Interview with idealist physicist and inventor of the microprocessor, Federico Faggin
Soh

Nice video 

 
 
👍
 
Listen to the whole interview
 
Coming from a physicist and inventor of microprocessor that has direct experience of consciousness is precious."
 
 
 
....
 
 
    Mr CS
    Soh I’ve wanted to ask you for a while but never has, does idealism conflict with Buddhism? I ask because it seems that on the surface idealism seems to be more in line with Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism seems to be more materialist?
    • Reply
    Soh Wei Yu
    Mr CS, Buddhism is not materialism, and consciousness continues after death.
    Excerpt by Greg Goode, who has deep realizations and wrote on both Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka / Buddhism:
    Taken from Krodha (Kyle Dixon)'s Dharmawheel posts compilation: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../table-of-contents...
    Author: krodha Date: Tue May 28, 2013 6:35 pm Title: Re: Question about "location of mind" Content:
    Greg Goode had some good insight on this too:
    Greg wrote:
    Matt, when you say 'can someone show me how it's [awareness] not an eternal, non-separate essence?' and 'as soon as you point to a phenomenon upon which awareness would be dependent, awareness was already there,' are you assuming that awareness is one, single unified thing that is already there before objects are? That awareness is present whether objects are present or not? That is a particular model. It sounds very similar to Advaita. But there are other models.
    The emptiness teachings have a different model. Instead of one big awareness they posit many mind- moments or separate awarenesses. Each one is individuated by its own object. There is no awareness between or before or beyond objects. No awareness that is inherent. In this emptiness model, awareness is dependent upon its object. And as you point out, the object is dependent upon the awareness that apprehends it. But there is no underlying awareness that illuminates the entire show. That's how these teachings account for experience while keeping awareness from being inherently existent.
    This isn't the philosophy that denies awareness. That was materialism. We had a few materialists in the fb emptiness group, but they left when they found out that emptiness doesn't utterly deny awareness. So you see, there are people who do deny it... In the emptiness teachings, things depend on awareness, cognitiion, conceptualization, yes. But it is the other way around as well. Awareness depends on objects too.
    Greg wrote: Speaking of after studying the emptiness teachings.... After beginning to study the emptiness teachings, the most dramatic and earth-shattering thing I realized the emptiness of was awareness, consciousness. It came as an upside-down, inside-out BOOM, since I had been inquiring into this very point for a whole year. It happened while I was meditating on Nagarjuna's Treatise. Specifically verse IX:4, from “Examination of the Prior Entity.” If it can abide Without the seen, etc., Then, without a doubt, They can abide without it. I saw that a certain parity and bilateral symmetry is involved. If awareness can exist without its objects, then without a doubt, they can exist without awareness. True enough. Then there is a hidden line or two: BUT - the objects CAN'T exist without awareness. Therefore, awareness can't exist without them. This was big for me.
    .........
    Another excerpt by Greg Goode from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../greg-goode-on... :
    Dr. Greg Goode wrote in Emptything:

    It looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?

