GENIUS FORUMS

tharpa: Does anyone around here know some dirty/funny jokes about reincarnation?!

Here's one I made up some years back, which actually won a prize on a call-in radio show:

What did the Hershey's Kiss (a candy) say when it realized it had been reincarnated as another Hershey's Kiss?




Drat, foiled again!

millipodium wrote:tharpa, what you must understand is that this so call board of genius is actually comprised of members who relish the destruction of rational thought. They're average intellects who see this post modern process of destruction as enlightenment. It's sad really.

Do you ever say anything else? You prattle on constantly about the same thing -- GF people are nihilists! -- with slightly different words. And yet you never even support what you say.

Clyde;

OK by me; the question of re-birth/re-incarnation was not raised by me, nor was this thread started by me.

I do realize that, however, this is a public board and you did contribute, and not all responses are meant only for the one it is addressed to. I did say “why do we”, not “why do you”. My apologies if I hurt your feelings.

Perhaps you will begin a thread with your understanding of causation (another “age-old terminology”) and describe how causation works. Also, it seems that discussions of causation inevitably lead to questions of “First Cause”. How do you address that issue?

Perhaps you could look into David Quinn’s book because I simply don’t posses that kind of eloquence. However, that issue is a non-issue since I do not see the possibility of a “first cause” if causality were to be understood for what it is, for the “first cause” would necessarily have a cause accordingly, and so on. Hence, such a question within such contexts does not make any sense, really.

"The mind must be either physical or explained as a necessary component of an ontology. The only other option is magic. "

No, that is not the only other option. But based on a false materialist premise, it seems that way. Magic is basically a judgment on anything outside the parameters of the premise.

Actually, it's not a bad word. How dew rises on blades of grass and spider webs at dawn is truly magical, not because of the physical processes alone, but because of the beauty of the whole thing, as well as its natural orderliness and essential purity.

I could go on and on with points and rebuttals, bring in Goedel's theorem and quantum physics etc. into the science side of it, but the fact remains that the vast majority of people nowadays, including scientists, subscribe to a materialist view of reality in which, to boil it down to its simple fundamentals, matter and consciousness are seen to be essentially different or perhaps that consciousness is simply a subtle aspect of matter, rather than the field in which it arises. But I really am not interested in point by point arguments since the fundamental context is so vague. I don't think it goes anywhere. I have offered several questions, but they are never really addressed, rather ad hominem critique is offered in reply. Personally, I don't find it interesting, that's all. You can think and say what you like about tharpa etc. but I am more interested in the issue - if indeed there is one here!

Anyway, I have a little more to contribute to the thread in terms of karma and also how mind and matter interact from an old buddhist text. It will not be presented as an argument or rebuttal of anything above, simply as a contribution. It also more eloquently than I have done gets at some of what I have flirting with in terms of water, mind and matter etc.

Sapius;

Your previous post addressed me by name, quoting my previous post, and began, “I understand your expressions”; hence, my response. That said, no feelings hurt and no apology necessary.

The suggestion to begin a thread on causation was an invitation to discuss a concept you identified as “We need to start with thoroughly understanding the implications of causality”. I have read sections of David’s book and skimmed Chapter One Cause and Effect. I understand the functioning of causality in the mundane, practical, relative world. But how does causality REALLY work at the most detailed level? Does it work in the Absolute? And what is causality; i.e., it seems to be a principle that arises with things and time?

Maybe the causes are not existent for such a discussion :)

Do no harm,
clyde

This is from a 16th century text on Mahamudra by Tagpo Tashi Namgyal. It is a long, rather exhaustive text which I have not read for almost twenty years, but it remains a great favorite nevertheless since it includes many quotations from older textual sources. The part that I recalled in terms of this discussion (or a part of a part) I will excerpt below.

[Sub-chapter heading] Showing all appearances to be the Products of Mind.

To those who have not gained insight into the suchness of mind, all discriminating thoughts arising from the dynamic power of the mind and all appearances such as form, sound, etc. appear to be real and distinct from the mind owing to their inner delusion. IN reality, they are only manifestations of the mind. The Lankavatara explains:

'External reality appears as such to human beings
from whose minds originate diverse qualities
Due to an interaction between their discriminating thoughts and
psychic imprints.
External reality is the product of the mind.
All appearances are, therefore, completely unreal
For they are all the manifestations of the mind!

