How to See Yourself as You Really Are

[TruthPrevails]

Just read the following book by the Dalai Lama.
It is a very interesting read and is based on the concept of
dependent origination.

Amazon: How to See Yourself as You Really Are. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-See-Yourself-You-Really/dp/1846040396/ref=pd_sim_b_6/202-3205213-8597420)


Here is another book from the Dalai Lama which i have just read;
The Universe in a Single Atom: How Science and Spirituality Can Serve Our World (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Single-Atom-Science-Spirituality/dp/0316732249/ref=pd_bowtega_1/202-3205213-8597420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179201177&sr=1-1)This is also interesting and i note the Dalai Lama is very knowledgeable and very up-to-date with the lastest scientific researchs with any relation to spirituality.
However, i do not agree with the Dalai Lama's concept of rebirth.
He stated that he will continue to believe in rebirth till science can prove otherwise.

Btw, how would you see yourself and you really are.

[aupmanyav]

Advaitist, Brahmavadin. You know what I would say. I am the substrate that constitutes energy/substance/space/time/universe. 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman).

[Yeshi]

However, i do not agree with the Dalai Lama's concept of rebirth.
He stated that he will continue to believe in rebirth till science can prove otherwise.

i'm not sure why you folks have difficulties with karma and rebirth.
Karma simply means there is CAUSALITY everywhere (a physical concept if you will) and rebirth postulates that:

a) consciousness is a feature of the universe (undisputable?)
b) we have been (consciously) around (undisputable?)
c) nothing dissapears, but transmutes. Energy sum = constant (undisputable?)

Add together that consciousness(es) arise all time and vanish, and that this one instance of personal awareness has been around. Add karma to it = it changes according to cause and effect of its actions, all time.

As some good poster noted herearound that "if the miracle of existing in this Universe has already happened once, what precludes the beleif that it can happen again?" Its very existence is the proof of unbeleivable in itself. That we persist and insist we are the 'same person' since we don't remember anymore back is ridiculuous, but common stance. Yet we are reborn each and every morning if not every few seconds, and illusion persists.

Then why not accept this miraculous illusion?

[aupmanyav]

True, the miracle of existence in the universe has happened. The four forces act in particular ways. You could take that as consciousness of the substrate. Then, consciousness would be a feature of the universe. We (products of the substrate) would have been conscious all the time (not human conscience, but the conscience of the substrate). If the miracle of existence could happen, the miracle of non-existence could also happen. Does space produce hydrogen atoms? Does space eat hydrogen atoms? Is matter/energy spontaneously generated and destroyed? Rebirth would still be recycling. Karma still does not make sense.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

How to See Yourself as You Really Are

First of all, the human mind can only contain a certain (very low) amount of information. So, the phrase "see yourself as you really are" must not be taken to mean "see yourself as you are 100% with no errors or blind spots, all at once".

To see yourself as you really are, you would need to study a lot of objective information about human biology, sociology and psychology, to get the general, most objective view available. Then you would need to examine your behaviors, feelings and thoughts for their meanings (motivations) and view them -behaviors, meaning and all- without dodging them, rationalizing them or excusing them, without attributing them to others, minimizing or maximizing them, and taking full ownership of them.

That's a lot.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

i'm not sure why you folks have difficulties with karma and rebirth.
Karma simply means there is CAUSALITY everywhere (a physical concept if you will) and rebirth postulates that:

a) consciousness is a feature of the universe (undisputable?)
b) we have been (consciously) around (undisputable?)
c) nothing dissapears, but transmutes. Energy sum = constant (undisputable?)

Add together that consciousness(es) arise all time and vanish, and that this one instance of personal awareness has been around. Add karma to it = it changes according to cause and effect of its actions, all time.

As some good poster noted herearound that "if the miracle of existing in this Universe has already happened once, what precludes the beleif that it can happen again?" Its very existence is the proof of unbeleivable in itself. That we persist and insist we are the 'same person' since we don't remember anymore back is ridiculuous, but common stance. Yet we are reborn each and every morning if not every few seconds, and illusion persists.

Then why not accept this miraculous illusion?

If you interpret this as an illusion, or a metaphor or metonymy, sure, I'm in. But if you think it's a literal rebirth, like many do, then no.

And many do.

[Matty]

did it mention if he saw himself as hypocritical pseudo royalty crying because he cannot lord it over the serfs any more so has to toady up to Hollywood stars and mega rich newagers by spouyting common sense platitudes at every opportunity,

or

as an exiled holy man, philosophical genius, all round good guy and friend to the more enlightened celebrities like Steven Segal and Richard Gere.

I wonder.

[adren@line]

did it mention if he saw himself as hypocritical pseudo royalty crying because he cannot lord it over the serfs any more so has to toady up to Hollywood stars and mega rich newagers by spouyting common sense platitudes at every opportunity,

or

as an exiled holy man, philosophical genius, all round good guy and friend to the more enlightened celebrities like Steven Segal and Richard Gere.

I wonder.

this is the kind of attack-dog, knee-jerk-reactionist garbage typical of people on this forum.

The celebrities made it a point to be his friend. The followers made it a point to make him a "big deal", not the Lama himself.

[aupmanyav]

adren@line, this is the kind of attack-dog, knee-jerk-reactionist garbage typical of people on this forum. If you are against that, why do it yourself?

Serfs or no serfs, Dalai represents the tradition of a people which is under attack and is its designated guardian. He is fulfilling his responsibilities. He is himself a serf to the tradition. He cannot do otherwise.

[adren@line]

adren@line, this is the kind of attack-dog, knee-jerk-reactionist garbage typical of people on this forum. If you are against that, why do it yourself?

.

when did I or do I resort to knee-jerk reactions or attack-dog tactics?

I was replying to a post preceding mine, and hence no fault lies with me.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

did it mention if he saw himself as hypocritical pseudo royalty crying because he cannot lord it over the serfs any more so has to toady up to Hollywood stars and mega rich newagers by spouyting common sense platitudes at every opportunity,

or

as an exiled holy man, philosophical genius, all round good guy and friend to the more enlightened celebrities like Steven Segal and Richard Gere.

I wonder.

Matty, forgive me if I'm being disgustingly cynical here but it seems to me that what you're asking, put in far more crass terms is:

Does he see himself as an arsehole who's upset because his toilet was usurped by the communists and has to compensate by being a flatulent wanker, or does he see himself as an enlightened social butterfly and guru to the beautiful people?

If, in more crass terms, this is exactly what you're asking, the question arises; are these the only two possibilities?

Maybe he sees himself as a buddhist monk with a position of power who was denied the chance to improve conditions in Tibet and who has a duty to his people, his culture and his philosophy.

Maybe. Maybe not. Why not email his office and find out for yourself?

[aupmanyav]

when did I or do I resort to knee-jerk reactions or attack-dog tactics? I was replying to a post preceding mine, and hence no fault lies with me.No problem, even then, 'Satyam Bruyat, Priyam Bruyat, ..', you would agree it is such a nice forum.

[perfectbite]

Aupmanyev, wtf is Satyam Bruyat, Priyam Bruyat, ...'?

[premjan]

Probably means the truth (satyam) may not always be pleasant (priyam). Or possibly, speak the truth but make it pleasant (a spoonful of honey makes the medicine go down).
satyaM brUyAt | priyaM (satyaM) brUyAt | apriyaM satyaM na brUyAt | priyaM cha anRutaM na brUyAt | eShaH sanAtanaH dharmaH |

<lang=eng>Translation
One must tell the truth. One must tell the pleasant truth. One must not tell an unpleasant truth. Even if pleasant, one must not tell a lie. This is the traditional dharma.
http://www.speaksanskrit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?=&p=510
Bhagavadgitha says, "satyam bruyat, asatyam na bruyat, priyam bruyat napriyam na bruyat". The meaning is speak truth do not speak truth but sweetly, do not speak hurtingly. Hurt never love ever. Truth should be spoken sweetly. If you cannot communicate truth sweetly, keep silent. That will be better. Secondly, one feels many times that he has to speak truth and that too bluntly, to make the other understand. If you cannot speak to another, with out hurting you may better not speak This is the sadhana of controlling tongue, the most important sense organ God has given to us. Repeat His name and praise His glory but do not hurt another as both have the same spark of God in us.
http://www.saibaba.org/newsletter4-15.html

[ravenscape]

Please dial back the inflammatory language. Such language does not promote civil discussion.

Thanks

Raven
NARP Moderation Team

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Originally Posted by Matty
did it mention if he saw himself as hypocritical pseudo royalty crying because he cannot lord it over the serfs any more so has to toady up to Hollywood stars and mega rich newagers by spouyting common sense platitudes at every opportunity,

or

as an exiled holy man, philosophical genius, all round good guy and friend to the more enlightened celebrities like Steven Segal and Richard Gere.

I wonder.


this is the kind of attack-dog, knee-jerk-reactionist garbage typical of people on this forum.


Is it "knee-jerk" to disagree with the D.L., and to think that while he still was in power, he was the head of a feudalistic state that gave their population few political freedoms, etc... and that yours is THE well-thought, intelligently pondered opinion?

Regard most of us thought D.L. was a cool guy, with words of peace and love, horribly kicked out of his own country by the Eeeevil Chinese Army, until we read what kind of government the Lamas had in Tibet. Even if we were wrong (and I strongly doubt it), it's still not "knee-jerk". Knee-jerk is believing what the media, new-agers and the likes of Gere want you to believe, without going out and finding additional, alternative information.

I have nothing against messages of peace, but to each his own, and the Dalai Lamas have earned theirs. If you do good and bad, mentioning the bad is not wrong. If you think there are good aspects to the ancien régime of the D.L.s, you can post it like everyone else here: it's an open forum.




BTW, Matty was giving two alternatives. I can't see how giving alternatives can be bad.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Maybe he sees himself as a buddhist monk with a position of power who was denied the chance to improve conditions in Tibet and who has a duty to his people, his culture and his philosophy.


I think that thousands of years is a fair good chance for improving the conditions of the people. How many thousands of years do the D.L.s need?

The Chinese haven't given the Tibetans much political freedom (although Soviet-style whatevers the Chinese have installed there are better than nothing), but they have better education, medical coverage (and I don't know whether to say "better" or "at all" here) and chances for self-improvement than they have ever had in their whole previous history.

