that the sum total > of all cosmic energy is always the same. Then, if > there was a time when nothing existed, where was all > this manifested energy? Some say it was in a > potential form of God. In that case God is sometimes > potential and sometimes kinetic, which would make > Him mutable. Everything mutable is a compound, and > everything compound must undergo that change which > is called destruction. So God would die, which is > absurd. Therefore there never was a time when there > was no creation. > > …..creation and creator are two lines, without > beginning and without end, running parallel to each > other. God is the ever-active providence, by whose > power systems after systems are being evolved out of > chaos, made to run for a time and again destroyed. > This is what the Brahmin repeats everyday ‘The sun > and the moon, the Lord created like the suns and > moons of previous cycles’. And this agrees with > modern science.” > > Hence, the concentration on nothingness and this is > where faint minimum, low brain activity comes > in....that is dhyana (meditation) in its true form. > > > > With regard tospirituality the word evolves from > spirit. Its frequent inter changeable use with > religion, holy etc has led to the misunderstanding > of this term. > > > > Spirit is in the body. We are not even aware of it, > yet it is there. The truth of spirit and > spirituality is not self-evident to the mind. Man > seldom becomes mentally aware of the soul as > something other than his body – he may only have > some feeling of some of its effects on his nature. > Commonly, half-effects of psychic pressures on the > mental and vital parts, sometimes mixed with mental > aspirations and desires, is mistaken for the soul, > just as ego is taken for the self, although the self > in its true being is both universal and individual > in its essence. Similarly, a mixture of mental > aspiration and vital enthusiasm and ardour uplifted > by some kind of strong belief or self-dedication or > altruistic eagerness is mistaken for spirituality. > > > > In essence spirituality is not a high > intellectuality, idealism, an ethical turn of mind > or moral purity and austerity, religiosity or an > ardent and exalted emotional fervour, or a compound > of these excellent things. A mental belief, faith or > creed, an emotional aspiration, a regulation of > conduct according to a religious or ethical formula > are not spiritual achievement or experience. These > things are of considerable value to mind and life; > they are of value to the spiritual evolution itself > as preparatory movements disciplining, purifying and > giving a suitable form to the human nature, but they > still belong to the mental evolution, the beginning > of a spiritual realisation and experience. > Spirituality is an awakening of the inner reality of > our being, to a spirit, self, soul which is other > than our mind, life and body; an inner aspiration to > know, to feel to be that, to enter into contact with > the greater Reality beyond and pervading the > universe which inhabits also our own being, to > be in communion with It and union with It, and a > transformation of our whole being as a result of > such aspiration, a growth into a new becoming or new > being, a new self, a new nature. > > Views may vary with human understanding and > capabilities.... > > surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv wrote: > > Just curious, has this issue ever been resolved one > way or the other??? > > 4 years ago I heard people decry that the feeling of > seeing light by tibetian monks was simply because > the > brain activity was reduced to faint minimum which > caused this feeling and it has nothing spiritual > about > the process ... > > I have since been wondering about the same ! > > In nature, where a vaccum is created there is a > greater tendency for all things to rush towards the > vaccum to fill it ... > > Does this hold for thoughts per say? what if > creating > a vaccum of thoughts in the mind intensifies those > thoughts that come in (single thoughts that are > allowed in)? This reminds me of the homeopathy > discussion we had sometime ago ... dilution and > potentialization increases the healing capacity ! > > > --- vargottama wrote: > > > > > I agree! > > > > BTW, since this discussion has gone all the way > > between science, art > > and consciousness, some of you may find this link > > interesting: > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/ > > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lectures.shtml > > > > > > I highly recommend listening to all 5 lectures, > not > > only because the > > lecturer is Indian, but also for the insight, > > scholarly rigour, > > perspective and humour. His book is also worth > > reading. > > > > Ram > > > > , > > "rohiniranjan" > > wrote: > > > > > > The 'browning