"No"? Really?
________________________________ From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 17:19 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Buddha-nature and Expansion of Space Mike, No, pure experience itself is antecedent to an experiencer or the experienced. Those are categorizations downstream.. It's partly, or mostly, a problem that language did not evolve to describe such things so there is always some unintended implied reference to an object or subject in language and difficult to say things in a way that avoids that.... Edgar On Oct 11, 2012, at 11:47 AM, mike brown wrote: > > >Edgar, > > >Again, I might be reading you wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in >what you say. I agree with "'Zen is reality directly manifesting its true >nature", but then you go on to say "Direct experience is primary". This seems >to me to be implying the self/not self duality. For me the inverse is true - >it's more a case of the 10,000 things are experiencing 'me' rather than 'I' >experience 'them'. Same thing as the universe breathes me rather than I am >breathing. > > >Mike > > > > >________________________________ > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 13:15 >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Buddha-nature and Expansion of Space > > > >Mike, > > >That's correct but one has to start with what can be understood even if it is >not completely accurate. Language can never be a completely accurate >description of Buddha Nature. > > > > >'Zen is reality directly manifesting its true nature, i.e. as Buddha Nature' >is a better definition that I think addresses your very to the point concern >of avoiding the dualism of self and not self, observer and observed... > > >Direct experience is primary. The distinction between self and not self is a >subsequent useful but misleading categorization... > > >Edgar > > > > > > >On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:18 PM, mike brown wrote: > > >> >> >>Edgar, >> >> >>>Zen is directly experiencing reality as it actually is.. >> >> >>I know this is a definition of Zen that is commonly held, so I might be >>speaking out of my arse here, but I've always felt uneasy with it. There is >>no one to experience reality. There is only Buddha Nature. Isn't this the >>meaning of Dogen's 'dropping of the body and mind' and 'being enlightened by >>the 10,000 things'? Which also corresponds with my witness (speaking >>conventionally) of kensho. >> >> >>Mike >> >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 1:14 >>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Buddha-nature and Expansion of Space >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>JIm, >> >> >>Don't pay any attention to Bill on this one. Zen is directly experiencing >>reality as it actually is and to do that you must first understand the nature >>of reality and the illusion which obscures it in great detail. That is a >>logical understanding first that enables the direct non logical experience... >> >> >>I call it the 'Quantum koan'.... >> >> >>I've tried to explain this to Bill ad nauseum but to no avail... He still >>mistakenly believes that Zen means denying the obvious logical mathematical >>structure of the world of forms in spite of my explaining that the world of >>forms is a manifestation of Buddha Nature ... >> >> >>Edgar >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Bill! wrote: >> >> >>>Jim, >>> >>>I don't know if you're really serious about zen and realizing Buddha Nature. >>>but if you are I feel compelled to tell you that acquiring knowledge is not >>>the way to go. I'm sure you've read all the zen anecdotes about this, but >>>not only is your tea cup overflowing, your entire kitchen is so crammed full >>>of supplies that you can't even get to the sink to draw a glass of water. >>>You not only don't need all this knowledge to realize Buddha Nature but in >>>fact all this knowledge is an obstacle. >>> >>>All human knowledge is illusory. You (or actually someone else and you're >>>just mimicking them) have CREATED all these logical structures (concepts) to >>>try to explain something that is IMO unexplainable. It is unexplainable not >>>because you (I, we) are not smart enough or you (I, we) don't have enough >>>information - yet. It is unexplainable because it cannot be contained >>>within the realm of logic. Logic can only be applied to things/events which >>>have structure, pattern - things which are rational. Reality is none of >>>these. It INCLUDES these but is not bounded by these types of qualities. >>>Reality is chaos - chaos in the old, original sense of the word. >>> >>>You don't need any more knowledge to realize Buddha Nature. You don't need >>>knowledge at all. All you need to do is experience without judging, >>>categorizing, evaluating, filtering, augmenting, associating, naming, etc... >>> Just raw, sensory experience. That's Buddha Nature. >>> >>>And yes Merle, if you have read this far, I am now preaching. >>> >>>...Bill! >>> >>>--- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote: >>>> >>>> It's not a widely known field so it is not surprising that you haven't >>>> heard of it. Many other people haven't either. There is a Journal, the >>>> Journal of Consciousness Studies, which talks quite a bit about it. I >>>> participated on their message board for awhile a number of years back. >>>> Then, the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness published by Cambridge >>>> University Press devotes an entire chapter to it. That in itself doesn't >>>> mean that the Quantum Theory of Consciousness is true. However, it does >>>> show that the field is reputable in some top university circles. It is a >>>> sigh that there is an unsupported dogma involved in rejecting the theory >>>> because it tends to be done firmly without thought. However, that the >>>> theory doesn't fit an unproven dogma doesn't mean it is false. >>>> >>>> Penrose, who will be mentioned in another message, is a professor at >>>> Oxford University. Again reputable, although just being proposed by a >>>> reputable professor doesn't necessarily mean the theory is true. >>>> >>>> Actually, what is being talked about is the Penrose-Hameroff approach. >>>> Their theory is that the quantum effects occur via the microtubules in >>>> neurons. Let me quote from the Handbook, page 892: >>>> >>>> "Each microtubule is a cylindrical structure that can extend over many >>>> millimeters. The surface of the cylinder is formed by a spiral chain of >>>> tubulin molecules, with each circuit formed by 13 of these molecules. The >>>> tubulin molecule has a molecular weivht of about 110,000, and it exists in >>>> two slightly different configerational forms. Each tubulin molecule has a >>>> single special electron that can be in one of two relatively stable >>>> locations. The molecule's configurational state depends on which of these >>>> two locations this special electron is occupying." >>>> >>>> The theory says that the acttivity of the neuron affects and