Show that Planck had such transformative experiences.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Consciousness
- Thread starter allfoak
- Start date
And you don't think that "clinging to oneness" is not a dualistic delusion? The Hsin Hsin Ming seems to say that it is. Awakened oneness and delusional oneness certainly seems like a duality to me, but heck, if you are going to throw logic out of the window, that is not exactly what I would call "dissolving into oneness," {which would also include logic, since it is "One."}
Your mileage may vary.
I see sentience/Buddha Nature as having a subjective mind--which is subject to delusion, and capable of awakening. Having a subjective mind allows for self observation, contemplation, and change--including both the capacity for changing towards developing delusion and for freeing itself from delusion, and evolving.
Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous
"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}
ajay0
Well-Known Member
It is probable that Planck had learnt of Advaita or Upanishadic philosophy from Werner Heisenburg, who in turn got it from Rabindranath Tagore, and Planck crafted his own opinions from a study of the philosophy, as it foregrounded or complemented quantum physics to some extent.
But it seems to be purely intellectual and not experiential. He was not enlightened and did not seem to have any idea of meditation as well. It was probably just a knee-jerk response from him upon perceiving a philosophy with parallels to quantum physics.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as a universal self. This would suggest the existence of an objective(universal) perspective. Since we can't share our brain with another brain(mind meld), or see ourselves independent of our senses, a true objective perspective cannot exist. We are trapped within our own subjective reality. There are 5 basic senses(up to 21 total sense organs) we can use to conceptualize our reality. These receptors provide a sensory link, between our brain and the 5 basic elements in Nature(earth, water, air or wind, fire, and space or void). Like most things in life, this link is quality-controlled, and age-sensitive. If our sense organs are degraded, damaged, absent, overwhelmed, or artificially modified, it will alter our perception of reality. Remember, reality itself does not change, but our perception does. Remember also that the brain is the most deceptive organ in the body. It processes our sensory input, and presents us with it's best-guess estimation of our position in space, and how reality appears. Sonar, radar, or an x ray machines will see that same reality differently.
Consciousness is merely a state or level of self-awareness. This state represent only 8% of our total psyche. Over 90% of the bodies metabolism is carried out at the subconscious, and unconscious levels of awareness. The brain is a physical organ that exist within space and time, but the illusion of mind is totally dependent on the activities within a functioning brain. The mind is the dimensionless cognition with zero parameters, and is totally subjective.
There is also no such thing as "ultimate reality", or " transcendent of perceptual reality". Again, this suggest that an ultimate perspective exists, or that we can escape our subjective perspective. Neither is possible. Drugs, meditation, or injuries, can give the illusion transcendence, but our objective reality, and our existence within space and time, are not effected.
The science of Neurophysiology, and Cognitive Psychology have come a long way in their understanding of how the physical brain works.They understand its functions and properties, how it relates to personality and emotions, and how it generates states of consciousness and awareness. In many cases, these activities can even be mimicked artificially. Don
Consciousness is merely a state or level of self-awareness. This state represent only 8% of our total psyche. Over 90% of the bodies metabolism is carried out at the subconscious, and unconscious levels of awareness. The brain is a physical organ that exist within space and time, but the illusion of mind is totally dependent on the activities within a functioning brain. The mind is the dimensionless cognition with zero parameters, and is totally subjective.
There is also no such thing as "ultimate reality", or " transcendent of perceptual reality". Again, this suggest that an ultimate perspective exists, or that we can escape our subjective perspective. Neither is possible. Drugs, meditation, or injuries, can give the illusion transcendence, but our objective reality, and our existence within space and time, are not effected.
The science of Neurophysiology, and Cognitive Psychology have come a long way in their understanding of how the physical brain works.They understand its functions and properties, how it relates to personality and emotions, and how it generates states of consciousness and awareness. In many cases, these activities can even be mimicked artificially. Don
godnotgod
Thou art That
irefox
Yes, 'clinging to oneness', or to any other attachments is delusion:
"Do not with a dishonest mind speak of the straightforwardness of the Dharma. If while speaking of the samadhi of oneness, you fail to practice straightforward mind, you will not be disciples of Buddha. Only practicing straightforward mind, and in all things having no attachments whatsoever, is called the samadhi of oneness. The deluded person clings to the characteristics of things, adheres to the samadhi of oneness, and thinks that straightforward mind is sitting without moving and casting aside delusions without letting things arise in the mind. This they consider to be the samadhi of oneness."
The Platform Sutra - Part I
'Awakened oneness' and 'delusional oneness' seem like a duality, but there are not two onenesses. Surely you have read in your studies that 'Nirvana and Samsara are not different'. The consciousness that is deluded is the same consciousness that is enlightened, as you had prevously stated. 'Delusional oneness' is not real, and when Awakening occurs, it is dissolved away, and only Awakened Mind is real.* So when a Buddhist declares that he has 'no attachment to dust', he means he has no attachment to Samsara, 'dust' being a metaphor for suffering caused by delusion.