And that didn't take thousands of years.

[premjan]

Tibetans in Tibet have to pay more for their education than ethnic chinese I believe - some send their kids to India for cheaper education for their children, and are both shot at trying to cross the border and not accepted back if they should try to return.
http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/children/education/b.html
While education expenditures in Tibet increased somewhat in the 1990s, the net effect of these policies has been to widen the educational gap between Tibet and China. In fact, China conceded this in its prior report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in which it stated that almost one-third of the children in the TAR receive no education at all; the figure for China as a whole is only one and a half percent. This results in a comparable disparity in literacy rates. Only about nine percent of Chinese adults are illiterate, compared with about sixty percent of Tibetans in the TAR.
There is also ethnic discrimination in favor of Chinese in Tibet.
http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact1.html
Chinese traders are favoured by lower tax assessments and the dominant position of Chinese in government administration. Chinese officials are paid various bonuses for working in Tibet.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

I think that thousands of years is a fair good chance for improving the conditions of the people. How many thousands of years do the D.L.s need?

How many thousands of years did they have?

The first of the Dalai Lamas to effectively combine secular and spiritual power in Tibet was Ngawang Losang Gyatso, the Fifth Dalai Lama.

He was born in 1617 and died in 1682.


The Chinese haven't given the Tibetans much political freedom (although Soviet-style whatevers the Chinese have installed there are better than nothing), but they have better education, medical coverage (and I don't know whether to say "better" or "at all" here) and chances for self-improvement than they have ever had in their whole previous history.

And that didn't take thousands of years.

No, it took tens of thousands of guns and hundreds of thousands of murders although I personally cannot say for sure that life for the average Tibetan hasn't improved in some ways at least. Considering that they are occupied by a totalitarian dictatorship however, I wouldn't presume to demean what happened to the Tibetans by claiming that they're better off under the Chinese than they would have been if they'd been left alone and the present Dalai Lama had been able to modernise Tibet in a more gentle, more democratic and less repressive way which is apparently what he wanted to do.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

BTW, Matty was giving two alternatives. I can't see how giving alternatives can be bad.

Of course there's nothing wrong with two alternatives. Go Matty!

If he wants to present more than two in future and at least one of them includes a possibility that is positive rather than just two negative alternatives, I'll say "go Matty" again, but in capital letters and I'll even throw in a smilie.

Could we cope with so much cheesy cheer though? :eek:

[Aradia]

Raise your hand if you're a native tibetan who has lived in tibet both pre- and post-communist takeover, and thus can actually speak from first-hand experience. As a sideline poll, raise your hand if you're actually friends with the Dalai Lama and know him as an actual person.


Yeah, didn't think so...

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Raise your hand if you're a native tibetan who has lived in tibet both pre- and post-communist takeover, and thus can actually speak from first-hand experience. As a sideline poll, raise your hand if you're actually friends with the Dalai Lama and know him as an actual person.


Yeah, didn't think so...

Let's close IIDB then. The choices you give us for discussion will leave us no alternative.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

How many thousands of years did they have?

The first of the Dalai Lamas to effectively combine secular and spiritual power in Tibet was Ngawang Losang Gyatso, the Fifth Dalai Lama.

He was born in 1617 and died in 1682.



1682? Oh, I'm sorry. Two centuries isn't enough. I don't know of any plan to change the feudalistic structure over the poverty stricken Tibetans during that time. They were probably "thinking about it". Sometimes you need a long time to think things over. Since 1682 is thinking things really really long and hard, can't be too cautious about relieving misery!

They were probably busy being enlightened and working hard for the right answer to dawn on them during that time.

[premjan]

Tibet would have been better for Tibetans as a democracy rather than under Chinese rule, though the Chinese have invested in infrastructure, there has been massive deforestation. I suppose the feudal structure wasn't good, but the Chinese have not exactly rescued the Tibetans - they have made them second class citizens instead of third-class serfs.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Tibet would have been better for Tibetans as a democracy rather than under Chinese rule, though the Chinese have invested in infrastructure, there has been massive deforestation. I suppose the feudal structure wasn't good, but the Chinese have not exactly rescued the Tibetans - they have made them second class citizens instead of third-class serfs.

That is a reasonanble opinion. :thumbs:

Now maybe we can go back to subject, which was something about seeing ourselves as we really are.

[Matty]

sorry for teh derail and thanks you logos for your more tactful take on my angle. My response was hardly knee jerk, simply asking the obvious question to a bunch of people who seem to be of teh opinion that the DL can do no wrong.

Do you honestly think that the DL wants to return in order to benefit his serfs or to regain the degree of power and privilege he lost?

And at no point did i condone the Chinese occupation. The fact that they both suck if you happen to be an average Tibetan is entirely the point. People, however, rarely hold the Chinese government up as a paragon of morality and all that is good in the world, as they do with the DL

OK derail over. Though i did find it amusing that the most vociferous defence came from a new age californian. heheh.

[aupmanyav]

Please dial back the inflammatory language. Such language does not promote civil discussion.

Thanks

Raven
NARP Moderation TeamNothing serious, Ravenscape. Adren is such a nice serious person. We resolve these small things ourselves.

[abaddon]

1682? Oh, I'm sorry. Two centuries isn't enough. I don't know of any plan to change the feudalistic structure over the poverty stricken Tibetans during that time. They were probably "thinking about it". Sometimes you need a long time to think things over. Since 1682 is thinking things really really long and hard, can't be too cautious about relieving misery!

They were probably busy being enlightened and working hard for the right answer to dawn on them during that time.

At what point between 1682 and when he was forced to leave his country at age 25 was the 14th Dalai Lama supposed to change all of Tibet to a modern democracy?

Or is your point that they were ALL supposed to have done it all along, since it's just been always the obvious thing for leaders of all countries to do?

[abaddon]

Do you honestly think that the DL wants to return in order to benefit his serfs or to regain the degree of power and privilege he lost?

It's almost certain his return would be a great benefit to the Tibetan people. Pointing at pre-communist take-over Tibet doesn't prove anything for or against the current Dalai Lama. Even if he were a slave-whipping taskmaster personally (which is only idiotic to presume), he'd still be in a new time with new allies and under the watchful eyes of the world.

[ravenscape]

Nothing serious, Ravenscape. Adren is such a nice serious person. We resolve these small things ourselves.

Thanks. I've noticed that regulars in this forum do a good job of resolving conflicts among themselves.

[Matty]

It's almost certain his return would be a great benefit to the Tibetan people. Pointing at pre-communist take-over Tibet doesn't prove anything for or against the current Dalai Lama. Even if he were a slave-whipping taskmaster personally (which is only idiotic to presume), he'd still be in a new time with new allies and under the watchful eyes of the world.

thats not what i asked.

[abaddon]

What you asked was a loaded question. But the answer is still Yes to the "benefit his serfs" part. I don't know that he ever had much power, so what's to "regain"? He was 15 when they allowed him some temporal power (however much a young Dalai Lama shares with his advisors and other leaders) and that was the exact same year China invaded. If it were possible that he could have power in Tibet now, then all indications are that he wants to improve the Tibetan people's conditions.

I don't see any evidence to assume otherwise. Adren@line was right about knee-jerk reactions. People see the country was not rich and was not a democracy, so they assume without evidence (hence "knee-jerk") all the worst things about anyone coming from a more "privileged" position there.

[aupmanyav]

The Chinese haven't given the Tibetans much political freedom ..That is a precious thing. They were a happy people, in spite of what other people say, living their life in their own way, they were not starving. Money and facilities are not everything. Why should anybody have a right to destroy that against their wishes? In a similar way, Christians helped aboriginals all over the world (American Indians, etc.). India has tried to keep the life of their Andaman Island aboriginals as intact as possible.

[adren@line]

Lógos Sokratikós:

Is it "knee-jerk" to disagree with the D.L.
Nope. Anyone can disagree with him, or anyone else for that matter, but if one expresses their disagreement then they should do so in an eloquent manner or they should expect criticism.

and to think that while he still was in power, he was the head of a feudalistic state that gave their population few political freedoms, etc... and that yours is THE well-thought, intelligently pondered opinion?
The well thought-out opinion would be to actually make a connection between the serfdom and the limited political freedoms and the D.L. himself.

One who makes any such connection must show how the D.L instituted policies that led to these conditions and provide statements and/or evidence of policy of the D.L. that promoted these conditions.

The fact is (from what I have read) that the conditions of Tibet had nothing to do with the D.L or anything he did or didn't do. He may have been the superficial "Head of State" but that does not mean he had widespread power or the means to implement change at the national level, or eliminate the corruption that was probably rampant throughout the country at the time.

There is a difference between an actual "Head of State" such as George Bush and a symbolic, superficial head of state that wields any real power that could affect policy.

The D.L did not control nor did he have much influence over the nobility and corrupt elite who instituted the feudalistic system.

So if someone comes on here with knee-jerk reactions that link the D.L and his "head of state" title to the conditions of Tibet, they must prove how the conditions were a result of the D.L. and his actions/policies.


Regard most of us thought D.L. was a cool guy, with words of peace and love, horribly kicked out of his own country by the Eeeevil Chinese Army, until we read what kind of government the Lamas had in Tibet. Even if we were wrong (and I strongly doubt it), it's still not "knee-jerk". Knee-jerk is believing what the media, new-agers and the likes of Gere want you to believe, without going out and finding additional, alternative information.
that was not the government of the Lamas. That system was implemented by feudal lords who in all probability had more influence and power than any Lama.

That is how feudalism played out in Europe. Many of these feudal warlords simply had agreements with the King but in the end answered to no one (and this is from my vague recollection of European feudal history). From what I have read about Tibet, it wast much different.

[adren@line]

What you asked was a loaded question. But the answer is still Yes to the "benefit his serfs" part. I don't know that he ever had much power, so what's to "regain"? He was 15 when they allowed him some temporal power (however much a young Dalai Lama shares with his advisors and other leaders) and that was the exact same year China invaded. If it were possible that he could have power in Tibet now, then all indications are that he wants to improve the Tibetan people's conditions.

I don't see any evidence to assume otherwise. Adren@line was right about knee-jerk reactions. People see the country was not rich and was not a democracy, so they assume without evidence (hence "knee-jerk") all the worst things about anyone coming from a more "privileged" position there.

exactly.

