Empirically validating Phowa

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21906
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Grigoris »

According to Phowa teachers and practitioners a hole in the head is one of the signs that the transfer of consciousness (or the ability to transfer consciousness) has been achieved. Right?

Now according to, let's say, Homa practitioners the presence of smoke is a sign that the offerings have reached the mouth of Agni.

In both cases a physical phenomenon points to a metaphysical phenomenon.

A scientist could correlate the presence of the physical phenomenon with the practice, but this would not prove the claims about the outcomes of the practice because the claims are not within the realm of physical observation.

This means that no matter how much you jump up and down, science cannot validate Phowa.

PS I am a social scientist, I am trained in Behavioural Science, Sociology and Anthropology..
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Dharmaswede
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:22 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Dharmaswede »

Grigoris wrote:According to Phowa teachers and practitioners a hole in the head is one of the signs that the transfer of consciousness (or the ability to transfer consciousness) has been achieved. Right?

Now according to, let's say, Homa practitioners the presence of smoke is a sign that the offerings have reached the mouth of Agni.

In both cases a physical phenomenon points to a metaphysical phenomenon.

A scientist could correlate the presence of the physical phenomenon with the practice, but this would not prove the claims about the outcomes of the practice because the claims are not within the realm of physical observation.

This means that no matter how much you jump up and down, science cannot validate Phowa.

PS I am a social scientist, I am trained in Behavioural Science, Sociology and Anthropology..
I agree that using methods from natural sciences currently available cannot validate Phowa, as it is understood by its practitioners (to which I count myself, albeitly very much a beginner). It is quite possible that methods from that paradigm will never be able to do so, but I wouldn't state that categorically since we don't know what future might bring – although I think that possibility is really quite slim.
tingdzin
Posts: 1933
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by tingdzin »

Dharmaswede wrote:This means that no matter how much you jump up and down, science cannot validate Phowa.
Right. Science can never provide etic proof for things whose significance is emic.

.
visitor_001
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:47 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by visitor_001 »

I stumbled across this old thread by chance and think Dharmaswede has posed an interesting question.

I have attended several Phowa courses and also try to do the practice alone at least once a year to keep the practice fresh in my mind. On each occasion the outer sign, the drop of blood or hole, apparently manifested and was verified by the Lama who guided the Phowa. I cannot verify this for myself. On a couple of occasions I had people take photos of the sign of success and, in my opinion, there was no sign. I am no expert in identifying and verifying the manifestation of the sign of a successful Phowa practice, so I acquiesce to those with greater experience.

It seems that Dharmaswede would simply like to verify if the Phowa meditation produces the physical manifestation of a hole in the cranium. This could be 'easily' verified. At each of the courses I attended there were at least 500 people, many of whom had never done Phowa before. If one could perform imaging scans on the craniums of those about to do Phowa for the first time with scans after the practice, one could verify that in all probability the practice produces a hole in the cranium. There are probably thousands of people who perform Phowa for the first time every years and the presence of a hole in the cranium would certainly be 'empirical' evidence that the meditation produces a physical sign. It would in no way, as stated by others in this thread, prove the existence of a pure realm, etc.

I occasionally think about Phowa and its validity. How can the immaterial, a consciousness, produce a physical result, a hole, in the cranium. However, if I take a nail and a hammer and create the hole in this manner, is it not the case that a consciousness is producing a physical result in much the same way. There is still something immaterial producing a physical result in matter.
PeterC
Posts: 5173
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by PeterC »

I’m not sure how one would validate this. But I’m certain that many of the things discussed on this thread should not be discussed publicly. Doesn’t matter that they’re already out in the public domain, another person’s breach of damage doesn’t excuse yours.
Dharmaswede
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:22 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Dharmaswede »

Dear Peter,

Thank you for raising the risk of breach, which should always be considered.

A. I sincerely assume everyone who has posted in this thread has considered possible breaches. I know I have, which of course does not exempt me from being mistaken.

B. Who is in this thread is justifying a possible breach by referring to another’s breach?

C. I rejoice in the certainty you have in what constitutes a breach by your teacher, in your lineage. Sometimes these things differ between teachers and lineage.

