I'm not an expert on Hinduism but I believe that image may represent Kali Ma, "The Black Goddess".



E

not a question, just an addition:


Buddhist psychology
and philosophy

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/

Kadampa Buddhist philosophers regard the mind as the fundamental aspect of a sentient being which survives death. The mind isn't dependent on matter for its functioning.

Kadampa philosophy disagrees with materialism, which claims that psychology can ultimately be reduced to neurology - that the mind is nothing more than the coordinated firing of neurons.

The Kadampa view that the mind is formless means that it is unconstrained, and hence has immense potential. The mind can comprehend all objects including its own creations. The description of the root-mind as 'formless' doesn't just refer to its non-material nature, but it emphasises that it is unlimited, non-mechanistic and totally free from any structure. So it it is free from steps, loops, branches, strings, tables, stacks, queues, datastructures and all the other algorithmic paraphernalia. In Buddhist psychology the root mind is non-physical and non-algorithmic. The mind cannot be understood in terms of circuit diagrams and flowcharts. It is pure awareness.

The (anti-Buddhist) philosophical doctrine of computationalism (a modern form of materialism) states that the human mind is a physical system, and all physical systems can be modelled by a general purpose computer. Computationalism lays itself open to refutation, since if any aspect of psychology is discovered which cannot be interpreted in terms of the interactions of algorithms (procedures) with datastructures, then one must conclude that at least one component of the mind is not a machine, and indeed is not a physical system of any kind.

Meditation on formless mind
One of the quickest ways to convince yourself that the root mind is not physical, (and is not therefore limited by one birth and one death), is to meditate on the formless nature of the mind.

(1) Find somewhere quiet and peaceful where you won't be disturbed. If at home take the phone off the hook.

(2) If you can't manage a classical meditation posture just sit upright in a chair. Try to keep your back reasonably straight. Avoid the two extremes of slouching and getting excessively rigid.

(3) Observe your breathing. Don't try to control it, just observe the natural rhythm of inhaling and exhaling.

(4) Once you've settled into this observational state, but before you've got bored, introduce a small amount of breath control - just pause for a second between the in and the out.

(5) Next try a simple mental recitation. On the in breath mentally recite the syllable OM (you don't need to say it out loud). At the pause between the in and out mentally recite the syllable AH (there is no need to prolong this pause any longer than it takes to mentally recite this syllable). On the out breath mentally recite the syllable HUM.

(6) Keep on breathing and mentally reciting OM AH HUM. Don't force the breath. Breathe naturally apart from the slight pause long enough to mentally recite the AH between the in and out breaths. You can then extend this pause if it helps you to feel calmer, and you can do so without discomfort. You may like to imagine that you hold the AH sound at your heart during the pause. Concentrate on the syllables and don't let your mind wander.

(7) After a while the novelty will wear off and your mind will appear to become extremely busy, with all sorts of thoughts competing for your attention. Your mind will have much more immediate concerns than OM AH HUM. - 'It's a week since I last phoned my mother - that reminds me, can I afford to pay my phone bill? - I haven't checked my bank balance lately - I guess its bad because I haven't had a raise since my boss put me on a wage freeze ....It's because I'm 48 and not likely to find another job - Why do I have to work for that creep? - Surely I could branch out on my own - the whole company's become a pile of poo - Oh look there's a crack in the plaster - Is it superficial or something structural? Structural..structure... Oh shit I should have emailed that drawing this afternoon..... etc,etc...

(8) Welcome to your superficial mind! Why does meditation make the mind busier? You thought it was supposed to calm you down. Yes ultimately it does, but in the early stages all that happens is that your mind becomes aware of the incessant junk-thoughts circulating in your brain (the first inkling that mind and brain are different!). There's no more going on in your head than usual, it's just that you've become aware of it.

(9) So is this incessant parade of trivialities all that there is to your mind? Who's controlling it - obviously not you!

(10) Continue with the OM AH HUM for a little while longer, gently returning your mind to the silent recitation every time it wanders away.

(11) Now cease the recitation and examine the constant stream of linked thoughts that your brain is presenting to your mind. But try to distance yourself from these thoughts. Observe them but with a certain amount of disinterest. Pretend you're observing someone else's stream of consciousness rather than stuff which is obviously aimed at you. Don't get involved in this thought stream. Rather than experience how one thought leads to another, examine what the links are and how each thought arises.

(12) You'll become aware of the datastructures in your mind - the associations or 'hyperlinks' which link all mental objects together. Then you'll become aware of the algorithm - the automatic process which like a webcrawler follows all these associations and presents them to your awareness. You don't (at present) control this webcrawler. You will notice that the webcrawler has certain preferred types of links, those that lead to objects of anger, fear or desire. It doesn't pay too much attention to bland associations, and there's no family filter on what it dredges up.