out' (great example!) may not lead > > to God, but it > > does > > > create the canvas for the faint image of > divinity > > to become > > apparent. > > > And for all we know, the faint image could just > be > > a faint > > projection > > > from the source of awareness, the meditator! As > > the noise outside > > > dies down, we become more aware of our thoughts, > > and when those > > > become faint perhaps the background that is > divine > > gets a chance to > > > squeak its faint presence. That is about where > the > > real 'work' of > > the > > > soul begins, I suppose! > > > > > > A thread can only be as strong as the weakest > link > > contributed by > > its > > > fibers. > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > , > > "vargottama" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Currently fashionable ideas on the mind argue > > that thinking and > > > > language are evolutionary traits, just like > > webbed feet and > > wings. > > > The > > > > Thinking and Language traits just happen to > have > > a wider range of > > > > application (leading to more humans surviving > > than the planet can > > > > support). > > > > > > > > In this view, the idea that animals are > somehow > === message truncated === The all-new My - What will yours do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dear Ram, That made for a fascinating reading material. Have you chanced upon "Emperors new mind" ??... Just to share some other dilemas I face to see what you have to say ... These concepts of self are complicated much more in cases like split personality .. I mean how can a straight setup of mind have two different concepts of self? Again, I have come across one more interesting concept from Iskon (I dont agree with a few of their theories, but that's a different story) .. it goes: "from the day I was born ... my body has undergone changes everyday ... however my notion of "I" has remained the same .." (this line of thought leads to many more complexities ... for ex: which part of me is me??? is my nail me? in which case if I clip it off are there two me's??) hence my body is not me ... Me is my consciouness which is eternal irrespective of the changes to my body ... When this concept was introduced to me ... I wondered ... what about the laboratory cases where the left and right brain were made disjoint (by slicing off the connection between them) ... in such cases it was found that the person was in a state of perpetual confusion of what constitues him !!! In this case as well however, there is always a notion of "I" .. which is very complex for us to understand without experiencing it ... I do agree that Indians rejecting western line of thought without exploring it fairly are as wrong as western intelligentia that reject oriental line of thought without exploring it ... there is however a scant hope that someday all lines of thought will merge into one .... if spirituality can be achieved by a high tech gadget manipulating brain activity .. so be it !! Good post ! --- vargottama <vargottama wrote: > > I agree with pretty much everything said below, but > would like to > point to a set of western ideas that are leading in > a similar > direction. A good place to start is Surya's > wondering (brain activity > reduced to faint minimum, which caused this feeling. > So there is > "nothing spiritual" about the process, is it "just" > brain activity?) > > Most of neuroscience assumes a materialist stand, > which basically > says all mental activity is physical activity, and > learning about the > physical activity will tell us everything about the > mind (strong > materialist version). This position leads to a > rejection of the > 'knower' as an entity separate from the body. > > One interesting variant of this position (Dennett, > the best among the > lot in philosophy right now) says that the idea of a > 'knower' is a > useful fiction, something that holds together humans > as systems, and > directs different system processes in an efficient > manner. Further, > we also think such 'knowers' exist in others, > because that is useful > in predicting how they would behave as systems. The > usual analogy > made is to the idea of centre of gravity, which has > a quasi-real > status. It is a useful concept, but if I ask you to > go out and show > me a couple of centre of gravities, it would be > kinda hard to do. The > notion of a 'knower' is like this. > > This position is very reminiscent of the idea of the > self as maya > (and, rightly, many people have called Dennett a > Buddhist, though he > seems to want to think that he came up with the idea > first:). But > this is as far as current philosophy goes. In an > extraordinarily bold > move, Indian spirituality pushes this one step > further, which is: > what happens if a system tries to dissolve this > knowing self? Note > that