It was for me coz so deep seated

Until one day I saw my floaters in my eye 3D

And biological science cannot explain why I can see my floaters in my eyes 3D.. something not right

Then only I let it go.. it took me so long

Yes I read his book too, quite a complex book actually I gave up halfway

Science is just starting to turn their head towards the consciousness now, maybe another few decades or next generation lol

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.

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

And then

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?

Hehe

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

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.

洪文亮法师 have similar background as me so his writing break off a lot of conditioning for me. But doesn’t seem to do it for others

I don’t know.. it’s hard.

Angelo Grr has his ways too.

I have zero idea how to helpso I dare not simply guide

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?

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

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.