Heartmind

[lifeforce]

Another thread ruined by Buddhist propaganda.

[steve]

"The brain creates the world" isn't accurate to me. It interprets it. For instance, by meditating on all of the characteristics of a 100 dollar bill, I can't create it out of thin air. But by seeing a 100 dollar bill, I can gather information about its characteristics and come to recognize it as something different from other things.

 

The world is something outside of the brain. The brain is part of the world...but in direct perception, the world/brain/body/sun/moon/stars/cars...all of these are experienced through the 5 senses alone. Through the senses, we come to know the real "relative" world.

 

We all know this.

 

But a Buddhist would apparently question whether a brain exists at all, because they heard some quantum physicist say nothing exists? Or because they took drugs once and hallucinated, so they can't ever trust the 5 senses again?

Yeah, tough stuff to reconcile. We don't need to see things the same way. A few other ways to think about it - without an eye to see, is there sight? Without an ear to hear, is there sound? It's not so much that the brain creates something that was not there. The brain makes sense out of potential or flux that otherwise is "no-thing". Another perspective is to think about what it is that separates the brain from what is outside of it. We have this illusion of separation from our environment but any biologist or ecologist will agree that there is no such thing as an organism independent of its environment. The separation is created by the sensory apparatus and the apparent boundary of skin, shell, bark, whatever.

 

And the question of independent existence is not limited to the Buddhists. The Chan/Zen traditions are perfused with Daoist philosophy and sensibility. The Dao De Jing talks about things in a way that is wholly consistent with the Buddhist concept of Dependent Origination. Some have argued to the contrary but Taiji, that is Yin Yang, is an expression of just that. And the Dao is said to be change, movement. Dao is a verb, not a noun.

 

 

Another thread ruined by Buddhist propaganda.

Actually, heartmind is more a Buddhist concept (the Daoist concept is very different), so I sort of saw this as a "Buddhist" thread to begin with.

[Aaron]

Another thread ruined by Buddhist propaganda.

 

 

As Steve said, Heartmind is a Buddhist concept. From my understanding the Taoist idea came along after Buddhism was introduced into China, so it actually has its origins in Hindu and Buddhist religion.

 

Aaron

[Aetherous]

Steve,

 

Yeah, tough stuff to reconcile. We don't need to see things the same way.

 

Oh yeah, definitely not a big deal...

 

A few other ways to think about it - without an eye to see, is there sight? Without an ear to hear, is there sound?

 

Not sure what you mean. Without eyes, a person can't see the physical world. There still may be things they see, like random light from neurons firing or something.

 

It's not so much that the brain creates something that was not there. The brain makes sense out of potential or flux that otherwise is "no-thing".

 

Well, the world is really there...it's just not made sense of yet. It is full of distinct things...not simply potential.

 

If someone's lobotomized, maybe their brain doesn't differentiate between a ball or a tree. But that doesn't render the ball and tree to be the same thing, or non-existent until they are aware of it. The ball and tree exist with their distinct characteristics regardless of individual perception...which is why those things aren't re-created each time we look at them.

 

Another perspective is to think about what it is that separates the brain from what is outside of it. We have this illusion of separation from our environment but any biologist or ecologist will agree that there is no such thing as an organism independent of its environment. The separation is created by the sensory apparatus and the apparent boundary of skin, shell, bark, whatever.

 

At least personally, I have a sense of deep connection with the immediate environment. The body is percieved as just being a part of it.

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

I just want to reiterate that heartmind does not say that we are not real, or that the world is an illusion, the world is very much real and concrete, what it says is that our perception of the world isn't the entirety of existence.

 

I used to explain this in terms of many religions belief in the soul. Almost all the ancient religions believed that man possessed a soul. Now when one first examines this notion, it seems very superstitious, an attempt to provide an answer to death, but in reality, and in my opinion, it was a quite ingenious idea that revolved around the revelation of the self and it's birth from the Body.

 

I view this ancient idea in a more modern, and perhaps Abrahamic influenced view, that man consists of three parts, the body, mind, and soul. The body is the physical manifestation of man on the earth, from the body arises the mind, our ability to think and reason, before either of these there is the spirit or soul, that part of us that arises from the source and is created in this physical manifestation.

