[RobertK]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/52143

Joop: ...but also many conditions can lead to the rise of Buddha Sasana, for example the fact that more and more persons see (the proofs) that the Buddha was right. That for example neuroscientific research shows that the idea of arising and falling away of phenomena is correct.

Sukin:

I think the Dhamma is very deep and very hard to understand even intellectually. The Tilakkhana is not at all easy to comprehend, and most of us have only the very shallow level of intellectual understanding, let alone the level got from practice. We struggle with forming the idea of what anicca, dukkha and anatta is, so I think it is a mistake to think that we have any 'correct' understanding. It can lead us the wrong way.

We do have our conventional ideas about these and they may well be distinguished in our minds. But these conventional ideas do not lead to the understanding of the actual. Rather once we understand the actual characteristics of dhammas, our understanding of these conventional concepts will be different. As of now however, we are mostly just playing with "ideas".

Impermanence, Suffering and Non-self are characteristics of dhammas of which we still do not understand at all. We have at best a very vague understanding of matter, feelings, perception, consciousness and formations. Rupa for example, is so different from what most of us understand as 'matter'. Mind which is much more subtle is completely different. Feeling is different from perception and seeing is different from hearing. And this is why the first real understanding occurs when mind and matter is distinguished at the first vipassananana.

It is true that that which is ultimate must reflect one way or another in conventional reality. But so far our understanding of conventional reality is from the standpoint of ignorance (of dhammas). This is where Science and any modern enthusiast of Buddha Dhamma are at. So I doubt that the popularity of Buddhism and the apparent agreement between science and Dhamma should be taken as sign of the "growth" of the Sasana. For example, would science ever arrive at the conclusion that there are 28 rupas? No, I think that science is going in a totally different direction, one that is reliant upon concepts to explain other concepts and not one that will arrive at an understanding of even a *single* dhamma.

In other words, who so ever sees a parallel and possible merging of science and Dhamma may in fact be far from having an understanding of the Buddha's teachings, enough to be moving in the right direction. Better to be patient with the realization that our understanding of Dhamma is very weak, better to know also that the goal is to develop our own understanding and not think too much about how other's are doing and how to encourage them. Worse still to act on the idea about 'groups' and 'peoples', which I think to be ultimately nothing but a game centered on 'self'.

The Sasana stands and falls with reference not to the number of people going around calling themselves "Buddhist". Nor is it to the fact that the 'Books' are intact, which I think will last many thousands of years more. Scholars and other curious individuals will forever exist and lobha will in the name of saddha, preserve in gold or on CD the Teachings 'forever'. These are the forces which are in fact opposed to the one that actually maintains the Sasana, namely "understanding". It may be the single individual who 'understands correctly' the Dhamma in the last 500 years of the 5000 predicted who takes the Sasana along with him at his death, while millions still go on living calling themselves Buddhists, who knows?

Hope there has been some food for thought here.

Metta,

Sukin.

[RobertK]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40857

Howard: Yes, those are the loci for bodysense.

N: to be more precise: hardness etc. are the objects experienced through the doorway which is the rupa bodysense, by the vipaakacitta that is body-consciousness.

Howard:

Imbalance, dizziness, and nausea are all bodily sensations. Each is a rupa or sequence of body-door rupas. They aren't just stories. They can be and are directly experienced.

----------------------------------

N: We have to be more precise. Nausea, what is it? what is experienced through the bodysense? It may be some pressure or oscillation, and that is the element of wind or motion. Remember Htoo: he explained the experience of a painful wound as the experience of some moments of heat and also of hardness, alternately. We are self centered and think of my pain, my nausea, but let us analyse it, not naming it. Then we learn that they are only impersonal elements arising because of conditions and then gone. This must lead to detachment from I, mine.

Nausea, dizziness, all conventional terms to denote a situation with 'me' in the center of it all. If there is direct awareness of just the three Great Elements, one characteristic at a time, then there is no need to think of my discomfort. Is that not a gain?

H: There are many things missing in a corpse, most especially functioning of various sorts. There is no blood
circulation, no breathing, no heart beat, no brain function, no renewing of heat, no replacement of tissue, etc Life faculty, as far as I know, is not something to be found even in a living body.

----------------------------------------

N: You describe a situation, using medical terms. They are all true in conventional sense. But let us think of the real cause of life and death. Cause and result, kamma and vipaka. why is there no renewal of heat, etc.? There were conditions. The life faculty was cut off. Kamma did not produce any more bhavanga-cittas, life-continuity, and thus the continuity of the life of that individual was broken off. It was time for the cuti-citta, dying-consciousness. This is succeeded by the rebirth-consciousness of the following life, produced by kamma. It is really helpful to consider that whatever is experienced is only nama and rupa.

quote N: Life faculty is together with the rupas of the body that are produced by kamma.

