Gautam Buddha's Tea Cup

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

In the famous movie called "2012", there is a particularly striking and utterly revealing scene, that goes FAR beyond what even Quantum Theory or Quantum Physics, indeed, for that matter, can even begin to speculate upon, in my personal and judgemental view, let alone prove, that "The Teacher is showing to his Student, and is over filling a cup of tea to the point, where it begins to fall out of the cup and all over the floor, and the Student stares and says in amazemement and shock to the Teacher, about what is it that he is doing wrong, and the Teacher kindly and politely tells him, that Your Mind and Your Brain are just like this over flowing cup of tea, over flowing with masses and masses of cluttered and unsorted information, and if the Student really wants to change, he will have to first empty his tea cup (his Mind and his Brain), and then and only then, can he or will he be ready to absorbs lots of new and useful information, that he never new existed in his head, and that that is the only way out and forward for him."

 

New Scientist magazine stated in a special issue on Quantum Physics published in March 2013, that "We have run out of explanations for the Universe. It may be time to at last consider a radical rethink about everything as we know it now."

 

Sorry about bringing up Quantum Physics into a forum on General Philosophy. Because as I will state later, they are both saying the same thing. The same Universal Laws. It has been proven. Don't believe MY words. Read on and find out for yourself.

 

Sorry about the excessive punctuation in my post. It is imporant in my view, for the sake of clarity and sharpness and Focus and Attention. That matter of the mind and its Focus and Attention, is a seperate field I have found integrated into this particular field, in several cutting edge books by leading psychiatrists in the world. That favorite author of mine, who has done excelling and stunning work in integrating the two totally disparate views of 3000 years apart, of Classical Buddhism and Quantum Theory, into one covergent and universal and integrated view, is none other than (google it) Dr. Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D., in what no less an esteemed magazine as Science, writes on the back cover of his landmark book, "The Mind and The Brain", "Neuroplasticity and The Power of Mental Force", that "This book explores some of the hardest questions of mankind."

 

I would like to take up the opportunity to inform or warn anyone who is reading this, almost as a Medical Disclaimer, that in my own personal and emphatic words, that if he or she dares open up that book, dares open up the Pandora Box, that their lives will be changed forever, as was mine a few years ago.

 

Good Journeys.

Arjun Shriram.

[cladking]

There is a great deal of truth in what you say.

 

People today whether they are educated or not are "overflowing" and can't see that their cup is tiny.

 

I don't think that what peopple believe is so much "wrong" as it is incomplete and highly misleading. Specialization and the superstition that we are highly knowledgeable has obscured the facts and the real world from us. We are missing the forest for the trees. The forest is far more important than any tree or species it contains yet is part of the overflow.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Dr. Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D., writes in his latest book called "You Are Not Your Brain" exactly what you are trying to say. I cannot publish what he has said here due to copyright restrctions, but suffice it to say that he says that, "The Sense Of Self is diffused and seoerated from Reality because the Brain is sending into the Mind "Deceptive Brain Messages" which have been learned through habit formation from child hood and which lead us all to often erroneously believe things to be right which are actually just plain wrong."

[cladking]

Dr. Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D., writes in his latest book called "You Are Not Your Brain" exactly what you are trying to say. I cannot publish what he has said here due to copyright restrctions, but suffice it to say that he says that, "The Sense Of Self is diffused and seoerated from Reality because the Brain is sending into the Mind "Deceptive Brain Messages" which have been learned through habit formation from child hood and which lead us all to often erroneously believe things to be right which are actually just plain wrong."

 

I believe we all need a reality check. I'm disinclined to believe Dr Schwartz's means is the only way to go. We need to recognize that we have built a world based on beliefs and that there can be no sound foundation. The adoption of more beliefs whether that's a belief in god(s) or a belief in the non-existence of god(s) is probably not a sound foundation.

 

There may be no answer that is right for each individual but, in my opinion, the ancient perspective that we are nature can provide some sense of permanence for many of us. But no matter how we view it there is ample evidence that people are getting "Deceptive Brain Messages" or have a perspective that is determined primarily by their place and time which can be wholly independent of reality and seems to be drifting further and further from an "outside" perspective.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

When he speaks of "reali-ty" the layman usually means something obvious and well-known, whereas it seems to me that precisely the most important and ex-tremely difficult task of our time is to work on elabo-rating a new idea of reality. This is also what I mean when I always emphasize that science and religion must be related in some way.

