Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 .. AC wrote: Imagine a person were to do long periods of MEDITATION in which they spend many hours a day suppressing all negative ideation and emotion. With time, their right (fearful) AMYGDALA would become INCREASINGLY QUIET Hi AC, Rama Rama not drama drama (Ramdas?). The Bhagavad Gita has it that only the gunas are working. The mind too is insentient or jada or the intellect has no consciousness, the self has no action. It is the mutual pervasion of the two that lets the Jiva/Person manifest. In many of these psychological accounts of the brain they assume that the mind is conscious whereas by nondualism/advaita it is not and the identification of the self with the intellect is the basis of avidya. The focus of the sage is not on the nomological but how those brain waves/vrittis are at the same time thoughts perceptions, thoughts, plans, devices and all the furniture of the mind. That mystery is cognitively closed to us - how can the knower be known? What to do? Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 - " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva <Nisargadatta > Thursday, April 07, 2005 7:08 AM Brain and Enlightenment - Buddha's Enlightenment > > . > > AC wrote: > > Imagine a person were to do long > periods of MEDITATION in which they > spend many hours a day suppressing all > negative ideation and emotion. > > With time, their right (fearful) > AMYGDALA > would become INCREASINGLY QUIET > > Hi AC, > Rama Rama not drama drama (Ramdas?). The Bhagavad Gita > has it that only the gunas are working. The mind too is insentient or > jada or the intellect has no consciousness, the self has no action. It is > the mutual pervasion of the two that lets the Jiva/Person manifest. In > many of these psychological accounts of the brain they assume that > the mind is conscious whereas by nondualism/advaita it is not and the > identification of the self with the intellect is the basis of avidya. The > focus of the sage is not on the nomological but how those brain > waves/vrittis are at the same time thoughts perceptions, thoughts, > plans, devices and all the furniture of the mind. That mystery is > cognitively closed to us - how can the knower be known? What to > do? > > Michael > > > Good morning Michael, The only worthwhile doing (except the moment-to-moment-being-aliveness which is always Being done) is in the 'undoing', so to speak. Love, Anna > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta > group and click on Save Changes. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > . > > AC wrote: > > Imagine a person were to do long > periods of MEDITATION in which they > spend many hours a day suppressing all > negative ideation and emotion. > > With time, their right (fearful) > AMYGDALA would become INCREASINGLY QUIET --Todd Murphy, " Forgetting About Enlightenment " http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/enlightenment.htm > > Hi AC, > Rama Rama not drama drama (Ramdas?). The > Bhagavad Gita > has it that only the gunas are working. The mind > too is insentient or > jada or the intellect has no consciousness, the self > has no action. It is > the mutual pervasion of the two that lets the > Jiva/Person manifest. In > many of these psychological accounts of the brain > they assume that > the mind is conscious whereas by nondualism/advaita > it is not and the > identification of the self with the intellect is the > basis of avidya. The > focus of the sage is not on the nomological but how > those brain > waves/vrittis are at the same time thoughts > perceptions, thoughts, > plans, devices and all the furniture of the mind. > That mystery is > cognitively closed to us - how can the knower be > known? What to > do? > > Michael Hi ac and Michael, In experience, it seems that thoughts, consciousness, and thinking are " insentient. " These are objects, creations, hallucinations, etc. and states, processes, modalities, faculties and capacities that contribute to their appearance. Indeed, all of these are ongoing processes and related ephemera that emerge in individual appearances in the field of consciousness or below the fields or states of consciousness regardless if there is an operating capacity of " conscious awareness " or the " operating sense of a conscious manipulation " of them or not. So far, there is no neuroscientific account of brain function that explains how an individual appearance unites these disparate objects and processes, modalities, states, faculties, etc. or how an appearance " mobilizes and directs " these. How it all happen is speculation and is unknown. It is clear that by directly altering or stimulating brain centers, sections, layers, or modules by electrical stimulation, drugs and other nonsentient means, distinct, isolatable insentient phenomena occur effortlessly and are experienced. Hallucinations, fear, smells, language, sense of self, emotions, euphoria, ecstasy, space time disorientation, out of body experiences, sexual arousal, confusion, clarity, and the like appear with the touch or stimulation of particular brain tissue or drug induced increases or decreases in neurotransmitters such as dopamine. These are reported phenomena and processes that appear and disappear. You can even use the Shakti for Windows neural signal stimulator to get these phenomena. So echoing Michael's question, how is it that in an individual appearance these seemingly disparate brain induced phenomena come to unity, confusion or disorder or non-functioning, or manipulated, avoided, suffered, embraced, sublimated, repressed and otherwise experienced or not as states, processes and objects? Is sentience a capacity forged in brain-brain interactions, or shall we look for a ghost in the machine, perhaps invoking a soul, knower, or God or go atheist and declare it a misunderstanding of experience, an illusion, or a non-problem, or chalk it up to mystery and the unknowable or forget about it because it does not matter one way or another so it is each to one's own ontological world(s)? Lewis Make your home page http://www./r/hs 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.