khandhas and such

[manas]

and didn't you say:

"we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness" - Jake Davis

Hi nibbuti

Regarding the above statement, maybe consider this: the writing you see right now, and the keyboard your fingertips type on and touch, appear to be 'out there' - and, yes, I do admit that they most likely are 'in reality' - but, according to neuroscience, the entire experience - the script you are reading, the touch of the keyboard on your fingers - is actually taking place deep inside your brain, in total physical darkness, reassembled from nerve impulses that were tranmitted there. Actual objects are out there, yes. But, the only way we can know them is via that reconstruction in the brain. (Please note, by saying this I am not agreeing with most scientists' mechanistic notion of consciousness as actually 'arising' from certain combinations of matter; I rather see the brain as a kind of 'physical mind-body interface' - constructed from matter, but able to interface with mind, which is immaterial - but that's another story.)

That's my take on this, anyway, it might not be what Jake Davis was getting at...but I hope it was of assistance

[nibbuti]

the entire experience - the script you are reading, the touch of the keyboard on your fingers - is actually taking place deep inside your brain, in total physical darkness, reassembled from nerve impulses that were tranmitted there.

Actual objects are out there, yes. But, the only way we can know them is via that reconstruction in the brain.

Thanks for the assistance, manas.

Now the Buddha taught there is body/form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, which are conditioned phenomena; there is the seen, the heard, the sensed, etc. In short, there is the 'all' (S 35.23).

Are you suggesting that the sense objects are produced by brain/mind, i.e. 'internal'?

[manas]

the entire experience - the script you are reading, the touch of the keyboard on your fingers - is actually taking place deep inside your brain, in total physical darkness, reassembled from nerve impulses that were tranmitted there.

Actual objects are out there, yes. But, the only way we can know them is via that reconstruction in the brain.

Thanks for the assistance, manas.

Now the Buddha taught there is body/form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, which are conditioned phenomena; there is the seen, the heard, the sensed, etc. In short, there is the 'all' (S 35.23).

Are you suggesting that the sense objects are produced by brain/mind, i.e. 'internal'?

No, I am suggesting that the experience of these sense objects is internal.

metta

[tiltbillings]

]

No, I am suggesting that the experience of these sense objects is internal.

And that is the point of Davis' statement.

[nibbuti]

No, I am suggesting that the experience of these sense objects is internal.

Thanks for your reply. Now conscious experience too is conditioned, and whatever is conditioned will pass away.

Is impermanence & the natural forces that promote decay 'internal', taking place inside the brain/mind?

[manas]

No, I am suggesting that the experience of these sense objects is internal.

Thanks for your reply. Now conscious experience too is conditioned, and whatever is conditioned will pass away.

Is impermanence & the natural forces that promote decay 'internal', taking place inside the brain/mind?

Tilt will be able to either correct or expand on this, but as I understand it, it's the same again; however the law is, external, internal, or both, our experience of it is internal.

[detrop]

Regarding the above statement, maybe consider this: the writing you see right now, and the keyboard your fingertips type on and touch, appear to be 'out there' - and, yes, I do admit that they most likely are 'in reality' - but, according to neuroscience, the entire experience - the script you are reading, the touch of the keyboard on your fingers - is actually taking place deep inside your brain, in total physical darkness, reassembled from nerve impulses that were tranmitted there. Actual objects are out there, yes. But, the only way we can know them is via that reconstruction in the brain. (Please note, by saying this I am not agreeing with most scientists' mechanistic notion of consciousness as actually 'arising' from certain combinations of matter; I rather see the brain as a kind of 'physical mind-body interface' - constructed from matter, but able to interface with mind, which is immaterial - but that's another story.)

Hello,

to say that experience takes place "within the brain" doesn't sound right to me. Firstly, the experience of "other" people cannot be found at all, neither in their brains or elsewhere. Secondly, "my own" experience doesn't appear as "something" that is contained "within" another "thing", be it a brain or anything else. So if I want to use the term "experience", I am left with only one of it - no plural of "experience" can be found (it can only be assumed). The distinction between "internal" and "external" can only be made with regard to things but not with regard to the very experience that "offers" these things in the first place. Strictly speaking, no "experience" (as a thing) can be found, but only things. And if we name these things, we end up with the All (i.e. eye and forms, ear and sounds etc.).

That's the way I would describe it in the moment.

Greetings

[ancientbuddhism]

“Thus he abides observing the body (…sensations … mind … mind-states) internally … externally (ajjhattaṃ vā … bahiddhā vā).”

MN. 10 (Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta)

[nibbuti]

Is impermanence & the natural forces that promote decay 'internal', taking place inside the brain/mind?

Tilt will be able to either correct or expand on this, but as I understand it, it's the same again; however the law is, external, internal, or both, our experience of it is internal.

Hi manas.

So far, neither you, Tilt, nor Jake Davis has corrected or expanded on this, and how could you?

Tilt has said before:

"It is all a matter of the all [i.e. the senses, eye & forms etc], of what a dhamma is"
"The point of practice is .. [sense] experience".

You, manas, have stated:

"the entire [sense] experience .. is actually taking place deep inside your brain"
"however the law is .. our experience of it is internal"

Jake Davis said:
... namarupa namarupa ...

The senses are 'internal', but the entire experience is not 'internal', particularly sense and mind-objects (the "know") are 'external':

"'The six internal media (ajjhattikāni āyatanāni) should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. 'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the first sextet.

"'The six external media (bāhirāni āyatanāni) should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the mind-objects-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet." - MN 148

Such as Nibbana:

There is, bhikkhus, that base (tadāyatanaṃ) where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering. - Ud 8.1

Also, the 'all' that Jake Davis and Tilt eagerly put forward describes the range of sense experience (as the Buddha pointed out at the end of Sabba Sutta), but not the quality or nature of experience:

Without mentioning impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) and non-self (anatta), it does not contain anything that can lead to liberation.

Therefore, it is at best incomplete Dhamma, because Buddha taught the point of all Dhamma practise is liberation:

"Upali, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities do not lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, nor to Unbinding': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" - AN 7.79

[tiltbillings]

. . .

Again, you seem to be arguing with yourself -- or with what you imagine is being said -- here. You can declare yourself the winner of this debate, but I have no interest in wasting time with trying to discuss anything with you here.

[nibbuti]

to say that experience takes place "within the brain" doesn't sound right to me. Firstly, the experience of "other" people cannot be found at all, neither in their brains or elsewhere. Secondly, "my own" experience doesn't appear as "something" that is contained "within" another "thing", be it a brain or anything else.

Didn't sound quite right to me either. Good point.

“Thus he abides observing the body (…sensations … mind … mind-states) internally … externally (ajjhattaṃ vā … bahiddhā vā).”

Also from the Satipatthana Sutta:

"Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media (ajjhattikabāhiresu āyatanesu). And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)

[nibbuti]

Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’{SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object. We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. ...

Conscious experience as a practise, the 'all' and even Nibbana can be and are often misunderstood.

They were likely pre-existing notions in the Brahmin world:

He perceives the cognized as the cognized ... He perceives All as the All ... He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you. - MN 1

Interestingly though, the Buddna never teaches the Three Characteristics and The Four Noble Truths can be misunderstood as 'I' or 'mine'.

The 'all' was probably a Brahmin term the Buddha redefined.