---------------------------------------

Howard: I understand that you believe that, Nina. But I have no idea why.

N: I think that you find it acceptable that kamma produces birth. Kamma produces rebirth-consciousness and also some rupas at the first moment of our life. In the course of life we experience pleasant objects and unpleasant objects through the sense-doors, that is seeing etc, which can be a pleasant experience or an unpleasant experience. Such experiences are the results of kamma in the course of life. And also the rupas which are thesense-doors are produced by kamma throughout life, so that desirable and undesirable objects can be experienced. Now this answers your remark above that you had no idea why Life faculty is together with the rupas of the body that are produced by kamma. Life faculty is not in a tree, here are only rupas produced by heat.

--------------------------------------

quote: Thus, together with eyesense, etc. The senses are produced by kamma, (snipped). A corpse does not have this. It is only in a living body.

-----------------------------------

Howard: As far as I know, neither do I.

------------------------------------

Ledi Sayadaw uses some similes (on p. 16), under rupas. snipped.

------------------------------------------

Howard: It seems to me that all this business is just primitive biology. (Sorry)

N: I am glad you mention this point. The Abhidhamma does not pretend to teach biology or science, thus, it does not teach a primitive biology either. The Co, in their explanations, and also Ledi Sayadaw, use some notions in this field for teaching purposes. As you also understood: to denote location. The aim, as said before, is helping us to understand that rupas are only ephemeral, impersonal elements. Primitive: Lodewijk said that we have to be very careful with this predicate. Science which seems advanced now will be judge primitive some decads later. Let us cross the barriers of prejudices that exist between nations, about civilisations, religions, colour of the skin. Knowing that there are only citta, cetasika and rupa helps to do away with prejudices. The Buddha taught the truth for all times, for everybody. When I visited Kh Sujin in the beginning, she put down her hand and asked me what I saw. Only pink colour. She said that it does not matter whether it is pink, brown or any other colour. This teaches us that skin colour is not important. The Abhidhamma helps to cure prejudices between nations and between individuals. Citta, cetasika and rupa! Nina.

P.S. You have no fear of death. Can you elaborate on this, Howard? How is your Dhamma group doing, what are the subjects?

[RobertK]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/38311

But hearing can *lead* to bodily contact, and seeing can *lead* to bodily impact. As a consequence of seeing sudden, extremely bright light, there is a very sudden contraction of the iris (I presume it is), and that is painful. Likewise with the hearing of an extremely loud sound, there results a sudden vibratory motion within the ear that is very painful. I agree that it is the *body* contact that is painful.

------------------------------------------

N: I used to think in this way too. But then we are in the realm of science, lost in the ocean of concepts. Science is not our concern, it does not lead to detachment from the idea of self. So, it does not matter what causes the pain, but we know it is experienced through body-contact. There is no need to investigate further, about vibrations or the iris in the eye. We can learn to discern different dhammas at different moments.

--------------------------------------

Howard: I agree that ear-door conciousness and eye-door consiousness are different from body-door consciousness, but each of the first two can, and in fact probably always do, condition body-door contact, though often body-door contact that is subtle.

---------------------------------------

N: The conditions for body-consciousness are: the rupa of bodysense (all over the body) that is ready for impact of the element of tangible object. Moreover, kamma-condition and natural strong dependence-condition cause the arising of the vipakacitta that is body consciousness (and also its accompanying cetasikas contact, painful feeling and the others). The body-door adverting-consciousness, preceding the body-consciousness, is its proximate cause. I mention these conditions to make it clear that many different conditions are needed for one short moment of experience. In this case it was akusala kamma producing the painful feeling. But, seeing or hearing are produced by other kammas that may be kusala kamma. How could these be conditions for painful feeling? We should not mix different cittas, then we are thinking of a situation, an event, a whole, a person who has pain. No detachment.

--------------------------------------------

Howard: Actually, I can easily distinguish the seeing of a very bright light from the painful bodily reaction in the eye area immediately following.

-------------------------------------------

N: It is natural to think of an area in the eye, I do too. But that is again thinking of a place, of a situation. Understanding has to be developed of different dhammas arising each because of their own conditions, which are only elements, devoid of self. I know it is a long way to develop this understanding. We cannot hasten it. Pa~n~na works its way.
Nina.

[RobertK]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/37472

In my post yesterday, I intended to respond to other points you made in other posts, since I see that they may all be related. But that post was already getting too long (its frustrating that I can't seem to write short. :-/). So in this post I will express my thoughts about the topic of Science and how different this is from Dhamma.

