Big bang Buddhism

Theravāda in the 21st century - modern applications of ancient wisdom

Big bang Buddhism

Postby greggorious » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:22 am

Just watched a youtube video of Ajahn Brahm doing a talk called 'Big bang Buddhism'. I'm sure some of you have probably seen it, but it's left me in tears. What a beautiful, compassionate, wise man he is.

Big Bang Buddhism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xPeLspRBHc
Last edited by bodom on Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Link added
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah
greggorious
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby RMSmith » Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:53 pm

Do you have a link? Thanks.
User avatar
RMSmith
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:30 pm
Location: Northern Nevada

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby David2 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:10 pm

Youtube search function, 1st result:

David2
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby Viscid » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:56 pm

Isn't Brahm breaking some sort of rule by blabbing that he had meditative insight into the cyclicality of the universe?

Also, Brahm has talked about 'The Boy with no Brain' a couple times.. but I'm pretty sure it's more of a myth than reality..
A blogger has already done the legwork in arguing this:

some blogger wrote:The original story of this clinical curiosity was published in the well-respected journal, Science, back in 1980. Though provocatively titled "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?" the article doesn't suggest that the boy in question, who functioned normally, actually had no brain.

Rather, neuroanatomist John Lorber reported that the university student had hydrocephalus, resulting in "a cranium filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid." This finding was based on the rather crude CT brain scans available in the 1970's. Nobody opened up the boy's head and peered inside.

The article contains cautionary interpretations from other experts. The boy could have more brain tissue than was evident in the scan. Other areas of his brain could have taken over functions usually performed by a normal cerebral cortex.

What's indisputable is that the boy definitely did have a brain, albeit a damaged one. Yet on Yahoo Answers, someone asked how a young man could live without a brain. This was a response from a Ph.D. in Biochemistry/Neuroscience.
One should certainly be careful about accounts such as these, as I think it is pretty well documented, and proven, that a human cannot survive without a brain. The individual referred to in this question, and examined by Lorber, more than likely has sufficient gray matter and a brain stem, to support normal function. Probably even has cortical matter to support cognition and intellect.

The criticism of the study is that Lorber mis-interpreted the CAT scan, as CAT scans can be tricky to read. Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can be tricky. He also has said that he would not make such a claim without evidence. In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms."



http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_t ... icant.html
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
User avatar
Viscid
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby greggorious » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:15 pm

One of the things I like about him is that he goes against the grain. Buddhism is so boring when we are all just clones of each other, agreeing on everything and not having our own opinions.
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah
greggorious
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:53 pm

Hello Viscid,

I am curious regarding that story, I've read it before.

I am not very convinced by the rebuttal you've posted. Yes, the measurement was imprecise, but even considering the margin of error, it still doesn't account for how could a person even function with that amount of brain. According to standard scientific theory, the person would be a vegetable, even considering that measurement was too low.


    Skeptics have claimed that it was an error of interpretation of the scans themselves. Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can be tricky. He also has said that he would not make such a claim without evidence. In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms." http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/i ... essary.htm

In any case, even with 150g rather than 50g of brain mass, the person would basically be a vegetable... And this case is not the only one.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2799
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby Viscid » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:35 pm

Alex123 wrote:In any case, even with 150g rather than 50g of brain mass, the person would basically be a vegetable... And this case is not the only one.


Regardless, this case, and other similar cases, are not of patients with 'no brains' as he describes it to his audience. Brahm has repeatedly used this single case from an article in 1980, which is not very credible, as evidence for his idea that the mind is not dependent on the brain to exist. There are far, far more cases of people with brain malformation being quite severely disabled. If the mind was not dependent on the brain, there would be many cases where we could blatantly see that. I think it's rather ironic that later in the talk Brahm decries people who bend the truth to fit their beliefs, when he's clearly not being nearly as scrupulous as he would be if this were a case of something which contradicted his beliefs.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
User avatar
Viscid
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:41 pm

Viscid wrote:Regardless, this case, and other similar cases, are not of patients with 'no brains' as he describes it to his audience.


While "no brain" as an expression might be exaggerated, it still shows us something interesting. That a person can be normal (or better) and still have very little brain mass, the amount that could make one (according to standard idea) a vegetable.

The only materialistic way out could be that we can use about 10% of the brain for normal functioning.


Viscid wrote: If the mind was not dependent on the brain, there would be many cases where we could blatantly see that.


I wonder if people can have NDE while the brain is totally shut off.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2799
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:58 pm

Viscid wrote:Isn't Brahm breaking some sort of rule by blabbing that he had meditative insight into the cyclicality of the universe?


Yes, he is either committing a Pācittayā 8 if a truth or a Pārājika 4 if a lie (humour is not a mitigating factor), he is known for doing this if that is really what he is doing, I have not seen the video, nor intend to, though so would not say he is or isn't.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:51 pm

Mind is mind, brain is brain.

If we use human perspective to see the whole universe, we will think if you have mind, you must have brain. This is absurd.

In all formless realm, you cannot find any single brain. So, are you saying they have no mind? Are you saying their mind is defect or crazy?

How about Buddha? When he was a human, yes he has brain, but his brain has nothing to do with his mind. Nothing.

When he taught abidharma in Tushita, did he carry his brain with him?

If we use human perspective to see the world, our view is limited.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby Mojo » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:06 am

Ajahn Brahm is a great storyteller.
User avatar
Mojo
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:23 am

Re: Big bang Buddhism

Postby forestmat » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:49 am

Cittasanto wrote: I have not seen the video, nor intend to, though so would not say he is or isn't.


Curious, what stops you from watching the video?

Metta

forestmat
User avatar
forestmat
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:50 am
Location: Northeastern Thailand


Return to Theravāda for the modern world

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests