Krishamuriti Musings (If mind = brain)

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Saengnapha
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Saengnapha » Sat May 19, 2018 2:55 am

Bundokji wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:48 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 8:13 am
Knowledge and memory are integral to perception ( sanna ), but Isn't this really about which aspects of experience our attention is drawn to at any one time, or which aspects of experience we choose to put our attention on?
Is paying attention to sounds really different to paying attention to thoughts? It seems like they are both objects arising at the sense bases.
When you say: "which aspects of experience our intention is drawn to" you are implying that there can be an experience without paying attention to it. While i understand why you are saying that, i am not sure if this conclusion is warranted from an "experiential" point of view.

For example, if you are riding a bike to work, you might be listening to music, or thinking about the tasks ahead, or trying to avoid a car or some pedestrians ...etc. You don't pay attention to the act of biking all the time, even though when you think about it in hindsight (after arriving to the office) you conclude that it was a part of your experience.

How do you know that there is no experience without attention? imagine you could record your experience on a tape recorder and re-watch it. You would see that there was no other aspects of experience other than what you paid attention to. The conclusion that there is "mind independent experience" or "attention independent experience" is not original, but by comparing two states:

1- I was at home
2- Now i am at work

Conclusion:
Riding the bike took place (existed) regardless if i paid attention to it or not

The same applies to the word "mind". It cannot be experienced as an original thing, but can be concluded upon comparing two states. This very conclusion arises as an experience, before it is replaced with another conclusion which is also based on comparing two states.
Dinsdale brought up the idea of mind being the 'space' that experience occurs in. (I'm not quoting verbatim, so please check me). It seems to me that this space where all the recording of experience takes place is a projected one fabricated by thought. How could the space be different than the experience or thought? It is all a synthesization, an image that we name 'mind'. In fact, all of it is what we call 'ourself', 'me'. The activities of the senses in contact with stimuli sends messages to the brain for identification and to make choices about action based on past experience of like occurrences. This is a necessary process for survival and getting along with others. The problem is the identification or fixation of attention on the images interpreted by thought. The thought process is like a shadow of the original images that are experienced directly by the senses and are created into a 'person' having these experiences. In fact, if you take away these interpretations by thought, the subject/object model falls apart. In a sense, there is no experience at all because there is no center having the experience, or watching it. This is what the 2 Krishnamurtis called 'mutation'. They state that this occurs in the brain cells when the subject/object dichotomy is seen for what it is. Without this mutation, there is no real resolution of DO, PS, and the dimension called Nibbana. Without mutation there is only the intellectual understanding of evolution and the universe. I hope this is not too obtuse an explanation.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Sat May 19, 2018 7:52 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 2:55 am
Dinsdale brought up the idea of mind being the 'space' that experience occurs in. (I'm not quoting verbatim, so please check me). It seems to me that this space where all the recording of experience takes place is a projected one fabricated by thought. How could the space be different than the experience or thought? It is all a synthesization, an image that we name 'mind'. In fact, all of it is what we call 'ourself', 'me'.
In which i said: this space is a necessary condition for experience, but not a sufficient one. There can't be an experience without space, but the existence of a space in itself is not sufficient for an experience to arise. Imagine someone who is blind, he uses a stick to move around, so he is aware that there is a space where he can move. However, this space is not sufficient for visual images (seeing) to arise in his case.

So, the human being noticed that every experience has space (necessary condition) but the content of every experience is different, and from this, the idea of a mind that is independent from experience arise. It appears that every experience has the same space but different content.

