Greetings everyone! I have read that enlightenment is a rearranging of the brain. That it activates parts of the brain and rids the brain of "junk" (such as ego). With my very limited understanding of neuroscience it seems possible. From what I've been told our brain often rearranges, not so dramatic as enlightenment, but on a smaller level, according to our experiences. If one were to devote themselves to a long period of intense meditation, is it possible it would result in a physical rearranging of the brain, and this rearrangement would account for enlightenment? If this is the case, wouldn't enlightenment be as much an illusion as everyday awareness, or an awareness shaped by brain damage? When I was younger I was told stories of a man who thoroughly believed he was a glass of juice, and he was very careful whenever he moved, lest he spill himself all over the ground. I was told this was caused by an experience with drugs, they permanently rearranged his brain, and this was the result. Are we all, even those who believe they are enlightened, as illusioned as he is?
If you read texts that deal with the nature of enlightenmen there is a distinction between the body and mind (the corporeal self) and the self (the self as context) - in otherwords from the view of conditional life the brain may seem to be the self, but for the purposes of transcendence it is necessary to go beyond that definition. If you compare that with what the current understandings are of neuroscience you can see that there is no neurological evidence that he brain is the source of the self as context (there is however evidence that the brain is the source of the self as conceived)
I think your guess is plausable, JerryCT, but I think it's a rearrangement of patterns of thought, not the physical structure of the brain itself, but the difference could be negligible.
Most things people think are problems aren't really. Alot of them will vanish from a new point of view.
Thank you all for your replies! I found two articles this morning. I thought they'd be worth sharing in this thread. I do not consider the first one ( https://www.onenessmovement.org/enlightenment_brain.cfm ) to be a lengthy read, but the second one ( http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/enlightenment.htm ) will take longer, possibly too long to sit at the computer and read the entire article. If you focus on the area just before and after the diagram titled "THE BUDDHA'S ENLIGHTENMENT AS A NEURAL MAP" you'll have a decent understanding of what the entire article is expressing. lightgigantic, you said: "In otherwords from the view of conditional life the brain may seem to be the self, but for the purposes of transcendence it is necessary to go beyond that definition." What would be a more fitting definition?
Haven't read the articles you are referrign to you (just yet) , but at least as far as the latest findings of neurology goes, there is no evidence that the self (the self as context, in other words the sense of "I think therefore I am") is contingent on brain. In literature that deals with the nature of enlightenment the gross and subtle body is described as instrumental (not causative) of the self - in other words it is just like a person who drives a car - in one sense it appears to be the engine that drives the car (since if the engine has a problem the car doesn't go anywhere) but it is actually the driver that does the driving - if there is no person to put the key in the ignition etc the car can sit in the garage for a million years and do nothing, even if it is in perfect running condition.
the mind is not the brain...the brain is part of the body...intimately connected to the mind...the brain changes as people grow up... enlightenment is the freedom from all suffering....the freedom from all insecurities or impressions...if you have absolutely no insecurities how can there be any suffering to any degree? what sorrow, anger, fear, boredom, etc...can there be?
JerryCT Looked at the links - I find many probelms with them - basically the main problem with these two links is that they stand as concoctions in regard to standard scriptural explanation s of the terms and processes they allude to - for instance you would be hard pressed to establish that Sri Bhagavan is an avatar (couldn't find any scriptural refernces in the whole site, which is generally the first step in determining the nature of an avatar) The buddha enlightenment article is based on very shaky premises for dilineating the process of enlightenemnt as a phenomena - what to speak of the allusions to chemically engineering the state of fearlessness as a means to equate with such an experience
I've made a very big mistake! What I have been referring to when I speak of "enlightenment" is what lightgigantic called in another thread "connection to the transcendental absolute", that is, the infinite, that from which all things originate and that to which all things return, fundamental reality. I'm sorry for the confusion, this is what I'm referring to, not the cessation of suffering. I have a little more to add, but at the moment I'm rushed. Thank you for the replies!