-Wolfgang Pauli,

letter to M. Fierz,

August 12, 1948

 

It is interesting from a psy-chological-epistemological point of view that, al-though consciousness is the only phenomenon for which we have direct evi-dence, many people deny its reality. The question: "If all that exists are some complicated chemical pro-cesses in your brain, why do you care what those processes are?" is coun- tered with evasion (EVASION). One is led to believe that... the word "reality" does not have the same meaning for all of us.

-Nobel physicist

Eugene Wigner,

1967

 

Those other two "Meta Physical" issues, that of the existence of God, and that of the Buddha's timeless Law Of Permanence, and also of Immortality, and also of Duality, are all found in the same book. If anyone reading this is on Twitter, it will be much easier for me to share material from the book, from within the Social Networks Link, in iBooks or in Kindle.

[Prometheus]

What is the 'Buddha's timeless Law Of Permanence'?

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Dear Guys And Gals,

 

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to quote and for me reply to every single answer and every single question and to have to type it all manually out one word by one number and therefore I would suggest that if anyone reading this is either on Facebook or on Twitter it would be far easier for me to simply press the Share Button in iBooks or Kindle and take out any abstract from any book by any author from within the applications themselves.

 

Hope You Will Understand.

[Prometheus]

I'm afraid i don't understand why you would come onto a discussion forum then decline to enter a discussion.

 

I have also never heard of 'Buddha's timeless Law Of Permanence'. This sounds like more 'Tao of physics' type rubbish which is neither science nor Buddhism, but since i do not have facebook or twitter accounts i shan't be finding out.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

I'm afraid i don't understand why you would come onto a discussion forum then decline to enter a discussion.

 

I have also never heard of 'Buddha's timeless Law Of Permanence'. This sounds like more 'Tao of physics' type rubbish which is neither science nor Buddhism, but since i do not have facebook or twitter accounts i shan't be finding out.

I was only trying to make things easier for my aching hands. But since you seem to have protested on my aforesaid proposal I shall abandon my use of Facebook and Twitter and continue the discussions here itself no matter how difficult or hard it may ever be. Sorry for trying to take the easy way out. That is just My nature and I will change it.

 

So here is the Buddha's Law of Impermanance, which I accidentally remembered was actually really Impermanence-

 

Impermanence (Pāli: अनिच्चा anicca; Sanskrit: अनित्य anitya; Tibetan: མི་རྟག་པ་ mi rtag pa; Chinese: 無常 wúcháng; Japanese: 無常 mujō; Korean: 무상 musang; Thai: อนิจจัง anitchang, from Pali "aniccaŋ") is one of the essential doctrines or three marks of existence in Buddhism. The term expresses the Buddhist notion that all of conditioned existence, without exception, is in a constant state of flux. The Pali word anicca literally means "inconstant", and arises from a synthesis of two separate words, 'Nicca' and the "privative particle" 'a'.[1] Where the word 'Nicca' refers to the concept of continuity and permanence, 'Anicca' refers to its exact opposite; the absence of permanence and continuity.

Anicca or impermanence is understood by Buddhists as one of the three marks of existence, the others being dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) and anatta (non-selfhood).[2] All things in the universe are understood by Buddhists to be characterised by these three marks of existence. According to the impermanence doctrine, human life embodies this flux in the aging process, the cycle of birth and rebirth (samsara), and in any experience of loss. This is applicable to all beings and their environs including devas (mortal gods). The Buddha taught that because conditioned phenomena are impermanent, attachment to them becomes the cause for future suffering (dukkha).

Conditioned phenomena can also be referred to as compounded, constructed, or fabricated. This is in contrast to the unconditioned, uncompounded and unfabricated nirvana, the reality that knows no change, decay or death.

Impermanence is intimately associated with the doctrine of anatta, according to which things have no fixed nature, essence, or self. For example, in Mahayana Buddhism, because all phenomena are impermanent, and in a state of flux, they are understood to be empty of an intrinsic self (shunyata).[3]

[PeterJ]

 

 

I believe we all need a reality check. I'm disinclined to believe Dr Schwartz's means is the only way to go. We need to recognize that we have built a world based on beliefs and that there can be no sound foundation. The adoption of more beliefs whether that's a belief in god(s) or a belief in the non-existence of god(s) is probably not a sound foundation.

