Heartmind

[Aaron]

In regards to weird stuff. I think most people who've meditated for any length of time have OBEs. It just comes with the territory.

 

Aaron

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aetherous]

"Mind" in Buddhism is the totality of experience we percieve through the five skandhas (Matter, sensation, conception, mental formations, consciousness. Which spans the 8 consciousnesses.) So sensory experience is included.

 

Interesting.

 

At least personally I see the pure sensory experience as something separate from mind...except when the mind is interpreting it, for instance having the idea of a "mountain" when looking at this:

 

 

The idea/category limits the actual experience, and we may miss out on a lot by assuming things fall into our categories.

 

Or when on hallucinogens, it's possible for the mind to completely distort the pure sensory experience.

 

Not saying the pure sensory experience is ultimate reality; the senses are limited. Just that it's different from mind, and Buddhism is unnecessarily confusing yet again.

 

Of course I can look at computer screen or cup some water in my hand. That is not what "ungraspable" means in that context. What it does mean though is that each moment that I'm staring at the computer screen becomes the "past." Each millisecond, second, and minute that goes by is gone; it becomes the "past." There's no moment you can hold onto, because they are fleeting. So, as soon as the "future" moment happens, it becomes the "present," which immediately becomes the "past."

 

As for what you said on Dogen...Right that moment is the "present," "independent of past and future;" each phenomenal expression is complete in and of itself, which is interdependently originated upon the last moment or phenomenal expression.

 

"You have a pure experience of the computer screen, then when you recollect it and reflect upon it, you're experiencing the past...but that phenomenon of "past mind" is still occurring in the present moment. It's inescapable." Then that "present" moment, becomes the "past" moment and so on.

 

I think no present moment ever becomes the past. In reality, time doesn't exist...there is no past. It's a mental construct. There is only the ever changing world. Our mind's reflection creates a timeline.

[doc benway]

 

At least personally I see the pure sensory experience as something separate from mind...except when the mind is interpreting it, for instance having the idea of a "mountain" when looking at this:

 

 

 

The idea/category limits the actual experience, and we may miss out on a lot by assuming things fall into our categories.

 

Or when on hallucinogens, it's possible for the mind to completely distort the pure sensory experience.

 

Not saying the pure sensory experience is ultimate reality; the senses are limited. Just that it's different from mind, and Buddhism is unnecessarily confusing yet again.

 

Do you feel like going further into this?

 

What is a pure sensory experience in your view?

How does it occur?

I'm not trying to be patronizing - I think this is an interesting area to explore.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aetherous]

Steve,

 

Do you feel like going further into this?

 

What is a pure sensory experience in your view?

How does it occur?

I'm not trying to be patronizing - I think this is an interesting area to explore.

 

Sure...

 

Well, a pure sensory experience is one where we are tasting, smelling, hearing, seeing, feeling.

 

If you were blindfolded and given random things to eat, you'd be able to say, "Oh yeah, that's a strawberry...that's a piece of beef jerky..." etc.

 

Coming to those conclusions is a split second recognition by the mind. But how we come to those conclusions is through the pure sensory experience.

 

Is the mind and its categorizing ever fully shut off? Sometimes...such as in the blindfold example when you're first tasting the thing, or if you're experiencing something totally new. But it's not necessary to separate the senses from the mind, in my opinion. There's no goal here.

 

At least personally, I can't say that the senses can be categorized as "mind".

 

Also, this can be interesting:

 

 

The first thing most people see are the outlines of two faces. That is the mind's recognition of the pure sensory experience. But it can also be interpreted as a goblet type of cup, or a candle holder of some type. And yet another way of looking at it is that it's simply lines drawn on a computer in some sort of pattern, with black and white colors...all of these interpretations are the mind's working of categorizing the sensory experience of whatever the image is.

 

If you drop all of that, you can experience different aspects of the image in a more sensory way. You can notice in the top right corner, the sharp angle...a detail which wasn't noticeable when you cast the image off as simply being two faces. But now you can notice how sharp that angle is. Or look at what you could say is the bottom of the "cup"...you can now see that it isn't perfectly flat...there are some bumps in the center.

 

So you can see how the mind limits some experiences.

[Informer]

"At least personally I see the pure sensory experience as something separate from mind"

 

Which is still "mind," is it not?

 

"...except when the mind is interpreting it, for instance having the idea of a "mountain" when looking at this"

 

Even if there was an absence of thoughts trying to interpret the experience of looking at said mountain...That is still just another phenomenal realm of "mind."