People see the "head of state" title and start barking. The fact is that the feudal lords and nobility held the power, not the Lama.

[adren@line]

OK derail over. Though i did find it amusing that the most vociferous defence came from a new age californian. heheh.

Sorry, I am no new-ager. Far from it.

Me thinks you are going on with your usual knee-jerk reactions....

But I digress. Please provide proof of when I claimed to be "new age", or follow any new-age philosophy.

[xunzian]

Confucius argued that thinking should always follow study and that the reverse could be quite dangerous. Naturally, I agree with this position, so if I were to try and comment on the Dalai Lama and his plans for Tibet's future and his reasonings for advocating Tibetan independence, I would look at the Central Tibetan Authority

Here we see a clear seperation between head of state and head of government as well as a democratic means of removing the Dalai Lama of even his ceremonial title if the people so will it (2/3rds majority vote in the parlaiment). It is advocating a very moderate, and very modern system.

As for the old theocracy, it is worth noting that the Dalai Lama who united Tibet was working with the Mongol hordes (I do believe he was a mongol, actually), and that the Dalai Lama was also normally selected by the Emperor of China. He was a lord of the Chinese Empire, like any other. Though, it is my understanding that he did have a fair amount of control over the territory. But, when someone is serving at the pleasure of the Emperor, you can't expect too radical a policy now can you?

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't like these kind of books. We all see ourselves as we really are in a different way.

[abaddon]

I don't like these kind of books. We all see ourselves as we really are in a different way.

I haven't read it, but it's described as basically a manual on Buddhist practice, so it's probably not a description of how individuals are but a description of a methodology for individuals to find out for themselves.

That we "all see ourselves as we really are in a different way" is true. That'll even change from day to day. It's why the notion that we'd need teams of biologists, sociologists and psychologists to tell us who we are could never be true. An attempt at omniscience isn't necessary to knowing one's self.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

1682? Oh, I'm sorry. Two centuries isn't enough. I don't know of any plan to change the feudalistic structure over the poverty stricken Tibetans during that time. They were probably "thinking about it". Sometimes you need a long time to think things over. Since 1682 is thinking things really really long and hard, can't be too cautious about relieving misery!

They were probably busy being enlightened and working hard for the right answer to dawn on them during that time.

I was merely pointing out that your allegation of thousands of years in which to do something is not altogether accurate. There is a bit of a difference between three hundred and fiftyish years, and thousands of years.

Have there been any monarchs in western history who whilst having nominal power over a country, were unable to rein in the excessive behaviour of their barons? There is a possibility that the Dalai Lamas were similarly powerless to change much, even if it had occured to them that things needed to change.

It's very easy for people who have no idea how the power structure actually functioned and who have no idea how much practical power the Dalai Lamas really had, to allege dereliction on their part.

Maybe things would have been worse without the Dalai Lamas.

On the other hand, maybe they could have done more and in that case, they definitely should have.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Do you honestly think that the DL wants to return in order to benefit his serfs or to regain the degree of power and privilege he lost?

And at no point did i condone the Chinese occupation. The fact that they both suck if you happen to be an average Tibetan is entirely the point. People, however, rarely hold the Chinese government up as a paragon of morality and all that is good in the world, as they do with the DL

Your question attempts to limit the potential answers to only two possibilities, both of which show the DL is a negative light. You are not allowing for the possibility that he wishes to benefit the Tibetan people without seeing them as serfs.

Loaded questions frequently come across as allegations in disguise.

[TruthPrevails]

I don't like these kind of books. We all see ourselves as we really are in a different way.I agree we all should see ourselves in a situational and circumstancial basis. However, we need to ensure that our basis is not based on 'ignorance' of basic human nature.

In that book, the Dalai Lama's view is that humans should view oneself from various perspective but resting on the the pivotal concept of 'dependent arising'.

The concept is nothing new, 'dependent arising' or 'dependent origination' is one of core concept of Buddhism. I note the DL presented this concept rather effectively and provided some mental exercise for one to sustain this concept to one being.

I have read many of the DL's books, thought this is a core concept, he had never wrote about dependent arising extensively. Anyone had any reference where he did discussed about this concept in detail.

I suspect the idea of this book was triggered by some other writers on the concept of dependent origination. One writer i can think of is Thich Nat Hahn who explained it via the concept of inter-being some time ago.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

At what point between 1682 and when he was forced to leave his country at age 25 was the 14th Dalai Lama supposed to change all of Tibet to a modern democracy?

Or is your point that they were ALL supposed to have done it all along, since it's just been always the obvious thing for leaders of all countries to do?

Notice I was saying (typing) "the Dalai Lamas" (I don't believe in reincarnation, I use it in the plural). The indictment is to them all. Anyway, can we go back to subject (OP)?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Your question attempts to limit the potential answers to only two possibilities, both of which show the DL is a negative light. You are not allowing for the possibility that he wishes to benefit the Tibetan people without seeing them as serfs.


And that is a possibility, now that he has been in the modern, democratic world, and he has learned that feudalism is not nice and there are great ways to improve human dignity through sociopolitical means. Back to OP!

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Back to OP!

On that note, I think that a good step in the direction of seeing oneself as one really is, is to look at one's mind, listen to it and be a bit sceptical when it's talking about itself and how fabulous it is.

Mine barks on incessantly. Sometime's it's a real battle, but one well worth fighting.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

On that note, I think that a good step in the direction of seeing oneself as one really is, is to look at one's mind, listen to it and be a bit sceptical when it's talking about itself and how fabulous it is.

Mine barks on incessantly. Sometime's it's a real battle, but one well worth fighting.

We all do, and we're all skeptical here, and generally honest. The problem is preferences. We're stubborn in our positions and we're jealous for our loves. In fact, that can be found on all forums I've been to.

I think forums attract especially a certain kind of person(alities) that are, not only zealous, but concomimitantly, jealous for their "loves" ("I love you, mon amour _______, I shall carress yoú and woo yoú till I drop exhaustéd" :Cheeky: ). Don't tread on my humanism! Don't tread on my Buddhism! Don't tread on my profession!

Many of us would like to be objective about our "holy cows", but that's hard when the next guy is saying, for example, "atheists cannot be moral" (like I'm experiencing now on [another site]).

-SIGH!-

[Waning Moon Conrad]

We all do, and we're all skeptical here, and generally honest. The problem is preferences. We're stubborn in our positions and we're jealous for our loves. In fact, that can be found on all forums I've been to.

I think forums attract especially a certain kind of person(alities) that are, not only zealous, but concomimitantly, jealous for their "loves" ("I love you, mon amour _______, I shall carress yoú and woo yoú till I drop exhaustéd" :Cheeky: ). Don't tread on my humanism! Don't tread on my Buddhism! Don't tread on my profession!

Many of us would like to be objective about our "holy cows", but that's hard when the next guy is saying, for example, "atheists cannot be moral" (like I'm experiencing now on [another site]).

-SIGH!-


Yes, it's all too easy to be precious about one's position and get huffy with anyone who disagrees.

Fortunately in this particular instance, we seem to have given the kiss of death to the possibility of this thread deteriorating into a shit slinging fest.

We've rerailed it. Go us!

:wave:

[enoch007]

Btw, how would you see yourself and you really are.

You are your actions, what you do, you are.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

You are your actions, what you do, you are.

Ooooh shit! :eek:
That means I'm a quantity of tobacco! :rolleyes:

[aupmanyav]

I don't believe in reincarnation, I use it in the plural.You don't, even I don't, but many people do. Conrad, I, too, am tobacco.

[BlackZero]

I must say the DL is playing the hand life dealt him pretty well. Him & his faction are doing a fantastic job currying favor with China's rival and what China did with force they are trying to do with subtlety. I have always respected shrewd political manuevering and the stuff Mind Life Inst. has been doing is first rate profile raising.

BlackZero

[premjan]

The US is China's rival? Or you mean India?

[JGL53]

Getting back to the OP:

To paraphrase Einstein, I am an illusion, albeit a persistent one. The metaphors for experienced reality are a dream, flowing water or a river, an evolving flower, music, dance, a game, a play or drama, play itself, light as a infinite wave of crest and trough. There is no good or evil, only likes and dislikes, or ignorance and understanding. Life is the ultimate free lunch. Shit happens - and then it doesn't - and then it does - and then it doesn't, etc. - ad infinitum.

Peace out, blessed be, and try and keep it in your pants.

[aupmanyav]

The US is China's rival? Or you mean India?India at the moment is a smaller fish. They are trying to muzzle it. Black Zero, I agree, Dalai Lama has played his cards as well as he could with respect to Tibet and also to Buddhism. JGL, not ad infinitum.

[premjan]

I don't think even China is really a rival of the US - major trading partner yes.

[aupmanyav]

Premjan, you said China or India. If India is not a rival in trade or military strength, why should America worry about it?

[premjan]

You could say that China is USA's rival, but you couldn't really say that USA is China's rival, rather India aspires to rival China at present. It is not strictly symmetrical.

[dostfez]

.

Btw, how would you see yourself and you really are.

"YOU" can't.....if "you" do you aren't...........

[aupmanyav]

That is the fun, Dostfez. You cannot see or percieve as really you are. You have to take another route, science, what you are not, etc. An indirect proof like bending of light rays when they pass a massive object.

[Knupfer]

Just read the following book by the Dalai Lama.
It is a very interesting read and is based on the concept of
dependent origination.

Amazon: How to See Yourself as You Really Are. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-See-Yourself-You-Really/dp/1846040396/ref=pd_sim_b_6/202-3205213-8597420)


Here is another book from the Dalai Lama which i have just read;
The Universe in a Single Atom: How Science and Spirituality Can Serve Our World (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Single-Atom-Science-Spirituality/dp/0316732249/ref=pd_bowtega_1/202-3205213-8597420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179201177&sr=1-1)This is also interesting and i note the Dalai Lama is very knowledgeable and very up-to-date with the lastest scientific researchs with any relation to spirituality.
However, i do not agree with the Dalai Lama's concept of rebirth.
He stated that he will continue to believe in rebirth till science can prove otherwise.

Btw, how would you see yourself and you really are.