That is my understanding.
*"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"
(ie 'If you see yourself becoming the Buddha, kill that image')
No-one becomes a buddha; everyone already is a buddha. Realization is not becoming; it is seeing things as they already are.
I am not throwing logic out the window; I am saying it is not the pathway to Higher Consciousness. You cannot think yourself into Enlightenment.
And you don't think that "clinging to oneness" is not a dualistic delusion? The Hsin Hsin Ming seems to say that it is. Awakened oneness and delusional oneness certainly seems like a duality to me, but heck, if you are going to throw logic out of the window, that is not exactly what I would call "dissolving into oneness," {which would also include logic, since it is "One."}
Yes, 'clinging to oneness', or to any other attachments is delusion:
"Do not with a dishonest mind speak of the straightforwardness of the Dharma. If while speaking of the samadhi of oneness, you fail to practice straightforward mind, you will not be disciples of Buddha. Only practicing straightforward mind, and in all things having no attachments whatsoever, is called the samadhi of oneness. The deluded person clings to the characteristics of things, adheres to the samadhi of oneness, and thinks that straightforward mind is sitting without moving and casting aside delusions without letting things arise in the mind. This they consider to be the samadhi of oneness."
The Platform Sutra - Part I
'Awakened oneness' and 'delusional oneness' seem like a duality, but there are not two onenesses. Surely you have read in your studies that 'Nirvana and Samsara are not different'. The consciousness that is deluded is the same consciousness that is enlightened, as you had prevously stated. 'Delusional oneness' is not real, and when Awakening occurs, it is dissolved away, and only Awakened Mind is real.* So when a Buddhist declares that he has 'no attachment to dust', he means he has no attachment to Samsara, 'dust' being a metaphor for suffering caused by delusion.
That is my understanding.
*"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"
(ie 'If you see yourself becoming the Buddha, kill that image')
No-one becomes a buddha; everyone already is a buddha. Realization is not becoming; it is seeing things as they already are.
I am not throwing logic out the window; I am saying it is not the pathway to Higher Consciousness. You cannot think yourself into Enlightenment.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
You are misunderstanding what is meant by 'Self', with a capital S. It is not the individual 'self' you are referring to; Universal Self is neither subjective nor objective. It is non-dual.
Yes, exactly!
Yes, there is something to be said for "from Great Delusion comes Great Awakening."
You can, however, use thinking/contemplation to identify delusion, and then abandon it.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Your statement, "When I said that 'everything is the subjective', I meant that who you really are is the universe itself. So there is no individual separate self; there is only the universal Self, playing itself as the individual self", clearly implies that our subjective perspective is not our own. It is irrelevant whether "self" is capitalized or not, it's definition will not change. Now that you have gone from the metaphoric to the implicit, exactly what IS the Universal Self, not what it isn't? And, how is it indistinguishable from the non-capitalized "self"? How do you know that the Universal Self is masquerading as our true self? Semantics and Equivocation Fallacies can be very annoying, especially when terms are not clearly defined first.
We are all slightly different to anyone else. We are all composed of materials slightly different to anyone else. We are all separate and distinguishable from anyone else. We all see only a tiny part of our objective reality from slightly different perspectives to anyone else. Since there is NO universal perspective(something observing billions of subjective perspectives), there can't be a universal(objective) self. Close your eyes and cover your ears, and you will see just easily reality can change from your own perspective. So NO, the illusion is self can only be subjective, but if we believe hard enough and long enough anything can become logically possible. Don
godnotgod
Thou art That
Very good, then.
hmmmm.....I had never heard it that way. I had always understood it as: 'Little doubt, small enlightenment; great doubt, great Enlightenment'
Ah, yes. The Buddha raft parable.
But the key is to SEE that it is delusion. Once seen the question then arises: 'Who, or what, is it that sees delusion?'
So can you now tell me whether what you refer to as 'the subjective mind' is real or an illusion? Is there a 'perceiver of the perception'; an 'experiencer of the experience' via subjective mind, or is there simply perception/experience themselves, without an agent of perception or experience?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Each snowflake is unique, but all are made of the same universal substance that is water. Are you intuitive enough to understand what I am pointing to?
You have described the individual self. It exists against some kind of background, as the entire phenomenal world does. Any idea what that background might be? Were you to attempt to set your image of what an individual self might look like on paper, the image you draw must exist on the blank background of the paper, correct? There is no other way to create that image unless it is on an imageless background. Are you with me so far?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Then Planck is either being dishonest, or he really sees clearly what he is describing. But whatever the case may be, is what he is saying true from our standpoint? His statement:
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
...is, from a Zen POV, a finger pointing to the moon. IOW, he is not qualifying what he says. The reader must go look and see for himself whether his statement has any veracity via direct insight, and not via the thinking mind. So really, in a way, the messenger is not important here. It's the content that is of utmost importance.