The method of science I believe is basically the method of the `uninstructed worldling', only more developed in the direction taken. The worldling perceives earth as earth but goes on to conceive self and other `as earth', as `being apart from it' and `possessing it', reacts with desire or aversion, feeling pleasure, pain or indifference. To him "things" are real and permanent and he is driven to try to make sense of it, naming and identifying. This is where the more intelligent worldling, the `science person' comes in. The science person, like others, does not see the impermanence of rupas and conceives instead `things' out there, which he then attempts to study and classify. Those things are taken for real and further examined to determine the relationship to yet other `things' (sub atomic particles and other external matter). Taste, mell, tangibility, colour which in dhamma are ultimate realities, is perceived conceptually by the science person and classed instead, as properties *of* `things'.

Uttu niyama exhibits an array of diverse patterns and relations both within the body and outside, so there is much that an uninstructed worldling will be fascinated by. The science person being in fact one such worldling is able to focus on any given and limited set of such relations and impress others with data both concrete and abstract. And is also able to manipulate and create more fascinating "things".

This is not to say that such pursuits are useless, of course they are very useful. DSG wouldn't exist without the success of a number of these combined. ;-) However they are not to be seen as progressing towards the understanding of ultimate realities and the method used should not be seen as applicable to the development of panna.

When observing any given `thing' or data, a physicist, a biologist and an industrial designer for example, will each have a different perspective and come to different conclusions about the thing. Looking though an electron microscope or a telescope, different people even in the same field of interest will form different concepts in their minds about what is observed. But what is in fact experienced when data is seen on a computer screen or paper or that which is seen through a microscope or telescope? "The element of "visible object" which arises and falls in an instant.

So it seems science is the way of `ignorance' as far as dhamma is concerned. One does not have to know what really takes place in the sense door or even at the mind door. But choose amongst the concepts that develop much later. And without Right View, the concepts chosen would most likely be conditioned by personal bias, i.e. the dominant form of wrong view.

And what about the `method' of science which some think to be useful? Does this work with Dhamma? The putting forward of a hypothesis and then seeking to test it out is based on the belief in `things' out there to be tested and proven. But are dhammas similar testable? I think we will have to adopt one kind of wrong view or the other if we are to use the method of science to determine the truth of experiences.

In dhamma when the Buddha taught about "ehipassika" I think what is referred to is panna. Can I for example, presuppose that upon touching a book that `hardness' will appear? What about heat/cold? What about the `self' which will determine how I would perceive and conceive? It would be `I'-hardness and `I'-heat and not earth and fire elements. And not knowing this wrong view is increased.

When panna arises at whatever level, *it knows* and does not need to refer to other people's opinions or to any theory. Panna at the level of pariyatti is not waiting for patipatti to prove it right, but correct pariyatti is itself proof and so is patipatti and pativedha. They condition each other and no patipatti can arise without correct pariyatti and no pativedha without correct patipatti. It seems on the other hand that wrong view requires such looking back for conformation and so further feeds itself. :-(

Must go now.

Metta,
Sukin.

[RobertK]

H: There are many people who understand that there is no self at the helm of all that takes place. David Hume, for one, wrote about this at length. It is not a slight on the Buddha to suggest that others come to similar realizations as him, independently''

As you say Hume did reach conclusions that bear some (superficial) resemblance to the teaching of anatta. "for my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other・ never can catch myself without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception" (Hume).

However, anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be results and then other conditions coming together to assist the kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self - it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. It shatters illusion but it doesn't in any way lead to ethical nihilism because while there are still conditions there must be rebirth and the fruition of results.I would say kamma and rebirth are unavoidable aspects of anatta. And the incredible thing is someone (the Buddha) could comprehand the various conditioned and conditioning factors with detail and precision. Far, far above any ideas Hume ever had.

Jp :"Perhaps you have ever read about the 'Mind and Life' conferences in which the Dailai Lama invites the best natural scientist in the world to discuss with him the relation between science and buddhism.""

Yes I have - he meets with a few scientists who have an interest in Buddhism and they discuss consciouness and mind. I think these are great for those scientists but it would be very much a one-way street as I doubt science has much to offer Buddhism with regard to insight into mind. Philosopher of mind Collin McGinn writes in his summary of the different ideas: "The head spins in theoretical disarray; no explanatory model suggests itself; bizarre ontologies loom. There is a feeling of intense confusion, but no clear idea of where the confusion lies" (1993,). My favourite quote is the definition of consciousness in the International Dictionary of Psychology: "Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it" (cited in Crick, 1994, vii)

RobertK

[RobertK]

I started this letter to Herman because I think he feels the Dhamma should be amenable to western science.

Herman:"As long as I can think scientifically, I will apply scientific standards, ".

I have to be upfront and say I am not especially impressed by science. It is surely the outstanding cutural achievement of the west - but when I compare it with the Dhamma of the Buddha it seems more like stamp collecting than an investigation into what is real and crucial. I am also convinced that the ancient sangha, including the monks at the Mahavihara in Sri lanka preserved the true Dhamma: I value their words far, far more than that of historians of the 20th century.

