To El

[Guest guest]

Well, El...what can I say? Thank you very much. I attended the

Francis Lucille talks this week in Boston and someone asked him if he

was enlightened. His response was something like, " I'm neither

enlightened nor unenlightened. " Although it's impossible not to take

a position in duality, Francis' advice was not to get attached to

one's theories. Enlightenment is a confusing concept indeed. Has

anyone read the latest Newsweek issue on enlightenment?

 

Hur

 

Nisargadatta, elizabethwells2001 wrote:

>

> John:

>

> Nah....

>

> There is an enlightened list owner here.

>

> aka Hur.

>

> El

[Guest guest]

"Hur Guler" <Hur1

 

> Has > anyone read the latest Newsweek issue on enlightenment?

Yes, I'm aware of the work you cite. It deserves some comment.

 

Some of the earliest work done in this field (not mentioned in the article) was carried out by the Canadian neuroscientist Michael Persinger, of Laurentian University. Working from the findings of neurologists at the University of California, who located an area in the temporal lobe that seems to produce mystical and transcendent experiences, Persinger found he was actually able to invoke these experiences even in the unreligious. Participants reported many of the phenomena typically associated with the mystical experience such as a feeling of being At-One with all creation and sometimes being in the presence of God or another transcendental being. Christ was even seen appearing in a light by one participant.

 

The research you cite however is the converse of this. While Persinger is stipulating some king of 'mystics-module' in the brain on a par with language, auditory and visual centres, etc., Dr. James Austin, in the MSNBC article, is suggesting that the inhibition of brain centres commonly associated with the person or ego results in the mystical experience. The difference is quite noteworthy in terms of the implications each view has.

 

It should be borne in mind however that for Austin, the brain is the 'person' and he taking his work 'much less as proof of a deity, Austin took it as “proof of the existence of the brain.” (Article). This, however, is probably just to appease the neuroscientific community who do not like supernatural explanations, thus Austin is trying to play down his Zen roots. Nonetheless, the implications of his research do more for a supernatural explanation of the mystical experience than they do for a physical one.

 

As the article notes, Austen thought that for us to feel as if time, the ego, fear, etc., have 'dissolved' certain circuits within the brain are being inhibited. As the article notes " Activity in the amygdala, which monitors the environment for threats and registers fear, must be damped. Parietal-lobe circuits, which orient you in space and mark the sharp distinction between self and world, must go quiet. Frontal- and temporal-lobe circuits, which mark time and generate self-awareness, must disengage.". It was the inhibition of these areas, rather than heightened activity in the temporal lobe that Persinger describes, which Austin considers to be the cause of his feeling at the train station in London as if he was seeing things "as they really are" ("The sense of “I, me, mine” disappeared. “Time was not present,” he says. “I had a sense of eternity. My old yearnings, loathings, fear of death and insinuations of selfhood vanished. I had been graced by a comprehension of the ultimate nature of things.”.)

 

So, how do we proceed? Well, if we can record mystical experiences or states and demonstrate that there needent be heightened activity in the temporal lobe (or even temporal lobe epilepsy), but instead demonstrate that there needs to be a dampening of the centres of the brain associated with the 'person', we have still got room for a 'ghost in the machine' but certainly no proof. (The only way to demonstrate a non-physical component to consciousness satisfactorily is through things like telepathy, ghosts, telekinesis, etc.,. For example, how do we know, for certain, that Nisargadatta wasn't ill?)

 

If there is not just inhibition but excitation in any region, not necessarily the temporal lobe, accompanying the mystical experience, then things get a bit more complicated. We either have the situation whereby Enlightenment is simply a mental and purely biological irregularity or the possibility that God designed the brain so that we could experience Him. But this seems unlikely; after all, why do we need a brain to experience God directly? Isn't it the Soul that becomes At-One with God? And what about our state after death when we have no brain?