 

In another thread, you said you were gonna read the Lankavatara Sutra, correct? That sutra will help make all this stuff more understandable.

 

"I think no present moment ever becomes the past. In reality, time doesn't exist...there is no past. It's a mental construct. There is only the ever changing world. Our mind's reflection creates a timeline."

 

Right, time is relative and has no absolute "ground" in reality.

EDIT: PUNCTUATION AND QUOTE STRUCTURE

 

I don't think mind is necessarily part of the experience but the interpretation or reflection of the experience.

[Aetherous]

SJ,

 

"At least personally I see the pure sensory experience as something separate from mind"

 

Which is still "mind," is it not?

 

No, I don't think so at all. Why do you say that the senses are mind?

 

In another thread, you said you were gonna read the Lankavatara Sutra, correct? That sutra will help make all this stuff more understandable.

 

I attempted and lost patience. Is there a specific portion of it which would make this Buddhist view that senses=mind understandable?

[Vajrahridaya]

SJ,

 

 

 

No, I don't think so at all. Why do you say that the senses are mind?

 

 

 

I attempted and lost patience. Is there a specific portion of it which would make this Buddhist view that senses=mind understandable?

 

Mind is that energy which perceives and carries information to the brain from the senses. Close your eyes and touch something. Mind is that energy in your hands making perception through the hands possible.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aetherous]

Well, there is something to that...since the mind can focus on one sense and lose awareness of another completely. But that doesn't mean the senses are products of the mind. We can say there is "consciousness of sight" which is mind, but the sight itself isn't mind.

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, there is something to that...since the mind can focus on one sense and lose awareness of another completely. But that doesn't mean the senses are products of the mind. We can say there is "consciousness of sight" which is mind, but the sight itself isn't mind.

 

No, Buddhism doesn't say that, as the physical apparatus is also a product of the elements.

 

What Buddhism is saying is that sense perception is a product of the mind interpreting reality through the elements of the body.

[Seth Ananda]

I agree 100%. Not much else to add.

 

EDIT: I lied. I have something to add. What you described is the best case scenario of aware death. There is also a possibility of the person passing out into amnesia/unconsciousness out of fear and waking up being 5 years old in some other life, having missed everything in between. It's like an alzeimer's patient who is dead while alive in a way, although for alzeimers I think the cause is not necessarily fear (it could be one of the possible causes), but apathy toward life and hence absentmindedness, or alternatively an overriding sense of tiredness which takes over (like a person who wants to sleep so badly that staying awake becomes a nominal process without truly being alert and present, due to inwardly wanting to relax already).

 

As for amnesia, we have heard of many people failing to remember traumatic near-death events, so amnesia happening at death would not be anything extraordinary or unusual.

I think that is the danger for all Materialists.

I think about it like this:

Our relative sense of self comes about through all the content we have in our minds. Memories, beliefs and the way we experience and view the world. If all our memories, experiences, and thoughts and beliefs, are to do with material things, then the shock of entering a completely different state must be massive. Alzheimer city for sure, as there would be no context for dealing with the experience at all.

 

People who start to step out of the materialist paradigm are in a better boat. Even something as simple as starting to accept and experience the/an energetic paradigm begins to give one a context/experiences/memories that are not solely to do with a straight up physical world. In my thinking that is already going to create less shock at the time of death. Not to mention the more 'far out' practices that can be engaged in.

[C T]

This is a very useful interview which contents have an indirect bearing on the subject of cultivating Heartmind -

http://www.dharmalife.com/issue26/playing.html

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aaron]

[JustARandomPanda]

People who start to step out of the materialist paradigm are in a better boat. Even something as simple as starting to accept and experience the/an energetic paradigm begins to give one a context/experiences/memories that are not solely to do with a straight up physical world. In my thinking that is already going to create less shock at the time of death. Not to mention the more 'far out' practices that can be engaged in.

 

This is why I've slowly begun to abandon the Materialist worldview. Interestingly, I've caught myself slipping back into a materialist view depending on which subject I'm turning over in my mind or read on Taobums. It's harder to give up those ideas than at first it seems.

 

For many decades I self-identified as both a Materialist and a Skeptic. Especially a Materialist/Skeptic ala Michael Shermer and Skeptic Magazine. I still think the skeptic stance is good in many cases (god knows a lot of New Agers - some of whom I've known personally - sure could use it). However I now find it self-limiting. That is, Skeptics of the Michael Shermer kind are skeptical of everything except their own (usually Materialist) beliefs. A true Skeptic imo would retain the skeptical attitude but include their own belief system as a legitimate field of skeptical inquiry too. This is now the approach I'm trying to take. It's harder than at first I thought but it seems like a decent enough approach to life and it works for me. YMMV.