 

There may be no answer that is right for each individual but, in my opinion, the ancient perspective that we are nature can provide some sense of permanence for many of us. But no matter how we view it there is ample evidence that people are getting "Deceptive Brain Messages" or have a perspective that is determined primarily by their place and time which can be wholly independent of reality and seems to be drifting further and further from an "outside" perspective.

 

 

I don't think Dr. Schwartz is suggesting that we replace one set of beliefs with another. The suggestion is that we replace them with knowledge. Many people do not believe real knowledge is possible, but this is just more beliefs.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

 

 

 

 

I believe we all need a reality check. I'm disinclined to believe Dr Schwartz's means is the only way to go. We need to recognize that we have built a world based on beliefs and that there can be no sound foundation. The adoption of more beliefs whether that's a belief in god(s) or a belief in the non-existence of god(s) is probably not a sound foundation.

 

There may be no answer that is right for each individual but, in my opinion, the ancient perspective that we are nature can provide some sense of permanence for many of us. But no matter how we view it there is ample evidence that people are getting "Deceptive Brain Messages" or have a perspective that is determined primarily by their place and time which can be wholly independent of reality and seems to be drifting further and further from an "outside" perspective.

 

 

I don't think Dr. Schwartz is suggesting that we replace one set of beliefs with another. The suggestion is that we replace them with knowledge. Many people do not believe real knowledge is possible, but this is just more beliefs.

Let me be very clear about this. Please read the following carefully.

 

When he speaks of "reali-ty" the layman usually means something obvious and well-known, whereas it seems to me that precisely the most important and ex-tremely difficult task of our time is to work on elabo-rating a new idea of reality. This is also what I mean when I always emphasize that science and religion must be related in some way.

-Wolfgang Pauli,

letter to M. Fierz,

August 12, 1948

 

It is interesting from a psy-chological-epistemological point of view that, al-though consciousness is the only phenomenon for which we have direct evi-dence, many people deny its reality. The question: "If all that exists are some complicated chemical pro-cesses in your brain, why do you care what those processes are?" is coun- tered with evasion (EVASION). One is led to believe that... the word "reality" does not have the same meaning for all of us.

-Nobel physicist

Eugene Wigner,

1967

[PeterJ]

What are you making clear? That reality is not what we usually think it is? This is obvious, since we find it absurd. Or, at least, physics finds it absurd.

 

I agree with the 'evasion' criticism. Philosopher of mind David Chalmers calls it 'sleights of hand'. and accuses his peers of over-indulging. The literature of modern consciousness studies is often evasive to the point of not saying anything at all.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

To be REALLY clear, the day has already gone well past us a few years ago when Jeffrey Schwartz made friends with none other than David Chalmers in Seattle and with none other than Henry Stapp before he began to explain how and why Quantum Physics puts it all together very nicely, and how it consistently integrates Classical Buddhism with Quantum Physics. In the day and age of Classical Physics, you could be excused for thinking other wise. But not in the day and age of Quantum Physics.'s., AAnd about the literature on "modern" consciousness,, have you ever heard of the famous Journal Of Consciousness Studies??

 

It is called "The Spectre Of Creeping Exculpation"..

 

Classical Physics can explain only matter (brain) but not mind. Only and only in so far as it is currently and presently known that Quantum Physics alone can do that. Pick up the latest issue of Science or New Scientist magazine and see what i am getting at..

[pwagen]

Classical Physics can explain only matter (brain) but not mind. Only and only in so far as it is currently and presently known that Quantum Physics alone can do that.

Really? Because I heard biology and chemistry are making headway in that department. Quantum physics explaining our minds? Not so much.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

You have No Idea. If any one out here wants to know the whole story i can simply order dozens of copies of the landmark book and give it away for free and ship it to anyone who cares to read it.

[PeterJ]

To be REALLY clear, the day has already gone well past us a few years ago when Jeffrey Schwartz made friends with none other than David Chalmers in Seattle and with none other than Henry Stapp before he began to explain how and why Quantum Physics puts it all together very nicely, and how it consistently integrates Classical Buddhism with Quantum Physics. In the day and age of Classical Physics, you could be excused for thinking other wise. But not in the day and age of Quantum Physics.'s., AAnd about the literature on "modern" consciousness,, have you ever heard of the famous Journal Of Consciousness Studies??

