« Touching is sacred, in an ungodly sense | Main | Mathematics is both invented and discovered »

July 24, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Life is simply what it is. Ta-dah.

Where is the neuroscience part? I was looking forward to a connection after seeing the title. Maybe my fault for forming and expectation in the first place...

To self ... or not to self

Our lives are a constantly changing
flux. Even consciousness is temporal.

There is nothing we can say is our

There is only experience experiencing
experience. Each persons
experince is unique.

But, never personal.

The grand delusion is that there
is a self in any form.

A secure entity.

We cannot say the self is that which
experiences the flux.

Because that leaves the delusion
there is a entity in our brains.

We can say we uniquely experience.

But, that unique experience cannot
be personalized by an entity.

Jiddo Krishnamuti used to say the
subconscious thought is the same as the
conscious thought.

Science tells us 80% of our actions
are controlled by subconscious thought.

The entity, or delusional self, is
continually trying to wax itself
and sublimate. To be better than
all others religiously, or financially.

But, when the person realizes there is
no self that can be waxed in any fashion,
all spurious action immediately drops.

The self entity drops and will not
take actions to build a spurious self

This wipes out most the subconscious
desires which erroneously motivate

We cannot get rid of self desire by force.

We can only debunk the self entity, so
there is no longer a selfish desire.

There is no self watching even temporal experience.

jptxs, I guess I figured this single overarching paragraph (below) was enough to make my point, sort of like saying "Scientists know that humans have evolved through a process of natural selection" would give the big picture of how our species came to be as we are.
"Modern neuroscience has learned that our conscious perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and so on are but the tip of the brain's much vaster unconscious "iceberg." We never experience reality as it is, but as our brains have processed countless bits of incoming information.
I've written quite a few blog posts about modern neuroscience. A Google search of this blog will turn them up. Here's a link:


"The Ego Tunnel" book is a good example of how neuroscience matches up with the Zen view of nonduality expressed in "The Wholehearted Way." See:


And here's a recent post I wrote about David Eagleman's terrific new book, "Incognito."


The Gateless Gate, by Ekai, called Mu-mon, tr. Nyogen Senzaki and Paul Reps [1934], at sacred-texts.com

Not the Wind, Not the Flag
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: "The flag is moving."

The other said: "The wind is moving."

The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He told them: "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving."

Mumon's comment: The sixth patriarch said: "The wind is not moving, the flag is not moving. Mind is moving." What did he mean? If you understand this intimately, you will see the two monks there trying to buy iron and gaining gold. The sixth patriarch could not bear to see those two dull heads, so he made such a bargain.

Wind, flag, mind moves,
The same understanding.
When the mouth opens
All are wrong.

It does sound precariously close to idealism.

If mind (subject) and dharma (object) are never divided, i.e. not two, then how can there be a reality independent of our minds?

In fact, he goes onto say:
"Mind and dharma are one reality. In other words, one mind is all dharma and all dharma is one mind."

Yet the dump truck mows us down even if we don't see it, i.e. regardless of mind. The quote suggests an equal bidirectional relationship between dharma and mind. However, realism suggests an unequal unidirectional relationship. That is, dhama (objective reality) is unaffected by (or independent of) mind, whereas mind is affected by objective reality.

George, my impression is that the basic message here is simply that a world exists for us only in our consciousness. The world appears when we are born and it disappears when we die.

Yes, there is an objective world that existed before us and will exist after us But experience of this world still is known only by conscious beings.

I might take another stab at this subject tomorrow, talking about a New Scientist article about the mathematical laws of nature. It comes to just about the same conclusion as Zen. Reality is both subjective and objective.

Yes Brian, I think that is more correct, but the lines often become blurred.

Dogribbs striking post seems to hint at something very profound (tho i'm not sure if the power of koans is simply their ability to play with language's limitations as oppose to revealing a deeper truth). But it got me thinking how similar this aspect of zen is to the idealism of berkeley who posed the now familiar question: if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?

Look forward to the article, but difficult to think how mathematics relates to subjectivity, since it seems to be fundamental code or language of the universe. But science does overlap here, i.e. the QM implications of the observer effect and entanglement. Wheeler described it as the universe trying to observe itself.

Nice post Dogribb!

Did you mean trying to buy gold and gaining iron or did I miss the point when you say 'trying to buy iron and gaining gold'?

"Wind, flag, mind moves,
The same understanding.
When the mouth opens
All are wrong."

lol lol


Can a Mirror See Itself ?

Or, can it only FEEL its nature ?

Yes Brian i was mentioning this book a few times on the blog.

no..the self is not an illusion
and there is in fact an entity observing things.. and that entity is you as consciousness . you are the consciousness that observe. (entity) that never dies. and I have lots of proofs of my claim . which no neuroscience can debunk

jptx.. even to believe that you have no entity inside is already YOU as an entity believing in something .. I used to believe the same as you are believing now.. until I discovered that to negate self is already myself trying to negate self.. is just a belief from the self... self and ego are part of our consciousness and me 'molded' by us through life.. yes the self changes every year or month.. but the true "I' (maybe genetics influence ) never changes. and even more.. our consciousness perspective of one another is diff. we ate not even connected to the most basic level of reality.. but yes we are all part of the great field of consciousness.

"Can a Mirror See Itself ?
Or, can it only FEEL its nature ?"

a mirror is an inanimate object, it doesn't feel anything. and doesnt have any "nature", whatever that means

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.