Buddhism And Science

[scameter]

Recently, I have been reading a book by the Dalai Lama. It is an extremely excellent book, one that I hope to acquire physically soon (being that currently I have borrowed the recorded version of it from the library). It is a discussion of the conversion of science and buddhism, a conversion to which I share his interest in. The section of it that I wish to discuss here, the elimination of the object and subject and the individual in light of buddhist and modern new physics philosophy, poses an extreme interest to me, as I hope it does to you.

In his book, he says that there is no true seperation of object and subject, that they are intrically mutual in their existence in spacetime because of relativity, discussed by both Einstein and by a Buddhist thinker two thousand years previous, and progressed further after Einstein. Something cannot exist independant or individual of it's surroundings, and that the origin of existence is not from a cingular organism or thing, but rather is a combination of multiple particle and subatomic compounds derived (I think, something that will be discussed in the next chapter of the book) from the large, magnanimous occurance of the Big Bang that is indeed not one organism or entity, but rather is a combination of space and time vomiting the substances and conditions for the progression of the substances to the state of existence currently in existence. It is also thought that common sense logic is of course necessary and seperate from larger thought, scientific and philosophical analysis and contemplation. He did not specifically say this, but I believe he meant that say in a car accident, it does not take an analysis of the extent and proponents of existence and of it's origins, or an equation of the infinity of existence, but rather simple common sense logic to determine who is to blame and what the consequences of the condition and situation must be, which is determined by the conceptual, symbolic laws of society to which society it's self has inplaced. He did, however, say that, for instance, to understand a chair, one cannot (if one truly desires to understand the chair, it's place and origin) merely say "It's a chair," but rather must philosophically, critically analyze it, saying that it is a configuration of wood, nails, legs, a back, the creator, the people who elected to call it a chair, and the people who elected to deem it available and utilized as something to sit on (with the wood and nails of course being simply examples); however, for the ease of an individual not caring about the chair's origin or place, it can merely be said that it is a chair, it's actual components or origin being irrelevent to that particular individual. Indeed, there are multiple entities in existence, but they are only individual so far as they are in relation to the whole entirety of existence. :)

[locomotive]

everything is objective or everything is subjective.

[scameter]

I disagree, in light of what I just said; but please, feel free to elaborate. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Classical science used to be objective in the sense that it described objects independently of the observer. I am saying "used to be", because in quantum mechanics the principle of an outside observer became untenable. In quantum mechanics, the observer is part of the observed system. This does resemble Buddhist epistemology, in particular the epistemology of the Madhyamaka school as expounded by Nagarjuna, which plays an important role in the Tibetan tradition (hence the Dalai Lama's mentioning of it). The chief principle is that knowledge about the world arises from the contact of the subject and object. Therefore knowledge is dependent on both, subject and object. The idea did not only appear in India. Although few people know it, St. Thomas Aquinas formulated a similar epistemology in the scholastic tradition. Aquinas held that perception was immanent and that the perceiver becomes one with the perceived form. Nagarjuna used the same principle as an axiom to develop the metaphysical doctrine of emptiness, in which all objects are empty of self. This doctrine does of course contradict the view of mainstream science which proposes a material (monistic) world with discrete objects and phenomena with definite characteristics.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Indeed, you essentially just sumarized, besides the comment on Acquainus, what the Lama said in his great book. I am glad you were able to so clearly recall that information for people to read; I myself have just recently, and only once, listened to it while doing other things, so such complex material wasn't easy for me to simply memorize. I did understand the concept however, and I do hope I understand it enough to discuss it here. It incredibly interests me, and I feel honoured to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with such brilliant people as do populate this site. :) I would like to comment that with your last comment, the Lama said that in his book, and also said that he believes the Buddhist critical analysis and the scientific critical analysis investigation methods to be so synonymous as to say that the Buddhist method fulfills science's inability to discuss that of ethics, philosophy and spirituality, and essentially makes a deal with science in a mutual manner as to make a whole of both spirituality and empirical science. It is very interesting. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

I am not sure whether I've read it. What's the title of the book you mentioned?

[scameter]

The Universe in a Single Atom. It's excellent. :)

[locomotive]

either you are an individual or you are not an individual.