 

Now Buddhists will tell you there is no soul, but I've always felt this was a bit odd, especially in regards to the Buddhist notion of rebirth, that one is reborn and carries their Karmic debt from one life to the next. I wont go into the particulars, but to me the notion that we are reborn insinuates that something exists within us that carries us from one life to another.

 

In this sense, if one looks at the human as being the spirit, body, and mind, and that our existence continues from spirit to body to mind, then one can grasp more clearly this idea and the idea that we come from the source, become the body, then become the mind. Our spirit, in my own opinion is not a singular spirit but a cosmic spirit, that comes from a universal source and returns to that source to be born again. It is never separate from the source, only our perception of that separation makes this distinction, due to our connection to the body. So when one reaches an awareness of heartmind they have actually realized the notion of spirit as it was most likely viewed in early religions. Which to me seems to leads one to question whether or not Buddha's revelations were entirely original, or perhaps arose from an understanding of early beliefs that still existed in his time, but perhaps died out or were assimilated into other beliefs.

 

All of this is conjecture, but I think worth examining in the context of heartmind and how we came to view it as it is viewed today. In my own experience of heartmind there are some differences from what Buddhists describe it as, but also a great many similarities, which leads me to appreciate and investigate the Buddhist philosophy.

 

Again, I never take anything I've been told as fact, nor do I wish to operate on faith, so a clear and decisive examination of any belief is required before I will advocate that anyone study it further.

 

Anyways, I don't want to go too far off topic so I'll leave it there.

 

Aaron

[deci belle]

Vmarco said: "Interesting view,...but quite mental."

 

hahahhahhaaa!!❤

[Vmarco]

"The brain creates the world" isn't accurate to me. It interprets it.

 

But a Buddhist would apparently question whether a brain exists at all, because they heard some quantum physicist say nothing exists? Or because they took drugs once and hallucinated, so they can't ever trust the 5 senses again?

 

Bohr's Law does not imply that so-called observers and the observed need a human connection, as if humans effect things into perceived reality,...only cerebral-centric interpretations implied that.

 

Buddhists and pre-Buddha Bonpa's questioned the validity of the brain thousands of years before today's mediocre quantuum physics. Even the Maya of Mespamerica, knew more about physics then today's Physicists,...for example, zero upsets the logic of today's physics, whereas the Maya understood zero spiritually.

 

With the exception of a few physics like Hawkings and Hartle, most physicists are about as close to understanding the empirical world, as a monkey in the night squats scheming how to capture the moon.

 

Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle, in their No-Boundary theory, said that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time.

 

Duality's reality is not much different from the dream you had last night,...while in the dream, you believed the dream was real.

 

informer asked,...."Is light and it's interactions objective or subjective?"

 

That's object-ive, sciential thinking. Undivided Light does not "interact",...divided light, the illusion that is perceived to be projected within the holgraphic cube the cerebra-centric call reality, is viewed both object-ively and subject-ively by the same stuff that is the illusion.

 

Scotty believes,..."Everything is occurring as this present moment, and I can easily think/look/experience anything in the "now"." This is irrefutably false,...unfortunately, when a falsity is told long enough it is veiwed as something other than being false,...like the millennia of people believing the Sun revolved around the Earth.

 

Absolutely nothing that is detectable in the universe is, or has ever been, in the Present. You, cannot "think/look/experience anything in the "now",...totally impossible.

 

Of course you can continue believing that lie,...but it will never make it true.

 

As Eckhart Tolle said "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

 

V

[Aaron]

Aaron,

 

 

 

Well that makes it even more confusing, since emptiness is supposed to be a concept regarding the nature of reality and not a state.

 

A state is a definition of a condition. Emptiness is a condition, simply by being a condition without condition. I'm simply using a term to try to explain something that cannot be described adequately without such a term. If you prefer to regard it as 'a concept regarding the nature of reality,' that is fine as well.

 

aaron

[Aaron]

Bohr's Law does not imply that so-called observers and the observed need a human connection, as if humans effect things into perceived reality,...only cerebral-centric interpretations implied that.

 

Buddhists and pre-Buddha Bonpa's questioned the validity of the brain thousands of years before today's mediocre quantuum physics. Even the Maya of Mespamerica, knew more about physics then today's Physicists,...for example, zero upsets the logic of today's physics, whereas the Maya understood zero spiritually.