this move requires a certain systemic > complexity -- you first > need a knowing self, then knowledge of what it > provides/does, the > ability to control it, and then direct that self in > a way that it > dissolves itself. Monkeys and bacteria cannot do > this, for instance. > > Given that the self is extremely useful for the > system, and > establishes itself right from childhood, it is not > that easy to > dissolve it. But assuming you can do it, two things > could happen. > One, your system crashes and you go mad. Two, you > retain the system, > but manage to see beyond the self, i.e. attain a > different state of > being. But this is going to be patchy, because you > have to do a > balancing act, between retaining control of the > system and looking > beyond it. This explains why most meditators report > going in and out > of bliss, and never being in it always. But the > experience changes > the system profoundly. > > Does this mean spiritual experience is "just" brain > activity? If you > buy crass reductionism, yes. In this view, > spirituality is "nothing > but" shutting down useless background chatter in the > brain. But the > process of doing it, and what it does to the system > in knowledge > terms (the faint revelation of divinity, as RR puts > it), is beyond > neuroscience. The good news is that many > neuroscientists are > Buddhists, and take the idea of meditation > seriously. The bad news is > that current philosophy and science have no way to > capture the > meditation process, and the first-person knowledge > coming out of such > experiences. We kinda hit the limits of materialism > and scientific > description hereabouts. > > The above story illustrates a point that a lot of > Indians who reject > western ideas seem to miss. Which is that there are > many ways to > reach the spiritual plane, including materialism (as > a philosophical > doctrine, not buying stuff). Indian ideas may have a > long history, > and it may be proven technology, but there is no > harm in shopping > around. Seeing other products helps you in assessing > what is good > about the one you use (or your ancestors used), and > what is missing > from it. Seeing how others use such ideas helps you > in understanding > your product better, maybe even how to use it > better. By rejecting > something outright, you lose the chance to learn > from it. Walk other > paths, they say traveling broadens the mind! :-) > > Ram > > PS: For those wanting to pursue this further, check > out Dennett's > "The Intentional Stance" and "Consciousness > Explained". Not easy > reading, given the subject matter, but he is a very > entertaining > writer. > > > , Amitabh > Shastri > <amitabh_shastri> wrote: > > > > The discussion is indeed taking very interesting > twists and turns. > There can be a separate discussion regarding the > thought process. > Tibetan monks do concentrate on "Shunyata" > (nothingness). Our own > sages, seers have done that and still there are many > doing that. The > reason is not far to seek. I recall the extract from > the paper > delivered by Swami Vivekanand on "Hinduism" at the > Parliament of > Religions on Sep 19, 1893 (the everlasting truth): > > > > "Science is said to have proved that the sum total > of all cosmic > energy is always the same. Then, if there was a time > when nothing > existed, where was all this manifested energy? Some > say it was in a > potential form of God. In that case God is sometimes > potential and > sometimes kinetic, which would make Him mutable. > Everything mutable > is a compound, and everything compound must undergo > that change which > is called destruction. So God would die, which is > absurd. Therefore > there never was a time when there was no creation. > > > > …..creation and creator are two lines, without > beginning and > without end, running parallel to each other. God is > the ever-active > providence, by whose power systems after systems are > being evolved > out of chaos, made to run for a time and again > destroyed. This is > what the Brahmin repeats everyday `The sun and the > moon, the Lord > created like the suns and moons of previous cycles'. > And this agrees > with modern science." > > > > Hence, the concentration on nothingness and this > is where faint > minimum, low brain activity comes in....that is > dhyana (meditation) > in its true form. > > > > > > > > With regard tospirituality the word evolves from > spirit. Its > frequent inter changeable use with religion, holy > etc has led to the > misunderstanding of this term. > > > > > === message truncated === Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail./mail_250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Hi Surya, Your questions relate to an extremely complex literature, and it would take me forever to explain the different distinctions and possibilities that I know