Where does this idea of "sameness" came from? due to our ability to recall/remember the ever changing content that took place within that space.
The activities of the senses in contact with stimuli sends messages to the brain for identification and to make choices about action based on past experience of like occurrences. This is a necessary process for survival and getting along with others. The problem is the identification or fixation of attention on the images interpreted by thought. The thought process is like a shadow of the original images that are experienced directly by the senses and are created into a 'person' having these experiences. In fact, if you take away these interpretations by thought, the subject/object model falls apart. In a sense, there is no experience at all because there is no center having the experience, or watching it. This is what the 2 Krishnamurtis called 'mutation'. They state that this occurs in the brain cells when the subject/object dichotomy is seen for what it is. Without this mutation, there is no real resolution of DO, PS, and the dimension called Nibbana. Without mutation there is only the intellectual understanding of evolution and the universe. I hope this is not too obtuse an explanation.
The rest of your input is dogmatic i am afraid, something you have heard or indoctrinated to believe. Something you have been refuting/criticizing others for using.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Saengnapha » Sat May 19, 2018 9:41 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 7:52 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 2:55 am
Dinsdale brought up the idea of mind being the 'space' that experience occurs in. (I'm not quoting verbatim, so please check me). It seems to me that this space where all the recording of experience takes place is a projected one fabricated by thought. How could the space be different than the experience or thought? It is all a synthesization, an image that we name 'mind'. In fact, all of it is what we call 'ourself', 'me'.
In which i said: this space is a necessary condition for experience, but not a sufficient one. There can't be an experience without space, but the existence of a space in itself is not sufficient for an experience to arise. Imagine someone who is blind, he uses a stick to move around, so he is aware that there is a space where he can move. However, this space is not sufficient for visual images (seeing) to arise in his case.

So, the human being noticed that every experience has space (necessary condition) but the content of every experience is different, and from this, the idea of a mind that is independent from experience arise. It appears that every experience has the same space but different content.

Where does this idea of "sameness" came from? due to our ability to recall/remember the ever changing content that took place within that space.
The activities of the senses in contact with stimuli sends messages to the brain for identification and to make choices about action based on past experience of like occurrences. This is a necessary process for survival and getting along with others. The problem is the identification or fixation of attention on the images interpreted by thought. The thought process is like a shadow of the original images that are experienced directly by the senses and are created into a 'person' having these experiences. In fact, if you take away these interpretations by thought, the subject/object model falls apart. In a sense, there is no experience at all because there is no center having the experience, or watching it. This is what the 2 Krishnamurtis called 'mutation'. They state that this occurs in the brain cells when the subject/object dichotomy is seen for what it is. Without this mutation, there is no real resolution of DO, PS, and the dimension called Nibbana. Without mutation there is only the intellectual understanding of evolution and the universe. I hope this is not too obtuse an explanation.
The rest of your input is dogmatic i am afraid, something you have heard or indoctrinated to believe. Something you have been refuting/criticizing others for using.
I don't expect applause for my posts, but dogmatic is going a bit far, I think. I was simply throwing out what two of the men that I know had to say about this. To even consider what they are saying requires immense attention to how our experiencing faculties work. Without understanding the way we perceive with our ordinary brain, we can never understand what the Buddha and others are really talking about.

Tell me, Bundokji, is there anything that you know that hasn't been said or thought by others? Every one of us is thoroughly indoctrinated into one thing or another. This is my whole point. Mutation is the only possibility of being free of this. This does not happen within the field of time and space. The only difference between us is that I have seen this operate in these two men without question. Once you've seen this, you cannot go back and believe most of the drivel that religions offer up. This is not me saying I am somehow better than you so I hope you don't take it in the wrong way.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Sat May 19, 2018 10:16 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 9:41 am
I don't expect applause for my posts, but dogmatic is going a bit far, I think. I was simply throwing out what two of the men that I know had to say about this. To even consider what they are saying requires immense attention to how our experiencing faculties work. Without understanding the way we perceive with our ordinary brain, we can never understand what the Buddha and others are really talking about.

Tell me, Bundokji, is there anything that you know that hasn't been said or thought by others? Every one of us is thoroughly indoctrinated into one thing or another. This is my whole point. Mutation is the only possibility of being free of this. This does not happen within the field of time and space. The only difference between us is that I have seen this operate in these two men without question. Once you've seen this, you cannot go back and believe most of the drivel that religions offer up. This is not me saying I am somehow better than you so I hope you don't take it in the wrong way.
My input on this thread has nothing to do with dogma. It is descriptive (value free) because it does not require any beliefs. The examples i have been giving is from everyday life, and its open to others to look at their experience and evaluate if what i am saying corresponds with their own or not.