 

We are returning here to the question 'what is reality'? Well, for Nisargadatta he was both beyond the manifest Universe and also At-One with it; considering the whole thing his 'body' just as much as you or I consider our physical form to be our body. He also noted this:

 

"The objective universe has structure, is orderly and beautiful. Nobody can deny it. But structure and pattern, imply constraint and compulsion. My world is absolutely free; everything in it is self-determined. Therefore I keep on saying that all happens by itself. There is order in my world too, but it is not imposed from outside. It comes spontaneously and immediately, because of its timelessness. Perfection is not in the future. It is now."

And from another 20th Century mystic, Bernadette Roberts, who also attained Nisargadattas state we have this statement:

 

"There is no multiplicity of existences; only what Is has existence, an existence that can expand itself into an infinite variety of forms that constitute the movement and manifested aspect of itself. Though what Is, is the act, movement, and changing of all forms - and is form itself - it is, at the same time, the unchanging, unknowable aspect of all form. Thus, that which Is, continually observes the coming and going - the changing and movement - of its own form or acts, without participating in any essential change itself. Since the nature or essence of Itself is act, there can be no separation between its knowing, acting, existing, or between any aspect of itself, because that which acts, that which it acts upon, and the act itself are one without division. It never goes outside itself to know itself because the unmanifested, the manifesting, and the manifested are One."

Why did they say these things? Is it because of lack of neurological education or is 'reality' genuinely a manifestation of Source projected from that Source/God consciousness? Clear demonstration of ESP phenomena will settle the question conclusively for many; indicating that there is more than just the material. But isn't it supposed to be the mystical experience itself which demonstrates this to us at a more essential level?

 

Ultimately we simply have to wait and see where neurological research goes - and we certainly have to remember that any excitory action within the brain may not simply be causing the mystical experience but could itself actually be the result of a mystical expereince in some instances. (Though it is hard to argue this is the norm when these states are being produced on demand by am electrical current through an electrode.)

 

However, like the near-death experience, where the dying brain model of nde's has taken a bit of a nosedive, Austins research shows that anyone who takes Persingers work on the temporal lobe as conclusive is being slightly cavalier in their attitude.

 

Science has not yet killed God.

 

Kind regards,

Stephen

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " Stephen " <user@p...> wrote:

> So, how do we proceed? Well, if we can record mystical experiences

> or states and demonstrate that there needent be heightened activity

> in the temporal lobe (or even temporal lobe epilepsy), but instead

> demonstrate that there needs to be a dampening of the centres of

> the brain associated with the 'person', we have still got room for

> a 'ghost in the machine' but certainly no proof. (The only way to

> demonstrate a non-physical component to consciousness

> satisfactorily is through things like telepathy, ghosts,

> telekinesis, etc.,. For example, how do we know, for certain, that

> Nisargadatta wasn't ill?)

 

By investigating and discovering the same 'non-state' that

Nisargadatta was " in. " It's a very scientific process, and

certainly, remaining still as Beingness has never been known to

cause 'mental illness'.

 

Sheesh... " the mystical " needs no validation, only a

very 'scientific' exploration. Start from knowing absolutely nothing

and proceed to investigate, just like science does.

 

It's religion that needs proofs and validations. Religion says " God

exists. Prove it doesn't or I'll continue to believe. "

 

Science says only " God hasn't been discovered... it's unknown if

there is God or 'mystical experience'. " It will remain unknown,

because the observer is never taken into account, only the observed.

It's a very one-sided approach.

 

> If there is not just inhibition but excitation in any region, not

necessarily the temporal lobe, accompanying the mystical experience,

then things get a bit more complicated. We either have the situation

whereby Enlightenment is simply a mental and purely biological

irregularity or the possibility that God designed the brain so that

we could experience Him. But this seems unlikely; after all, why do

we need a brain to experience God directly? Isn't it the Soul that

becomes At-One with God? And what about our state after death when

we have no brain?

