Posted this in a group :
Just personal experience so that ppl don’t repeat my mistake
Using science to attain realisation is actually a huge obstacle
If ppl is serious about getting quickly to insight and realization, put science aside and investigate
Saying this from a deep seated biological science background.
I could name you the whole Vision retina optic chiasm pathway,
I could name the hearing pathway,
I could draw fhe touch pathway, pain pathway, in the spinal cord and where it crosses over
The smell and it’s olfactory bulb pathway
I could tell you by one look which lobe is stroked out in a stroke patient by their sense defect
and that has been my biggest obstacle in realisation
Until I relinquish it the whole biological science , all of science
anatta came on full On.
Science is the most cherished conditioning ever.
You will never imagine how science and realisation fits but it does. Once you realize it makes sense. The relative is not denied, it works but the rules are differnt
But you have to see the ultimate first.
If not you won’t understand what I’m saying
You will never see the truth if you look to science. Don’t go there. Let it go. Let that conditioning go, it is a conditioning esp for educated ppl
Ian Stevenson is such an amazing physician and scientist. He is not a Buddhist yet he does not turn his head away from evidence shown to him
I was given his book before starting my job as a doctor and it changes my world view so much , at that time I don’t even know much about Buddhism but I realise each human has overlapping history with all of us and should be treated with respect.
Ling Yin, how do you reconcile the realization of "in the seen, only the seen" with the 'untruth' of the retina-optics nerve paradigm?
When realized, how can the relative not be denied? Is vision a factor of light inverting through the retina onto our optical nerve or not?
And if not, how do you now practise as a doctor?
for me the thing and the brain both are “hallucination”. They function in their hallucinatory laws, at the relative level.
Like an empty car can kill an empty person,
An empty brain can process an empty sight.
But then who are we?
We are not the brain.
We are not the Neurons
Where are we? Is consciousness in the brain?
Or the brain part of the consciousness? Part of the whole hallucination ?
In science we posited that we are the brain. Everything brain knows we knows. Brain KO we KO. Brain is mental, and outside world physical, got two different status. How come? lol
When you smell rose and love it, which part of brain smell rose and love it? Olfactory bulb? Not really
Science cannot answer this.
Which part of visual cortex see pretty girl and think nonsense ? We don’t know! Can we poke poke a certain area then the man is aroused? Lol cannot right
Which part of brain fall in love?
We cannot even pinpoint all these things yet we say brain produce consciousness
Science first principle already wrong
So what are we?
William Lim ahahaha it is tricky .
The empty brain process sight based on materialism law, so it needs to be let go of.
Then in Buddhism, it is not materialism anymore, it’s a completely different nature -suchness, so it’s is anatta and emptiness lol
Maybe John Tan can explain better.
I just let it go lol
Yin Ling "seen is just seen" and "empty of self-nature" are the same extended insight of essencelessness.
As for how "consciousness" and "materialism" can go through a twilight zone and meet as qualia I do not know. I really don't understand how materialists r able to reconcile two radically "different nature" phenomena to interact "magically" this way, I think it takes more than faith. I do not go by this paradigm at all...haha. my esoteric practicing paradigm is more taoist and consciousness-energy (qi) based, so to me, they r always indivisible and insubstantial.
But that is no more Buddhism.
"In the seen, only the seen" & "An empty brain can process an empty sight" is reconcilable?"
If the seen is the flower, then only the flower. But you are looking at a brain, then the seen is the brain, only the brain. And if you are looking at an empty brain processing a flower then only the empty brain processing a flower. Where is the contradiction?
Geovani Geo hahah yea once have realisation it's ok
But before that it will always be
Flower ---> eye --> retina--> optic nerve ---> optic chiasm sending vision to opposite lobe---> pass through upper/lower brain lobe --> occipital lobe for vision.
and the biggest problem for ppl who trained in biological sciences is,
It correlates too well. eg.
In a stroke patient, if one side of the lobe stroke out, the opposite side of the vision really goes, we name it homonymous hemianopia. It correlates extremely well.
Same goes for sensory pathways (touch), speech etc.
It is a deep conditioning bc we are trained to see this way and it works damn well lol
I have a problem communicating the way buddhism teach us to see to medical professional bc of how deep this is, even those with alot of buddhism knowledge, it a huge huge huge obstacle for myself too
Ng Xin Zhao
Just to clarify again, for the benefit of the public:
Let go does not mean destroy the conventional conception of science we have now right? Not like suddenly go believe in flat earth or become anti vax.
Let go just means, that the model of science is helpful for tech and other physical progress, but for spiritual progress, it can be just put aside for a while, no need to use it as a model to think reality is this or that. Because that would be putting a lens in front of the senses to judge the data coming in via the lens.
Temporarily put down the lens for the purpose of spirituality, just use pure mindfulness to see things as they really are. See what is there really without lenses. Or at least with the gentle reminder of impermanence, suffering and no self nature.
Labels: Yin Ling