 

With the exception of a few physics like Hawkings and Hartle, most physicists are about as close to understanding the empirical world, as a monkey in the night squats scheming how to capture the moon.

 

Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle, in their No-Boundary theory, said that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time.

 

Duality's reality is not much different from the dream you had last night,...while in the dream, you believed the dream was real.

 

informer asked,...."Is light and it's interactions objective or subjective?"

 

That's object-ive, sciential thinking. Undivided Light does not "interact",...divided light, the illusion that is perceived to be projected within the holgraphic cube the cerebra-centric call reality, is viewed both object-ively and subject-ively by the same stuff that is the illusion.

 

Scotty believes,..."Everything is occurring as this present moment, and I can easily think/look/experience anything in the "now"." This is irrefutably false,...unfortunately, when a falsity is told long enough it is veiwed as something other than being false,...like the millennia of people believing the Sun revolved around the Earth.

 

Absolutely nothing that is detectable in the universe is, or has ever been, in the Present. You, cannot "think/look/experience anything in the "now",...totally impossible.

 

Of course you can continue believing that lie,...but it will never make it true.

 

As Eckhart Tolle said "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

 

V

 

Hello VMarco,

 

Although I understand what you're saying, I can also say that I don't think you've provided any evidence to contradict what Scotty has said. In my opinion you are using semantics to describe the very thing he's describing, but because you've come to believe it is something other than what he views it as, you are convinced that he is wrong and you are right. The only thing that we can completely understand is what we experience, anything else is simply conjecture. To say that the past does not exist, or that there is no future, only the present, is in no way proven, but merely a hypothesis. For all we know time exists always, the past and present and future and the only thing that changes is our position within the course of time. It seems to me that if time was fluctuating or only operating in the here and now, then any perception of what has happened in the past could not exist, because anything that happened would cease to exists, and thus never happen. So the mere fact that we can remember what has happened, seems to prove to me the notion that the past does exist. Of course when one experiences heartmind one realizes that time does not exist in all realms, that it is distinctly present in this dimension.

 

Aaron

[steve]

 

Not sure what you mean. Without eyes, a person can't see the physical world. There still may be things they see, like random light from neurons firing or something.

 

So what is the nature of color in the absence of an eye?

It is a vibration of a particular wavelength. Color does not exist until there is a sensory organ that is stimulated by the energy which in turn is interpreted in your cerebral cortex. A related question - how do you know that when you say you are seeing something that is green that I have the same experience as you?

 

What is the nature of sound in the absence of an ear?

Vibrational disturbances in the air are nothing more than just that. It is not until the tympanic membrane is disturbed and creates an electrical signal in the auditory cortex that sound exists.

[Aetherous]

Scotty believes,..."Everything is occurring as this present moment, and I can easily think/look/experience anything in the "now"." This is irrefutably false,...unfortunately, when a falsity is told long enough it is veiwed as something other than being false,...like the millennia of people believing the Sun revolved around the Earth.

 

Absolutely nothing that is detectable in the universe is, or has ever been, in the Present. You, cannot "think/look/experience anything in the "now",...totally impossible.

 

Well, I will agree to COMPLETELY DISAGREE with such an insane view!

[steve]

 

Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle, in their No-Boundary theory, said that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time.

 

To clarify - this theory proposes the idea of "imaginary time" which is at right angles to "normal time." There are no boundaries or singularities in this model because time becomes a surface or a wave function rather than a line. This theory does not say that the Big Bang did not occur and does not say anything positive or negative about creation or a creator.

To quote Hawking:

"I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end. This would mean that the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of physics. One wouldn't have to say that God chose to set the universe going in some arbitrary way that we couldn't understand. It says nothing about whether or not God exists - just that He isn't arbitrary."

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't really understand this stuff all that well but I do find it fascinating.

[steve]

Well, I will agree to COMPLETELY DISAGREE with such an insane view!

I'd also like to here V elaborate. There is the "time delay" effect in which everything you experience, even thought, has to be stored in memory and then reviewed as memory to register in awareness. For that reason you are always reviewing a memory of what just happened, rather than experiencing anything instantaneously. I suspect that breaks down during unconditioned awareness where there is no experience or experiencer, no record or review of memory, but that is a gratuitous assertion because such concepts break down and are immeasurable at such times.

 

V?