D. Ask the mods to remove whatever you think is a breach, with a fully supported argument. If you have a strong case, I am all for it.
PeterC
Posts: 5173
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by PeterC »

Dharmaswede wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:47 am Dear Peter,

Thank you for raising the risk of breach, which should always be considered.

A. I sincerely assume everyone who has posted in this thread has considered possible breaches. I know I have, which of course does not exempt me from being mistaken.
In general, don’t assume anything about what other people have and haven’t considered in internet discussions

B. Who is in this thread is justifying a possible breach by referring to another’s breach?
Nobody. The usual argument advanced is “well there are books on amazon that discuss topic X so the secrecy doesn’t really matter anymore”. That is what I was referring to.

C. I rejoice in the certainty you have in what constitutes a breach by your teacher, in your lineage.
We need to retire this very passive-aggressive construction from DW discussion. If you disagree with me, just say it. I’m not going to be offended.

I’ve received phowa teachings in two lineages and in both cases the teachers, very highly regarded lamas, made it absolutely clear that details of the practice were not to be discussed with those who had not received it.
Sometimes these things differ between teachers and lineage.
Maybe. But which lineage says it’s ok to discuss details of yogic practices in public? Serious question. Can you name one?
D. Ask the mods to remove whatever you think is a breach, with a fully supported argument. If you have a strong case, I am all for it.
Sure, I will now.
Dharmaswede
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:22 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Dharmaswede »

PeterC wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:51 am
In general, don’t assume anything about what other people have and haven’t considered in internet discussions.
The main responder to my query in this thread has been Grigoris. I have read hundreds, if not more, of his postings over the years, and have grown to greatly respect his integrity and sincerity. I feel that I know him enough from his postings that I do assume he discusses sensitive issues with due consideration. Granted, the other commentators I don't know as well.

B. Who is in this thread is justifying a possible breach by referring to another’s breach?
Nobody. The usual argument advanced is “well there are books on amazon that discuss topic X so the secrecy doesn’t really matter anymore”. That is what I was referring to.
Don’t assume anything about...

I don't find arguing against arguments that have not been made to be very helpful.

C. I rejoice in the certainty you have in what constitutes a breach by your teacher, in your lineage.
We need to retire this very passive-aggressive construction from DW discussion. If you disagree with me, just say it. I’m not going to be offended.
Again, don't assume. I was not passive-aggressive, I intentionally wanted to add something positive and appreciate your intent on caring for the teachings and safeguarding against breaches. It is so easy to misunderstanding each other, and I am sorry if I came off as passive-aggressive.
I’ve received phowa teachings in two lineages and in both cases the teachers, very highly regarded lamas, made it absolutely clear that details of the practice were not to be discussed with those who had not received it.
Our understanding of what is prudent to discuss differs.
Sometimes these things differ between teachers and lineage.
Maybe. But which lineage says it’s ok to discuss details of yogic practices in public? Serious question. Can you name one?
I am not going to discuss lineages here. This is my responsibility. This teacher and lineage have published without restriction detailed instructions on the Sadhana, so let's just say that breaches are understood differently. This kind of variation in terms of what is being published by the lineages and teachers themselves, just shows how the definition of breaches do vary.

I am not saying that everything and anything about Phowa can be discussed publically because much has been published, but it is obvious that there is a variation here. I sincerely thought this discussion was not covering details that are sensitive.

You disagree, and I respect that. I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong which is one of the reasons why I appreciate your concern.
D. Ask the mods to remove whatever you think is a breach, with a fully supported argument. If you have a strong case, I am all for it.
Sure, I will now.

Thank you. I think that is the most constructive way forward.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17071
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Grigoris is no longer on the forum, FYI, and has not been for some time.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Dharmaswede
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:22 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Dharmaswede »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:19 am Grigoris is no longer on the forum, FYI, and has not been for some time.
Thank you, good to know. I will of course then leave him out of the discussion, if it should continue.
PeterC
Posts: 5173
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by PeterC »

Dharmaswede wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:04 am I am not going to discuss lineages here. This is my responsibility. This teacher and lineage have published without restriction detailed instructions on the Sadhana, so let's just say that breaches are understood differently. This kind of variation in terms of what is being published by the lineages and teachers themselves, just shows how the definition of breaches do vary.
thanks for your detailed reply.