 

It is called "The Spectre Of Creeping Exculpation"..

 

Classical Physics can explain only matter (brain) but not mind. Only and only in so far as it is currently and presently known that Quantum Physics alone can do that. Pick up the latest issue of Science or New Scientist magazine and see what i am getting at..

 

We seem to agree mostly. Henry Stapp, yes, I've got him here somewhere. I seem to remember liking his thoughts as far as they went. These days I prefer Ulrich Morhoff. Science was inconsistent with Buddhism until quantum physics came along. But it sorted itself out, and Morhoff is moving on. . .

 

JCS? Used to be a subscriber and even submitted an article once (no luck - it was very poor) but I got bored with the lack of imagination. It just goes round and round in circles and the cover price is unjustifiable when one can just re-read old copies from the archive.

 

I would disagree with the idea that classical physics can explain matter. Physics still cannot explain matter and I predict it never will until the mindset changes. Same deal with JCS and consciousness. You have to explain it all or you can't expain any part of it.

 

Btw - Buddhism's impermanence is not a law but a doctrine, or, if you like, a fact. Nothing that exists would be permanent. Fields on fields and all that.

 

To be honest, I suspect that you and I support a view that will soon be commonplace. Or maybe it already is. But the details need a lot of work.

Edited April 29, 2013 by PeterJ

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

First, I would like to entirely agree with you on that old or new fashioned Classical Physics cannot explain all the four dimensions we live in (space, time, matter, and energy) because it is sorely has and is and has always been and will probably forever remain lacking both on the macro and on the micro scale and that is how and why and when and where Quantum Physics and sub atomic particles and dark matter and black holes and all of that hardcore technical stuff which is very complicated comes into the proving ground. Schrodinger wave equation. Heisenberg uncertainity priniciple. Just name it. Its all there. Large Hadron Collider? Advanced Ligo System?

 

I would like to simply say for the record in this forum now before proceeding that all of this stuff is not only very commonplace already for the past two or four years but so widespread that it bears repeating an infinite number of times and in three particular four hundred page books that are lying on my bedside table for the last few years which I continue to read and absorb and apply to change my personal life.

 

For what good is any theory when it has no practical usefulness or applicability? And this is not the case here with me.

 

Nor is it with several others. Many stories have been told in several books by internationally renowned psychiatrists who are at the cutting edge of Brain Research.

 

Now, the details which you speak of that need to be worked on have been so extensively documented, researched, and proven worldwide already over the last several years that I would have to type out a four hundred page landmark book and two particular others in order to "explain" myself completely.

 

Imagine typing out twelve hundred pages from three different books on an iPad or or an iPhone.

 

And violating copyright restrictions and so reframing my words to avoid that from happenning.

 

Then, whether we like it or not as Dr. JMS puts it in 2009 or in 2011 in his landmark book that "The day has come when we can no longer argue or be excused for arguing in this day and age of Quantum Physics about whether the Mind came first or the Brain came first and that the arrow of causal efficacy seems to be pointing in both directions and that in order to dispel this notion of the given duality of the mind and the brain we must first accept the fact that Quantum Physics holds extremely solid ground here. Because it provides to me the physics underpinning my theory of Mental Force which was first brought up by William James in the 1800's."

 

Because in Quantum Physics it is Mind alone that can change the Brain (mindset).

 

It has been called "Neuroplasticity".

 

He goes on to say and prove that The Power of Mental Force is so great that it has enabled people from all over the world to completely recover from all kinds of mental or physical diseases or conditions just by using their will power and without so much as touching a single medication.

 

He first proved that way back in his first published in 1996 landmark book.

 

Enough PET and fMRI tests and scans across the world have duplicated his findings much later.

 

As Dr. JMS puts it "The will, I was starting to believe, generates a force. Directed mental (fields of) force through application of rigorous and consistent will power are known to bring about lasting and permanent changes in the wires and pathways of the brain and even of the body. The cause is the Mind. The effect is on the Brain.The resulting term is called Neuroplasticity. The brain is truly the child of the mind. The mind truly can change the brain. No matter what your age is. And actually always does so. Because we are what we think and what we do."

