[AdvaitaToZen] mind = body

[Guest guest]

On Feb 13, 2006, at 3:19 PM, billrishel wrote:

 

> > P: The brain understands, sometimes with thoughts or the

> > senses. All understandings and realizations happens to a brain.

> > The absolute neither needs nor does understand

> > anything. So in this sense all understandings are unreal,

> > meaning transitory. All that knowing will disappear with death.

> >>>

>

> What does it mean to say, " The brain understands? "

> How is that different from saying a person understands?

> It seems an odd usage to say, " My brain understood,

> although I didn't. "

>

> Bill

>

>

 

P: Yes, it seems odd to say that, but although no one says

that, it happens all the time. The thing to understand

is that the brain is not a transparent unitary whole, but

a collection of centers which can act quite independently

of consciousness. For example, there are cases in which

the connection between the vision center and the cortex

has been damaged, and these people are not aware of

seeing anything, yet if you toss them a ball, they would

catch it. If asked how they did that, they'd say, they

don't know.

 

I sometimes, don't remember how to spell a word, but

if I take a pen and write the word down, most times, I

would do it correctly. Maybe this is what we call

intuition, and sometimes, premonition, those hidden

scraps of knowledge tucked away in a corner of our brain

that often surface when needed.

 

It's a difficult notion to accept that our life is not played

out by a single actor, but rather song by a chorus of brain

centers like a Greek tragedy.

 

Pete

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Feb 13, 2006, at 8:38 AM, clydegrossman wrote:

 

> P: The brain understands, sometimes with thoughts or the

> senses. All understandings and realizations happens to a brain.

> The absolute neither needs nor does understand

> anything. So in this sense all understandings are unreal,

> meaning transitory. All that knowing will disappear with death.

>

> clyde:  I agree that one can view the absolute as not needing

> understandings or realizations, not needing mind or brain, not

> needing any thing.  Or one can view the absolute as needing

> understandings and realizations, needing mind and brain, needing all

> things for the suchness as it is would not be `as it is' if one iota

> or jot were lacking.

> And this needing and not-needing applies to views as well

>

 

P: Well, Clyde, the difficulty I sense with your words, is that the

word

'need' means a lack, by definition the absolute could have not anything

lacking. Phenomenality SEEMS to be happening, but it's not needed.

 

Paraphrasing Maharaj: There is absolute freedom because the " I am "

has been seen as unreal. That is probably the most insightful statement

made by a sage. It's second only to Buddha's: There is suffering, but

no one suffers; there is the way, but no one walks on it; there is

realization, but no one realizes.