of, and I don't know much. More books and papers are published on consciosuness than any other field these days! :-) These are very deep and murky waters. If you are really interested, and would like to wade through a minefield of concepts and ideas western philosophy is discussing these days, here is a good place to start: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/ They don't have an entry on the continuity-across-time of consciousness, but you may find something under unity of consciousness (how we manage to bring expriences of different entities together into a single experience). Continuity across time is considered one such unity. For a fairly accessible discussion of the topics you are interested in (particularly, which part of me is me and when does me stop being me), look up "The Mind's I" by Hofstadter and Dennett. It is one of most thought-provoking books I've come across. On the Emperor's New Mind, let's say I've *tried* reading it! :-) Ram -- In , surya vishnubhotla <surya_prakashv> wrote: > Dear Ram, > > That made for a fascinating reading material. Have you > chanced upon "Emperors new mind" ??... > > Just to share some other dilemas I face to see what > you have to say ... > These concepts of self are complicated much more in > cases like split personality .. I mean how can a > straight setup of mind have two different concepts of > self? > > Again, I have come across one more interesting concept > from Iskon (I dont agree with a few of their theories, > but that's a different story) .. it goes: "from the > day I was born ... my body has undergone changes > everyday ... however my notion of "I" has remained the > same .." (this line of thought leads to many more > complexities ... for ex: which part of me is me??? is > my nail me? in which case if I clip it off are there > two me's??) hence my body is not me ... Me is my > consciouness which is eternal irrespective of the > changes to my body ... > > When this concept was introduced to me ... I wondered > .. what about the laboratory cases where the left and > right brain were made disjoint (by slicing off the > connection between them) ... in such cases it was > found that the person was in a state of perpetual > confusion of what constitues him !!! > In this case as well however, there is always a notion > of "I" .. which is very complex for us to understand > without experiencing it ... > > I do agree that Indians rejecting western line of > thought without exploring it fairly are as wrong as > western intelligentia that reject oriental line of > thought without exploring it ... there is however a > scant hope that someday all lines of thought will > merge into one .... if spirituality can be achieved by > a high tech gadget manipulating brain activity .. so > be it !! > > Good post ! > > --- vargottama <vargottama> wrote: > > > > > I agree with pretty much everything said below, but > > would like to > > point to a set of western ideas that are leading in > > a similar > > direction. A good place to start is Surya's > > wondering (brain activity > > reduced to faint minimum, which caused this feeling. > > So there is > > "nothing spiritual" about the process, is it "just" > > brain activity?) > > > > Most of neuroscience assumes a materialist stand, > > which basically > > says all mental activity is physical activity, and > > learning about the > > physical activity will tell us everything about the > > mind (strong > > materialist version). This position leads to a > > rejection of the > > 'knower' as an entity separate from the body. > > > > One interesting variant of this position (Dennett, > > the best among the > > lot in philosophy right now) says that the idea of a > > 'knower' is a > > useful fiction, something that holds together humans > > as systems, and > > directs different system processes in an efficient > > manner. Further, > > we also think such 'knowers' exist in others, > > because that is useful > > in predicting how they would behave as systems. The > > usual analogy > > made is to the idea of centre of gravity, which has > > a quasi-real > > status. It is a useful concept, but if I ask you to > > go out and show > > me a couple of centre of gravities, it would be > > kinda hard to do. The > > notion of a 'knower' is like this. > > > > This position is very reminiscent of the idea of the > > self as maya > > (and, rightly, many people have called Dennett a > > Buddhist, though he > > seems to want to think that he came up with the idea > > first:). But > > this is as far as current philosophy goes. In an > > extraordinarily bold > > move, Indian spirituality pushes this one step > > further, which is: > > what happens if a system tries to dissolve this > > knowing self? Note > > that this move requires a certain systemic > > complexity -- you first > > need a knowing self, then knowledge