Revolution in the Mind Sciences P5

Daniel Vinograd



Perhaps the imperial observation and mental phenomena nm may dispel this illusion of knowledge not from medical schools but from modern <>. happily are your American, Australian are now modern because in Singapore , it’s in  Bangkok , it’s in Argentina , it’s in brazil. It’s not just the west now it’s the  vision of <>.


Happily we’re not that only intelligent life in the universe. happily there have been  other civilizations on this planet  that has statistically the  same scattering  of geniuses of  our euro American civilization but they weren’t us, they weren’t in  the <> basin . They didn’t come out of the Abrahamic religion, of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They didn’t come out of the Greek heritage Plato and Aristotle. Other civilization for five thousand years, India for who knows how many thousands of years might they have come up with anything we haven’t. It’s one of those questions you don’t normal ask.  At least not at academia, it not one of the questions that comes up.


we’re  just assuming that we trump everybody  but India , classical India they unlike Galileo , unlike the  founders  of our scientific revolution they were not  seeking a god’s eye view of object reality . They were not creating or assuming an absolute demarcation, a <> between subject and object a trying to object the world from an absolutely outside respective, God’s own perspective that just wasn’t on the agenda for Indians.


They were seeking to understand the world of experience not just some objective world independent of experience. In science we cloaca. if that’s   your agenda to understand the world of e experience mot a god’s eyes view of something that transcends the experience, if that’s what your focus  is, in German philosophy by the way its called  <> veldt  form  the phenomena attribute of <>. if what you’re primarily wishing  to understand  the world of experience then the study  of the mind has to be  central to <> the natural world  because the world of experience  doesn’t even  exist thigh consciousness.


There is no world of experience without someone experiencing it and so for the Indian the study of the mind was the first thing they tacked, in modern science it was the last thing they studied. Consciousness itself didn’t even come up for almost a hundred years. Only the last ten or fifteen years has consciousness become a legitimate object of enquiry for a <> near scientist of psychology.


When if studied <> psychology at Stanford, consciousness was not there, it wasn’t even in the index. Introspection was only mentioned in e preface when they said “we tried it and it don’t work” and they moved wright on.  The Indian happily are not part of our <> basin box. They have their own areas and this is one of them. The <> and I’m reposing here that it’s a kind of telescope of the mind.  These revolutionary truth seekers and they were revolutionary.  they were kicking away from  whole higher , dusty religious system cackled the <> tradition , heavily institutionalized , ritualistic, dogmatic , close minded  and they said enough and these <> and these truth seekers roughly maybe three thousand years  ago they set out to understand the world of experience with a primary emphasis   in mind and the first thing they discovered is if you’re going to try and observe mental phenomena  the observation of it has to be introspection but your attention is wobbling all over the place.


It was ADHD three thousand years ago. <> you’re either getting droopy or falling asleep at the wheel or your mind is scattered all over the place. How can you ace rigorously sane observation of mental phenomena if your attention is wobbling all over the place salting between <> and agitation. The first thing they did and they were very good at it by the time that Buddha came along twenty   five years ago is that they developed extraordinary effective techniques or refining and causing attention. rather like a telescope firmly mounted on a tripod, polished lens, large aperture so you can make  stable video observations  not of  stars because they were’ not that interested   but they wearer fascinated to study the mind.


They develop a telescope of the mind the like of which we have beaver eloped and modern scientist since William James have not made any progress at all. that was the ground  work laid like the  Dutch lens  makers  who started off before Galileo  and there was this historical individual Buddha  <> and  if would  say he was to India what Galileo was to the west. He took a preexisting technology bite it was a contemplative technology of refining attention and he applied it in unprecedented easy. instead of simply going in  a state  of <>, experience bliss, equanimity , euphoria  and so forth he stabilized the mind and then he used it  to explore e states of consciousness  , ordinary states but  rigorously, empirical states of consciousness and made  at least that  ids the claim. Not for us to take as religion that would be boring but to take as hypotheses, they said they discovered this just like too NY good to scientist you hear somebody y over there in Beijing in their lab, can we replicate it?  That’s the first thing that comes up. Somebody in Korea said they cloned a dog, let’s replicate it.