Unfortunately, the Dali Lama can do nothing for you on your deathbed because he is just a human being. So his beliefs are not only fallible, but a mere chasing after the wind. :(

[voodoomage]

Unfortunately, the Dali Lama can do nothing for you on your deathbed because he is just a human being. So his beliefs are not only fallible, but a mere chasing after the wind. :(

Yeah. And?

So what if the Dalai Lama is wrong. My beliefs are fallible too. When you base your beliefs on evidence, learning something new and changing your beliefs is valid. We all do it - look at Santa Clause, or George Washington and the Cherry Tree, or our interpretation and understanding of the structure of atoms. Grow up. And learn some manners.

[JGL53]

Just read the following book by the Dalai Lama.
It is a very interesting read and is based on the concept of
dependent origination.

Amazon: How to See Yourself as You Really Are. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-See-Yourself-You-Really/dp/1846040396/ref=pd_sim_b_6/202-3205213-8597420)


Here is another book from the Dalai Lama which i have just read;
The Universe in a Single Atom: How Science and Spirituality Can Serve Our World (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Single-Atom-Science-Spirituality/dp/0316732249/ref=pd_bowtega_1/202-3205213-8597420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179201177&sr=1-1)This is also interesting and i note the Dalai Lama is very knowledgeable and very up-to-date with the lastest scientific researchs with any relation to spirituality.
However, i do not agree with the Dalai Lama's concept of rebirth.
He stated that he will continue to believe in rebirth till science can prove otherwise.

Btw, how would you see yourself and you really are.

Unfortunately, the Dali Lama can do nothing for you on your deathbed because he is just a human being. So his beliefs are not only fallible, but a mere chasing after the wind. :(

I don't believe the Dali Lama has claimed any supernatural powers.

[epepke]

That is the fun, Dostfez. You cannot see or percieve as really you are. You have to take another route, science, what you are not, etc. An indirect proof like bending of light rays when they pass a massive object.

What, you saying that Dostfez is fat? Probably not that fat to have a significant curvature tensor.

Anyway, back to the OP, a lot of this descends into semantic fog. Mass/energy is neither created nor destroyed, and so "consciousness," what? What does that mean, anyway? If anything, consciousness, if it meant anything, would be related to information, and there's the Second Law. And, while causality is an interesting concept, it is as amenable as anything to tests. It might not always be there just because you want it to be. Reality is sometimes like that.

I'm also not sure why anyone would find it appealing to see themselves as they are. Is that what people are for? I think I'm for living my life, and if I'm not, so what? Other people can decide what they like.

And do I really care what some Tibetan guy thinks about science and spirituality, whatever that is supposed to mean? Tortured metaphors can be fun, up to a point, but there is also the risk of confusing semantic torpor with profundity.

[KeithJM]

Just read the following book by the Dalai Lama.
It is a very interesting read and is based on the concept of
dependent origination.

Amazon: How to See Yourself as You Really Are. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-See-Yourself-You-Really/dp/1846040396/ref=pd_sim_b_6/202-3205213-8597420)


Here is another book from the Dalai Lama which i have just read;
The Universe in a Single Atom: How Science and Spirituality Can Serve Our World (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Single-Atom-Science-Spirituality/dp/0316732249/ref=pd_bowtega_1/202-3205213-8597420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179201177&sr=1-1)This is also interesting and i note the Dalai Lama is very knowledgeable and very up-to-date with the lastest scientific researchs with any relation to spirituality.
However, i do not agree with the Dalai Lama's concept of rebirth.
He stated that he will continue to believe in rebirth till science can prove otherwise.

Btw, how would you see yourself and you really are.

Unfortunately, the Dali Lama can do nothing for you on your deathbed because he is just a human being. So his beliefs are not only fallible, but a mere chasing after the wind. :(

They may be fallible, but they're a lot more respectable and honest than you give them credit for.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

[aupmanyav]

Unfortunately, the Dali Lama can do nothing for you on your deathbed because he is just a human being. So his beliefs are not only fallible, but a mere chasing after the wind. :(Even my 'Brahman' cannot. This is not its 'dharma'.

[john_v_h]

I agree we all should see ourselves in a situational and circumstancial basis. However, we need to ensure that our basis is not based on 'ignorance' of basic human nature.And who shall define that "basic human nature"? A philosopher from sixteen hundred years ago? I don't deny that Buddhism has its share of wisdom and beauty, but its claims to ultimate truth are indistinguishable from those of other religions. As to seeing ourselves "as we really are," I agree with the opinion expressed above that there is no such thing. We are what we do, and what we do is constantly changing.

[JGL53]

[QUOTE=TruthPrevails;4459346]...there is no such thing. We are what we do, and what we do is constantly changing.

Sounds like Buddhism to me. :)

[TruthPrevails]

JGL53, i believe there should be a correction to your quotation.

[TruthPrevails]

Originally Posted by john_v_h
And who shall define that "basic human nature"? A philosopher from sixteen hundred years ago? IMO, all truths are relative and arrived via intersubjective consensus. Forum like IIDB enable us to throw in ideas and hopefully can agree consensusly on some and disagree on others. In this case, "basic human nature" is what we can agree upon or discard herein.

We can start by establishing basic human nature from how our DNA structure human physically, especially how the neurons are put in their respective positions. Then it is 'nature' and 'nurture' that take over the programming of the mind and self.

The above programming will determine how "we" see ourselves as we are. However, todate, there is a problem in the way "we" see ourselves as we are. Humans like to think that they are seeing themselves as humans, but behaves more like primates or reptiles. Many do not feel contented in the way they see themselves as they are.

Many spiritualists insist and enforce that if we see ourselves in the manner these prophets see us as what we should be, then all problems will be resolved. It did work for some, but not for all.

It is noted that it is human nature to evolve and progress. There are at present threats of planetary and apparently of galactical nature. Yet humans are still squabling amongst themselves on petty issues.

Other spiritualists are considering (have considered) the possibility that if we see ourselves as we really are, we can track most human problems to it's roots and enable humanity to accelerate it evolution expeditiously.

I don't deny that Buddhism has its share of wisdom and beauty, but its claims to ultimate truth are indistinguishable from those of other religions. Buddhism differentiates itself (at it's 'higher' teachings) by enabling humans to see themselves as they really are without the association of any external absolute being.

IMO, the buddhist core concepts must take into account basic human nature as i had described above.
Some buddhist did make attempts to understand the indepth of human nature mentally and physically in the Abhidhamma,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma
however, that is not sufficient.
At present we have breakthroughs in genetics, neurosciences, psychology, etc which can be combined with buddhist core concepts to give humans a better understanding how to see "ourselves" and we really are.
The irony of the final answer is that, there is no 'self' to see.

While i have some preference for buddhist core concepts, i believe other approaches can be used to assist humanity to progress.
(btw i am not officially a buddhist, just a generalist)


As to seeing ourselves "as we really are," I agree with the opinion expressed above that there is no such thing. We are what we do, and what we do is constantly changingAs i mentioned above, there is no 'self' to see eventually.

'We are what we do' is pointless if it is not in an evolving spiral. Note murderers, jihadists or just sitting on the fence, evil persons, etc.

To be a progressive humans, we must carry in our consciousness the working knowledge of basic human nature, accompanied by the appropriate neural wirings that support higher humane consciousness in terms of ethics, intellect, reason, etc.

[aupmanyav]

Human Nature: Think only for yourself, get the best in food and sex, and as much as you can, and save your life. There are times of scarcity, times of sickness and hurt. There are predators (Tigers, leopars, dogs, hynas, lions). This cannot be overcome without a society, To eat, we need to hunt. To hunt, we need a society. For a society, we need rules. Conflict starts.

'Old World species (apes and some monkeys) tend to have significant sexual dimorphism. This is characterized most in size difference, with males being slightly more than twice as heavy as females. This dimorphism may be a result of a polygynous mating system where there is significant pressure to attract and defend multiple females." (Wikipedia)

Dharmas. Eight NP's and 10 Commandments. Don't steal. Help others. Don't covet your neighbour's wife. Speak truth. There is death. Hunt is not successful. Come in God. Come in Shamans. Did humans invent 'Dhamma'. No, Kenyanthropus and Australopithecus Afarensis did. No, it was there even before them, with Homonoidea, the lesser apes, Lar Gibbons and Siamang. That is why Hinduism said 'Dharma' is eternal. It is not an invent of this person or that person.

How do we see ourselves? As Gods. We can bore mountains, bridge seas, defeat death. How to see yourself as you really are? With humility, one of the many who inhabit earth, made in the same way as others are, made of the same as others are. 'Sarva Khalvidam Brahma' (All creation is Brahman). 'Vasudhaiva Kutukbakam' (World is but a family).

[JGL53]

…At present we have breakthroughs in genetics, neurosciences, psychology, etc which can be combined with buddhist core concepts to give humans a better understanding how to see "ourselves" and we really are.
The irony of the final answer is that, there is no 'self' to see...

The rest of your post was to the point also, but the truth of the above is well illustrated in V.S. Ramachandran’s “A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness”. I recommend it to anyone interested in theories pertaining to “the self”.

[TruthPrevails]

...... , but the truth of the above is well illustrated in V.S. Ramachandran’s “A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness”. I recommend it to anyone interested in theories pertaining to “the self”.Thanks, i am a fan of Ramanchandran and have read his book on 'Phantoms in the Brain'. Will try to get the book you recommended.

The other similar book is Oliver Sacks' 'The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat'.

Another book that give an account of how the self (neural wise) is constructed is;
Zen and the Brain (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-3047571-8242468?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Brain+zen&Go.x=9&Go.y=6): Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness by James H. Austin

[JGL53]

...The other similar book is Oliver Sacks' 'The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat'.

Another book that give an account of how the self (neural wise) is constructed is;
Zen and the Brain (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-3047571-8242468?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Brain+zen&Go.x=9&Go.y=6): Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness by James H. Austin

Anything by Oliver Sacks is good. He is, among other things, an expert on migraines, and since I suffer from occasional migraines with auras I read his book simply entitled "Migraine". It has painted renderings of various auras by artists who suffer from migraines with auras, and one of the "splintered glass" ones is exactly like the ones I see.