(13) You have now begun to understand the algorithms and datastructures of the mind/brain. What you still need to experience is pure mind - the actual awareness which is viewing all the trivia which the webcrawler is displaying to it.

(14) Convince yourself that your mind is neither the individual scenarios thrown up as the stream of consciousness progresses, nor the mechanism which drives the stream of consciousness. Your mind is pure awareness - non-structured and non-procedural. Occasionally the stream of thoughts will subside into the root mind, and a moment or two of clarity will occur before a new thread of associations emerges. When this happens, attempt to catch a glimpse of the calm, space-like and empty nature of the root mind - like a blue sky rather than one constantly obstructed by a passing procession of clouds.

(15) Slowly come out of meditation. It may help to mentally recite the OM AH HUM for a brief period.

It is traditional and auspicious at the end of a meditation to silently dedicate any insight that you might have achieved to the happiness, liberation from confusion, and freedom from suffering of all sentient beings.


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

heh, a bit off topic, but the show stargate sg1 has a being that helps 'people' ascend to the level of an 'energy being' her name is ooma.. however its spelled there.

and why number 13, and 14? in the 'convince yourself' portion in particular. not that i'm saying it is/isn't a good idea, but if you are attempting to observe, would it be better for said person to determine their own view on what happened/happens, or to tell them 'this is so?'. and yes, i do understand the steps is just a form of 'guidelines'.

Exactly, this is a sort of a guideline. Your question however is a good one. Yes, meditation and how a practitioner does it is personal preference.
Step 14, as described in Gnuneo's post, is a step that meditators try to reach. The main problem with step 14, is that the minute your realize you are in it, or dwell on it, it's gone as quickly as it came. In other words, becoming conscious of this state of mind actually causes you to return to step 7, so to speak. The idea then would be to simply, "be" in this state without recognizing it. Of course, achieving step 14 is not enlightenment, as some people refer to it, but simply a, "blissful state"
Make sense?


E

This post has been edited by Sushi Bar: Nov 18 2006, 12:45 AM

mmm.. 'been there, done that..' quite literally. (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

what are the 'four seals of dharma'?

It's interesting, considering your track record in the Science science forum, that you talk about westerners of the pseudo science kind.

Also, you're being purposefully obtuse here. Specifically, you're changing your question/assumptions halfway through your dismissal of formal logic: First you say that w/r/t blue, red is only definable as not blue (rather simplistic, but whatever. colors are more logically described by a continuous gradient of some sort, not as discrete choices, but yeah, whatever). You then say that the whole system is silly because yellow becomes the same as red under that system. However, that's entirely the point, namely that you started by assuming a system that only has two states; if you wanted to be able to differentiate between red yellow and blue, use something else (might I suggest "C in {Red, Yellow, Blue}"? Or perhaps a 3-tuple to represent red/green/blue intensity, or hue/saturation/luminosity, or whatever).



Okay. Now I'm excited. What "modern sciences" might you be talking about, and how are they more closely related to eastern than western sciences?

my answer is in the bolded parts. Presumably you don't need to me to hold your hand whilst you work it out?



difference is, *i* don't claim to be a 'scientist' of whatever hue. Nor an intellectual.

If you want to judge me, then you have to do it on MY terms, and as i have stated many times, i define myself as a mystic. Feel free to have the cojones to meet me on my own ground, instead of me always coming out to yours.



i refer you to Tao of Physics - Fritjof Capra

here is a review of it:

1st part:

"non-cat" - a conceptual entity that can be anything other than a cat

"non-blue" - a conceptual entity that can refer to anything other than blue.

"red" - something contained by "non-blue". (1)

"yellow" - something contained by "non-blue". (2)

"gnuneo" - a person who thinks that because of 1 and 2, binary logic is .a. deficient, .b. unable to deal with multi-valued logic, and .c. because we can say "all colors are contained within blue and not-blue", that somehow ontologically limits us from differentiating between red and yellow. any and all criticism will be responded to with a hazy "using your own words against you" retort that carries the implication that any failure to grasp and/or accept his conclusions is the fault of the poster and indicates a lack of knowledge/wisdom/other-bullshit-quantity.

2nd part:
i'll make sure to read your book sometime in the next 2 years or so. right after i take quantum mechanics myself. however, right off the bat, i can tell you i'm going to disagree, namely because he's construing physics to say things that it really doesn't. how do i know this? because there are no blocks.

"Blue"
"Red"
"Yellow"
"not Blue"
X = Yellow
Y = Red

if You have element X and you determine it to be in the set "not Blue", can you determine the element Y to be in the set "not blue" if you compare it only to element X? (this takes into consideration the idea that you have a new element y that you do not know which set it is suppose to be in, and the only comparable item to determine where it belongs is an element that may have no distinguishing features to determine such)



The question may be the difference in what is a set, and what is an element, and how they can be viewed as.

question: Did Bhudda have a son? (name Rahula?) just doing random reading at the moment, and they mention Bhudda having a son named Rahula....