This is what scientist are doing all the time. If somebody makes a claim they replicate it and this is exactly what the Buddha encourages. He said these are my discoveries but don’t host take my word for it. See if you can replicate it and here’s the experimental procedures.  first of all cultivate a way of  life , aw whole  way of behaving in the world that is conducive to social  flourishing so that  here at Google you can all get along  together happy, harmoniously .you know how that happens , ethics. If there no ethics you’re ally going to be ripping each other hair out. with ought ethics no harmony , with ethic= you have a chance but also a  relationship with the  environment at large with mountain view, with the state of  California  the planet earth there’s a  way that we  can live in harmony in our natural environment without sucking it dry and leaving the husks  to your children. Artists called environment ethics.



that was the foundation upon the basis of that  , developing mental  balance, refining the mound , refining attention , developing exceptional levels of mental health and well-being and with that basins then  becoming a true contemplative scientists  and using the redone attention out explore  sub consciousness  giving rise to a sense of spiritual  authority or some will call liberation.


I’m suggesting something dramatic , something  revolutionary here an denote I’ve said nothing original  at ll. it was  William harems , it  was <> , it was Buddha . They’re saying this is the way to go to understand the nature of the mind. Don’t be satisfied by just studying the physical <>. You’re always going to get that which is around consciousness but nit the nature of consciousness. Should we be skeptics of that? The answer is yes said Richard Fine man the great Nobel <> in   physical. He said one of the ways of stopping science would be only to do experiments in the region where you know the <>, play it safe. If you want to understand consciousness stick to the brain… you’ll get tenure. You’ll be published in <> review ` journals.  Go introspection route and you’re on thin ice.


He said experimental search most diligently and with greatest effort in exactly those places where it seems most likely that we can prove our theories wrong. There’s a theory that the mind is just the brain, the mind ii just a <> of thwart brain, the mind Meta<> are physical. maybe its true but the good  skeptic, not the one who is skeptical of other person’s  views, the person woes is skeptical of his own assumption says ” lets out that ne to the test ” . In other words we’re trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible because only in that way can we find progress.


Science is known for skepticism, religion is known for dogmatic but what does Buddha say here, this great Galileo of India. He said in repose to a buck of skeptics, he as aid you should be skeptical about what you should be skeptical bout.  Do not be led by report for tradition or hear say.  Do not be led by authority of religious text or by mere logical inference all by itself not y considering appearance.   just taking a causal look , taking all the  races at face value  nation  by delight and ooespeculative popinion  nor by sieing possibilirties not by  the idea thsi is  my teacher , ehat he said must be right  but when you know for youerselves  taht some things are un wholesome,  destructive and detrimental then  reject them and when you know for  yourslef that certain things  are wholeosme  and good then accept them and  foloow them . in otheres words be a skepitc.  He encourages his own followers to be a sketic.


<> was used to great effect coming out of the medial era into the renaissance. As <> said the principle is, it is vain to do with more assumptions what can be done with fewer assumption. What I’m suggesting here is we have too many assumptions if the scientific study of the mind. Let us use <> razor to shave off the assumption the mental phenomena or physics. It’s just an assumption. <> point out they don’t look physical why should they be. If we have off that assumption what have we lost? What less do we know? We still know the <>, we know just about as much about the brain a behavior as we did before. `We’ve just shaved off an assumption that has never been <> threw tat ne out and now apply a fresh method of inquiry of introspection to actually observe mental phenomena and what might we gain the answer is we don’t know unless we try it. as we draw this to a colors  we come back  to William James that suggested in terms of this interface science,  religion and  imparism, he said  ” let imperssicism once become  associated  with religion as hither  too through some strange misunderstanding. It has been associated with <> religion and if believe that a new era of religion as well as philosophy will be ready to begin if fully believe that such an empiricism is a more naturally than <> ever were and can be   other religious life. In other words introduce it empiricism into religion as much as science through <> both sides of the  fence and let’s see what the fireworks display.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

View Larger Map

Dr. Daniel Vinograd, DDS |
10450 Friars Rd, San Diego, CA 92120 |
Phone: 619-630-7174    •    Dr. Vinograd, DDS, is a Dentist in San Diego, CA, offering services as a periodontist, and providing teeth whitening, dental crowns, invisalign, implants, lumineers, dentures, root canals, holistic, family and cosmetic dentistry.

Promoted by: San Diego SEO & Dental Marketing
All Copyright © 2023 or its affiliates.