The Vajrapanjara states:
Form, sound, smell, flavour and touch
Arise from interacting causes and conditions
Characterised as being the product of this precious mind.
These sensory cognitions are pacified in the all-encompassing
supreme reality.
Concerning form, feeling, cognition, mental categories, and
consciousness,
Those are all products of the mind,
For the Enlightened Sage did not indicate otherwise.

How then do manifestations such as form appear to be external reality? The mind - having been unaware of its intrinsic reality and unable to rely on itself - conceived the duality of self and others. Attachment to and discrimination of dualism continuously stored the seeds of defilement, which so deluded the mind that all appearances seem to be external reality. The Lankavatara comments:

External reality appears as such to the mind,
Which has been distorted by psychic sediment.
Apart from the mind, no external reality exists.
To perceive it so would be an utter distortion.

The Vajrapanjara concurs:

Since the beginningless state of existence
External reality has been perceived as such.
But all such things are the manifestations of the mind,
Because everything is the projection of the mind.

If that is so, how is it that not only external phenomena appear as such but even exist as real, marked with the quality of solidity? Because the mind formed a complex sediment of delusion, things appear not only as external, but even as solid reality. For this reason Saraha states:

When stirred constantly by cold air
Even gently flowing water solidifies like rock;
When a confused mind is stirred by the craving for dualism,
Even the formless void becomes solid.


......


[Sub Chapter Heading] The Realization of Mind, which will bring about an insight into all Appearances.

Saraha comments:

Since the mind alone ist he seed of all possibilities,
It is this that unfolds samsara and nirvana.

The mind alone is thus stated to be the root of all realities, samsara and nirvana. He further says:

Intrinsic in everything project by the mind
Is the nature of the Enlightened Master.
Existence and its evenness [ inner emptiness]
Are of the nature of space.
Are the sea and the waves distinctly separate?

All that which is projected by the mind is thus stated to be nothing but the nature of the mind. A sutra describes the nature of mind.

Mind does not possess a mental entity
Because the mind's intrinsic nature is luminous clarity.

The nature of mind is thus described to be of emptiness in luminosity. Therefore, if one realizes the mind's intrinsic nature as being of emptiness, one automatically can realize emptiness as being the nature of external appearances. A sutra comments on the universality of intrinsic emptiness.

If one understands suchness [of mind's emptiness]
One will understand the suchness of all things.

Aryadeva provides a similar comment:

He who sees the suchness of one thing,
Will see the suchness of all things.

Again he says in the Catuhsataka:

Whoever has a perfect vision of one thing,
Has the perfect vision of all things,
For the emptiness of one thing
Is the emptiness of all things.

......

Just as you understand the cognition of the self,
So should you apply your intellect to all other things.
Since all phenomena remain ever pure, unstained by any inborn
essence,
They are as pure as space.
Through one thing one will know all things.
Through one thing one will see all things.

............................... end .....................

Of course, one has to make allowances for the difficulty of translating technical terms from a specialised vocabulary in medieval Tibetan into readable English. But anyway, I find this sort of material fascinating on many levels, and of course it relates very much to how the contemplation of cause and effect relates to contemplating the very essence and nature of reality, and that of course relates to the incarnation issue, albeit only tangentially. It is more akin to the realms really, how they are all products of 'mind' and emotional atmosphere, and yet also create perceived realities, which include actual humans, actual animals, actual ghosts, gods, titans and hell beings. Actual, but all essentially dreamed at the same time.

tharpa,

"The mind must be either physical or explained as a necessary component of an ontology. The only other option is magic. "

No, that is not the only other option. But based on a false materialist premise, it seems that way. Magic is basically a judgment on anything outside the parameters of the premise.

Yes, it is a judgement. It is the judgement that any magical claim is necessarily false. Either mind is an essential component of the nature of reality (metaphysical), or it is an accidental feature of the way reality manifests itself (physical). There is no materialism here: this is simple logic. If you want mind to be anything else, you will either contradict yourself or scrape against the grain of some essential feature of reality. Either way, it is magical.

Actually, it's not a bad word. How dew rises on blades of grass and spider webs at dawn is truly magical, not because of the physical processes alone, but because of the beauty of the whole thing, as well as its natural orderliness and essential purity.

That's not magic, that's aesthetics. If you were to say "the dew arises spontaneously on blades of grass apart from any causal process", that would be magical. Or, if you were to say "the spider web is simultaneously both present and not present", that would be magical.