I've read both of Austin's books on Zen and neurology: "Zen and the Brain", which you mentioned, and "Zen-Brain Reflections". Together they are about 1,200 pages long - I generally do not recommend them. Those interested in Zen can read the very readable Alan Watts - and many of the books and lectures by comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell are good for understanding the problems with "self". And, of course, I think Ramachandran is the best on cognitive science and the concept of the "self". I.e., looking at the same questions from the perspective of different disciplines seems to best way to get at the most complete understanding of the "self" and related ontological puzzles.

[TruthPrevails]

Here's are some points to ponder about our real 'self';

When the two hemispheres of the brain are separated by cutting the corpus callosum,
apparently there are two "you" manifesting from the mind.
So which is the real "you".
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_class/45_pguides/pguide_703/4573_manbrain.html

In case studies of "alien hands", patients complained that one of their hand was trying to 'murder' them by choking them during their sleep.

I am now a strong believer that we all contain at least two personalities and, yes, it is frightening, to consider what happens when a secondary personality is able to seize control.
http://www.hippy.freeserve.co.uk/aliensyn.htm



In the case of multiple personalities syndrome;
which is the real "you".

[aupmanyav]

..migraines with auras..Auras, what are these, JGL?

Both, TruthPrevails. How could one deny any?

[perfectbite]

...The other similar book is Oliver Sacks' 'The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat'.

Another book that give an account of how the self (neural wise) is constructed is;
Zen and the Brain (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-3047571-8242468?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Brain+zen&Go.x=9&Go.y=6): Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness by James H. Austin

Anything by Oliver Sacks is good. He is, among other things, an expert on migraines, and since I suffer from occasional migraines with auras I read his book simply entitled "Migraine". It has painted renderings of various auras by artists who suffer from migraines with auras, and one of the "splintered glass" ones is exactly like the ones I see.

I've read both of Austin's books on Zen and neurology: "Zen and the Brain", which you mentioned, and "Zen-Brain Reflections". Together they are about 1,200 pages long - I generally do not recommend them. Those interested in Zen can read the very readable Alan Watts - and many of the books and lectures by comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell are good for understanding the problems with "self". And, of course, I think Ramachandran is the best on cognitive science and the concept of the "self". I.e., looking at the same questions from the perspective of different disciplines seems to best way to get at the most complete understanding of the "self" and related ontological puzzles.

I too like Oliver Sacks (although not as much of late) and I too regularly see the splintered glass phenomenon but I do not get migraines and only in my self fondest moments do I consider myself to be an artist because I am really just a grunt and dissuade myself of the notion of being an artist right quick.

I am sorry to hear you have migraines and I am sorry that anyone has to put up with migraines. A close family member of mine used to get migraines but I was a child and didn't understand.

I have had the shingles and wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy but, someone told me (folk wisdom) that the shingles were the result of bearing a grudge and I looked and sure enough there was someone I bore a grudge against (a long gone nth. degree user girlfriend) and, when I made the effort to truly live in loving kindness, the shingles died down and went away.

Perhaps the same sort of thing would work for migraines although the basis for migraines may be trying to keep control of one's universe instead of holding a grudge.

[JGL53]

…When the two hemispheres of the brain are separated by cutting the corpus callosum, apparently there are two "you" manifesting from the mind. So which is the real "you”…
They both are. LOL. Ramachandran also discusses this. In fact, he relates a case in his latest book wherein a split-brain person had each side of his brain separately ask “Do you believe in god?” The left side said “Yes.” but the right side said “No.” Ramachandran sees this as quite a problem for theology. I agree.

…In case studies of "alien hands", patients complained that one of their hand was trying to 'murder' them by choking them during their sleep…

Ramachandran doesn’t ever miss a beat, it seems – he mentions the “alien hand” syndrome in one of this books.

…In I am now a strong believer that we all contain at least two personalities and, yes, it is frightening, to consider what happens when a secondary personality is able to seize control…

Most people (the alleged “normals”) have what is called a “single integrated personality”, so not to worry. The multiple personality people are far from rare but a distinct minority since the syndrome seems to be caused by a over-whelming traumatic experience(s) in early childhood (see “The Myth of Sanity” by clinical psychologist Martha Stout).


… In the case of multiple personalities syndrome;
which is the real "you"...

They all are. LOL.

[JGL53]

...migraines with auras..Auras, what are these, JGL?...

Auras are, for all practical purposes, visual hallucinations caused by either or both electrical/chemical disruptions in the brain. You may also see the word "scotoma", which is the particular shape that one sees when having an episode. If the scotoma is not stationary but moves around (this is the usual case) then such is referred to by the experts as a scintillating scotoma.

The thought now among many experts is that migraine is kin to epilepsy - it might even be defined as a very, very mild form of epilepsy (though the effective drugs for each condition are quite different).

...I too like Oliver Sacks (although not as much of late) and I too regularly see the splintered glass phenomenon but I do not get migraines...
Either the experience of having auras and the migraine itself (i.e., the intense pain) can exist independently. E.g., lots of people have the aura-free migraine, and I have friends who report the occasional aura sans any pain.

...and only in my self fondest moments do I consider myself to be an artist because I am really just a grunt and dissuade myself of the notion of being an artist right quick...

I have no artistic skills either, but I appreciate art and the artistic skill others have.

...I am sorry to hear you have migraines and I am sorry that anyone has to put up with migraines. A close family member of mine used to get migraines but I was a child and didn't understand...

I’ve had them since I was 15 years old, but my case has followed the usual evolution of the migraines becoming less frequent and less intense as one grows older. I average about one every couple of months now, and ibuprofen and two hours rest generally gets me by. But finding out what my triggers were and avoiding them was most important.

...I have had the shingles and wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy but, someone told me (folk wisdom) that the shingles were the result of bearing a grudge and I looked and sure enough there was someone I bore a grudge against (a long gone nth. degree user girlfriend) and, when I made the effort to truly live in loving kindness, the shingles died down and went away. Perhaps the same sort of thing would work for migraines although the basis for migraines may be trying to keep control of one's universe instead of holding a grudge...

My theory is that avoiding any kind of stress (of an unhealthy level and type) is a main key to alleviating such as shingles and migraines. I don’t know about shingles, but with migraines I have found the greatest inducers are two physical ones - low blood sugar (caused by consuming a high glycemic index meal – or skipping a meal) and bright lights/eye strain (e.g., too many hours at the computer, LOL) But, from reading
Sacks book on migraine, I found out that sufferers have many different triggers – as well as many different drugs or ways to alleviate the migraine.

[TruthPrevails]

In fact, he relates a case in his latest book wherein a split-brain person had each side of his brain separately ask “Do you believe in god?” The left side said “Yes.” but the right side said “No.” Ramachandran sees this as quite a problem for theology.This is an interesting point for discussing in 'atheists vs theists' forums.

The odd thing here is that conventionally, the left side is regarded as the more logical and analytical side.

But, from the latest discussions in the neurosciences, the indication is that the left-right hemisphere for logical-creativity correlation is a myth.

[aupmanyav]

They both are. LOL. Ramachandran also discusses this. In fact, he relates a case in his latest book wherein a split-brain person had each side of his brain separately ask “Do you believe in god?” The left side said “Yes.” but the right side said “No.” Ramachandran sees this as quite a problem for theology.Thankfully, both my lobes do not accept existence of God.

[JGL53]

...The odd thing here is that conventionally, the left side is regarded as the more logical and analytical side.

But, from the latest discussions in the neurosciences, the indication is that the left-right hemisphere for logical-creativity correlation is a myth.

Not so much a myth as just not an absolute. I don't think the left side is viewed now by neurologists at this stage of understanding as "more logical", just more linearly logical, with the right brain producing more holistic or global logic.

So (I would speculate) maybe by thinking in straight line logic and compartmentalizing things (reductionism), ideas like "intelligent design" arguments might appeal more to the left side - and the right, seeing the big picture, would be more likely to understand evolution by natural selection, and deep time, etc., focusing on the univeral perspective rather than the merely cultural and earthly concerns of humans.

But the far more important consideration - according to Ramachandran, the left brain is more likely to deny reality in general, if it doesn't like it, and make up false but plausible stories and excuses, while it is the right brain that is the more realistic, accepting unhappy situations as they are and just dealing with them straightforwardly.

[JGL53]

...Thankfully, both my lobes do not accept existence of God.

That makes four of us.

[TruthPrevails]

Thankfully, both my lobes do not accept existence of God.Thankfully, at present my integrated self do not accept the existence of God.

However, I am not sure how my individual hemisphere will act if they are ever separated.

IMO, what is "you" is sustained by the quality of active neural connections in our brain and in co-ordination with the body.
Neurons in the brain are organic. The "you" will change when the neural connections changes due to aging, disease or damaged via accident.

The neural changes could be one reason why Anthony Flew, a militant atheist became a deist in the later part of his life. It is also common for an adult to become a 'child' in the later part of their human life as result of severe deterioration of brain cells. Hopefully, that will not happen to us.

[perfectbite]

Thankfully, both my lobes do not accept existence of God.Thankfully, at present my integrated self do not accept the existence of God.

However, I am not sure how my individual hemisphere will act if they are ever separated.

IMO, what is "you" is sustained by the quality of active neural connections in our brain and in co-ordination with the body.
Neurons in the brain are organic. The "you" will change when the neural connections changes due to aging, disease or damaged via accident.

The neural changes could be one reason why Anthony Flew, a militant atheist became a deist in the later part of his life. It is also common for an adult to become a 'child' in the later part of their human life as result of severe deterioration of brain cells. Hopefully, that will not happen to us.

That neural changes are responsible for changes in our view, in my view is a very dangerous road to follow or allow because "I used to be a Nazi but I saw the light" accepted as being accompanied by trauma or some form of a degenerative condition can lead to rehabilitation and acceptance and forgiveness (as in 'you poor baby') when the unstated ("because our time wasn't right") was actually part of the original view all along and wasn't forsaken can be grossly misleading.

Deists can become non-deists based on the input of what they reckon just as non-deists can become Deists based on what they reckon without appeal to neural failure.

Views can change and rational views can change or not change on a rational basis.



PS. I have an elderly friend who has had a stroke and a recent hip replacement and needs help even with his walker but has retained his memory but his wife, (also as elderly) has severe Alzheimers but is acute and rational and aware and is light hearted and funny but her memory only lasts for about a minute or so and she is generally quite happy (although afraid of being shouted at by her husband) but he struggles mightily unhappily in the face of his infirmities and the fact that vigour has fled and will not return and I hate to say this but those who grow to be mentally out of it may be more fortunate than those who, in full control of their faculties, come to curse their bodies for failing them.