Now to the main discussion. Herman, you have written that you don't believe in rebirth. You might identify with the words of the Buddhist writer Steven Batchelor. He thinks that the modern Buddhist does not look for Buddhism to answer questions about "where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death・ut would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, etc." (1997, p.18). He finds it "odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obliged to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function" (p.37).

However, Batchelors reliance on science for answers about what happens after death etc. has its own problems. Scientists, despite their metaphysically neutral pose, operate with certain assumptions about life: i.e. they have views. And the dominant view in science at this time is that the universe and life was a chance occurence. The big bang occured (no one knows why or what were the conditions ) and then a billion or so years later it happened that this matter came together to form stars and planets. On one planet, earth, it happened, purely by chance, that there were the right elements and conditions to form amino acids. These then formed complex proteins, which later formed bacteria. Life all arose out of matter. The fact that even a tiny cell is an incredibly complex organism (indeed so complex that scientists cannot make even one, despite all their technology) is not a hindrance to this view. Why?

Well, as biologist Richard Lewontin explains: "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism..... we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (from Lewontin's review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997). Recently Dighanaka gave us a link to one of Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) book, and it is useful to know what Dawkins beliefs are as I want to compare them later with Dighanaka's comments about the Aganna sutta. Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133).

And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892).

In case anyone thinks Dawkins ideas are idiosyncratic I quote some more leading Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, pp.344-345).

Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance." (p.167) As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2).

So this is where we (the 'west') have arrived at in our thinking. It is not a pretty, or even philosphically sound, place in my opinion.
.
RobertK

[RobertK]

I'm sure you would recognise that there are many ancient traditions amongst many different cultures. I cannot see why any tradition would have a monopoly on insight into the nature of reality, though I can understand the psychology behind a tradition making such a claim. Again I would say that there are many traditions with many doctrines. There is only (a common) reality, though, and to the extent a tradition or doctrine models reality well, such doctrines may well serve to alleviate the reality of suffering that comes to be recognised by all at some point of time. Buddhism as psychology is priceless, but Buddhism as science has been superceded a long, long time ago.

===============

Dear He...,

I agree that all cultures have their own take on reality. The thing is, though, are the teachings of the Buddha universal (not limited to one culture) and are they, further than that, true and mor profound than any other teachings. As you know I believe they are, and while many modern Buddhists revere science as some sort of counterpart or companion to Buddhism I find it quite mediocre and lacking. Even the skeptical kalamas of the kesaputta sutta - upon hearing a teaching from the Buddha could see its depth and they were inspired to proclaim "Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today." Do we have that same strength of faith? If not I think we should to endeavour to develop it with all speed. .

Robertk

[RobertK]

The texts say that at the first moment of a new life the rebirth- consciousness (patisandhi-citta) which arises is produced by kamma that was perfomed at some prior time. This citta can arise in planes where there are both nama and rupa (mentality and materiality) such as the human or animal realm or, so the texts say, in planes where there is no matter (the arupa brahma realms). If it is in a human or animal world (for example) then it arises at the heart base which is also produced by kamma. But the other rupas that support the heart base are produced not by kamma but by other factors such as temperature. Very quickly this tiny mass of matter and mentality grows: the matter is conditioned by various factors - nutrition, citta, kamma and temperature and in a few short weeks what was barely visible is a sizeable object.

Your comment "And how come that the birth citta manages to find itself a chunk of rupa (genes, parents, environment, etc.) that is exactly suitable to its ripening karma and to the death citta ... Has anyone worked out the mathematical / probability implications of this?""

The mass of rupas that comprise the egg and sperm before the patisandhicitta arises is only matter produced by temperature. If we think that it has to be exact and that it is all determined by genes' from the parent we won't understand the complexity of kamma and other conditions. Take identical twins: they can never be exactly the same even though genetically they are identical, in some ways their behaviour is a little different. Or recently a cat was cloned (an exact genetic duplicate of the mother) the report noted:

"Genetic tests confirm that the kitten, now two months old, is indeed a genetic copy of the original calico cell donor. Interestingly, the kitten does not have the same coloring as the genetic parent, a fact the researchers attribute to the play of dueling X chromosomes and developmental factors outside the control of the nucleic DNA."

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/SU102001/copycat.html

I read some reports where some scientists were suprised about this but it seems perfectly understandable when we know that 'genes' are only part of the story. You ask about what happens when the aeon ends and before a new aeon begins. In the Brahmajala sutta the Buddha says

"there comes a time, bhikkhus when after a long period this world contracts. While the world is contracting (disintergrating) beings for the most part are born in the abhassara brahma world there they dwell mind made feeding on rapture..and they continue thus for a long time..But sooner or alter there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. When the world begins to expand an empty palace of brahma appears.Then a certain being, due to exhaustion of his lifespan or merit arises there....."