The "natural orderliness" of nature is due to the ontological characteristics of reality. Nature could not have anything other than order, and to assume otherwise would be magical thinking.

The dew, the web, the blade of grass, the contemplator, the contemplation -- all of these are necessarily physical things and processes. What else could they be?

tharpa,

our assumption that anything beyond the physical is 'magical' is exactly the sort of materialist superstition evidenced by your belief - or disbelief - in 'magic' as the only alternative.

Hear! Hear!

Although it seems to me a mistake to use such terms as 'beyond the physical, or 'metaphysical' or 'supernatural.' It gives rise to the image of two realms, when there is only one. It isn't that there is a physical and a beyond the physical; the problem is that we are able to perceive a very limited range of the one realm, but there are clues that there is indeed much more to the picture, and those clues are relegated to magic or the supernatural. Especially by those of low perception.

Kevin once made the profound statement that there is no such thing as the material world. There is only the spiritual world.
But he doesn't really believe it.

As ye perceive, so ye believe...

tharpa wrote:the heart stores long-term memory.

If that were true, then a person who has a heart transplant would lose all their long-term memories.

You are sounding flakier by the minute.

The reason we think 'it's all in the brain' nowadays is just because we are out of touch with the body/earth

There's nothing wrong with thinking of the brain as the seat of the personality so long as you don't think of the brain as being inherently existent and independent.

If, as you say, a mother is reborn in her children, then presumably you are saying that any new baby that is born comes from their mother (and father etc.) who are still alive.
So logically speaking, either they are only a partial person since the others are alive

We've already been over this, but you obviously haven't understood any of it.

If you have one candle flame, and with it you light several other candle flames, does that mean the other candle flames are only partial candle flames?

or maybe the parents just planted a seed which then grows into a new full person. I am interested in the nature and essence of that seed, just as I am interested in the nature and essence of water and air.

All things are like seeds, since they have both causes and effects.

The business about Hitler is rather silly on the surface

That's because you haven't yet grasped how reincarnation really works. If you ever finally see it, it will astound you.

. . . but I think I get the point. Realms, or states of mind/emotion, can be transmitted and then become part of the body-mind corpus, and therefore personality, of those involved.

You're complicating matters far too much. There is simply cause and effect. You don't have to worry about "body-mind corpuses" etc. The cause is the past life and the effect is the future life.

But your main point about how influence passing from one to another is an aspect of reincarnation is a nice one.

Cause and effect is the whole of reincarnation, not merely an aspect of it.

I still don't think it comes close to describing the whole enchilada

Actually, it does explain literally everything.

Any thing is caused by all that is not itself.

If you want to know the detals of where a cow comes from, then you should become a scientist and study chemistry, genetics, etc.

. . . I can't get around the fact as experienced directly in this life, that this same tradition is effective at producing very accomplished people.

Accomplished at what? Regurgitating the same nonsense?

It's certainly not perfect, but it has a very high batting average.

It's better than Christianity and Islam. But that's not saying much.

BoH:

Although it seems to me a mistake to use such terms as 'beyond the physical, or 'metaphysical' or 'supernatural.' It gives rise to the image of two realms, when there is only one.

It should not give rise to the image of two realms: everything is physical, and metaphysics describes the transcendental features of everything. It is quite clear that there is only one thing here.

It isn't that there is a physical and a beyond the physical; the problem is that we are able to perceive a very limited range of the one realm, but there are clues that there is indeed much more to the picture, and those clues are relegated to magic or the supernatural.

I relegate unsubstantiated claims about things that cannot be known to the supernatural ("we can't know everything, therefore ghosts exist!"). Magic refers to a very specific kind of thinking, where causality or non-contradiction or some other essential feature of reality is overlooked in favour of delusion. Magical thinking is the failure to understand metaphysics.

Kevin once made the profound statement that there is no such thing as the material world. There is only the spiritual world.
But he doesn't really believe it.

I agree with that statement, although he could just as easily say "there is no such thing as the spiritual world: there is only the material world", or "there is only one world, and it doesn't matter what you call it."

I guess material implies that it's made up of matter, spiritual that it's made up of spirit....

Kevin wrote:

"Cause and effect is the whole of reincarnation, not merely an aspect of it. "

Can you please explain your position on this clearly and completely and if possible without defining it negatively, i.e. it is not what idiots like tharpa think etc. What is your view on this and what point are you trying to make?