    I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on "emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the "ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere...
    …....
    Another excerpt by a different author from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../reincarnation...
    Rizenfenix wrote:
    Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.
    Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.
    Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.
    One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…
    • Reply
    • Edited
    Soh Wei Yu
    The myriad forms of the entire universe are the seal of the single Dharma. Whatever forms are seen are but the perception of mind. But mind is not independently existent. It is co-dependent with form.
    - Zen Master Mazu
    ….
    “But how could one [even] gain the ability to know that it is no-mind [that sees, hears, feels, and knows]?"
    "Just try to find out in every detail: What appearance does mind have? And if it can be apprehended: is [what is apprehended] mind or not? Is [mind] inside or outside, or somewhere in between? As long as one looks for mind in these three locations, one's search will end in failure. Indeed, searching it anywhere will end in failure. That's exactly why it is known as no-mind."”
    “At this, the disciple all at once greatly awakened and realized for the first time that there is no thing apart from mind, and no mind apart from things. All of his actions became utterly free. Having broken through the net of all doubt, he was freed of all obstruction.”
    “Dissolving the Mind
    enso.jpg
    Though purifying mind is the essence of practicing the Way, it is not done by clinging at the mind as a glorified and absolute entity. It is not that one simply goes inward by rejecting the external world. It is not that the mind is pure and the world is impure. When mind is clear, the world is a pure-field. When mind is deluded, the world is Samsara. Bodhidharma said,
    Seeing with insight, form is not simply form, because form depends on mind. And, mind is not simply mind, because mind depends on form. Mind and form create and negate each other. … Mind and the world are opposites, appearances arise where they meet. When your mind does not stir inside, the world does not arise outside. When the world and the mind are both transparent, this is the true insight.” (from the Wakeup Discourse)
    Just like the masters of Madhyamaka, Bodhidharma too pointed out that mind and form are interdependently arising. Mind and form create each other. Yet, when you cling to form, you negate mind. And, when you cling to mind, you negate form. Only when such dualistic notions are dissolved, and only when both mind and the world are transparent (not turning to obstructing concepts) the true insight arises.
    In this regard, Bodhidharma said,
    Using the mind to look for reality is delusion.
    Not using the mind to look for reality is awareness.
    (from the Wakeup Discourse)
    So, to effectively enter the Way, one has to go beyond the dualities (conceptual constructs) of mind and form. As far as one looks for reality as an object of mind, one is still trapped in the net of delusion (of seeing mind and form as independent realities), never breaking free from it. In that way, one holds reality as something other than oneself, and even worse, one holds oneself as a spectator to a separate reality!
    When the mind does not stir anymore and settles into its pristine clarity, the world does not stir outside. The reality is revealed beyond the divisions of Self and others, and mind and form. Thus, as you learn not to use the mind to look for reality and simply rests in the natural state of mind as it is, there is the dawn of pristine awareness – knowing reality as it is, non-dually and non-conceptually.
    When the mind does not dissolve in this way to its original clarity, whatever one sees is merely the stirring of conceptuality. Even if we try to construct a Buddha’s mind, it only stirs and does not see reality. Because, the Buddha’s mind is simply the uncompounded clarity of Bodhi (awakening), free from stirring and constructions. So, Bodhidharma said,
    That which ordinary knowledge understands is also said to be within the boundaries of the norms. When you do not produce the mind of a common man, or the mind of a sravaka or a bodhisattva, and when you do not even produce a Buddha-mind or any mind at all, then for the first time you can be said to have gone outside the boundaries of the norms. If no mind at all arises, and if you do not produce understanding nor give rise to delusion, then, for the first time, you can be said to have gone outside of everything. (From the Record #1, of the Collection of Bodhidharma’s Works3 retrieved from Dunhuang Caves)
    “
    …..
    Some Zen Masters’ Quotations on Anatman
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Some Zen Masters’ Quotations on Anatman
    Some Zen Masters’ Quotations on Anatman
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
 
    Soh Wei Yu
    Also as John Tan said below, "if you can't totally see that pristineness, that non-dual, that luminosity and see only emptiness, you are mistaken."
    2009 conversation with John Tan:
    “(12:20 PM) Thusness: what you see is DO, emptiness and non-dual, your mind is therefore trapped. This is how our mind is trapped and prevents the seeing. when we are trapped in non-dual, we can't see emptiness. Even when it is clearly mentioned, it can't be seen.
    (12:22 PM) AEN: so what does that mean? 😛
    (12:23 PM) Thusness: reality is like an illusion. but not an illusion. it is like a dream but not a dream. Everything is a magical display.And everything is mind. 🙂 What does that mean? The mind is always wrongly understood. from "I AM" to non-dual experience. We cannot understand the truth of this mind therefore we can't see mind. just like you can't see the essence of the article. we have a preconception.
    Everything is mind. And Everything is like a magical display. that is why i said there is no mirror, there is only reflection. the key is to know the nature of mind. to see that everything is reflection, transience Everything is Mind is what that must be derived from anatta and emptiness. but we do not know what "everything" is and what mind is. therefore we cannot 'see' and cannot experience.
    we cannot see the essence of it. so anatta and emptiness are taught.
    what is Everything? it is like magical display, like an illusion. but it is not an illusion. like a dream but not a dream which many misunderstood. therefore when we experience sounds, thoughts, see colors, forms, dimension and shapes...all is empty like an illusion. like dreams like the 'redness' of a flower. like the 'selfness'. like the 'hereness'. like the 'nowness', yet empty, nothing real.
    if you can't totally see that pristineness, that non-dual, that luminosity and see only emptiness, you are mistaken. the 'redness', the 'nowness', the 'hardness', the coldness, all are as luminous, as clear, as vivid. we must fully experience it. yet they are not real, nothing concrete, no solidity, nothing substantial, nothing graspable, no findable.
    Empty, thus non-dual luminosity and emptiness. we see this union, in all transience,
    passing phenomena, in emotions, in feelings, in thoughts, in sounds, in sight, in color, in dimension, in shapes, in taste, in hardness, coldness, in sweetness, in sky, in the sound of chirping bird, all experience are like that. empty yet luminous, then we realise that it is the same as mind, it is mind. if we din see these 2 nature of mind thoroughly, we can't see. we distant, we seek, we find. because of its emptiness nature, the manifold, we cannot know what mind is. therefore the ground is taught, the view is taught. empty yet non-dual luminosity, so that you can see and experience directly that the transience are mind, yet there is no self nature, get it?
    (12:38 PM) AEN: think so
    (12:38 PM) Thusness: then you experience what is one taste. Because we do not know what mind is, we cannot experience mind. we do not know, that is why insight is important. however if you do not know what is non-dual luminosity and emptiness, how is a practitioner going to experience mind everywhere and know that whatever arises is mind? therefore first anatta (non-dual luminosity), then emptiness, then spontaneous arising. do you understand what i mean? read the article ( On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection )”
    Emptiness/Chariot as Vivid Appearing Presence
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Emptiness/Chariot as Vivid Appearing Presence
    Emptiness/Chariot as Vivid Appearing Presence
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
  • Edited

