Nihilism

[Tibetan_Ice]

Unconscious is not without consciousness. A corpse isn't unconscious, it is without any consciousness.

Mind and body are indivisible. Consciousness is and body is.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Marblehead]

Hi Tibetan_Ice,  No, I'm not going to drill a freakin' hole in my head.  But thanks anyhow.

[Karl]

Hi Tibetan_Ice,  No, I'm not going to drill a freakin' hole in my head.  But thanks anyhow.

 

I'm still trying to figure out what the relevance of posting that video is ?

[Karl]

It seems to me that conflict here, in part, resembles the split between between religion and science; it is both ontological and epistemic. Religion and science offer two very different ontologies (theories about what exists) and epistemology (ways to figure it out).  Consequently, participants are operating from irreconcilably different perspectives of 'reality'.  

 

That is absolutely true. Going back to early philosophies we can see where these ideas come from. Aristotle lead the movement out of mysticism and scepticism. Currently we are living through a period in which mysticism and scepticism seem to be in the ascendant.

[Karl]

You have mastered the art of gratuitous assertion and rhetorical tautology.

Congratulations.

 

It wasn't a gratuitous assertion, it was in reply to you being seemingly unable to understand the difference between a complete abscence of consciousness and the state of being unconscious.

[Tibetan_Ice]

I'm still trying to figure out what the relevance of posting that video is ?

If mind and body were indivisible, as you stated, then you shouldn't be able to transfer your consciousness to a dead body, which is also what the practice of phowa teaches.

[Karl]

If mind and body were indivisible, as you stated, then you shouldn't be able to transfer your consciousness to a dead body, which is also what the practice of phowa teaches.

 

You can't transfer consciousness to a dead body.

[Tibetan_Ice]

You can't transfer consciousness to a dead body.

From The Six Yogas of Naropa:

 

The practice itself is exotic: transferring one's consciousness into a fresh corpse. To get the hang of it, one begins by training in the technique nique by means of attempting to revitalize the bodies of small animals. mals. Eventually one can work up to the real thing, a human corpse. Tsongkhapa describes in detail how the corpse is placed on a mandala table in front of oneself, and the meditations conducted. At the time of actual application one fetches a fresh corpse from the charnel ground, places it cross-legged on the table, sits facing it, and projects one's consciousness into it, thus reviving it. One then cremates one's old body, and goes on about one's business in one's new residence. Why would one want to do such a thing?

 

Tsongkhapa offers this answer: The reasons for performing forceful projection into another residence can be multifold. For example, there are those of inauspicious lineage who find that they are unable to accomplish great deeds for the benefit of the world due to physical limitations, and thus may feel it expedient to acquire a more appropriate body. Also, perhaps a physical illness renders one unable to benefit oneself or others, and therefore one is moved to acquire a healthy body. Similarly, one may be afflicted by old age and thus be moved to acquire a youthful body.

 

Although this all sounds a bit far-fetched, and quite rightly is included in the Six Yogas only as an auxiliary practice, the subject seems to have been of great interest to eleventh-century India and Tibet.

 

For example, it is said that when Marpa's son, to whom the technique of forceful projection had been given, fell off his horse and was about to die, he quickly projected his consciousness into the body of a pigeon and flew away to India. There the pigeon alighted on the breast of a young boy who lay dead on a funeral pyre. Marpa's son then projected his consciousness out of the body of the temporary vehicle, the pigeon, into that of the boy. The pigeon fell over dead, and the boy sat up. He became known as Tipupa, the Pigeon Mahasiddha.

 

A generation later Milarepa sent one of his disciples, Rechungpa, to study with Tipupa in India. Biographies of the Indian mahasiddhas and yogis of the period are filled with such anecdotes.

 

The tradition continued in Tibet, especially with the early Kargyupa lamas. Yogis quite casually throw their spirits into the bodies of geese, foxes or other creatures, leaving their human body behind in a state of suspended animation, and then come back some time later, exiting the borrowed body and re-entering the old aggregates. Marpa is said to have demonstrated this phenomenon several times to his disciples. Of course, corpses for the practice were far more easily acquired in those days. Only the wealthy were cremated. Most towns and cities had a charnel ground nearby, where the dead were brought and deposited, posited, to be offered as food to the wild animals and vultures as a final act of generosity. A yogi would have a good selection of bodies from which to choose. These charnel grounds were favored meditation places for the Indian mahasiddhas. Usually they were located at the edge of a jungle and thus had a host of wild animals, from tigers to jackals, looking to them as a food source.