[scameter]

Indeed it is psyche. :) And locomotive, essentially, because of the co-dependance of subatomic compounds in existence, there are no individuals.

[Thomas Knierim]

It's not the same as dependent co-arising (paticcasamuppada), but one might argue whether it is related. The teaching of paticcasamuppada is a more comprehensive analysis of how suffering arises from ignorance. Some also interpret it in an ontological sense, i.e. in view of phenomenal existence itself, and in this case one might be able to construct the bridge to the said. But I find it very difficult to interpret it ontologicallly. I even find it difficult to interpret it in the conventional way.

The law of "dependent arising" or "dependent origination" (paticcasamuppada) can be summed up as follows:

1. Ignorance is the condition for karmic activity;
2. Karmic activity is the condition for consciousness;
3. Consciousness is the condition for the name and form;
4. Name and form is the condition for the six sense organs;
5. Six sense organs are the condition for contact;
6. Contact is the condition for feeling;
7. Feeling is the condition for emotional love/craving;
8. Emotional love/craving is the condition for grasping;
9. Grasping is the condition for existing;
10. Existing is the condition for birth;
11. Birth is the condition for old age and death;
12. Old age and death is the condition for ignorance.

Note that 12. provides the link for a causal circle.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Hmm, interesting. However, I still find co-dependant origination interesting in the case of cosmology, something you were not denying. :)

[locomotive]

it is a matter of perspective.

[scameter]

so is 'grasping' the precondition for reincarnation....

Believeing in karma, you mean?

it is a matter of perspective.

Everything is; which is why people so love symbols and conceptuality, because it gives them an arena in which to have ultimate truth that actually doesn't physically exist, but rather that they can mentally control and alter as they wish, and thus to add laws and contradictions to, such as in language.

[The Great Death]

i just gotta say this website freakin rocks. and thomas, you rock for making it happen.

[Thomas Knierim]

GD: i just gotta say this website freakin rocks. and thomas, you rock for making it happen.

Thank you and welcome to thebigview.com!

psyche: ...buhddism is easy to remember once it is clearly defined....i think that is why i love it...once it is clear it stays clear...

If you find the teaching of the dependent origination clear then congratulations! I find it most opaque. I think it is probably the most difficult doctrine in Buddhism. I can see causality in links no. 5, 6, 7, 8, (with some mild doubts) 10, 11, and (if I subscribe to idealism) no. 3. I cannot see any straightforward causality in the other links. Probably this means I do understand half of the teaching. Should I consider myself lucky?

It is said that the Buddha realised the dependent origination during his enlightenment. Maybe that makes the matter extra difficult. :dunno:

scameter: Everything is; which is why people so love symbols and conceptuality, because it gives them an arena in which to have ultimate truth that actually doesn't physically exist, but rather that they can mentally control and alter as they wish, and thus to add laws and contradictions to, such as in language.

Let me throw in a bit of Buddhist epistemology at this point:

Buddhism distinguishes between three classes of phenomena. Unobscured (apparent) phenomena, partly obscured phenomena, and wholly obscured phenomena. Phenomena that are apparent to the senses belong to the first class. Phenomena that require both observation and logic to unravel them belong to the second class. Phenomena that are neither open to observation nor to logic belong to the third class.

Karma, and rebirth (or recurrence, reincarnation, or whatever you like to name it) belong to the third class of phenomena. That is, knowledge of this type of phenomena can be had only by "direct" revelatory insight. This type of insight -which may be taken as an epistemological method- is not available to most people, since it is a capability acquired only through spiritual training.

Hence, those who do not have access to this knowledge by means of direct insight must either accept it on faith or deny it. The type of faith that Buddhism calls for is quite different from the blind faith we usually associate with religions. It is not really faith, but rather trust in the authority, whereas it is up to you to decide which authorities you want to trust. It is notable, however, that on the question of karma and recurrence almost all Eastern spiritual masters agree.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Forgot to mention:

From the viewpoint of scientific realism, this position is of course assailable. For example, a scientist might claim that there are no phenomena which cannot be observed, at least in principle. A logicist might claim that the epistemological method of revelatory insight is poppycock. A psychologist might claim that any form of spiritual training inclines people to believe in underlying doctrines.