    Soh:

    another partial excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/02/the-transient-universe-has-heart.html

    "The purpose of anatta is to have full blown experience of the heart -- boundlessly, completely, non-dually and non-locally. Re-read what I wrote to Jax.

    In every situations, in all conditions, in all events. It is to eliminate unnecessary contrivity so that our essence can be expressed without obscuration.

    Jax wants to point to the heart but is unable to express in a non-dual way... for in duality, the essence cannot be realized. All dualistic interpretation are mind made. You know the smile of Mahākāśyapa? Can you touch the heart of that smile even 2500 yrs later?

    One must lose all mind and body by feeling with entire mind and body this essence which is 心 (Mind). Yet 心 (Mind) too is 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable).. The purpose is not to deny 心 (Mind) but rather not to place any limitations or duality so that 心 (Mind) can fully manifest.

    Therefore without understanding 缘 (conditions)，is to limit 心 (Mind). without understanding 缘 (conditions)，is to place limitation in its manifestations. You must fully experience 心 (Mind) by realizing 无心 (No-Mind) and fully embrace the wisdom of 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable)." - John Tan/Thusness, 2014

 

 

-----

 

Mr CG asked, "What stage you reckon Federico is at Soh Wei Yu?"

 

Soh replied, "Thusness Stage 1 and 2 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html *

Having a direct realization of Consciousness with physicist background is rare and precious.

* https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/consciousness-as-the-ground-of-being/

Federico: Well, in this theory, the quantum fields are the conscious entities. But the particles are not conscious because they don’t really exist as separate things; they are just states of those fields. They cannot be conscious because they do not have a unique identity.

Similarly, we think of ourselves as conscious bodies. But we are only conscious because our bodies are connected with conscious entities that exist in a vaster reality of which space–time reality is just a projection. So what I am – the real ‘me’ – lives in this vaster reality and it controls my body top-down. Our body is not conscious; it is made of electrons, protons, and so on, and it exists as information, as quantum-classical information. The simplest structure in the physical world that can host consciousness is a cell. Nothing less than a living cell can have its own consciousness in the sense that the physical structure can be controlled by a conscious entity.

Jane: So if we do not really exist in space time, but at the level of this vaster reality, physical death should not fundamentally disrupt our consciousness?

Federico: Yes, absolutely. We think that when the body dies, it is the end of our consciousness because we have been told that consciousness is produced by the brain. But as I said earlier, it is the other way around. It is the brain that is produced by consciousness. So consciousness uses the body as a tool to know itself.

Clearly our body is temporary, but we are not temporary because we exist outside space–time and we want to know ourselves. And we will continue to seek to know ourselves ever more, for, as I said earlier, the process will never end. Our identity may transform itself, but we never die. We are quantum entities, and a consequence of this model is the idea that we exist in what we might call ‘eternity’. When our body dies, we don’t go anywhere because, in a way, we never were ‘here’.

Richard: Could this idea not lead to a kind of fatalism. If I am not my body, and you are not your body, why should I look after you or care about you?

Federico: Well, if we are all part of a holistic One, how can we be separate from each other? If you experience yourself as the world that observes itself, you will directly know that you are me and I am you. So, it could never happen that I would not care about what happens to you because what happens to you also happens to me. But the only way to understand this is not intellectually. It can only occur through an experience of union, because until I had that experience of love, I could have said exactly what you just asked.

Richard: You had that extraordinary experience at Lake Tahoe and in the space of less than a minute, you knew things that you hadn’t known before. But does this mean that unless someone has a similar experience, they cannot understand fully what you are talking about?

Federico: In a way, yes. As embodied conscious entities we forget our true nature as soon as we identify with our bodies. Yet, when we experience our true nature again, we recognise ourselves in that experience. If you want to find out, open yourself up to finding out, and you will be given the experience by yourself and no one else. I believe it was the vaster ‘me’ who gave me the Lake Tahoe experience because I wanted to find out for no other reason than knowing – not because I wanted to make a computer out of it, or make money, or whatever. If you want to just know for knowing’s sake, you will come to know. Period." 

Labels: , | edit post
0 Responses
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)