 

To stop asking all these question is to " Realize. " Not to answer

these questions, or keep going in circles asking them. The mind just

won't give up in wanting to 'participate' in " Realization. " It

doesn't get to participate and that makes the mind unhappy.

 

> Science has not yet killed God.

 

Yes, but " scientism " (which is a religion, and does say " nothing

except that which is proven exists " ) is giving it a good try. On the

other hand, Quantum Physics is going in the opposite direction,

starting to give equal attention to the observer.

 

If science and 'spirituality' ever meet, it will likely be in the

area of quantum physics. A tentative shaking of hands has already

begun.

 

Namaste,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " Stephen " <user@p...> wrote:

> " Hur Guler " <Hur1@a...>

>

>

> > Has

> > anyone read the latest Newsweek issue on enlightenment?

>

> Yes, I'm aware of the work you cite. It deserves some comment.

>

> Some of the earliest work done in this field (not mentioned in the

article) was carried out by the Canadian neuroscientist Michael

Persinger, of Laurentian University. Working from the findings of

neurologists at the University of California, who located an area in

the temporal lobe that seems to produce mystical and transcendent

experiences, Persinger found he was actually able to invoke these

experiences even in the unreligious. Participants reported many of

the phenomena typically associated with the mystical experience such

as a feeling of being At-One with all creation and sometimes being in

the presence of God or another transcendental being. Christ was even

seen appearing in a light by one participant.

>

> The research you cite however is the converse of this. While

Persinger is stipulating some king of 'mystics-module' in the brain on

a par with language, auditory and visual centres, etc., Dr. James

Austin, in the MSNBC article, is suggesting that the inhibition of

brain centres commonly associated with the person or ego results in

the mystical experience. The difference is quite noteworthy in terms

of the implications each view has.

>

> It should be borne in mind however that for Austin, the brain is the

'person' and he taking his work 'much less as proof of a deity, Austin

took it as " proof of the existence of the brain. " (Article). This,

however, is probably just to appease the neuroscientific community who

do not like supernatural explanations, thus Austin is trying to play

down his Zen roots. Nonetheless, the implications of his research do

more for a supernatural explanation of the mystical experience than

they do for a physical one.

>

> As the article notes, Austen thought that for us to feel as if time,

the ego, fear, etc., have 'dissolved' certain circuits within the

brain are being inhibited. As the article notes " Activity in the

amygdala, which monitors the environment for threats and registers

fear, must be damped. Parietal-lobe circuits, which orient you in

space and mark the sharp distinction between self and world, must go

quiet. Frontal- and temporal-lobe circuits, which mark time and

generate self-awareness, must disengage. " . It was the inhibition of

these areas, rather than heightened activity in the temporal lobe that

Persinger describes, which Austin considers to be the cause of his

feeling at the train station in London as if he was seeing things " as

they really are " ( " The sense of " I, me, mine " disappeared. " Time was

not present, " he says. " I had a sense of eternity. My old yearnings,

loathings, fear of death and insinuations of selfhood vanished. I had

been graced by a comprehension of the ultimate nature of things. " .)

>

> So, how do we proceed? Well, if we can record mystical experiences

or states and demonstrate that there needent be heightened activity in

the temporal lobe (or even temporal lobe epilepsy), but instead

demonstrate that there needs to be a dampening of the centres of the

brain associated with the 'person', we have still got room for a

'ghost in the machine' but certainly no proof. (The only way to

demonstrate a non-physical component to consciousness satisfactorily

is through things like telepathy, ghosts, telekinesis, etc.,. For

example, how do we know, for certain, that Nisargadatta wasn't ill?)

>

> If there is not just inhibition but excitation in any region, not

necessarily the temporal lobe, accompanying the mystical experience,

then things get a bit more complicated. We either have the situation

whereby Enlightenment is simply a mental and purely biological

irregularity or the possibility that God designed the brain so that we

could experience Him. But this seems unlikely; after all, why do we

need a brain to experience God directly? Isn't it the Soul that

becomes At-One with God? And what about our state after death when we

have no brain?