I agree with the other poster (sorry can't see the name in this window) who says it is all one world and one could just as easily call it physical and spiritual.

The only problem is: most people will not agree with that and even people who think they agree with it in theory, don't because of their materialist blinkers. That doesn't mean that there aren't a whole slew of people with no less deluded 'spiritual' blinkers. The text I cited above hinted at the causes of duality - covered in far more depth elsewhere. In some sense, duality is the cause of rebirth. Karma is merely a mechanism, a function.

One of the great virtues of understanding cause and effect (co-dependent origination/ pratityasamutpada etc.) is to lead one to the experienced insight that the seemingly solid self or personality is a fiction in some sense. This does not mean, however, that beings do not come into existence (the birth aspect) or go away (the death aspect). They do both. And that things are empty doesn't mean that we can go headlong into an oncoming train and expect to survive the encounter unscathed!

In terms of the heart, Kevin, you ignored my story. Assuming it is true, it bolstered some aspects of those traditional notions. In any case, I don't believe we really differ all that much on that one. All such organs/locations are part of an interdependent matrix of causes and conditions etc. So if you believe that the brain is the central area for personality and memory, go ahead. I go along with the traditional Chinese/Oriental style which states that the brain is mainly a switchboard mechanism, not a full organ at all. But either way, it really doesn't matter, does it?

However, to answer your objection somewhat: people with removed spleens and gallbladders will still evidence spleen disharmonies etc. Similarly, women who have had miscarriages and abortions sometimes manifest signs of pregnancy years after the event. Organs are to a certain degree the visible-physical manifestations of underlying fundamental functions that will occur whether or not the organ still exists physically, the slack being taken up by other members of the interdependent matrix. Of course, if you take out someone's heart, kidneys, liver, lung, brain etc., then they will die instantly, because some interdependent key-points are more important than others. But still, the underlying point remains. I personally have not met anyone who had a heart transplant and so am not sure what happens to their long-term memory. But certainly this gentleman (assuming the story is true as I believe it was at the time because police, the courts etc. were involved in sentencing the murderer after he was caught etc.) had some sort of connection to the donor. Maybe it had nothing to do with the heart at all, just psychic intuition or something. Still, it's an interesting little story.

Another anecdote: I was once hanging out with a Tibetan yogi only recently arrived in the West - charged with helping our sangha translation group. He told me he was utterly baffled by our notion that we thought in the head (the brain) and could make no sense of it until his english was good enough that he could watch television for a while (one of the ways he learned the language). After a few weeks, he realised that he was thinking 'up there' and finally understood what we were talking about. 'Where did you think before?', I asked? 'Oh here of course', he said, pointing to his heart area. 'That's where everyone thinks where I come from.'

Many people have a similar experience during sudden shock/fright: they find their mind is deep in the abdomen. And of course often during making love one find's the seat of mind is even lower than that - and if it isn't, it's a pity!

To the person who asked earlier about the water-conscousness issue and whether or not I was being serious:

First, you didn't answer my question which was - to paraphrase - if you can show me one iota of proof that the seat of consciousness is in any one part or location of the physical body more than any other part, then I will consider the brain as such a locus. Two points further about this contemplation:

1. Put your finger out in front of your face and wriggle it around, or point it deliberately somewhere. Where does the mind/intention end and the physical finger (body) begin? Or are they a seamless interconnection? Is there any part of the body where you can say: this is separate from mind? This goes back to the 'there is only one universe' argument, which I think is essentially correct. If we were to apply this to the body-mind corpus, we could say that it is 'all one whole', and although each part is unique and has unique contributions to make, it cannot do so except in relation to every single other one, i.e. we are back to interdependent causes and conditions.

2. In terms of water and consciousness: similarly the basic elements, and all sorts of physical phenomena, or any phenomena for that matter, are interdependently causes of everything else. It is not purely flippant to point out that if you remove water from the brain it won't function and therefore neither will the mind or the personality, therefore. The underlying question is: what is the interdependent relationship between matter and consciousness?

I believe the text above, although only a brief snippet was offered, contributed something to that most fascinating of contemplations.

tharpa,

if you can show me one iota of proof that the seat of consciousness is in any one part or location of the physical body more than any other part

I answered this already.