According to science we have JUST the gross physical body - the first of five sheath (annamaya kosha). Now, if you try to understand the process of enlightenment, the destruction of the individual ego with only the most visible 20% of the pranic body, your explanation will be incomplete. That remaining 80% is out of the realm of ordinary human knowledge of scientific facts or events. Basically, what I'm saying is that to understand the phenomenon in terms of science, you must go to the source texts (tantras), really understand them (which might involve personal experience!), then try to put together objective scientific principles. Not squeeze them into preconceived ideas about how the brain works. Imagine trying to explain quantum computers with newtonian physics. It can't be done. Remember that neuroscience is in its infancy.
have your enlightenment today , absolutely free as "SELF REALIZATION IS THE FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH REALITY." you can visit these mediation technique at www.sahajayoga.org
What are the permanent benefits of sahajayayoga? On what grounds do they say that kali yuga has come to an end (since such a statement neither tallies with the astronomical calculations of kali yuga, since who is Kakayyar Bhujander compared to Vyasadeva, nor with the dilineation s of the qualities of kali yuga)? Who is Shri Gnyaneshwara in regards to vedic scriptures? What is the goal of the vedas and the means to achieve that goal? What is the exact special quality of this yoga that enables one to achieve moksha in one lifetime? How does it tally with the last verse in the 6th chapter of Bhagavad gita? .... etc etc
Thank you all for your replies! Would I be correct, then, in saying that neuroscience is "behind" the knowledge of the tantras, as opposed to the tantras being behind neuroscience? In the second article I posted the second and third paragraph say this: " The Buddhist and the Hindu concepts, like other ideas from the middle ages, may not be a very good approximation of reality. The astronomy, anatomy & physiology, biology, meterology, and geology (just to name a few) of the ancient cultures were, without exception, all discarded as science progressed. No matter how poorly they may describe reality, older ideas linger until a replacement appears. The cognitive science of Asia has been an effective tool for changing human consciousness, but it's replacement has only appeared recently." I have seen this attitude before concerning Western science and Eastern teachings, (I don't know what to call it, exactly.) and this is why I ask which one is "behind. This type of attitude puts one behind the other. Is it a correct attitude? Which one is behind? My interest is fundamental reality, the transcendental absolute and my connection to it (Am I it?) and I don't know where to look. Finding so much conflict between Western science and Eastern teachings makes it all the more difficult.
if thats true then you should study Vedantic philosophy...its all about that. in reality, all that exists is the absolute, causeless, eternal, the objective unchanging reality, bliss itself, the origin of existence, the ultimate truth. Because the material world is transient, changing, and temporary, it is false, the only thing that is "real" is brahm, reality itself. Everything, from a thought, to a rock, to your mind, to an image, to you and I are the absolute in all respects. However due to maya (illusory energy) things appear differently. We are not merely an aspect of the absolute, but the absolute itself (aka God) pretending that we are not. When you fully realize this then there is no more suffering, just as a dreaming person upon realizing a dream is just a dream no longer suffers, instead you enjoy every moment, what fear, sorrow, anger, etc...can there be?
lightgigantic, If we're in the kali yuga, why are people getting taller? How have yoga and buddhism (fairly dogma-free, 'religionless' religions) seen such life (or hehe.. hot air) breathed into them this past century? The math is debatable. JerryCT, I don't like to say that neuroscience is behind. They're incomparable. Tantra encompasses the whole body and mind and subtle energy that connects it to everything else.. One might say, unprovable hocus pocus. Neuroscience has this incredible, ever growing understanding of the nervous system. One is abstract and applied, the other is pure and scientific. Scientists do not describe science in terms of symbolic deities. But either way, these are damn exciting times, to have access to both sets of ideas. Of course I am no yogi, have not achieved any enlightenment and am just beginning to organize the vast field of ideas from Tantra, Yoga, Buddhism et al. The journey started with real world experience (see 'the electric sneeze'). If you're one of those people who is amazed at the weirdness of simply being alive, breathing, eating, farting and fucking by all means start at but do not restrict yourself to Indian philosophy. Here are two nice starting points: http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Yogas..._bbs_sr_1/102-2433236-7858556?ie=UTF8&s=books http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-..._bbs_sr_1/102-2433236-7858556?ie=UTF8&s=books
Xerxes we are less than 1.5% into kali yuga - there are scriptural statements that say it is due to get heavy after about 10 000 years from now - there are also scriptural statements that indicate we are in fact shorter and possessed of less virility (there are descriptions of the stature and qualities of persons from different yugas) - of course you could argue against this on the strength of the archeological record, which is a whole seperate issue .... Not sure what your point is here but yoga and buddhism are heavily defined by scripture (I assume you equate the word scripture with dogma) . It is only due to the new age nonsense of the past 30 years, financed by stressed out yuppies, that has given the view (prominent in western culture) that you are advocating. For instance the word yoga in vedic scriptures shares the same meaning as religion (menaing to connect or bond), therefore different yogas are advocated (jnanayoga, karmayoga, astangayoga, bhaktiyoga) - and even if your only purpose is to determine the nature of astangayoga it owes its creedence to Patanjali who has given the yoga sutras - here is an example of one of his quotes from the sutras Does that sound like dogma to you?