 

 

For the moment, if someone were to tell me to make a forced choice I would have to say I'm not a Materialist anymore. Some of the things I've experienced are just too freaking weird and defy what I came to understand about the Materialist worldview and I'm left utterly baffled as to how to explain them. I still don't know how to explain them.

[Birch]

"I still don't know how to explain them."

 

Which apparently is the best position to be in if one wants to shift paradigms. Because if you can't explain stuff with the 'old view' and it won't fit into that one even if you distort it (or yourself) to fit then you know you're slap in the middle of the new view :-) Which might be an old one after all BTW, we just seem to keep updating this stuff.

[Otis]

This is why I've slowly begun to abandon the Materialist worldview. Interestingly, I've caught myself slipping back into a materialist view depending on which subject I'm turning over in my mind or read on Taobums. It's harder to give up those ideas than at first it seems.

 

For many decades I self-identified as both a Materialist and a Skeptic. Especially a Materialist/Skeptic ala Michael Shermer and Skeptic Magazine. I still think the skeptic stance is good in many cases (god knows a lot of New Agers - some of whom I've known personally - sure could use it). However I now find it self-limiting. That is, Skeptics of the Michael Shermer kind are skeptical of everything except their own (usually Materialist) beliefs. A true Skeptic imo would retain the skeptical attitude but include their own belief system as a legitimate field of skeptical inquiry too. This is now the approach I'm trying to take. It's harder than at first I thought but it seems like a decent enough approach to life and it works for me. YMMV.

 

 

For the moment, if someone were to tell me to make a forced choice I would have to say I'm not a Materialist anymore. Some of the things I've experienced are just too freaking weird and defy what I came to understand about the Materialist worldview and I'm left utterly baffled as to how to explain them. I still don't know how to explain them.

Good share, SereneBlue.

 

I've defended materialism on these boards, lately, but not because I self-identify as a materialist. I do not.

 

Rather, I think that science proposes a very elegant and compelling explanation of consciousness, among other things. And I think that there is an unfortunate tendency in society to take full advantage of all that science has to offer, except when it seems to threaten one's beliefs. Whether that's through evolution or materialism, I think it's a lot more fruitful to accept what science says, and then still leave room for mystery.

 

Like you say, I have experiences that do not seem to fit into any science I have ever heard of. So I fully accept that the scientific model is probably incomplete, at best. However, I will not reject the model, because it is not complete, since it still seems to be the most elegant and thoroughly tested of all models, out there.

 

What science has done is map the functioning of consciousness, primarily from the outside-in. Buddhism, Yoga and other disciplines have mapped the functioning of consciousness, from the inside-out. Neither way is necessarily the right perspective; rather, they can complement each other. One day, hopefully, there will be no gap between the two, and the two models will fold together.

 

My credo is: believe as little as possible, and make sure that what I do believe, makes as much sense as possible. I am mostly agnostic about the nature of the actual, because I see it as being largely outside of my view, as an organism. Science seems to me to be, by far, the best attempt at describing the working of the actual. So I am loathe to doubt the conclusions of science, simply because they don't feel right, or confirm what I already believe. But I also feel the need to always leave open room for mystery, for deeper explanation, for a better model.

[Otis]

This is a very useful interview which contents have an indirect bearing on the subject of cultivating Heartmind -

http://www.dharmalife.com/issue26/playing.html

Excellent article, CowTao. Thanks for the share.

[JustARandomPanda]

Good share, SereneBlue.

 

I've defended materialism on these boards, lately, but not because I self-identify as a materialist. I do not.

 

Rather, I think that science proposes a very elegant and compelling explanation of consciousness, among other things. And I think that there is an unfortunate tendency in society to take full advantage of all that science has to offer, except when it seems to threaten one's beliefs. Whether that's through evolution or materialism, I think it's a lot more fruitful to accept what science says, and then still leave room for mystery.

 

Like you say, I have experiences that do not seem to fit into any science I have ever heard of. So I fully accept that the scientific model is probably incomplete, at best. However, I will not reject the model, because it is not complete, since it still seems to be the most elegant and thoroughly tested of all models, out there.

 

What science has done is map the functioning of consciousness, primarily from the outside-in. Buddhism, Yoga and other disciplines have mapped the functioning of consciousness, from the inside-out. Neither way is necessarily the right perspective; rather, they can complement each other. One day, hopefully, there will be no gap between the two, and the two models will fold together.