This post has been edited by Forben: Nov 29 2006, 02:42 AM

Yes, as the story goes, Buddha had a son named Rahula. Sorry for the late hit, I just saw this!


E

Only if X=Y. If X if orange, that does not tell you anything about Y, unless X and Y are the same.

Livin' in da Tao.

I disagree, as the story goes, Buddha never provided an answer when ask about the existence of a creator or supreme architect of the universe. He merely stated that we should not spend too much time contemplating that which might be beyond our comprehension.

Gnuneo, your thoughts?

E

The very premise of that Jan Nattlier quote is flawed. It assumes the Judeo-Christian notion of Creator versus Creation. In Dharmic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and the like, there simply is no distiction between Creator and the Created.



Anyway, I found a nice quote which very neatly sums up the Hindu view on Buddhistic thought.

"You are nothing. You may have your name and title, your property and bank account, you may have power and be famous; but in spite of all these safeguards, you are as nothing. You may be totally unaware of this emptiness, this nothingness, or you may simply not want to be aware of it; but it is there, do what you will to avoid it. You may try to escape from it in devious ways, through personal or collective violence, through individual or collective worship, through knowledge or amusement; but whether you are asleep or awake, it is always there. You can come upon your relationship to this nothingness and its fear only by being choicelessly aware of the escapes. You are not related to it as a separate, individual entity; you are not the observer watching it; without you, the thinker, the observer, it is not. You and nothingness are one; you and nothingness are a joint phenomenon, not two separate processes. If you, the thinker, are afraid of it and approach it as something contrary and opposed to you, then any action you may take towards it must inevitably lead to illusion and so to further conflict and misery. When there is the discovery, the experiencing of that nothingness as you, then fear (which exists only when the thinker is separate from his thoughts and so tries to establish a relationship with them) completely drops away."

-J.Krishnamurti

What's the best way to pick up and impress Buddhist chicks.

Not sure how one would pick up a Buddhist chick. American Buddhist chicks are all a little, "Haji Babba" anyway. Since you are from Texas, I wouldn't recommend bringing up the topic of capital punishment as it might be a turn-off for Buddhist chicks. Most Buddhist chicks are probably aware of how you Texans like to party, drink beer and cheer at executions. I would also refrain from discussing Nascar, Skoal, country music, politics, weapons etc, etc. Hope this helps!


E

Dear JS,
I am relatively new to Buddhism. Everyone keeps telling me that I should talk to, “so and so” for beginner’s advice because “so and so” is enlightened. Others tell me to talk to; “so and so” because they have achieved a certain level of Bodhisattvahood but would likely direct my questions to one of their students at a lower level. Another person informed me that I should talk to, “so and so” but “so and so” is deep in self-realization meditation and that they may not answer my questions at this time. What does all this mean? Who can I talk to and how can I get them to answer my questions regarding Buddhism?

JS – First of all, I would be happy to answer your questions and if you are not satisfied with my responses, I can point you in another direction. With regard to the others that you may wish to approach, you may want to try the following tactics to get your questions answered:
1) If anyone claims enlightenment you should most definitely approach him or her, bow deeply and then punch him or her in the face. If the person then smiles, folds his or her hands and bows to you, proceed with your questions.
2) Levels of Bodhisattvahood are like martial arts belts. Declaring a certain level of Bodhisattvahood is inviting a belt challenge. You should definitely punch them in the face immediately and if they then award you with a higher level of Bodhisattvahood than they have, you should thank them proceed with the questioning.
3) As for the person engaged in self-realization meditation, if they have been meditating for such a long time that they can’t answer your questions it’s time for them to wake up. I would recommend, yes, you guessed it, punching them in the face. Again, if they smile and hand over their meditation cushion to you, it’s probably o.k. to proceed with your questions.

Good luck,

JS

This post has been edited by Sushi Bar: Feb 19 2008, 01:18 AM

Question for JS "Help"

Questioner (CS) - Recently my younger brother has become obsessed with, "The Buddha Boy" in India. About a week ago he locked himself in his room and refuses to come out. We are forced to place food and water in front of the door 2 times a day. We are getting concerned. What should we do?



Answer (JS) - CS, this is an easy one. If your brother refuses to come out in the next few days you should definitely find away in. Next, stand in front of him, fold your hands in front of your heart and bow deeply. Then, using your index and ring finger poke him in the eyes. Quickly open your palms while he's covering his eyes and strike both of his ears with your palms. Lastly, kick him in the nuts and tell him he's enlightened. These actions will likely wake your brother from his delusional state.

Good Luck,

JS