For the more advanced in age (US and European baby boomers) reading this, if you remember, when you were young the elderly told you enjoy being young while you are young and that wisdom went zooming right over our heads and now, as we get older we are told by the elderly, 'getting old is not for cissies' and both are true.

[aupmanyav]

Hopefully, that will not happen to us.Then, pray to God that it does not happen. Why should it not happen to us if it is natural? I am already 65. Perhaps Alzheimer a-la-Ronald Reagan. If I live longer, my eye-sight may fail, my hands may get gnarled (would not be able to contribute to NAR&P), may get cancer (smoking since 48 years), angina (family history), prostrate, kidney. So what (Tatah kim?)? Que Sera Sera. The deists say 'Jehi bidhi rakhe Ram, sohi bidhi rahiye' (Be happy in whatever way Rama keeps you, or does not keep you).

[TruthPrevails]

Then, pray to God that it does not happen. Why should it not happen to us if it is natural? I am already 65. Perhaps Alzheimer a-la-Ronald Reagan. If I live longer, my eye-sight may fail, my hands may get gnarled (would not be able to contribute to NAR&P), may get cancer (smoking since 48 years), angina (family history), prostrate, kidney. So what (Tatah kim?)? Que Sera Sera. The deists say 'Jehi bidhi rakhe Ram, sohi bidhi rahiye' (Be happy in whatever way Rama keeps you, or does not keep you).I did not mean the physical. I intended to refer to normal consciousness, no alzheimer or senility.

[TruthPrevails]

Here's another spanner..

Brain's voluntary chain-of-command ruled by not 1 but 2 captains

Scientists exploring the upper reaches of the brain's command hierarchy were astonished to find not one but two brain networks in charge, represented by the differently-colored spheres on the brain image above. Starting with a group of several brain regions implicated in top-down control (the spheres on the brain), they used a new brain-scanning technique to identify which of those regions work with each other. When they graphed their results (bottom half), using shapes to represent different brain regions and connecting brain regions that work with each other with lines, they found the regions grouped together into two networks. The regions in each network talked to each other often but never talked to brain regions in the other network.
http://www.physorg.com/news101478606.html

If there are two captains, who is the boss?

[aupmanyav]

'We think the frontoparietal network may be the more online, rapid-adapting controller, ..'. Thanks for the nice link. I am trying, I wish I could see the original image, could not read from the small images.

Got it, will read after my lunch. The link led me to Washington University site and I found many other interesting stories, including particles brought from space which are older than the sun, the jaw bone found in china which can dispute 'out-of-africa' theory, a four dimensional universe embedded in a multi-dimensional one. Literally, a mine of useless information. Thanks again.

[aupmanyav]

Washington University in St. Louis News & Information > News Tips >

Studies affirm relationship between early humans, Neandertals

Social equals

This analysis, along with a number of considerations of human genetics, argues that the fate of the Neandertals was to be absorbed into modern human groups. Equally important, it also says that the behavioral difference between the groups was small. They saw each other as social equals.

----------------------------------------

Washington University in St. Louis News & Information > University News >

Imaging pinpoints brain regions that 'see the future'. Memory and future thought go 'hand-in-hand'

By Gerry Everding

These findings, McDermott suggests, offer strong support for a relatively recent theory of memory, which posits that remembering the past and envisioning the future draw upon many of the same neural mechanisms.

[JGL53]

Here's another spanner..

Brain's voluntary chain-of-command ruled by not 1 but 2 captains

Scientists exploring the upper reaches of the brain's command hierarchy were astonished to find not one but two brain networks in charge, represented by the differently-colored spheres on the brain image above.....The regions in each network talked to each other often but never talked to brain regions in the other network.
http://www.physorg.com/news101478606.html

If there are two captains, who is the boss?

If it is determined that one preceded the other in evolution, does that make it the "boss"? Maybe, maybe not - I suspect that there is such a massive or complex feedback mechanism in operation that they are really "co-captains" - one as necessary as the other. But perhaps it will be discovered that one or the other has final veto power over the other. That is what I suspect, otherwise a strange loop would evolve, and a person would just sit there, unable to move or make any decisions, automatic or voluntary.

BTW, thanks for the link to physorg.com - it seems a fascinating site.

[TruthPrevails]

But perhaps it will be discovered that one or the other has final veto power over the other. That is what I suspect, otherwise a strange loop would evolve, and a person would just sit there, unable to move or make any decisions, automatic or voluntary.I also think there is one CEO. As advised by Antonio Damasio, he mentioned that neuroscience is a very new field at present, thus we should not take it's findings too seriously.

[perfectbite]

But perhaps it will be discovered that one or the other has final veto power over the other. That is what I suspect, otherwise a strange loop would evolve, and a person would just sit there, unable to move or make any decisions, automatic or voluntary.I also think there is one CEO. As advised by Antonio Damasio, he mentioned that neuroscience is a very new field at present, thus we should not take it's findings too seriously.

In the meantime, not forgetting brahman, (brahman, not purusha) we have to act with what we have and what we understand to be the case or, failing that, what we personally have come to understand as being the most plausible and acting on it too.

Waiting until things resolve themselves is really nowhere because such resolution could be many centuries off, if even then.

[aupmanyav]

The search certainly does not mean that you break away from your normal life and values.

[perfectbite]

Hopefully, that will not happen to us.Then, pray to God that it does not happen. Why should it not happen to us if it is natural? I am already 65. Perhaps Alzheimer a-la-Ronald Reagan. If I live longer, my eye-sight may fail, my hands may get gnarled (would not be able to contribute to NAR&P), may get cancer (smoking since 48 years), angina (family history), prostrate, kidney. So what (Tatah kim?)? Que Sera Sera. The deists say 'Jehi bidhi rakhe Ram, sohi bidhi rahiye' (Be happy in whatever way Rama keeps you, or does not keep you).

Aupmanyev, is Rama in this sense considered as a forebear (Hindu Indian ancestor) (i.e. if you are colour blind or lame etc. then you can blame Rama because of the ripples of the genetic pool stemming from Rama) or are aspects that would normally be true of a deity (omniscience etc.) taken as actually belonging to Rama?

What is Rama's status? Human, demigod, God, intercessionary?

What would that make Sita if Rama was Divine? The human consort of a God?

[JGL53]

Then, pray to God that it does not happen. Why should it not happen to us if it is natural? I am already 65. Perhaps Alzheimer a-la-Ronald Reagan. If I live longer, my eye-sight may fail, my hands may get gnarled (would not be able to contribute to NAR&P), may get cancer (smoking since 48 years), angina (family history), prostrate, kidney. So what (Tatah kim?)? Que Sera Sera. The deists say 'Jehi bidhi rakhe Ram, sohi bidhi rahiye' (Be happy in whatever way Rama keeps you, or does not keep you).

Aupmanyev, is Rama in this sense considered as a forebear (Hindu Indian ancestor) (i.e. if you are colour blind or lame etc. then you can blame Rama because of the ripples of the genetic pool stemming from Rama) or are aspects that would normally be true of a deity (omniscience etc.) taken as actually belonging to Rama?

What is Rama's status? Human, demigod, God, intercessionary?

What would that make Sita if Rama was Divine? The human consort of a God?

My understanding:

The various devas - gods, goddesses, demons, hungry ghosts, etc. are imagery and useful personifications created by minds within Maya, the manifest - serving as psychological method. Brahaman, the unmanifest, is the NonDual. The NonDual is beyond all dualistic conceptualization - including, I assume, Mind Only, The Void or Luminous Emptiness, Pure Consciousness, Pure Love, Pure Bliss, and similar conceptions.

Correct?

[perfectbite]

Aupmanyev, is Rama in this sense considered as a forebear (Hindu Indian ancestor) (i.e. if you are colour blind or lame etc. then you can blame Rama because of the ripples of the genetic pool stemming from Rama) or are aspects that would normally be true of a deity (omniscience etc.) taken as actually belonging to Rama?

What is Rama's status? Human, demigod, God, intercessionary?

What would that make Sita if Rama was Divine? The human consort of a God?

My understanding:

The various devas - gods, goddesses, demons, hungry ghosts, etc. are imagery and useful personifications created by minds within Maya, the manifest - serving as psychological method. Brahaman, the unmanifest, is the NonDual.

The problem is that language itself supports such dualism although it does not support nor is it derived from Maya.



The NonDual is beyond all dualistic conceptualization - including, I assume, Mind Only, The Void or Luminous Emptiness, Pure Consciousness, Pure Love, Pure Bliss, and similar conceptions.

Correct?

Here is the rub. Brahman is not unmanifest. Brahman is plain for all to see. We are brahman, we are beings whose essence is Mind only which is brahman.

We impose duality on brahman. We cannot ignore brahman and it is not within brahman's nature to ignore us but, given our state of mind, we unavoidably have to use dualistic concepts to explore our world which is nothing but brahman.

Dualism does exist in the case of a scalpel in the hands of a skilled, life saving surgeon or in the hands of a homocidal maniac.

I think that perhaps Hinduism, in attempting to do away with dualism, came up with so many different, but extremely sophisticated, spiritual definitions that were designed to lead one away from dualism but that added to the mix and did not clarify the mix and didn't work and Hinduism has essentially painted itself into a corner.

Maya and samsara are not interchangeable terms for illusion (Maya's mundane productions (i.e. glamour) being a subset of samsara's illusion) but they seem to be used as such by Hinduism and in such flip-flopping (extra-flexible dualism) it becomes very hard (perhaps almost impossible) to pin anything down.

Forget dualism, except in its direct obvious applications like the idea of the scalpel, it is a blind canyon. We are brahman and dualism is like the smoke from a fire, superimposed and soon to be as if it never existed.

PS. My question about Rama's status was not one freighted with spiritual import but, given that Rama was the human progenitor of the Hindu Indian people, rather, how did Rama get to be presently existent in dispensing health or illness today. Did someone grant him divinity?

Is it possible that Indra once occupied the spiritual/mythological/forerunner place that Rama now holds?

Is it possible that two thousand years from now someone else will replace Rama and, in turn be a human who was transmogrified into what looks to be a Hindu deity?