 

My credo is: believe as little as possible, and make sure that what I do believe, makes as much sense as possible. I am mostly agnostic about the nature of the actual, because I see it as being largely outside of my view, as an organism. Science seems to me to be, by far, the best attempt at describing the working of the actual. So I am loathe to doubt the conclusions of science, simply because they don't feel right, or confirm what I already believe. But I also feel the need to always leave open room for mystery, for deeper explanation, for a better model.

 

 

Oh I hear what you're saying. I do think Science has a great deal to offer and has been a huge help overall. I think mainly what I was (somewhat bumblingly) referring to is the unspoken biases of certain proponents of Materialism. For example, Michael Shermer seems to me like a very sharp man. He takes the Scientific Method to be his personal method of inquiry and critque for all sorts of phenomena. And I agree in MANY MANY cases it's a damn good method to make use of.

 

The thing is - sometimes I get frustrated with such people despite trying not to be. They do not see that by adhering to the Scientific Method as a personal philosophy of "self-inquiry" and "other-inquiry" they are leaving out (to me) an equally legitimate time-tested method of self-inquiry/other-inquiry - namely the ones Buddhism, Taoism, Mysticism, etc advocate.

 

I totally agreed with a post GiH once made. He made the (to me) compelling point that proponents of Materialism have a certain certitude of mindset about their materialistic beliefs. Inplicit in this assumption is that SCIENCE is backing up their Materialism - thus their mindset trumps the mindset/experiences/beliefs of say...a Mystic. People who come from this perspective are unused to having serious, deep and sustained CREDIBLE critiques of their worldview. In short, Michael Shermer has never had to tangle with a Seth or GoldisHeavy.

 

Imagine if there were thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Seth's or GiH's out there making credible, sustained, logical counter arguments to Materialist/Scientistic beliefs? Shucks...maybe new avenues of scientific research might be spawned if such took place.

[Informer]

[Informer]

Oh I hear what you're saying. I do think Science has a great deal to offer and has been a huge help overall. I think mainly what I was (somewhat bumblingly) referring to is the unspoken biases of certain proponents of Materialism. For example, Michael Shermer seems to me like a very sharp man. He takes the Scientific Method to be his personal method of inquiry and critque for all sorts of phenomena. And I agree in MANY MANY cases it's a damn good method to make use of.

 

The thing is - sometimes I get frustrated with such people despite trying not to be. They do not see that by adhering to the Scientific Method as a personal philosophy of "self-inquiry" and "other-inquiry" they are leaving out (to me) an equally legitimate time-tested method of self-inquiry/other-inquiry - namely the ones Buddhism, Taoism, Mysticism, etc advocate.

 

I totally agreed with a post GiH once made. He made the (to me) compelling point that proponents of Materialism have a certain certitude of mindset about their materialistic beliefs. Inplicit in this assumption is that SCIENCE is backing up their Materialism - thus their mindset trumps the mindset/experiences/beliefs of say...a Mystic. People who come from this perspective are unused to having serious, deep and sustained CREDIBLE critiques of their worldview. In short, Michael Shermer has never had to tangle with a Seth or GoldisHeavy.

 

Imagine if there were thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Seth's or GiH's out there making credible, sustained, logical counter arguments to Materialist/Scientistic beliefs? Shucks...maybe new avenues of scientific research might be spawned if such took place.

 

I can't tell if this is meant to insult other's, to praise those two, (stroking ego's)

or a combination?

 

It doesn't really matter, I appreciate you all the same, but not for the exact same reasons!

 

[JustARandomPanda]

I can't tell if this is meant to insult other's, to praise those two, (stroking ego's)

or a combination?

 

It was none of the above.

 

It doesn't really matter, I appreciate you all the same, but not for the exact same reasons!

 

 

Um...ok.

[Informer]

Yeah, you don't get it do you?

 

You will one day

 

By you I didn't mean you in particular but everyone. It is how it is Serene, why not accept the differences, and find the appreciation in even the objectivity that has brought us all together to these forums. Without that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

It sounded like much wanting in your post.

 

The objective nature of science isn't subjective, regardless of how many seth's or gih's there are, and that is really unrealistic.

 

Example:

 

Maybe if Santa Clause was real he would be able to save all the children from the drought in Africa!

 

Get it?

 

The whole point of your thread is heart mind, which i am simply pointing out how erronous your statement / thoughts are in relation to that.

 

Doesn't matter if you like it or not.

[Informer]

Does that make you feel a lump in your throat?