[Informer]

He's talking about objectively, yet indirectly refuting the subjectivity.

 

Like.

 

It's as much Now as it is ever going to be.

[goldisheavy]

I have trouble buying into what I consider Buddhist dogma when it comes to things like what is referred to above. Once the body and brain are gone, does the individual continue to exist?

 

There are strong logical inferences that point to the fact that you existed before you were born. If you're willing to accept those, then it makes sense to accept the complementary inference.

 

Information/meaning is only valid within some context and not inherently so. When you were born and the first bit of meaning appeared to your being, how did you make sense of it? That's easy. You had context from which to make sense of most things you were about to experience.

 

A specific example of something you didn't learn upon birth is this. You never had to learn what it means for a being to look at you. You knew that at birth. Who taught you? Well, the Buddhist explanation is that it's a mental habit built up from your past lives.

 

So if you can accept that, then accepting life after death is trivial. Death is complementary to birth. Life must be there for birth to occur and life must be there for death to occur. Birth is evidence of life. Death is evidence of life. You are always alive.

 

I know the TIbetan tradition (and others) believe so. I know that there are claims of such by reincarnated "souls" and folks who have "died and come back" but to me this is unsubstantiated dogma. Until I have direct experience or compelling reason to accept otherwise, my view is that the memories, experiences, preferences, personality, and all that which makes us distinct individuals is a reflection of the "hard-wiring" if you will of the brain/body and is a consequence of genetic memory, direct experience, anatomical and physiological characteristics, etc... When that is gone through true death (not just a 15 minute, transient "death") "we" are pure heartmind absent any individual characteristics. This makes the most sense to me.

 

Disclaimer - I have one foot in both the Western scientific and Eastern spiritual camps. This certainly informs my viewpoint. A new and unique manifestation of heartmind occurs with each rebirth and develops a unique expression of heartmind, genetics, anatomy, physiology, cultural and social conditioning, etc.... Might there be fragments here and there that are expressed giving rise to the dogma that espouses reincarnation? Possible but I'm not completely convinced - just my $.02.

 

Your view is a typical physicalist view.

 

Also, I think the fact that you're not buying into anything without understanding it for yourself is great. If you're not convinced by what I am saying, there is no point in buying what I am saying.

[Vmarco]

Hello VMarco,

 

Although I understand what you're saying, I can also say that I don't think you've provided any evidence to contradict what Scotty has said. In my opinion you are using semantics to describe the very thing he's describing, but because you've come to believe it is something other than what he views it as, you are convinced that he is wrong and you are right. The only thing that we can completely understand is what we experience, anything else is simply conjecture. To say that the past does not exist, or that there is no future, only the present, is in no way proven, but merely a hypothesis. For all we know time exists always, the past and present and future and the only thing that changes is our position within the course of time. It seems to me that if time was fluctuating or only operating in the here and now, then any perception of what has happened in the past could not exist, because anything that happened would cease to exists, and thus never happen. So the mere fact that we can remember what has happened, seems to prove to me the notion that the past does exist. Of course when one experiences heartmind one realizes that time does not exist in all realms, that it is distinctly present in this dimension.

 

Aaron

 

As I said, it is irrefutable,...There is no Present in Time. It's not a theory, not a hypothesis, not a belief, it points to an Absolute truth. If you wish to attack it, because you're unopen to see it, that's your preogative. You can debate the illusions past and future all you wish.

 

Dolano would say, "you must still enjoy your sufering"

 

Unfortunately, this thread appears to be quickly digressing. I'm not a teacher, nor interact well in a grade school environment.

 

For those other's, more interested in the topic, here's a grade school teacher that may help:

 

One evening, while gathered in the big lounge at the Taliesin Fellowship, G. I. Gurdjieff was talking to some pupils, who were listening with attention. Frank Lloyd Wright, husband of Gurdjieff’s student Olgivanna, said, “Well, Mr. Gurdjieff, this is very interesting. I think I will send some of my young pupils to you in Paris. Then they can come back to me, and I’ll finish them off.”

“You finish! You are idiot,” said Gurdjieff. “You finish! No. You begin. I finish.”

 

“You know, Frank,” said Olgivanna, “Mr. Gurdjieff is right.” As regards “being and understanding,” Wright was a child compared with Gurdjieff. —C. S. Nott. Journey Through This World (152)

 

V

[steve]

You are always alive.