I could add more if you like.

best wishes
robert

[RobertK]

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/

[RobertK]

http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm
http://dericbownds.net/2006/07/free-will-f...or-neither.html
Free Will, Free Won't, or Neither? A refinement of Libet's work on the conscious control of spontaneous actions.

In a famous paper published in 1983, Libet et al. showed that the recordable cerebral activity (readiness-potential) that precedes a freely voluntary motor act occurs at least several hundred milliseconds before the reported time of conscious intention to act. The actual movement occurs 200-250 msec after the reported time of intention to act. The data are pretty spooky when you think about it. They say that your brain ("it") has started working on a action well before "you" think you are initiating it! This article has sparked a continuing debate on whether we actually have free will. Libet has suggested that the ~200-250 msec period between awareness of intention and the actual action was sufficient to permit a "veto" of the action if it was judged inappropriate. In this interpretation, we might be said to be "free won't" rather than "free will".

Lau et al. have now done a more nuanced version of LIbet's experiments. In a previous paper they showed that, when participants were required to estimate the onset of their intentions using Libet's procedure, the activity in the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA) was enhanced ~228 msec before motor execution. In their most recent work they show that when participants were required to estimate the onset of their motor executions (instead of their intentions), the activity in the cingulate motor area was enhanced. This latter condition, judged to be more natural and have less task-demanding instructions. The perceived onset of intention could be as late as ~120 msec before the motor execution . "Together, these findings raise the question of whether the conscious control of spontaneous action can be done within a much shorter time window than we had expected, or whether, as suggested by Wegner (The illusion of conscious will Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002), our impression of conscious control is simply illusory."

I think Wegner has it right. His book, and his interpretation of our sense of agency as an after the fact ' emotion of authorship' is a must-read for anyone interested in issues of conscious volition

[RobertK]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/69028
Hi Howard,
--------
So, Nina, what you believe to be the case is fact, and the quarks and so on of the physicists are not? I don't know how you know that. To me it makes more sense to say I believe something to be the case rather than I know it to be so when, in fact, I don't really know it to be so.

-------

N: I study the Tipataka and Commentaries and I have confidence in them. What is taught in these texts I find very reasonable, it makes sense to me. I do not know anything about physics, but this cannot be compared to the Dhamma. Physics do not lead to liberation. I would rather replace the word belief by having confidence in. Confidence, saddhaa is a sobhana cetasika, arising with sobhana cittas. Thus, it is wholesome confidence, not blind faith. It is based on understanding, even if this understanding is still intellectual understanding, not yet insight, direct understanding.

---------

H: Now, I happen to believe in rupas also, Nina, very much so. But I take them to be elements of experience - physical experience, and not liitle bits of material.

------

N: Rupas are elements and they can be objects experienced by citta which is also an element. Element means: a reality devoid of self. Physical experience is not so clear: an experience is not physical, it is nama. But you mean: experience of physical phenomena.

-------

H: For a science of materials I'd sooner turn to the chemists and physicists circa 2007. But the main point of my question is how studying about rupas as opposed to subatomic particles is particularly suited to leading towards awakening and liberation. The subatomic particles of physics are every bit as anicca, sankhata, and anatta as are the rupas.

-------------------------------------

N: Science has another angle, see above. Why not be in comformity with the texts that teach us about nama and rupa? Read again the “Greater Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint” (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 28) where we read that Såriputta taught the monks about the four Great Elements. We read about the element of earth or solidity, which is translated here as “extension”:

<....And what, your reverences, is the element of extension? The element of extension may be internal, it may be external. And what, your reverences, is the internal element of extension? Whatever is hard, solid, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: the hair of the head, the hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow of the bones, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentary, stomach, excrement, or whatever other thing is hard, solid, is internal....>

Note, there is internal solidity and external solidity.

----------

Take hardness, the element of solidity that appears through the bodysense whenever we touch something hard. We can learn that in the ultimate sense there is not a hard thing, and there is no body. There is just the contact of element on element. At each moment all the rupas of the body arise, due to the four factors and then they fall away, there is nothing left of them.

---------------------------------------

Howard: Do you observe this falling away and replacement? We read that this happens, just as we read that to be so for the subatomic particles. Has any of such reading *shown* you the radical impermanence of phenomena? Do you expect it to?

---------------------------------------

N: Not yet, but I have confidence that this is the right way. If the right way is developed it will surely lead to such result.