>

> We are returning here to the question 'what is reality'? Well, for

Nisargadatta he was both beyond the manifest Universe and also At-One

with it; considering the whole thing his 'body' just as much as you or

I consider our physical form to be our body. He also noted this:

> " The objective universe has structure, is orderly and beautiful.

Nobody can deny it. But structure and pattern, imply constraint and

compulsion. My world is absolutely free; everything in it is

self-determined. Therefore I keep on saying that all happens by

itself. There is order in my world too, but it is not imposed from

outside. It comes spontaneously and immediately, because of its

timelessness. Perfection is not in the future. It is now. "

> And from another 20th Century mystic, Bernadette Roberts, who also

attained Nisargadattas state we have this statement:

> " There is no multiplicity of existences; only what Is has

existence, an existence that can expand itself into an infinite

variety of forms that constitute the movement and manifested aspect of

itself. Though what Is, is the act, movement, and changing of all

forms - and is form itself - it is, at the same time, the unchanging,

unknowable aspect of all form. Thus, that which Is, continually

observes the coming and going - the changing and movement - of its own

form or acts, without participating in any essential change itself.

Since the nature or essence of Itself is act, there can be no

separation between its knowing, acting, existing, or between any

aspect of itself, because that which acts, that which it acts upon,

and the act itself are one without division. It never goes outside

itself to know itself because the unmanifested, the manifesting, and

the manifested are One. "

> Why did they say these things? Is it because of lack of

neurological education or is 'reality' genuinely a manifestation of

Source projected from that Source/God consciousness? Clear

demonstration of ESP phenomena will settle the question conclusively

for many; indicating that there is more than just the material. But

isn't it supposed to be the mystical experience itself which

demonstrates this to us at a more essential level?

>

> Ultimately we simply have to wait and see where neurological

research goes - and we certainly have to remember that any excitory

action within the brain may not simply be causing the mystical

experience but could itself actually be the result of a mystical

expereince in some instances. (Though it is hard to argue this is the

norm when these states are being produced on demand by am electrical

current through an electrode.)

>

> However, like the near-death experience, where the dying brain model

of nde's has taken a bit of a nosedive, Austins research shows that

anyone who takes Persingers work on the temporal lobe as conclusive is

being slightly cavalier in their attitude.

>

> Science has not yet killed God.

>

> Kind regards,

> Stephen

 

Namaste All,

 

The mind permeated the body. Anyway all experiences and knowledge are

nescience and avidya..ONS Tony

[Guest guest]

" Omkara " <coresite

 

 

> Nisargadatta, " Stephen " <user@p...> wrote:

> > So, how do we proceed? Well, if we can record mystical experiences

> > or states and demonstrate that there needent be heightened activity

> > in the temporal lobe (or even temporal lobe epilepsy), but instead

> > demonstrate that there needs to be a dampening of the centres of

> > the brain associated with the 'person', we have still got room for

> > a 'ghost in the machine' but certainly no proof. (The only way to

> > demonstrate a non-physical component to consciousness

> > satisfactorily is through things like telepathy, ghosts,

> > telekinesis, etc.,. For example, how do we know, for certain, that

> > Nisargadatta wasn't ill?)

>

> By investigating and discovering the same 'non-state' that

> Nisargadatta was " in. " It's a very scientific process, and

> certainly, remaining still as Beingness has never been known to

> cause 'mental illness'.

 

Naturally, I completely agree. But how can we ever prove or demonstrate

that Enlightenment (either as a permanent state or momentary Illumination)

isn't, itself, an actual 'side-effect' or meditation? I'm quite happy by

saying I believe that Enlightenment isn't just biological because I have

faith that it isn't.

 

Aside from that, the things I've seen and done in my life have quite clearly

satisfied me, personally, that there is much more to life than the material.