The reason I ask is, what is the possibilty of humanly born Rama displacing or eclipsing any of the members of the Hindu pantheon? Because he becomes divine does his wife/consort Sita automatically become divine too?

[aupmanyav]

Aupmanyev, is Rama in this sense considered as a forebear (Hindu Indian ancestor) (i.e. if you are colour blind or lame etc. then you can blame Rama because of the ripples of the genetic pool stemming from Rama) or are aspects that would normally be true of a deity (omniscience etc.) taken as actually belonging to Rama?

What is Rama's status? Human, demigod, God, intercessionary?

What would that make Sita if Rama was Divine? The human consort of a God?Rama can be a forebear to only a small number of Indians, he was the sixty-fourth king of Suryavamshi Kshatriyas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Dynasty). So there would be many earlier kinsmen. The Mahabharata's Chandravamshis of Bharata clan were different. He cannot be my forebear, I am a brahmin having a Vasishtha-Upamanyu lineage (Vasishtha was the family priest of the Raghuvamshis). He can also not be a forebear to Vishyas and Shudras unless some of his line changed their 'varna', which is a possibility and mentioned in Indian scriptures. Of course, his lineage, male or female, will carry the imprint of his DNA, how much ever diluted by later admixtures (it has been 864,000 (Dwapara Yuga) + 5,000 (Kali Yuga) years since Lord Rama). :)

Rama's status depends on the person's beliefs. For believers he is a half part of Vishnu (Prince Bharata was one-fourth, and another one-fourth was equally divided among Lakshamana and Shatrughna. Only Lord Krishna is the whole, Purnavatara). For me, Rama is a great mythical hero for the Hindus, who take lessons from his story to guide them in their life, he is part of the hindu wisdom, he is not a person. Yes, all percieved exist in Brahman only.

Rama and his Sita, Vishnu and his Lakshmi, Brahman and his Maya, Shiva and his Shakti, are one and the same, inseparables.

[perfectbite]

Rama and his Sita, Vishnu and his Lakshmi, Brahman and his Maya, Shiva and his Shakti, are one and the same, inseparables.

I used to say 'But I thought Brahma's main squeeze was Sarasvati and not Maya and that Shiva's main squeeze was Parvati and not Satki' but I know that I am right and I also know enough to say that 'I don't care anymore'. Through the use of subtly different names in familiar settings indicating different things, Hinduism speaks another language even when it uses English. It isn't important. I paid attention but obviously it wasn't enough. It must be a Hindu thang. It is all yours, enjoy it.

To me, what started out with lots of spiritual promise millennia ago devolved, after the Buddha, into one big ball of unawakened minded Hindu earwax with everything gleefully and cheerfully being labelled as the deviously direct yet subtley different equivalent of everything else.

I am not saying that Hinduism is quicksand but it is a dense, dense dark forest that only those born into it can know their way around with certainty.

Through breaking the chains of Hindu belief and disdaining the Hindu abandonment of Ockham's Razor a la anicca and anatma, the Buddha did spiritual non-Hindus (the Hindu Goyim) a good turn by offering them plain common sense (no theology, no cosmogony, no teleology, no Kali yugas etc. etc.) and, except for Indra and his Devis and Devas ('angels' who desire to become human beings so that they can hear the Buddha's Dharma and become enlightened because they can't get there from there), ordinary Westerners do not have to learn another, secret language based on the utterly confusing Hindu names and properties and attibutes of mythological/spiritual characters.

[premjan]

Well, Buddhism has developed a parallel vocabulary which is no less formidable than the Hindu one in some respects, I think, though maybe if you stick to philosophical Buddhism (or philosophical Hinduism) there is no problem, except that philosophy is not for everyone. The lesson in Hinduism is basically unity in diversity. Many strokes for many folks etc.

I think it is important not to focus too hard on nonduality - nonduality is a principle, it need not be manifested in all aspects of life, that would be fundamentalism. Humans are not pure philosophical agents we are also effects, and we need only realize that when we feel the ear, the tusk, the trunk or the tail of the elephant and find them radically different in their shape, there is nevertheless an underlying unity between them - the elephant.

I am not sure what spiritual potential Hinduism has failed to fulfil exactly in your mind. Spiritualism to my mind is finding the right subjective context for the world's complexity. I certainly don't think any secret language should have to be learned. Everything is part of the same elephant, it is only our lack of insight that renders it otherwise.

I think a suitable lesson would be not to seek obsessively for religion as it is merely a ritualization of everyday human activity. Whatever gives meaning to life can be called religion. I personally find the divisions of Godhead to be informative if somewhat ineffable. Brahma-Saraswati is a pairing of creativity with learning. Brahman and Maya is a bonding of logos with phenomenon. It is not clear that the unmanifest is necessarily the generator of the manifest, the reverse could also be true, yet in the way the mind is organized there is evidently a tendency to separate the real from the apparent that is a hint to us. Shiva married both Sati and Parvati - Sati sacrificed herself because her father Daksha would not honor Shiva; she was reborn as Parvati the daughter of Parvata, and won Shiva by her devoted attentions. Shakti is the feminine principle which animates Shiva. The feminine principle provides the raw energy in this concept, and the male principle provides the appropriate channeling of that energy. Each male God is paired with their appropriate feminine principle. The preserver Vishnu with the Goddess of wealth. The creator Brahma with the Goddess of learning, and the transcender or destroyer Shiva with the goddess of energy Shakti.

Buddhism is more transportable than Hinduism because it doesn't require all the cultural bagagge, but it has its historical issues or logistical problems as well, which led to its decline or demise in its homeland.

I happen to enjoy the Christian / Islamic / Norse / Pagan etc. theological notions quite as much as the Hindu ones. I find the concept of the separation between the trees of knowledge and life, as hitting the mark exactly as far as the necessary separation of preaching and practice. In Hinduism, this is the basis for the separation of Jnana from Bhakti, or Advaita from Dvaita.

[aupmanyav]

You have again confused between Brahma, one of the trinity, and Brahman, the substrate. Saraswati is associated with God Brahma in Hinduism sometimes as a consort, sometimes as a daughter. Mahasaraswati and Mahagauri (Parvati) are forms of the female principle. There are a thousand names and forms (Devi Sahastranama).

Rama's story is depicted in thousand of ways, each people have their own variation, Valmiki, Kamban, Tulsidas, North (Hindi), South (Tamil), East (Bengali), West (Marathi), etc. My doubts were cleared when I heard Ramananda Sagar, the creator of the immensely popular TV Serial 'Ramayana' say, "Hari Anant Hari Katha Ananta" (God is infinite, so also are his stories).

As Premjan says, it is nothing to break our heads about. Is it not fun to "gleefully and cheerfully label as the deviously direct yet subtley different equivalent of everything else"? The plain common sense (no theology, no cosmogony, no teleology, no Kali yugas, no karma, no rebirth, no nibbana) thing also exists, I follow that. But knowing the variety existing here, I do not make it compulsory for everybody, I join them in the fun.

[perfectbite]

You have again confused between Brahma, one of the trinity, and Brahman, the substrate. Saraswati is associated with God Brahma in Hinduism sometimes as a consort, sometimes as a daughter. Mahasaraswati and Mahagauri (Parvati) are forms of the female principle. There are a thousand names and forms (Devi Sahastranama).

Rama's story is depicted in thousand of ways, each people have their own variation, Valmiki, Kamban, Tulsidas, North (Hindi), South (Tamil), East (Bengali), West (Marathi), etc. My doubts were cleared when I heard Ramananda Sagar, the creator of the immensely popular TV Serial 'Ramayana' say, "Hari Anant Hari Katha Ananta" (God is infinite, so also are his stories).

As Premjan says, it is nothing to break our heads about. Is it not fun to "gleefully and cheerfully label as the deviously direct yet subtley different equivalent of everything else"? The plain common sense (no theology, no cosmogony, no teleology, no Kali yugas, no karma, no rebirth, no nibbana) thing also exists, I follow that. But knowing the variety existing here, I do not make it compulsory for everybody, I join them in the fun.

OK. Here is how I see it.

Brahma, only by convention, is male.

Brahman is life force or life essence and is not only genderless but cannot be asigned a gender yet we have the following:

"Rama and his Sita, Vishnu and his Lakshmi, Brahman and his Maya, Shiva and his Shakti, are one and the same, inseparables."

Which is it? Brahman is a form of Brahma and therefore has a gender in which case 'he' is preferable to 'she' or 'his' is preferable to 'hers'.

You cannot have brahman be ungendered in the general and Maya be gendered in the specific unless, to make sense, brahman is also gendered in the specific giving the femine aspect of brahman and the feminine aspect of Maya.

Brahman is ungendered in just the same way samsara is ungendered and if you want to tell me that I do not understand because I mistook the essence for a personage (once again) perhaps it is your free association rendition of gender that confuses myself and many others.

Sanskrit, like other languages, Chinese and Japanese for instance, may not have a feminine and masculine but, like other languages, English does and the term that used in English for neutral genders is 'it'.

If you, aupmanyev, had written, 'Brahman and its Maya' then the terms would be clear enough but, even though I don't wholly agree with it because it is too pat, too trite and incomplete (given that there is a distinction between samsara (What Is) and Maya (What can be made to appear to be)) I do prefer what premjan wrote when he said:

"Brahman and Maya is a bonding of logos with phenomenon."

I have no beef with Hinduism, I love and respect India and I sincerely mean it when I say enjoy it but Aupmanyev, do not go putting words into my mouth like no karma, no rebirth, no nibbana. You aren't Buddhist and I am. Buddhism has karma and rebirth and nibbana (karma and nibbana are quite real, as real as you are) and Hinduism hasn't cornered the market on spirituality and its claim on non-home grown Buddhism is really quite tenuous.

Hinduism, like virtually everyone else, would like to think that we in the West not only don't understand Hinduism but cannot understand Hinduism no matter how hard we try and there is an awful lot of confusing folks and then blaming them for being confused coming from Asia to the West.

For India, the Buddha was the local lad who made good, worldwide and, as I said once before, the only reason I take such an interest in Hinduism is because of my interest in Buddhism.