 

Many of the mahasiddhas practiced meditation in charnel grounds. Often these were located near a city, and thus had a hefty turnover of bodies. It is said that the simultaneous presence of decomposing corpses and hungry scavengers provides an environment most conducive to tantric meditation.

 

A rumor concerning the doctrine of forceful projection is that originally there were two techniques: one for projection into a corpse; and another for projection into a living being. It was the second application tion that caused the consternation that led to the mysterious death of Marpa's son and the ostensible ending of the lineage.

 

Tsongkhapa also mentions two applications for "drong-juk": forcefully fully projecting one's consciousness into a fresh corpse in order to take up residence there; and, secondly, offering one's own body to someone in need, by means of forcefully projecting their consciousness into one's body, and vacating it for them. Tsongkhapa does not say much on the subject of the second application, for, as he puts it, "This second tradition is not publicly taught by the gurus."

 

The qualifications of the practitioner of these branch practices are described as follows: With all three practices-consciousness transference, forceful projection [into a corpse], and projecting someone out of their body into one's own body-one requires the ability to block the flow of energies by placing mantric syllables at the gates, and also the ability to purify the gates by means of using the vase breathing technique to direct the vital energies into the central channel. And one needs the ability to control the red element, [symbolized by] the AH-stroke syllable at the navel chakra, by means of the inner heat yogas, and utilize it to arouse the consciousness that rides upon the subtle energies, represented by the HUM at the heart chakra.

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Karl]

From The Six Yogas of Naropa:

 

A bit too much Mary Shelley going on there.

 

Has this act been performed and observed under scientifically rigorous conditions.

 

That's a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.

[Tibetan_Ice]

A bit too much Mary Shelley going on there.Has this act been performed and observed under scientifically rigorous conditions. That's a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.

There you go, scientific proof. And Lazarus wasn't exactly a fresh corpse..

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany

 

 

The name "Lazarus" is frequently used in science and popular culture in reference to apparent restoration to life; for example, the scientific term "Lazarus taxon" denotes organisms that reappear in the fossil record after a period of apparent extinction.

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[steve]

It wasn't a gratuitous assertion, it was in reply to you being seemingly unable to understand the difference between a complete abscence of consciousness and the state of being unconscious.

 

I get that distinction - I didn't read the post closely enough the first time. Thanks for clarifying.

I was referring to the second part of your comment.

 

It seems to me that conflict here, in part, resembles the split between between religion and science; it is both ontological and epistemic. Religion and science offer two very different ontologies (theories about what exists) and epistemology (ways to figure it out).  Consequently, participants are operating from irreconcilably different perspectives of 'reality'.  

Yes, that is part of the problem. Well stated.

 

I'd be interested in learning more about the science based evidence for the view that the body is in consciousness. Any resources?

I would say that quantum mechanics in general leads us in that direction by establishing that the observer inflences the observation. I'll work on some more specific examples and get back to you on that.

[seekingbuddha]

In the days of Buddha,  the respected/rich/learned-in-vedas  were the Brahmins.   Once a well known Brahmin  of society  called the Buddha  a Nihilist.  He  said Buddha's  teachings  were not good, not life-enforcing  teachings.   Buddha  denied this accusation.  Couple of things come to my mind, as i sift through this thread:

1. There are different  stages in the evolution of mind.  Thus, what sounds accurate and true to one, will change over time.  As a person evolves, he  understands  the  same  teaching / same words,  at  different  depth levels.  Buddha's  teaching  is much deeper than what we can understand intellectually.  It is so profound that current  generation   Neuroscientists and psychologists  have trouble  penetrating  the deeper teachings (that are beyond the discussion level of this forum).  
2. Rhetoric  can take you only so far.  Beyond that,  it becomes a hinderance.

[Karl]

There you go, scientific proof. And Lazarus wasn't exactly a fresh corpse.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany

 

This isn't scientific proof but a biblical myth. Also a creature occurring in the fossil record was 'thought' to be dead, doesn't mean it has come back to life, only that it had been believed dead because it occurred also as a fossil.

 

You seem to find it very easy to accept mythology as fact. Don't you ever question these things ?

[FmAm]

It has to be my job to state that there's no proof for body or mind. Only "thing" that can be certain is some kind of unexplainable experience. And this experience can't be communicated to "others". I call this nihilistic solipsism, solipsism without self (mind).