Sure, restrictions are understood differently between lineages. however I seriously doubt that you will find many lamas who agree that signs of accomplishment for yogas should be discussed publicly. I’m pretty certain that the overwhelming majority would say that it’s not appropriate. Although the visualisations Etc vary by lineage, the basics don’t vary much. So you’re discussing stuff which is common to all lineages of this particular practice.

These days all sorts of supposedly secret practices are described in readily-available books. For most of these books a lama has consented to their being published. They have their reasons. But it doesn’t mean that vajrayana practitioners should discuss these things in public, even if there’s an argument that they might be permitted to do so.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13244
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Ayu »

Thread locked pending review.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13244
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Ayu »

Topic unlocked.
The OP's question was about scientific evidence for a Tibetan buddhist practice. Therefore this thread fits into both subforums: Tibetan Buddhism or Academic Discussion.

In order to make sure that this topic is not meant to discuss practice details but only questions of scientific evidence I moved the topic to Academic Discussion.

IMHO, no real exposure of secrets happened so far. Otherwise, if you disagree, please report the certain posts in detail.
Please stick to the topic as started by OP. I think, it's a very good question.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13244
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Ayu »

Dharmaswede wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:08 pm What design and method/s would be best for empirically validating the successful accomplishment of Phowa training (in life, not in death), i.e. from a third person epistemological point of view?
I think, there happened already much research on the impact of Buddhist practice in the field of psychology.

Probably you don't need to provide a Buddhist evidence (hole in the cranium) if you want to validate the practice empirically.
Maybe some research with EEG and ECG plus some certain questionnaires can do a better job?
Dharmaswede
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:22 pm

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Dharmaswede »

Ayu wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:04 pm
Dharmaswede wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:08 pm What design and method/s would be best for empirically validating the successful accomplishment of Phowa training (in life, not in death), i.e. from a third person epistemological point of view?
I think, there happened already much research on the impact of Buddhist practice in the field of psychology.

Probably you don't need to provide a Buddhist evidence (hole in the cranium) if you want to validate the practice empirically.
Maybe some research with EEG and ECG plus some certain questionnaires can do a better job?
Buddhism has indeed deeply impacted 21st-century psychology, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Positive Psychology and other paradigms are but a few examples. But most of the research falls within the parameters of accepted current science. For instance, that you can change the structure of the prefrontal cortex and enhance your capacity for sustained attention by Shamatha training. That falls under the principle of neuroplasticity.

Few scientists would readily accept that mind can create a hole in the cranium. That would constitute a paradigm shift that would overturn many assumptions about the nature of mind, brain, and matter. EEG, CAT scans, ECG, and similar technologies could lay the foundation for that leap. I honestly think it would blow a lot of minds... :rolling:
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by muni »

Cells of the body what we call ours, are having no owner and are constantly renewing. Some more frequent than other. I was searching how about the brain. That would be each year. And still we have memories from before that year. Consciousness is not locked in cells.

Phowa makes this experimental.
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Simon E. »

You know this...how? Is this your theory? Or have you received phonation from a phowa master?
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by muni »

Simon E. wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:00 am You know this...how? Is this your theory? Or have you received phonation from a phowa master?

Theoretically; coarse consciousness is dependent on brain but that consciousness comes from more subtle, subtlest consciousness. And that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. H H Dalai Lama.

If it were so that consciousness is only dependent on the temporary brain, then by dying, there would be no possibility for a continuation of stream of consciousness, there would no liberation possible when Lamas guide in the death proces by Phowa. Liberation would be impossible by whatever method.
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Simon E. »

You didnt answer my question. So I will draw my own conclusions.
Just in the interest of mutual disclosure I first received Phowa from a Bhutanese teacher called Ayang Rinpoche in 1990.

No amount of theoretical explanation can substitute.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Empirically validating Phowa

Post by Simon E. »

PeterC wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:34 pm I’m not sure how one would validate this. But I’m certain that many of the things discussed on this thread should not be discussed publicly. Doesn’t matter that they’re already out in the public domain, another person’s breach of damage doesn’t excuse yours.
This.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Locked

Return to “Academic Discussion”