Last edited:
Actually, Buddha said that line of questioning was unfit for attention, as it would lead to a thicket of views that becomes a fetter and prevents liberation.
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations
The subjective mind is real and exists, and it has the three marks of existence: impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anatta.)
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Thanks for this, @crossfire
Long ago, I argued with Buddhists here on RF about "no self" and stressed my long held views about the nature of personality. After several back and forth one poster explained the concept of anatta to me. Anatta was EXACTLY what I was describing, quite unwittingly, all along. DOH! It was exactly like the time you enlightened me about the 4 imponderables. (I actually use that idea, from time to time, now as it fits perfectly when a person brings up a thorny topic that is prone to infinite loops.) It's heartwarming to know you actually helped someone to change their view.
Edit: It isn't that there is "no self" or that self is an illusion, rather, "self" is a proverbial perpetual motion machine and perhaps the only perpetual motion machine in the real world. I'd go one further and suggest that this process continues even after "nirvana" and that inner evolution has no end. In my weird world view there is only growth and that never ends.
@crossfire Am I pushing too far with the last edit or does that still sync up, more or less, with existing Buddhist thought?
Last edited:
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Snowflakes are unique because of the external factors they experience(temperature, rate of fall, and moisture level). However, the crystallization process(polar properties of hydrogen and oxygen) always remain the same.. It would be an induction fallacy to suggest that humans are unique because they share the same properties as a snowflake. A snowflake's uniqueness is the result of external forces, not internal forces. Human uniqueness is far more complicated, and includes a myriad of variables created by many factors found in nature, in nurture, in society(culture), and in our environment. Comparing the uniqueness of a snowflake to the uniqueness of a human, demonstrates a somewhat poor use of intuition and logic.
With all due respect, I hope you can follow my logic and simple intuition. Self(not one's self or the physical self), is a label(term) we use to describe the brain's biochemical, perceptual cognition of itself. The brain represents this self-awareness as the conscious knowing of its position in 4 dimensional space and time. Self, is not a quantitative or physical construct, anymore than our emotions, consciousness, or the abstract are. There is NO background canvas for an image of self, anymore then there is a background canvas for consciousness, or what our Universe is expanding into.The illusion of self is non-centralized and dimensionless. So, where do you suggest we find a dimensionless background canvas to draw this dimensionless image of self on? Oops, another faulty analogy fallacy. The cognitive self, and the physical self are not the same thing.
You are certainly entitled to your own creative language, and your clever semantics, but you are not entitled to your own creative logic. Don
godnotgod
Thou art That
I am afraid you have that misconstrued. Right at the very beginning of the Sabbasava Sutra we have this:
"The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see."
Seeing things as they are cannot lead to a thicket of views, because a thicket of views is the result of thought, and seeing directly into the nature of things is not.
I gather you are a Zennist. The core teaching of Zen comes to us from Bodhidharma:
"Bodhidharma is considered the founder of Zen bringing the teaching to China from India in 520 AD. The story of his life and teachings is almost mythological in that most of his teachings were not written down. What makes Bodhidharma stand out among all the masters of Zen was his very unique approach. He brought the following message:
“A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing at the soul of man;
Seeing into one’s nature and the
Attainment of Buddhahood.”
While others at the time viewed meditation and Zen as a way of purification of the mind and a stage on the way to Buddhahood, Bodhidharma introduced the direct method of seeing into one’s nature cutting through all the stages."
Bloodstream Sermon
...which makes 'subjective mind' an illusion. Those caught by subjective mind suffer because this kind of thinking is based upon illusion, which is why it is impermanent, empty of abiding self-nature, and unsatisfactory. IOW, the illusion of a separate self must be maintained in order for subjective mind to come into play. This is the mind of 'self and other'; of subject and object; of 'this and that' in which the mind is split into a state of duality. 'Subjective' implies that there is a self present called 'I', and this mind is a self-created principle. The awakened mind dispels this illusion, wherein subject and object are merged.
"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"
Deepak Chopra
Sorry, but I am not mistaking impermanence for permanence, nor dukkha for happiness, nor anatta for self, which is classically referenced as illusion. Those are things you are projecting onto me. Just because something is conditioned, dependently arisen, and without core essence does not make it illusion. It just makes it impermanent, inconstant, and subject to change, like the rest of reality. I don't think Buddha ever asserted metaphysical idealism. In fact, he said that speculations of this sort will drive you out of your mind.
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
(I apologize if I sound like I'm gaslighting. This is not my aim at all.)
godnotgod
Thou art That
Let's try another approach:
When you reference 'the subjective mind' (which you claim to be real), are you using that term in the sense that it is the opposite of 'the objective mind'?
No. All of our information is processed subjectively.
Perhaps this might be helpful to facilitate understanding:
Sabba Sutta: The All
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."