Sever your corpus collosum. Undergo brain surgery. Suffer a stroke. Have a brain tumour. Suffer from schizophrenia. Add or remove chemicals from the body that only affect the brain (serotonin, dopamine). Do different actions while your brain activity is monitored.

Now, compare this to losing a finger, or a leg, or a kidney, or a lung; or to having a heart-bypass....

Anything that damages the brain affects the mind in significant ways. Things that damage other body parts do not have the same significance. As I said, the hard problem is not a question of whether or not the seat of mind is in the brain. That should be sufficiently obvious. The problem is why it works in the way it does, and not in some other fashion.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:tharpa,

if you can show me one iota of proof that the seat of consciousness is in any one part or location of the physical body more than any other part

I answered this already.

Sever your corpus collosum. Undergo brain surgery. Suffer a stroke. Have a brain tumour. Suffer from schizophrenia. Add or remove chemicals from the body that only affect the brain (serotonin, dopamine). Do different actions while your brain activity is monitored.

Now, compare this to losing a finger, or a leg, or a kidney, or a lung; or to having a heart-bypass....

Anything that damages the brain affects the mind in significant ways. Things that damage other body parts do not have the same significance. As I said, the hard problem is not a question of whether or not the seat of mind is in the brain. That should be sufficiently obvious. The problem is why it works in the way it does, and not in some other fashion.

I see. I don't find that satisfactory, as my suggestion of taking away water illustrated. If you think that having a screwdriver stuck in your kidney (or heart, or lung etc.) would not effect you mentally..... how about losing your adrenal gland and having almost no emotional synchronisation? Just because doing stuff to the brain effects your mind does not mean it is the seat of the mind. Sorry, it's just not a complete proposition.

For example, you compare severing the corpus collosum with losing one kidney or one lung etc. How about losing both kidneys (which makes the full organ) or both lungs (the same)? How about cutting the main aorta to the heart? How long would you last? How about plugging your mouth and nose and not breathing for 6 minutes? Etc. etc.

I wonder how you would feel if someone chopped off your male organ? No effect mentally/psychologically etc.? Similarly, although you could survive without your fingers, and leaving aside any pain involved, if your hands were suddenly removed, you think this would have no mental/psychological effect? ( Especially if you were a cook, a carpenter, a pianist, a writer, the world's best lover and so on!)

Sorry, we just have to disagree on this. I don't think you have provided any proof whatsoever that the brain is the main exclusive locus of the mind/personality.

Carl G: thanks for that one..

Changing the brain in specific ways changes the mind in specific, predictable ways. Damage to certain speech centers results in the loss of the ability to do very specific language functions, such as using verbs correctly, or using the active voice. "Blindsight" is a form of damange when a person's vision is "technically" fine but they fail to react to objects in certain parts of their vision as a healthy person would. Severing the corpus callosum results in specific, predictable neuromotor and attention deficits. People can be made to have "religious" experiences by putting certain kinds of electromagnets over their heads. Every bit of evidence we have indicates that certain regions of the brain control certain parts of consciousness.

Sorry, we just have to disagree on this. I don't think you have provided any proof whatsoever that the brain is the main exclusive locus of the mind/personality.

That wasn't what I was proving, and I think you know it. I was proving that the brain is the seat of the mind, not that it is exclusive. I am well aware that the nerves transmit information to the brain from other parts of the body, and that the brain cannot survive without the assistance of other organs.

My argument was not for complete exclusion of everything else, but only that the brain is the most important feature. Changing the brain directly changes the mind in a way that changing the hand does not.

I'm starting to believe that you are trying to play Devil's Advocate here. I really hate this game. You know enough about the human body to know what damage to different organs does, so I have a hard time believing that you could misinterpret the relationship between brain and mind so completely.

Anyway, I proved what I set out to prove. I gave an iota of evidence that the mind comes from the brain. If you wanted me to try to prove that the mind is exclusively within the brain, you're out of luck. The existence of the nervous system already disproves that position.

Philosophaster wrote: "Every bit of evidence we have indicates that certain regions of the brain control certain parts of consciousness."

That is a sweeping statement, and - apart from being falsifiable obviously since there is bound to be conflicting evidence - going too far.

For example - and a google search could flesh this out - there are more synaptic neuronic (or whatever the sc. term is!) reactions in the 'lower brain' than the upper one even though there is no one particular organ (with the almost liquid consistency of porridge) where such functions can be particularly attributed.