 

And yet they are continuing to push the envelope as far as they possibly can.

 

This "guy" is no less an eminence than the Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine.

 

As for me, I personally and constantly hope to become someone someday. Pushing myself very hard always.

 

Never looking for the easy way out. While mixing work and play and striving and achieving and maintaing a balanced lifestyle.

 

Treated directly by India's leading psychiatrist Dr. Sanjay Chugh for 16 years. Who himself trained professionally at Harvard Medical School under Alvaro Pascal-Leone for four years.

 

The founder of Neuroplasticity. And the co-founder being Jeffrey M. Schwartz.

 

I am a little tired of hammering away at the keyboard by now. As I should f****** well be!

 

Gonna chill and watch Star Trek soon. And munch on some Kettles Chips and chilled beer too!

 

Cya later.

 

My nickname is Stevie.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

I have absorbed a lot of information over the yearss. Everything is falling into place like a grand covergent sorry convergent jigsaw puzzle. More peopple need more and more accurate and unbiased and factual and useful information. To have count- tered with evasion without reading ahead first is a grave mistake for many people I personally know of. You have to have had both the knowledge and the experience as I admit to had having over the years. They say that when the Student is ready his Teacher arrives.

 

I must admit that I made a grave mistake when I said Permanence when I actually meant Impermanence. Please forgive me for the several typos.

 

Dear Fellows

 

I can easily see that someone (probably the admin) is removing my Wikipedia's copied and pasted texts from the forum and I highly appreciate and am eternally grateful for having being corrected for once in my life to him. Not many people I have known in 43 years of my life has caught me off guard or red handed like this. Not even the thousand dollar per session leading celebrity Harvard Medical School trained Indian psychiatrist Dr. Sanjay Chugh who I have been seeing for the last 16 years of my life but have stopped seeing now for the last 4 years.

 

Because he is what is typically called a "materialistic reductionist."

 

GOOGLE THAT TERM!

[PeterJ]

Arjun - I'm not sure what to make of your long post. It is highly confusing, but this may be a language thing.

 

Maybe you could correct the spelling mistake in the title for credibility's sake. .

[Phi for All]

Maybe you could correct the spelling mistake in the title for credibility's sake. .

 

!

Moderator Note

Done.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

So sorry since I tend to get ahead of myself very often these days and whenever I open my mouth these days people at my home or outside of my home almost immediately go running in the opposite direction (!!) because they can't bear the "gibberish" because it just FLYS over their heads including those of the two leading psychiatrists I have known for the last 16 years not to mention countless other people I can't even begin to count because I LOVE this stuff because it is SO useful and so passionate at the same time.

 

Thank you for correcting the spelling mistakes. Since I mostly tap on my iPad or on my iPhone I usually try to avoid but do sometimes end up making mistakes so now I am re-reading whatever I type and editing it and double checking it before hitting the Post button.

[PeterJ]

Yes, I can hear your enthusiasm. It's an exciting area to investigate. I'm happy to chat but I'm not sure I've yet seen what you want to achieve here.

[cladking]

I'll try to keep up with you but may not comment a lot.

 

I've been trying to comprehend thought since I was very young. Early on I decided to treat the mind as the natural product of the brain but as a "black box problem". Over the years I've come to understand that the "brain" is far to tightly defined and actually includes the entire body and especially its ganglions. Most of our "brain" we can not access because signals won't travel both ways in the more "primitive" parts of the brain.

 

I'm not convinced that "mind" is necessarily even relevant to understanding nature. Animals understand nature sufficiently for their needs and what sets man apart is much more language (that allows progress) than it is intelligence, soul or any of the other things people generally believe. This isn't to say I don't think "mind" is important because it certainly defines an individual's reality.

 

Typing can be pretty tough on me sometimes as well and is never easy. The "plasticity" concept interests me but I can "change my mind" if I choose so might be of limited utility.

[Prometheus]

So here is the Buddha's Law of Impermanance,

 

Thanks for clarifying this, which makes sense now. As for the rest i've no idea what you're talking about but you chaps seem to be enjoying your conversation so i'll leave you to it.

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Please see this image. There is a serious error in your spelling.