is affected >>>> by the state of the tubulin molecules. In turn, the special electrons on >>>> different neurons are entangled with one another via quantum effects. That >>>> then is the system which integrates neural activity. >>>> >>>> There are other possibilities, but their theory is quite reasonable. >>>> >>>> I worked parallel for awhile, with a publication in 1975:Newell, James F., >>>> "A Note of Some Internal Contradictions in Modern Materialistic Theory", >>>> PRABUDDHA BHARATA, Mayaviti, India: August 1975 >>>> >>>> That article discussed the need for a theory like the Penrose-Hameroff >>>> one. Essentially, I argued that the perception of visual images could not >>>> occur if only the brain were involved, due to limitations imposed by the >>>> very neural structure of the brain. >>>> >>>> We will be talking about qualia, which are subjective percepts, The visual >>>> ones are images that we see. The images indicate substantial decoding >>>> because individual neurons aren't colors, sounds, odors, feelings, etc. >>>> Individual nerve impulses are all the same; merely ions flowing across the >>>> outer membrane of the neural fiber in a chaotic way, with the cascade >>>> moving along the nerve fiber. The brain processes information in a digital >>>> way with sequences of nerve impulses or lacks of nerve impulses. Zero-one >>>> processing. >>>> >>>> However, we don't see images one digital flash at a time. >>>> >>>> Instead, we see images as arrays of what might be called mental-pixels, >>>> and we see all the mental-pixels in a subjective image simultaneously. Now >>>> to see all the mental-pixels simultaneously, even though they may >>>> subjectively look like they are in different places, the information >>>> describing the intensity, color, and location of each mental-pixel must >>>> all be in direct contact with the information describing the other pixels. >>>> Remember that the subjective image is the final integration and display >>>> and won't be processed further. >>>> >>>> Now, computer networks and neural networks cannot bring a lot of >>>> information into direct contact. The neural network in the brain processes >>>> visual data spread out over many on-off impulses on a very large number of >>>> neurons. The spread out nerve impulses are not in direct contact with each >>>> other, so could not be the ground of a visual image in which the >>>> information on each mental-pixel must be in direct contact with each >>>> other. Something else is needed to integrate the final pattern of nerve >>>> impulses into a fully integrated subjective image. >>>> >>>> Penrose-Hameroff says that the integration required is done via quantum >>>> processes. So the integrations isn't supernatural. It is something we >>>> already have discovered as natural processes. >>>> >>>> My possible alternatives are the same. They have to be done via natural >>>> processes, but I don't know exactly what the processes are in full, except >>>> that there is a good probability that they do include quantum processes. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Jim, >>>> > >>>> > This all sounds like a bunch of gobbedy-gook to me. For example I've >>>> > never heard of a 'quantum theory of consciousness' nor do can I conceive >>>> > of such a thing. Besides affirming to you that all of these concepts >>>> > are illusory and even if they are discussed in some circle have nothing >>>> > to do with Buddha Nature, I'll defer on the rest of this to Edgar and >>>> > maybe Joe, and anyone else who wants to take it on. >>>> > >>>> > ...Bill! >>>> > >>>> > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > One:: I am assuming that since consciousness and the physical >>>> > > exchange energy, they must have serious commonalities, such as having >>>> > > the same ground or one being the ground of the other. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does this assumption seem reasonable? >>>> > > >>>> > > Two:: The expansion of space itself seems to be accelerating due to a >>>> > > not understood cause called dark energy at the moment. >>>> > > >>>> > > My impression is that the acceleration in the expansion of space is >>>> > > orderly to the point of seeming coordinated over a few billion light >>>> > > years. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does that in fact fit the astronomical data? >>>> > > >>>> > > Three:: The bending of space involves more stretching on the outside >>>> > > of the curve than one the inside of a curve, which gravitational >>>> > > lensing involves galaxies as well as smaller bodies. The bending seems >>>> > > to be orderly to the point of seeming coordinated across on the order >>>> > > of as much as 100,000 light years. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does this in fact fit the astronomical data? >>>> > > >>>> > > Four:: If the above processes are in fact orderly, how could that >>>> > > happen? >>>> > > >>>> > > Five:: To be able to expand and bend, space must have an adequately >>>> > > low level of stiffness. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does this seem true? >>>> > > >>>> > > Six:: If space isn't stiff enough, it couldn't coordinate itself by a >>>> > > process of or in space over the great distances noted above. If space >>>> > > were too stiff, it couldn't expand and bend to begin with. >>>> > > >>>> > > Is there a level of space which could explain the orderliness over >>>> > > great distances of the expansion and bending of space? If so, the >>>> > > analysis ends here. If not, see below. >>>> > > >>>> > > Seven:: The quantum theory of consciousness holds that the effects >>>> > > propagate faster than the speed of light. If that is true, then the >>>> > > quantum processes transcend the aspect of space which involves the >>>> > > speed of light. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does that seem reasonable? >>>> > > >>>> > > Eight:: A transcendent process propagating faster than the speed of >>>> > > light might be able to coordinate the expansion and bending of space >>>> > > even when space could not coordinate its own expansion and bending >>>> > > over the long distances discussed above. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does this seem like a reasonable possibility? >>>> > > >>>> > > Nine:: Such a quantum process is the only explanation I can see at the >>>> > > moment, which tends to confirm it, but something new might be >>>> > > discovered in the future. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does that seem to be reasonable? >>>> > > >>>> > > Ten: If the same quantum processes are involved with consciousness, >>>> > > which involves the Buddha-nature, and also involves the expansion and >>>> > > bending of space over long distances, then there is a deep connection >>>> > > between the Buddha-nature and the expansion and bending of space over >>>> > > long distances. >>>> > > >>>> > > Does that logical step seem reasonable? >>>> > > >>>> > > Jim >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