Also, in terms of the evidence and experiments: have similar experiments been done to other organs and regions of the body? Have they experimented with slicing certain sections of the kidneys, the liver, the lungs, severing certain arteries and so forth?

Also I read some time ago that although stimulating X part of the brain produced consistently Y results in one individual, the same actions produced different results both a) in same individual at different time and b) in different individuals. So there is a whole lot of variables out there...

Also, all this praise for the brain as the main organ of consciousness ignores the (conventionally not disputed) fact that it is also the main organ of physical coordination etc. Again, I would challenge this somewhat, but the bottom line for me is that although it is clearly a very important zone, it is by no means the main one in any department.

Using a common sense approach backed by no 'scientific' research whatsoever, I have always assumed that its' main role is to coordinate input from the senses (the main gates to which are nearly all located in the head region as in eyes, ears, nose, tongue to be specific) into the overall matrix. As such, rather than being the seat of consciousness, it is more like the main junction of the seeming outer-inner interplay, since the senses are the main gates conduiting information from outside. As such, it is vitally important of course. Which explains also maybe why when the brain goes dormant, as in a coma, the body (and for all we know certain unobvious aspects of consciousness and even personality) can live on perfectly well, but not relate to the outside, either via the senses or the ability to move through location/space with the combination of muscular and sensory faculties.

I have personally witnessed someone who was technically dead for more than four days still have heat in the heart centre even though the temperature in the room was almost at freezing. Modern science has no explanation for this, yet it often happens with meditation masters especially. Obviously the brain is not the only story in town....

Ok, that last paragraph has me reaching for my tinfoil hat again...

What was the context of seeing this phenomenon? Who took the temperature measurements etc etc? You're in psychic surgery territory for me on this one.

Trevor wrote: "My argument was not for complete exclusion of everything else, but only that the brain is the most important feature. Changing the brain directly changes the mind in a way that changing the hand does not. "

I could also argue that changing the hand changes the mind in a way that changing the brain does not. What does that prove? Only that there are many, many different aspects of consciousness/mind, but no one particular physical locus that is the quintessential source, or producer of mind. That is my underlying point, really: too many people think the mind is something that results from the rubbing together of physical sticks somehow, i.e. that it also is essentially a physical thing, albeit perhaps more subtle, even more subtle than air.

It is not. It is the field in which physical phenomena exist, like the water in which physical fishes swim. Physical fishes do not create water in any particular organ any more than we create mind - in which we swim - is created in the brain or anywhere else.

So there is a little more than linear interdependence at play here in analysing karma etc. A good instantly grockable paradigm is the yin-yang theory/system from Eastern Asia. Excellent way of looking at things. Yin yang on the one hand is the warm versus cold side of same mountain, but is also described (along in countless other ways) as yang being the visible/physical/form realm and yin the invisible/psychic/formless realm. Using this paradigmatic form of analysis/view, we could say that the body is yang and the mind is yin (although some texts will say the opposite depending on what is being discussed!), the bottom line being that the two together create the unified whole mentioned earlier. They are not really separate or different since one cannot exist without the other, and yet there are differences, qualitative ultimately, that can be discerned.

And therein lies the rub of karma!

Dan: it was my teacher who died in 1987. The same thing has happened to others, sometimes monitored by nurses for a little while, but in this case by two individuals (one a doctor) who waited for the heat to dissipate until it was time to go onto the next stage, i.e. cremation which happened 40 something days later.

Of course you will argue that this was all a hoax. You might be right. But as someone who was there at the time of 'death' and everyday thereafter, I had my own personal perceptions of various shifts going on ( not scientifically verifiable of course!) and noticed a marked atmospheric difference shortly before the 'warm-heart' process was declared over. Again, this has happened many times, and again you are free to argue that it's BS.

(btw; since I don't have a preconception about the brain (or any other organ) being the main seat of consciousness, it is not a big deal for me, nor anything 'magical' or anything like that. But it is an anecdote which I witnessed personally, however incompletely and subjectively.)

Personally, I would recommend wool or cotton hats over tinfoil. One never knows when lightning will strike!

tharpa wrote:I could also argue that changing the hand changes the mind in a way that changing the brain does not. What does that prove? Only that there are many, many different aspects of consciousness/mind, but no one particular physical locus that is the quintessential source, or producer of mind.