of what it > > provides/does, the > > ability to control it, and then direct that self in > > a way that it > > dissolves itself. Monkeys and bacteria cannot do > > this, for instance. > > > > Given that the self is extremely useful for the > > system, and > > establishes itself right from childhood, it is not > > that easy to > > dissolve it. But assuming you can do it, two things > > could happen. > > One, your system crashes and you go mad. Two, you > > retain the system, > > but manage to see beyond the self, i.e. attain a > > different state of > > being. But this is going to be patchy, because you > > have to do a > > balancing act, between retaining control of the > > system and looking > > beyond it. This explains why most meditators report > > going in and out > > of bliss, and never being in it always. But the > > experience changes > > the system profoundly. > > > > Does this mean spiritual experience is "just" brain > > activity? If you > > buy crass reductionism, yes. In this view, > > spirituality is "nothing > > but" shutting down useless background chatter in the > > brain. But the > > process of doing it, and what it does to the system > > in knowledge > > terms (the faint revelation of divinity, as RR puts > > it), is beyond > > neuroscience. The good news is that many > > neuroscientists are > > Buddhists, and take the idea of meditation > > seriously. The bad news is > > that current philosophy and science have no way to > > capture the > > meditation process, and the first-person knowledge > > coming out of such > > experiences. We kinda hit the limits of materialism > > and scientific > > description hereabouts. > > > > The above story illustrates a point that a lot of > > Indians who reject > > western ideas seem to miss. Which is that there are > > many ways to > > reach the spiritual plane, including materialism (as > > a philosophical > > doctrine, not buying stuff). Indian ideas may have a > > long history, > > and it may be proven technology, but there is no > > harm in shopping > > around. Seeing other products helps you in assessing > > what is good > > about the one you use (or your ancestors used), and > > what is missing > > from it. Seeing how others use such ideas helps you > > in understanding > > your product better, maybe even how to use it > > better. By rejecting > > something outright, you lose the chance to learn > > from it. Walk other > > paths, they say traveling broadens the mind! :-) > > > > Ram > > > > PS: For those wanting to pursue this further, check > > out Dennett's > > "The Intentional Stance" and "Consciousness > > Explained". Not easy > > reading, given the subject matter, but he is a very > > entertaining > > writer. > > > > > > , Amitabh > > Shastri > > <amitabh_shastri> wrote: > > > > > > The discussion is indeed taking very interesting > > twists and turns. > > There can be a separate discussion regarding the > > thought process. > > Tibetan monks do concentrate on "Shunyata" > > (nothingness). Our own > > sages, seers have done that and still there are many > > doing that. The > > reason is not far to seek. I recall the extract from > > the paper > > delivered by Swami Vivekanand on "Hinduism" at the > > Parliament of > > Religions on Sep 19, 1893 (the everlasting truth): > > > > > > "Science is said to have proved that the sum total > > of all cosmic > > energy is always the same. Then, if there was a time > > when nothing > > existed, where was all this manifested energy? Some > > say it was in a > > potential form of God. In that case God is sometimes > > potential and > > sometimes kinetic, which would make Him mutable. > > Everything mutable > > is a compound, and everything compound must undergo > > that change which > > is called destruction. So God would die, which is > > absurd. Therefore > > there never was a time when there was no creation. > > > > > > …..creation and creator are two lines, without > > beginning and > > without end, running parallel to each other. God is > > the ever-active > > providence, by whose power systems after systems are > > being evolved > > out of chaos, made to run for a time and again > > destroyed. This is > > what the Brahmin repeats everyday `The sun and the > > moon, the Lord > > created like the suns and moons of previous cycles'. > > And this agrees > > with modern science." > > > > > > Hence, the concentration on nothingness and this > > is where faint > > minimum, low brain activity comes in....that is > > dhyana (meditation) > > in its true form. > > > > > > > > > > > > With regard tospirituality the word evolves from > > spirit. Its > > frequent inter changeable use with religion, holy > > etc has led to the > > misunderstanding of this term. > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. > http://info.mail./mail_250 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.