 

This is science at its best. No beliefs or myths, just the bare truth.

Edited October 6, 2015 by FmAm

[Marblehead]

It has to be my job to state that there's no proof for body or mind. Only "thing" that can be certain is some kind of unexplainable experience. And this experience can't be communicated to "others". I call this nihilistic solipsism, solipsism without self (mind).

 

This is science at its best. No beliefs or myths, just the bare truth.

But the Ten Thousand Things do exist.

[Karl]

It has to be my job to state that there's no proof for body or mind. Only "thing" that can be certain is some kind of unexplainable experience. And this experience can't be communicated to "others". I call this nihilistic solipsism, solipsism without self (mind).

 

This is science at its best. No beliefs or myths, just the bare truth.

Stolen concept fallacy. You have just proven the existence of body and mind.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Karl

[FmAm]

Stolen concept fallacy. You have just proven the existence of body and mind.

 

Actually... not. And it wasn't even stolen concept fallacy. (Are you Randian Objectivist?)

[Karl]

Actually... not. And it wasn't even stolen concept fallacy. (Are you Randian Objectivist?)

 

I see you agree with me which is excellent.

 

I don't give myself labels. Objectivism has a lot of merit. I can't say I agree with all of it, just as I couldn't say I agree with everything Aristotle believed, or contradict everything that Plato thought, or even Hegel and Kant. It's best to start with ones own reasoning and develop ones own philosophy by questioning everything.

[FmAm]

I see you agree with me which is excellent.

 

I don't give myself labels. Objectivism has a lot of merit. I can't say I agree with all of it, just as I couldn't say I agree with everything Aristotle believed, or contradict everything that Plato thought, or even Hegel and Kant. It's best to start with ones own reasoning and develop ones own philosophy by questioning everything.

 

You seem to wish many different things to me: death, happiness and now agreeing (you are being quite authoritarian).

 

What would mathematics be without assumed truths, axioms? Math reflects and summarises the patterns of thought, the ways thought classifies the experience. Without Peano axioms, there can be no counting. Number one (1) is "the ultimate axiom" (it was Peano's original number, instead of 0). Assuming number 1 basically means that there's something, a thing, something countable - and someone (a thing, a soul, a self) is counting here. These axioms are questionable even in the light of the modern physics.

 

I'm just staying in the position of no axioms at all. I have no need to deny anything.

Edited October 6, 2015 by FmAm

[Karl]

 You seem to wish many different things to me: death, happiness and now agreeing (you are being quite authoritarian).  What would mathematics be without assumed truths, axioms? Math reflects and summarises the patterns of thought, the ways thought classifies the experience. Without Peano axioms, there can be no counting. Number one (1) is "the ultimate axiom" (it was Peano's original number, instead of 0). Assuming number 1 basically means that there's something, a thing, something countable - and someone (a thing, a soul, a self) is counting here. These axioms are questionable even in the light of the modern physics. I'm just staying in the position of no axioms at all. I have no need to deny anything.

 

You are already proving the axioms by trying to argue there are no axioms.

[Tibetan_Ice]

This isn't scientific proof but a biblical myth. Also a creature occurring in the fossil record was 'thought' to be dead, doesn't mean it has come back to life, only that it had been believed dead because it occurred also as a fossil. You seem to find it very easy to accept mythology as fact. Don't you ever question these things ?

My statements are just as ridiculous as yours. Smile when the circus comes to town.

[FmAm]

You are already proving the axioms by trying to argue there are no axioms.

 

I have a room in my house for all the things I've argued against. There's a few gods, a spaghetti monster, Starship Enterprise, just to name a few. Today I was thinking about arguing against 100 pounds of chocolate.

[Karl]

I have a room in my house for all the things I've argued against. There's a few gods, a spaghetti monster, Starship Enterprise, just to name a few. Today I was thinking about arguing against 100 pounds of chocolate.

 

As long as you are arguing then you are proving the axiom.

[FmAm]

As long as you are arguing then you are proving the axiom.

 

Axioms are something that can't be proven.

Edited October 6, 2015 by FmAm

[Karl]

My statements are just as ridiculous as yours. Smile when the circus comes to town.

 

I don't think I said they were ridiculous statements. I asked how you could believe something that neither human senses nor science has been able to prove ?

 

The proofs that you accept are insufficient as proof for me, circus or not. I don't discount the possibility except from a logical perspective. The media and scientific papers are not full of stories of people rising from the dead, or reanimated human corpses.