 

> Sheesh... " the mystical " needs no validation, only a

> very 'scientific' exploration. Start from knowing absolutely nothing

> and proceed to investigate, just like science does.

 

Truer words were never spoken but, being practicle, the fact is that people

do the exact opposite of this. The have all their previous beliefs that

they carry around like luggage. Even more poignant is the fact that the

only way to start from knowing absolutely nothing and proceeding to

investigate is to be Enlightened in the first instance. Enlightenment s,

after all, a beginning (or rememberance/re-awakening) and not, by any means,

an end.

 

> It's religion that needs proofs and validations. Religion says " God

> exists. Prove it doesn't or I'll continue to believe. "

 

Ultimately, I'd have to agree. Trapped in our individual worlds the only

thing we can ever really know is the I AM. We cannot know science or

religion in the same core way that we know our own sense of I AM. However,

to a schizophrenic, the voices are real.

 

> Science says only " God hasn't been discovered... it's unknown if

> there is God or 'mystical experience'. " It will remain unknown,

> because the observer is never taken into account, only the observed.

> It's a very one-sided approach.

 

Not any more. Quantum physics has totally changed that. We can, now, be

quite confident in our belief in, and statements about, Enlightenment. The

observer is quite essential to the observed.

 

> > If there is not just inhibition but excitation in any region, not

> necessarily the temporal lobe, accompanying the mystical experience,

> then things get a bit more complicated. We either have the situation

> whereby Enlightenment is simply a mental and purely biological

> irregularity or the possibility that God designed the brain so that

> we could experience Him. But this seems unlikely; after all, why do

> we need a brain to experience God directly? Isn't it the Soul that

> becomes At-One with God? And what about our state after death when

> we have no brain?

>

> To stop asking all these question is to " Realize. " Not to answer

> these questions, or keep going in circles asking them. The mind just

> won't give up in wanting to 'participate' in " Realization. " It

> doesn't get to participate and that makes the mind unhappy.

 

I'm not sure about this. Nisargadatta said: " There is only one mistake you

are making: you take the inner for the outer and the outer for the inner.

What is in you, you take to be outside you and what is outside, you take to

be in you. The mind and feelings are external, but you take them to be

intimate. You believe the world to be objective, while it is entirely a

projection of your psyche. That is the basic confusion and no new explosion

will set it right. You have to think yourself out of it. There is no other

way. "

 

I'd say that the ego can get in the way but I think the correct use of the

mind is necessary for Enlightenment.

 

> > Science has not yet killed God.

>

> Yes, but " scientism " (which is a religion, and does say " nothing

> except that which is proven exists " ) is giving it a good try. On the

> other hand, Quantum Physics is going in the opposite direction,

> starting to give equal attention to the observer.

 

Well, scientism is certainly a dogma that is followed religiously but what

of it? On the whole there are actually very few staunch materialists in the

world. Our business should be with our own Enlightenment and when we deal

with others it should only be with those who are willing to listen. The

Souls of materialists, like everyone else, will be born again, perhaps into

different circumstances and more willing to listen.

 

> If science and 'spirituality' ever meet, it will likely be in the

> area of quantum physics. A tentative shaking of hands has already

> begun.

 

I'd say we're well on the way now.

 

Kind regards,

Stephen

[Guest guest]

" I wish I could write like

that. I never would have passed English

Lit! :-) Beck

 

 

------------------

 

Beck --I take the above as a compliment to Dan,

on how clearly he lays things out.

 

El

El, you're too funny ...

 

Thanks!

 

To assist my total failure of

English Lit., I submit the following:

 

That none of this is happening,

doesn't mean that it isn't real ;-)

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

> That none of this is

happening,

> doesn't mean that it isn't real ;-)

>

> Dan

 

 

---------------

 

As Tim might say,

" who " knows that???????

 

El

 

The one who isn't a happening,

but is real.

 

Dan