---------

But rupas are replaced by new rupas and then our body seems such a solid thing that remains. In reality there is nothing left when at each moment each rupa falls away. This can be realized through the development of insight. We see people walking and moving their hands, and it is because of sa~n~na that we perceive this. In reality at each splitsecond all rupas fall away, nothing is left.

------------------------------------------

Howard:
Yes, yes - I believe this too. Belief is just belief.

--------

N: Again, shall we replace belief by confidence. And this should not be unwarranted. Based on thorough study and consideration of the entire Tipitaka, Abhidhamma included.

-----------------------------------------

Molecules do not have characteristics that can be directly experienced, knowing about them does not lead to detachment. One can think about them, but thinking is only thinking.

------------------------------------------

Howard:
Do you directly experience rupas? I know you believe they can be experienced, somehow. Actually, subatomic particles can in a way be experienced.

-------------------------------------------

N: Note: I mean experienced by kusala citta accompanied by pa~n~naa. We all experience hardness, but not necessarily by pa~n~naa. It is experienced by the citta that is body-consciousness, and after that kusala cittas or akusala cittas arise. There can be akusala cittas with ignorance that experience hardness. The characteristics of rupa can be gradually understood and this leads to detachment. This is different from looking at subatomic particles. Is this done with understanding and detachment? The goal is quite different.

--------

H:The point of my posts on this is twofold: 1) Belief is just belief, and 2) Knowing does not come about just on the basis of belief.

-------

N: Confidence which is kusala and which is strengthened by understanding. When one has confidence in the teachings one will study and consider more what is taught. One will also understand that sati and pa~n~naa do not arise by 'wanting to know' with attachment. From the beginning one has to remember that they cannot be induced, that they only arise because of the right conditions. Is this attitude not different from the scientist who wants to know more about the atoms? You cannot compare the two fields.

Nina.

[RobertK]

Thanks. It is true isn't it- nothing lasts at all. This type of consideration about anicca is useful. The more we accept that the better. Thinking alone isn't enough but at least seeing that everything must accord with the nature of parammattha dhammas helps us to see things in this light to some extent. Scientists have gradually uncovered that matter is almost nothing, simply space and very tiny particles changing rapidly: this is still a conceptual understanding but it accords with the way things really are (which if it is true it must). They know that every piece of matter is changing at a fanatstic rate. However, even the best scientists can't become enlightened by this knowledge as only direct experience of dhammas leads to the deepest type of wisdom.

I saw a passage in a book that included an interview with the head of the physics department at the University of Chicago (where they first started making the atomic bomb). It was in the 1930's and he was telling someone that they now knew that all matter was so ephemeral. He said he found it hard to accept that the very floor they were standing on was just space and particles in flux - nevertheless that is what they had found. We accept this easily now because of our education but it is not so easy to see. The actual change is much more radical than even scientsits can realise; it all passes away completely and arises again billions of times in a split second according to the scriptures.

Robert

[Scott]

An interesting perspective:

Finally Buddha Sasana has to disappear because of later disciples who are foolish and stupid enough to destroy the whole Sasana. The Sasana was said to exist 5000 human years. Now it is well over 2500 years. As everything is anicca then The Buddha Sasana is also Anicca. The wise man will follow the wise guide.

To pinpoint senses there are a lot of things to be learnt. Physiology is complicated and complex and advancing and that subject is a dynamic subject. While physiology is a dynamic subject, then neurology excels physiology as neurology has to depend on physiology.

There are many many sense receptors, their pathways, the place where the information in them are stored and these things are being explored and they are still endless. This happens. Because Pa~n~natti is not real.

As Pa~n~natti is not reality, it has no dimension. So it is not amazing that following Pa~n~natti-related things will never end.

The Buddha way is not just imagination.

There are only 5 physical sense doors. No more than that.

With Metta,

Htoo Naing

[RobertK]

In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Miller"
<bupleurum@y...> wrote:
>
> RobertK wrote:
> > I predict that the current scientific picture of the
> > world is completely skewed and will be viewed in the
> > near futures with derision...
> >
> > I do not believe that dhamma practice occurs in the brain.
>
> Then where does it occur?
=========
Dear Matthew,
Geoff has given an elegant reply that I can't really improve on. I
just add some extra.


>
> There is a huge and ever-increasing amount of knowledge about the
> brain and its workings, all of which appears to point conclusively
to
> the view that the mind simply cannot exist apart from the brain.
==========


I gave this hypothetical case:
Say some aliens came to earth and saw the internet working on a
computer. They take the computer back to Mars , absolutely sure that
the internet is in the computer. So they do tests, find hotspots
etc. Maybe they zero in on the battery pack and find that if they
prod it or cool it or something funny things happen. So they think
the battery is key. They spend vast resorces and make a pefect
battery, the monitor becomes brighter.. Progress!...
Or they pull out a wire and the monitor looks funny. AH! that must
be it....
They think they are really getting to the heart of the internet and
will soon plumb its depths. So they carry on - for decades. Every
year there is a facinating new discovery. Prodding a point there
gives this result,�@‚�rodding here another. They even invent new
machines which can map the temperature of the computers components
and 'prove' that at certain times and under certain conditions this
or that happens.
BUt they will never come to understand what the internet really is
by any of this.
And this is only an analogy - the internet is something that can be
understood without the help of a Buddha . Consciousness is much more
profound.