I don't think that point is really in dispute here. It's basically saying that mind, like anything, has no true boundaries, no beginning or end, no real spatio/temporal location. I think the dispute is really just about what empirical modelling works best when dealing with manifestations of mind, and, by and large, those dealing with the brain seem to have the greatest utility.

tharpa wrote:Dan: it was my teacher who died in 1987. The same thing has happened to others, sometimes monitored by nurses for a little while, but in this case by two individuals (one a doctor) who waited for the heat to dissipate until it was time to go onto the next stage, i.e. cremation which happened 40 something days later.

40 days? Why the hell do they wait that long?

Of course you will argue that this was all a hoax.

That's my inclination yes. I'd like to see if there's any medical evidence of such a phenomenon outside of what you describe.

Dan: I am delighted that my 'back-shift' schedules allows me the priviledge to discuss things on a forum with you 'down-unders'. Who says technology is all bad?!!

Actually, I think all this brain business came up in the context of observations about certain materialistic assumptions about reality being akin to Kevin's 'animal-realm' type syndromes. Whenever one makes such points it is easy to get distracted by minutia. They can be not only fascinating but important, yet without maintaining a clear context / view of the discussion, especially when typing out thoughts on a forum in this medium, it is hard to stay 'on point'.

Btw: my thanks to all you three (D, Q, K) for your work. Even though I seem to often play the part of spoiler here (as a stubborn buddhist apologist and more), I salute your efforts. If I didn't feel personally and generally that there was something interesting/good going on, I assure you I would not contribute, and I contribute in the spirit of contributing, not spoiling or trolling etc.

Anyway...

tharpa,

I could also argue that changing the hand changes the mind in a way that changing the brain does not. What does that prove?

That there are aspects of mind that are qualitatively different. However, I was using rhetor because I was certain you would be able to finish the rest on your own.

A change to the brain is not only qualitatively different than the dismemberment of the hand, but it will almost guarantee a change in the personality. When brain damage does not change the personality, that is the lucky exception.

Only that there are many, many different aspects of consciousness/mind, but no one particular physical locus that is the quintessential source, or producer of mind.

No, that is not what it proves. See above.

There is nothing that suggests that the qualitative difference between a severed hand and a severed corpus collosum implies that there is no one significant source of mind.

That is my underlying point, really: too many people think the mind is something that results from the rubbing together of physical sticks somehow

Nobody sees the mind as the rubbing together of sticks. That is a poor analogy. Many more people go with the times, and look at the mind as though it's the software running on a really complicated computer.

I differ in that I look at it as though it's the software running on a gelatanous blob.

ie., that it also is essentially a physical thing, albeit perhaps more subtle, even more subtle than air.

It has to be a physical thing. What other type of thing is there?

It is not. It is the field in which physical phenomena exist,

The field in which physical phenomena exist would still be physical, just as the space that planets occupy is still physical.

...like the water in which physical fishes swim. Physical fishes do not create water in any particular organ any more than we create mind - in which we swim - is created in the brain or anywhere else.

I've heard this idea before, both here and elsewhere. I think Hegel toyed with it quite a bit. He called it World Spirit or something silly like that.

Anyway, even were we to tap into a consciousness-field through the brain rather than create consciousness from the brain, it's still a physical process, and it would be open to scientific and philosophic scrutiny. I have no idea why you avoid the idea of physics so much.

good instantly grockable paradigm is the yin-yang theory/system from Eastern Asia. Excellent way of looking at things. ...They are not really separate or different since one cannot exist without the other, and yet there are differences, qualitative ultimately, that can be discerned.

Why did you make the ontological distinction between mind and body in the first place? If it's all one thing, there's no reason to even separate them. I see nothing truthful or pragmatic in this process: it is so much wasted wind.

And therein lies the rub of karma!

Karma is simply the eastern word for causality. You are making it too confusing.

IN response to K's question above:

Because the cremation for someone of that type traditionally happens 47 days after initial physical death.

At some point there probably will be some evidence since there are some small groups working to 'document' the effects of buddhist practice in scientific terms. I believe some of the Dalai Lama related series of books deal with this, though I do not follow them closely.

It's not a big deal. Let's say the brain is the seat of consciousness (whatever that means and I have tried to push things to more of a yin-yang type dynamic in terms of the body-mind universe), there's still no problem. The brain dies and for whatever reason, certain aspects of consciousness linger in the heart centre for a while until full dissolution happens physically. No big deal either way.