I remember that J. Krishnamurti always emphasized on the necessity to "investigate together. All of his lectures did not include ready answers, but analyzing and describing on the spot. He also opposed using condemnatory terms (such as fabrication) because it includes per-judgements and prevent us from seeing what is.

All i can share, as truthfully as possible, is a description of what is as i happened to experience it. If you can detect a tiny bit of dogma in my input on this thread, please highlight it.


I hope you don't take any of this personal because finger pointing is not my intention. When i describe phenomena in an easy and simple way verifiable first hand, you quote the Krishnamurties, and when people quote the Buddha, you describe them as dogmatic. I don't claim that you are not internally justifiable for doing so, but i am inviting you to see that it is reasonable when others expect consistency from you. And when others highlight this lack of consistency, you describe it as their own projections!

Peace
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Saengnapha » Sat May 19, 2018 11:41 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 10:16 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 9:41 am
I don't expect applause for my posts, but dogmatic is going a bit far, I think. I was simply throwing out what two of the men that I know had to say about this. To even consider what they are saying requires immense attention to how our experiencing faculties work. Without understanding the way we perceive with our ordinary brain, we can never understand what the Buddha and others are really talking about.

Tell me, Bundokji, is there anything that you know that hasn't been said or thought by others? Every one of us is thoroughly indoctrinated into one thing or another. This is my whole point. Mutation is the only possibility of being free of this. This does not happen within the field of time and space. The only difference between us is that I have seen this operate in these two men without question. Once you've seen this, you cannot go back and believe most of the drivel that religions offer up. This is not me saying I am somehow better than you so I hope you don't take it in the wrong way.
My input on this thread has nothing to do with dogma. It is descriptive (value free) because it does not require any beliefs. The examples i have been giving is from everyday life, and its open to others to look at their experience and evaluate if what i am saying corresponds with their own or not.

I remember that J. Krishnamurti always emphasized on the necessity to "investigate together. All of his lectures did not include ready answers, but analyzing and describing on the spot. He also opposed using condemnatory terms (such as fabrication) because it includes per-judgements and prevent us from seeing what is.

All i can share, as truthfully as possible, is a description of what is as i happened to experience it. If you can detect a tiny bit of dogma in my input on this thread, please highlight it.


I hope you don't take any of this personal because finger pointing is not my intention. When i describe phenomena in an easy and simple way verifiable first hand, you quote the Krishnamurties, and when people quote the Buddha, you describe them as dogmatic. I don't claim that you are not internally justifiable for doing so, but i am inviting you to see that it is reasonable when others expect consistency from you. And when others highlight this lack of consistency, you describe it as their own projections!

Peace
I'm not taking it personally. This subject of dogma has a fine line to it. Suggesting other ways that people have had in describing certain things can be useful or maybe not. I can't be the judge of that. My quoting the 2K's is a suggestion to look at our subjects in a different way. That's all. Not to simply accept or believe in them. That is not my way. If I am passionate, it doesn't mean what I am saying is the final word. So I hope we can move on from the subject of dogma and actually consider the words of anyone who may illuminate certain things in our life be it the Buddha or UG!