===============

>
> But if we do look at the evidence of neuroscience, the case
becomes
> even more convincing and a much more detailed picture emerges. As
> Colin McGinn writes:
>
> What we call the mind is in fact made up of a great number
> of subcapacities, and each depends upon the functioning of
> the brain
>
> =======
Colin Mcginn is a materialist philosopher (as so many are at this
time). But even with his materialist views he admits about the
various scientific ideas on consciousness�gThe head spins in
theoretical disarray; no explanatory model suggests itself; bizarre
ontologies loom. There is a feeling of intense confusion, but no
clear idea of where the confusion lies�h(1993) Problems in
philosophy: the limits of inquiry.
RobertK

[RobertK]

Hi Mathew,

I'm new to this conversation and so am ignorant of the context of
what you are trying to assert here:

> There is a huge and ever-increasing amount of knowledge about the
> brain and its workings, all of which appears to point conclusively
to
> the view that the mind simply cannot exist apart from the brain.

Are you trying to state that consciousness can be reduced to material
(i.e. neural, electric, etc.) activities and processes in the brain?
If so, can you support this with any definative scientific discovery?
More to the point, exactly what is consciousness made of?

> Today's brain scans reveals our thoughts, moods, and
> memories as clearly as an X-ray reveals our bones.
> We can actually observe a person's brain registering
> a joke or experiencing a painful memory.

To be sure, thoughts, moods, and memories have material correlations
in the brain which they are dependent upon for their arising, but is
the neuroscientist, when looking at a brain scan, observing a
thought, mood, memory, etc., or is s/he merely observing a visual
reproduction of the material correlation of said thought/mood/memory?
If the neuroscientist is actually observing a thought why is s/he not
aware of the content of this thought? If s/he is observing a joke why
doesn't s/he laugh?

What I'm getting at, is that from a phenomenological perspective, the
subjective experience of a thought is a distinctly different
phenomena than the objective experience of a neuroscientist observing
the material changes of this thought. And for this very reason it is
a cognitive error to reduce the subjective experience to the
objective one. They are related, but they are not the same.

This phenomenological method (i.e. abhidhamma method) exposes the
error of the materialist position that all mental phenomena can be
reduced to mere material phenomena. A subjective experience of
laughing is simply not the same phenomena as the material
neurological activities occurring in the brain, and these material
activities are not the same phenomena as the visual reproduction of
said material neurological activities observed by the neuroscientist.
They are related and interdependent, but they are not identical. One
cannot be reduced to the other.

Furthermore, because there is no irrefutable evidence that
consciousness is a material substance, there is no valid reason to
conclude that consciousness can't exist apart from the brain. True,
visual consciousness is dependent upon the material visual sensory
organ (eye, nerves, brain, etc.), as are all six sensory
consciousnesses, but consciousness as such, the pure subjectivity
that you are, hasn't been scientifically proven to be dependent upon
the brain (the effects of alchohol on the average mind is no proof).

And until such a time that pure subjective consciousness can be
scientifically proven to be dependent on the brain, the materialist
theory is only a mere theory, and as such is just another mental
phenomenon that one could observe, if one so wishes, with clear
seeing (vipassana) and thereby discern (panna) that it is not-self
nor does it pertain to a self. In this way one could, if one so
wishes, free oneself form the tangle of all limited views, positions,
and opinions. The Buddha stated that such freedom is radically
Deathless.

Geoff




Hi Mathew,

I'm new to this conversation and so am ignorant of the context of
what you are trying to assert here:

> There is a huge and ever-increasing amount of knowledge about the
> brain and its workings, all of which appears to point conclusively
to
> the view that the mind simply cannot exist apart from the brain.

Are you trying to state that consciousness can be reduced to material
(i.e. neural, electric, etc.) activities and processes in the brain?
If so, can you support this with any definative scientific discovery?
More to the point, exactly what is consciousness made of?

> Today's brain scans reveals our thoughts, moods, and
> memories as clearly as an X-ray reveals our bones.
> We can actually observe a person's brain registering
> a joke or experiencing a painful memory.