Premjan, as far as Buddhist philosophy goes, Buddhism does have a distinct way of thought and point of view but the term Buddhist philosophy is an oxymoron (although some Buddhists would love to have it be just a redundant term) and, as far as bhakti being devoid of jnanas, you must be talking about the zealot bhakti that is practiced by foaming at the mouth religious fanatics because the bhakti of the middle way, even the Buddha's middle way (even the practice of Aupmanyev's societal dharma) is bhakti if done with love and becomes filled with invisible to others jnanas.

[aupmanyav]

Not yet clear to you. Rama/Sita, Vishnu/Lakshmi, Shiva/Shakti, are Gods and avataras. Brahman and his accompanying property, Maya, may be a God to some, but to others (like me) are not God and his consort.

To me, Brahman (gender does not apply as also other human properties) is the substrate constituting the universe, something like quantum fields, seeming to create space and time, with its illusion creating but yet largely undefined properties, Maya. Brahman is not only life force, it is all kinds of force. They are inseparable, so you may as well take them as one and do away with your problem of gender. More when my grand-daughter, Kamakshi, is through with her games.

[aupmanyav]

Sanskrit does have all the three genders (Napumsak). It is after all a perfect language :) ("Sanskrit is a highly inflected language with three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural). It has eight cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, and locative." - Wikipedia).

Let us examine Premjan's statement. "Brahman and Maya is a bonding of logos with phenomenon." Brahman and Maya are not two, and phenomena are illusion. In reality, there is logos (fundamental order of the cosmos - Wikipedia) only.

That is right, I am not a buddhist and you are. But the problem of karma, rebirth, and nirvana exists in hinduism also. My views are modified by science and advaita (you are familiar with them), I do not know how many people hold similar views.

Yes, I believe you are right. Bhakti, if not the fundamentalist type (sort of enlightened), also brings in Jhana (Gnana). India has many examples of this sort, Tulsi, Kabir, Mira, Abdur Rahim Khane-khana, Jayasi, Narsi Bhagat, Nanak; the list is endless.

[JGL53]

...My views are modified by science and advaita (you are familiar with them), I do not know how many people hold similar views...

Well, I share your views. Considering our disparate backgrounds, I suspect then that it may be widespread to a greater degree than you might think.

[perfectbite]

Sanskrit does have all the three genders (Napumsak). It is after all a perfect language :) ("Sanskrit is a highly inflected language with three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural). It has eight cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, and locative." - Wikipedia).

Let us examine Premjan's statement. "Brahman and Maya is a bonding of logos with phenomenon." Brahman and Maya are not two, and phenomena are illusion. In reality, there is logos (fundamental order of the cosmos - Wikipedia) only.

That is right, I am not a buddhist and you are. But the problem of karma, rebirth, and nirvana exists in hinduism also. My views are modified by science and advaita (you are familiar with them), I do not know how many people hold similar views.

Yes, I believe you are right. Bhakti, if not the fundamentalist type (sort of enlightened), also brings in Jhana (Gnana). India has many examples of this sort, Tulsi, Kabir, Mira, Abdur Rahim Khane-khana, Jayasi, Narsi Bhagat, Nanak; the list is endless.


During WWII in the North African campaign, HQ at the British Eighth Army received a message that said.

"Send help. Captured Rommel."

A whole army with dense air cover arrived within an hour.

The original message had been:

"Send help. Ruptured camel."

Mistakes and typos are nuisance but that is why most pencils have erasers firmly attached to them.

The Jnanas are like the steps taken on a journey.

Jhana (Dhyana) is the destination of that journey.

They are not interchangeable in just the same way that declaring adviata as a belief and actually, directly cognizing adviata are not the same thing.

I too have to go, to a four year old's birthday party where the theme is pirates, Oh Aaarr.

I went to a party store and bought a toy parrot for my shoulder.

On one side of the packaging it said:

'Pirate's parrot'.

On the other side of the packaging it said:

'Hawaiian luau party parrot'.

Now that really is dviata.

[wordy]

How to See Yourself as You Really Are

Isn't that a kind of oxymoron? Or philosophical error. It is impossible. The part that interpret who you are is part of what it is supposed to see so it totally fail to see it. You have to see yourself from outside to really see you the way you are and even that is failing by definition.

A part of something could not contain the whole cause it is part of it. Goedel wrote about the math showing that to be impossible.

I think the "How to See Yourself as You Really Are" is a poorly translated old text that is about something else than what these words connote to now.

[aupmanyav]

I too have to go, to a four year old's birthday party where the theme is pirates, Oh Aaarr.Hat, ear-rings, sword, crutches, hook-hand, eye-patch a-la-Captain Skull or Moshe Dayan? Can NAR&P contributors get your photograph in the outfit? For us hindus, 'Gnana' is the destination and 'Dhyana' is the way (think, feel, and reach).

Wordy: Of course, it is a big problem, not all overcome it, seeing from inside as if seeing from outside; but perhaps Goedel did not know the eastern philosophies.

[premjan]

Jhana / Dhyana is the Buddhist medium between the opposite poles of Jnana and Bhakti in Hinduism as in Buddhism there is a medium path to everything. It does provide some of the benefits of both without causing one to fall into the trap of either.

Brahman is the totality, and Maya is the visible part of it. The intention is that the invisible component (hidden variables?) guide the process of manifestation and world-play (lila).

I don't think Hindus ought to be too stuck on Hinduism or claim it to be impenetrable to outsiders, it is just the amalgamation of their several practices. Some of these may have no useful content for the outsider, but others may be useful to someone not a Hindu - Buddhism hopefully consists of mostly the latter kind.

[perfectbite]

I too have to go, to a four year old's birthday party where the theme is pirates, Oh Aaarr.Hat, ear-rings, sword, crutches, hook-hand, eye-patch a-la-Captain Skull or Moshe Dayan? Can NAR&P contributors get your photograph in the outfit?

Just an eyepatch that was absconded with (after I had put it down) very early on by a six year old who was intent on (and did) climb trees with it on, a large, rented three cornered hat with a black feather that I handed off to the safety master of ceremonies as he was directing the queue of children in the pinyata battering. (The birthday cake candle blowing out ceremony was almost fatally disrupted when a three year old wanted to blow out the birthday candle shaped in a 4 too and, because of the tears, from both the four year old and the three year old, the candle had to be relit so that the three year old could also blow it out even though it wasn't his birthday) and the pirate/luau parrot that I gave to a five year old girl who immediately called it 'Max'.

No brass buttoned frock coat, no cutlass, no rough hewn wooden crutch, no pegleg, no flintlock pistol (Argh Jim lad (Long John Silver from Stevenson's Treasure Island) so hardly worth a photo besides, I doubt that this quite stable but really clunky computer (scanning is a real chore) would be up to such paparazzied shenanigans.

For us hindus, 'Gnana' is the destination and 'Dhyana' is the way (think, feel, and reach).

For Western Buddhism then the jnanas should be taken as spiritual fireflies (Zennist kenshos) and Dhyana (Djana; Ch'an) should be taken as the sun.

Wordy: Of course, it is a big problem, not all overcome it, seeing from inside as if seeing from outside; but perhaps Goedel did not know the eastern philosophies.

Aupmanyev, don't forget that over sixty years ago when the Jewish atomic bomb scientist Robert Oppenhiemer witnessed the first nuclear blast at Alamogordo in New Mexico, he did not quote from the Bible but quoted from the Geeta and said; "I am become like Shiva, the destroyer of worlds."

Western thinkers and logicians and scientists are quite familiar with Eastern thought both spiritual and philosophical and the idea of seeing ourselves as we truly are as expressed by the Scots poet Robert Burns in saying .. 'Would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.' is still an earnest quest for many in the West.

As Shakespeare's Hamlet told Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamt of in your philosophy." but this was from someone who not only saw, but conversed with the ghosts of dead people and who also mused on the skull of Yorick (a man of infinite jest) who had often hoisted Hamlet as a child onto his grown man's shoulders.

Despite the antics of the greedy and religious proselytizers (what else is new at any age of the world) the West has a pretty good grasp on essential spirituality and my disappointment is that Hinduism seems to be very busy tending to its own garden and isn't really interested in helping culture blossoms that did not originate in its garden (it can't be because they aren't interesting) but the Buddha did pay attention to other views in saying that any (ANY) belief that stressed spiritual betterment (not just the generated chaos of spiritual strife) was worthy of being called a religion.

[premjan]

Hinduism is there for anyone to come and sample it. What proselytism is required?

[aupmanyav]

You are right, Perfectbite. Hinduism was busy with its own people. Though the Vedas said there are many ways and Krishna said that it is best to do according to one's own 'dharma'. We gave full freedom to various faiths that came to us, the early christians, the early muslims, the jews, and the parsis. I do not think the near disappearance of earlier Buddhism and its later return, and non-proliferation of Jainism has anything to do with Hinduism. It was what people decided. All religions followed in their true way bring about spiritual (?) betterment (make for better social people). That is what Hinduism has always believed. They have depricated the efforts of people who in their ignorance engage in proselytizing as childish foolishness, if not deliberate war-mongering.

[TruthPrevails]

Hinduism is there for anyone to come and sample it. What proselytism is required?I think every religion can serve mankind positively taking into accounts the spectrum of psychological and cultural background of humanity. (my reservation is the Qu'ran with it's numerous free-for-all unrestraint violent verses)

Christianity, despite it's past and current dogmatism, is still effective for those who have the emotional make-up for it.
I will have no qualms recommending my children or relatives to decent Christianity if they have that sort of psychological and emotional make-up that only Christianity can provide them.

Similarly, Hinduism, Buddhism, other eastern religion will suit certain personality, and pyschological patterns. The difference between Abrahamic and eastern religions is the dynamism and range of spirituality that the latter can cover that enable individuals to evolve spirituallly at their own pace.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, .. being dynamic has wider range of spirituality with a lot of capacity for those who have the propensity to develop higher levels of spirituality.

Abrahamic religion also provide for higher spirituality, but one will have to really dig for it via it's mystical traditions.

IMO, at the higher level, Hinduism still engages the limits of the human mind with the concept of Brahman, Taoism with TAO.
Buddhism also mentally delve on the concept of Nirvana, but it stretches further and giving attention to 'nothingness'.

The above are the spiritual packages available on the spiritual supermarket shelves for anyone to choose one that is optimal to one's current situation. Some may prefer to take each as stepping stones, while others may just stick to one for life.