Saengnapha
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 20, 2018 4:30 am

Grigoris wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 12:03 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 9:41 am
Every one of us is thoroughly indoctrinated into one thing or another. This is my whole point. Mutation is the only possibility of being free of this.
Mutation? Given the infinite round of samsara I believe you will find that every single combination has been formed and dissolved an infinite number of times. Mutation is not necessary (or possible). What (for a Buddhist) is necessary, is to apply the Dhamma (which is, as far as I am concerned, is whatever conforms to the Dharma Seals or the logic behind the Three Marks of Existence)
You don't understand what mutation is. It is what the Buddha is talking about but the term is not Buddhist. If you bother to read the descriptions of the 2 Krishnamurti's about mutation, you might get a sense of what it is. Buddhism doesn't have a copyright on Nibbana and seeing things the way they are.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Sun May 20, 2018 6:19 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 4:23 am
Do you have a way of 'not' comparing two states? This is all that is going on. This is what the brain is doing all the time. If the brain becomes quiet, what happens to the comparative mind?
This is what i have been trying to say all the time, that the nature of worldly knowledge is dependently arising (not original, not self).

In this discussion about the mind and brain, some discussants have been trying to make definitive statements (conclusions) and to justify them. The role i played on this thread is to show/explain how each statement is dependent on other beliefs and conditions. A mere description of how things seem to arise.

Please note that we don't differ on conclusions, but on emphasis, this is why my first post on this thread was (which you seemed to agree with):
James Tan wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:03 pm
Greetings ,

If our so called mind the sixth sense media is brain , does this mean the consciousness that arises due to the interaction of the mind and its object is also matter ?
Bundokji wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:29 pm
If you call it matter, what would that change?
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:49 pm
It is matter, but as bundokji asked, what would that change?
When we know that the above is speculative and does not change anything when it comes to suffering, then we pay more attention to the three marks of existence: All conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self (not original). A point has been acknowledged by Grigoris during this discussion:
Grigoris wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 12:03 pm
Mutation? Given the infinite round of samsara I believe you will find that every single combination has been formed and dissolved an infinite number of times. Mutation is not necessary (or possible). What (for a Buddhist) is necessary, is to apply the Dhamma (which is, as far as I am concerned, is whatever conforms to the Dharma Seals or the logic behind the Three Marks of Existence)
You might not be a Buddhist, and more interested in mutation, or to provide theories and speculations about brain function.

Observing the three marks of existence is not a conclusion. Conclusions in relation to mind and brain are a hindrance to the contemplation of the three marks of existence in my opinion, or as J Krishnamurti once said: when there are conclusions, learning stops.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Grigoris
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:43 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Grigoris » Sun May 20, 2018 7:37 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:19 am
...or as J Krishnamurti once said: when there are conclusions, learning stops.
Krishnamurti said all sorts of nonsense...

Do you believe there is no such thing as Dharma?
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.

Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.

User avatar
Grigoris
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:43 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Grigoris » Sun May 20, 2018 7:42 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 4:30 am
You don't understand what mutation is.
I am not really interested in anything that Krishnamurti says, mainly because the bulk of the stuff I have have heard is complete and utter gibberish.
Buddhism doesn't have a copyright on Nibbana and seeing things the way they are.
Hence my statement that whatever corresponds to the Dharma Seals or the Three Marks of Existence is Dharma.

I am not sure Krishnamurti does, because he doesn't actually seem to say anything of any particular substance anyway.
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.

Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Sun May 20, 2018 8:21 am

Grigoris wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:37 am
Bundokji wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:19 am
...or as J Krishnamurti once said: when there are conclusions, learning stops.
Krishnamurti said all sorts of nonsense...

Do you believe there is no such thing as Dharma?
It has nothing to do with "believing" but with emphasis. The three marks of existence has more to do with the process of how phenomena arises and ceases, i don't see them as "conclusions". In fact, they defy conclusions.

The way you chose to refute what being said by Krishnamurti does not address why what he said is wrong though.
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Krishamuriti Musings (If mind = brain)

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 20, 2018 8:56 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:19 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 4:23 am
Do you have a way of 'not' comparing two states? This is all that is going on. This is what the brain is doing all the time. If the brain becomes quiet, what happens to the comparative mind?
This is what i have been trying to say all the time, that the nature of worldly knowledge is dependently arising (not original, not self).

In this discussion about the mind and brain, some discussants have been trying to make definitive statements (conclusions) and to justify them. The role i played on this thread is to show/explain how each statement is dependent on other beliefs and conditions. A mere description of how things seem to arise.