To be sure, thoughts, moods, and memories have material correlations
in the brain which they are dependent upon for their arising, but is
the neuroscientist, when looking at a brain scan, observing a
thought, mood, memory, etc., or is s/he merely observing a visual
reproduction of the material correlation of said thought/mood/memory?
If the neuroscientist is actually observing a thought why is s/he not
aware of the content of this thought? If s/he is observing a joke why
doesn't s/he laugh?

What I'm getting at, is that from a phenomenological perspective, the
subjective experience of a thought is a distinctly different
phenomena than the objective experience of a neuroscientist observing
the material changes of this thought. And for this very reason it is
a cognitive error to reduce the subjective experience to the
objective one. They are related, but they are not the same.

This phenomenological method (i.e. abhidhamma method) exposes the
error of the materialist position that all mental phenomena can be
reduced to mere material phenomena. A subjective experience of
laughing is simply not the same phenomena as the material
neurological activities occurring in the brain, and these material
activities are not the same phenomena as the visual reproduction of
said material neurological activities observed by the neuroscientist.
They are related and interdependent, but they are not identical. One
cannot be reduced to the other.

Furthermore, because there is no irrefutable evidence that
consciousness is a material substance, there is no valid reason to
conclude that consciousness can't exist apart from the brain. True,
visual consciousness is dependent upon the material visual sensory
organ (eye, nerves, brain, etc.), as are all six sensory
consciousnesses, but consciousness as such, the pure subjectivity
that you are, hasn't been scientifically proven to be dependent upon
the brain (the effects of alchohol on the average mind is no proof).

And until such a time that pure subjective consciousness can be
scientifically proven to be dependent on the brain, the materialist
theory is only a mere theory, and as such is just another mental
phenomenon that one could observe, if one so wishes, with clear
seeing (vipassana) and thereby discern (panna) that it is not-self
nor does it pertain to a self. In this way one could, if one so
wishes, free oneself form the tangle of all limited views, positions,
and opinions. The Buddha stated that such freedom is radically
Deathless.

Geoff

[RobertK]

Dear Herman, Joop and all,
Some more on science.

Herman: There are many people who understand that there is no self
at the
> helm of all that takes place. David Hume, for one, wrote about
this at
> length. It is not a slight on the Buddha to suggest that others
come to
> similar realizations as him, independently''

As you say Hume did reach conclusions that bear some (superficial)
resemblance to the teaching of anatta. "for my part, when I enter
most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some
particular perception or other…I never can catch myself without a
perception, and never can observe anything but the perception"
(Hume).

However, anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely
and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be
results and then other conditions coming together to assist the
kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the
round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and
conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self -
it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. It
shatters illusion but it doesn't in any way lead to ethical nihilism
because while there are still conditions there must be rebirth and
the fruition of results.I would say kamma and rebirth are
unavoidable aspects of anatta.
And the incredible thing is someone (the Buddha) could comprehand
the various conditioned and conditioning factors with detail and
precision. Far, far above any ideas Hume ever had.


Joop :"Perhaps you have ever read
about the 'Mind and Life' conferences in which the Dailai Lama
invites the best natural scientist in the world to discuss with him
the relation between science and buddhism.""

Yes I have - he meets with a few scientists who have an interest in
Buddhism and they discuss consciouness and mind. I think these are
great for those scientists but it would be very much a one-way
street as I doubt science has much to offer Buddhism with regard to
insight into mind.
Philosopher of mind Collin McGinn writes in his summary of the
different ideas: "The head spins in theoretical disarray; no
explanatory model suggests itself; bizarre ontologies loom. There is
a feeling of intense confusion, but no clear idea of where the
confusion lies" (1993,).
My favourite quote is the definition of consciousness in the
International Dictionary of Psychology: "Consciousness is a
fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what
it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has
been written about it" (cited in Crick, 1994, vii)
RobertK

[RobertK]

In a message dated 9/25/2004 8:58:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nori_public@... writes:
Hi TG,http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/36917

No, I just copied it off the site.

I was looking for the source myself but just got a bunch of other
sites with the same quote, but no source.

If you find it give me an email.

peace,
nori

Found the source in case you're interested.

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic
religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and
theology;
it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense
aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a
meaningful unity" -- Albert Einstein [1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human
Side,
edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[RobertK]

Science's "most beautiful theories"":

"Terrence Sejnowski, a computational neuroscientist at the Salk Institute, extols the discovery that the conscious, deliberative mind is not the author of important decisions such as what work people do and who they marry. Instead, he writes, "an ancient brain system called the basal ganglia, brain circuits that consciousness cannot access," pull the strings.

Running on the neurochemical dopamine, they predict how rewarding a choice will be - if I pick this apartment, how happy will I be? - "evaluate the current state of the entire cortex and inform the brain about the best course of action," explains Sejnowski. Only later do people construct an explanation of their choices, he said in an interview, convincing themselves incorrectly that volition and logic were responsible.