And equally dead...

 

Your view is a typical physicalist view.

 

Also, I think the fact that you're not buying into anything without understanding it for yourself is great. If you're not convinced by what I am saying, there is no point in buying what I am saying.

I resent being called typical - I try very hard to be different!

To be clear, I'm not terribly connected to my explanation, it's just what makes the most sense to me at this point in time given my conditioning and bias. When something comes along that makes more sense I would like to think that I would be comfortable embracing something new.

[Seth Ananda]

What about:

 

To go, gone, beyond the gate, beyond the gates gate.

 

Like the individually percieved (empty) true-self forgoes individuality within the confines of the vessel of the body to be at one with the energy that is life.

 

It is beyond all gates, yet is there a single gate that leads there? Or is it that all gates combined lead there?

 

I see chakra's as gates, and the manifestation of all the elements of experience is percieved through the mind, as a combination of each.

 

Beyond the gate of the third eye, is energy. So to go beyond the gates gate, you would be one with the energy?

 

I may be way off here, any critique is welcome.

As usual what are you talking about? I know it reads like gate but it is a Sanskrit word pronounced like gah-tay.

Was this a joke post that just went over my head? I do admit I am up early...

[Aetherous]

As I said, it is irrefutable,...There is no Present in Time. It's not a theory, not a hypothesis, not a belief, it points to an Absolute truth. If you wish to attack it, because you're unopen to see it, that's your preogative. You can debate the illusions past and future all you wish.

 

Irrefutable, absolute truth? Total bullshit. If you make a point, try to prove it. If you can't, it's a mere belief...and in this case a completely wrong one.

 

Calling this a grade school environment is just you "pointing your finger", and everyone else seeing three of your own pointing back at you. It's childish to assert things without proving them, and then claim others are too closed off to see it.

[Seth Ananda]

 

Dolano would say, "you must still enjoy your sufering"

 

V

 

Ahh... You keep quoting Osho as if he were an authority on something, and now you put up Dolano. Are you a student of hers? Have you done her 'Final' satsang gimick?

[steve]

He's talking about objectively, yet indirectly refuting the subjectivity.

 

Like.

 

It's as much Now as it is ever going to be.

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, there is no absolute present. It is relativistic.

[steve]

Irrefutable, absolute truth? Total bullshit. If you make a point, try to prove it. If you can't, it's a mere belief...and in this case a completely wrong one.

 

Calling this a grade school environment is just you "pointing your finger", and everyone else seeing three of your own pointing back at you. It's childish to assert things without proving them, and then claim others are too closed off to see it.

Actually, if you look at the nature of time from the perspective of both physics and philosophy, he is accurate.

Check it out for yourself if you're interested in the topic.

The wiki is a convenient place to start.

[Aetherous]

Steve,

 

Actually, if you look at the nature of time from the perspective of both physics and philosophy, he is accurate.

Check it out for yourself if you're interested in the topic.

The wiki is a convenient place to start.

 

He is accurate that no one experiences the present; that all we experience is the past? Please share the philosopher who says or proves that.

 

I assert that there is no time. It's just a concept to describe events which have occurred either before now, or after now.

 

Without concepts, there is just this experience, which is timeless and therefore "the present moment".

 

Yes, there is no absolute present. It is relativistic.

 

Please explain more?

[goldisheavy]

And equally dead...

 

Death is not a complement to life as I see it. It's a complement to birth. If you see yourself as dead in each moment you have to see yourself as being born in each moment too. That's the complement. Birth and death are symmetrical concepts. Life is what makes this whole process possible to begin with. Without life, no birth, no death.

 

I resent being called typical - I try very hard to be different!

 

Yea, if you relax even for a moment, you'll instantly become the same as everyone else. I know what you mean.

 

To be clear, I'm not terribly connected to my explanation, it's just what makes the most sense to me at this point in time given my conditioning and bias. When something comes along that makes more sense I would like to think that I would be comfortable embracing something new.

 

I think that's a sane approach. I do my best to follow the same principle.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ahh... You keep quoting Osho as if he were an authority on something, and now you put up Dolano. Are you a student of hers? Have you done her 'Final' satsang gimick?

 

I agree that these are bad sources in my opinion.