Please note that we don't differ on conclusions, but on emphasis, this is why my first post on this thread was (which you seemed to agree with):
James Tan wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:03 pm
Greetings ,

If our so called mind the sixth sense media is brain , does this mean the consciousness that arises due to the interaction of the mind and its object is also matter ?
Bundokji wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:29 pm
If you call it matter, what would that change?
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:49 pm
It is matter, but as bundokji asked, what would that change?
When we know that the above is speculative and does not change anything when it comes to suffering, then we pay more attention to the three marks of existence: All conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self (not original). A point has been acknowledged by Grigoris during this discussion:
Grigoris wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 12:03 pm
Mutation? Given the infinite round of samsara I believe you will find that every single combination has been formed and dissolved an infinite number of times. Mutation is not necessary (or possible). What (for a Buddhist) is necessary, is to apply the Dhamma (which is, as far as I am concerned, is whatever conforms to the Dharma Seals or the logic behind the Three Marks of Existence)
You might not be a Buddhist, and more interested in mutation, or to provide theories and speculations about brain function.

Observing the three marks of existence is not a conclusion. Conclusions in relation to mind and brain are a hindrance to the contemplation of the three marks of existence in my opinion, or as J Krishnamurti once said: when there are conclusions, learning stops.
Okay, I see where some of the statements can be misleading or in another direction if one is looking from a Buddhist perspective or another one. The subject is always a difficult one to discuss.

Please bear in mind that my mention of mutation is not meant to stand for a goal but to be a description of what supposedly happened to these two men. Both would have told you that there was nothing you could purposely do to bring this about and all effort would have been futile. But to see how this mutation operated in the day to day life and activities of UG, called 'the natural state', was to see someone who was through with suffering. I think this bears some interest and relation to the 3 Marks and how one functions in this state. It is very rare to listen to someone describe how they function before and after. I think this kind of description has been lost in most traditions. If you re-read the opening essay on the UG thread, it is laid out there.

User avatar
Grigoris
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:43 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Grigoris » Sun May 20, 2018 9:07 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 8:21 am
The three marks of existence has more to do with the process of how phenomena arises and ceases, i don't see them as "conclusions". In fact, they defy conclusions.
I beg to differ.
The way you chose to refute what being said by Krishnamurti does not address why what he said is wrong though.
The statement (for example): "Unicorns are wild and dangerous animals" does not require logical refutation.

Anyway, I am too busy trying to unravel what the Buddha said without trying to delve into the deep and dark depths of Krishnamurti's mind as well. That is Krishnamurti's job, not mine. ;)
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.

Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Sun May 20, 2018 9:07 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 8:56 am
I think this kind of description has been lost in most traditions. If you re-read the opening essay on the UG thread, it is laid out there.
I no longer read such descriptions because i noticed my tendency to crave for them or to project them into myself. This says nothing about UG and his attainment, but with my mind and how it operates.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5750
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Aloka » Sun May 20, 2018 9:17 am

Please excuse my interruption (and lack of interest in Krishnamurti) - but as this is a General Theravada Discussion forum wouldn't all the Krishnamurti references be better placed in the existing topic in the Connections to Other Paths forum ?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=31576&p=467699&hil ... ti#p467699

:anjali:

Saengnapha
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 20, 2018 9:42 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 9:07 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 8:56 am
I think this kind of description has been lost in most traditions. If you re-read the opening essay on the UG thread, it is laid out there.
I no longer read such descriptions because i noticed my tendency to crave for them or to project them into myself. This says nothing about UG and his attainment, but with my mind and how it operates.
Then how can you read any Theravada teachings? This is exactly what is being put forth in any tradition or any teaching. Prevention of this should not be based on refusal to read or observe things. Isn't this what we are really talking about, how our brains work? There's no one inside it. :D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dharmacorps, Majestic-12 [Bot], ScottPen and 57 guests