Oh well, there's really no logical counterargument.

The position of scientific realism is more or less an island from which there is no bridge (no escape) to alternative ontologies. In fact, almost every -ism and every conception of a definite ontology constitues such an island. One can only hope that its proponents are far-sighted enough to see that there are other islands. Once this step is taken, they may also realise that there is an ocean.

That ocean is Eastern wisdom.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

whether you believe in karma or not has no affect on karma...

If that's what you believe.

Let me throw in a bit of Buddhist epistemology at this point:

Why specifically at after I said what I said that you quoted? :think:

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: i feel almost embarrased now to say i understand the doctrine as you presented it...but i have gone over them a number of times and still it seems clear to me...

In all possibility it is me who is blockheaded about this. I haven't yet come across a clear elucidation of the internals of paticcasamuppada. Others keep telling me that it is easy to understand. But I get only half of it. ...which is the reason why you don't find a page about paticcasamuppada in the Buddhism section of this website.

What concerns the whole, I can easily see how ignorance is the root cause of suffering. Living in Thailand, where -in spite of Buddhism- ignorance is staggering in the poor peasant and worker circles of society was an eye opener in this regard. I could indeed list thousand ways by which ignorance causes direct or indirect suffering.

I can see causality in the links number 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. I am not sure how consciousness is the cause of form, because unless I assume radical idealism, forms can be hypothesised to exist for themselves without consciousness, although there is of course no one to name them.

How karmic activity is the cause for consciousness, how name and form is the cause for the six sense organs, how grasping is the cause of existence, and how old age is the cause of ignorance (except in people like President Bush :lol: ) is not entirely clear to me.

Cheers, Thomas

[Kether]

psyche: ...Buddhism is easy to remember once it is clearly defined....i think that is why i love it...once it is clear it stays clear...
I find that Buddhism's doctrinal 'format' is harder to grasp than that of Western philosophy, as understanding the full reasoning behind it is difficult: the setting out of doctrines into lists makes it hard to refute or confidently accept, whereas the way Western philosophers typically present their theories as the 'journey' that led them to their conclusions is often easier to understand and deconstruct.

I've found that since joining this forum I've softened considerably towards Buddhism. To be honest, at first I dismissed it because I disliked religion and theology. I have not changed my position towards religion, but I've found that the metaphysics behind Buddhist teachings is very sound and certainly worth listening to. The trouble was that the scant teaching offered to me in school about the subject stressed the applied, lifestyle aspects of it, rather than the actual philosophy itself - that came later, and from this website. That's the wrong order, in my opinion.
Buddhism distinguishes between three classes of phenomena. Unobscured (apparent) phenomena, partly obscured phenomena, and wholly obscured phenomena. Phenomena that are apparent to the senses belong to the first class. Phenomena that require both observation and logic to unravel them belong to the second class. Phenomena that are neither open to observation nor to logic belong to the third class.
I believe that phenomena open to neither logic or observation cannot be objectively understood, since the only phenomena that fall into that category concern the emotional experience of the Subject - their feeling, their experience and their internal response to it.

Here's what I think:
Perception is an act of thought and thought is symbolism: therefore perception is symbolism.
Cognition - with the possible exception of consciousness, which remains a mystery to me - consists of the interaction of environment with the workings of the neural system of which the brain is a part, or possibly of the interaction of abstract thoughts with abstract thoughts (ie, a priori knowledge, the existence of which is of course hotly debated).

Such mental processings produce the phenomenon of Mind: this processing is central to the brain, and it records and reflects the reality that is being perceived - it is not reality in and of itself, but appears that way. Thus it can be said to be symbolism, which proves the shakiest premise of the argument detailed above. The other - 'perception is thought' - seems to me self-evident.

Therefore, no perceptions can be utterly 'unobscured' or 'apparent'. However, nor are they all wholly obscured - they are symbolism, representation, and thus some can 'represent' the reality better than others. Reality does not exist as that which our thoughts suppose it to be: but we can bring our thoughts closer to reality, and thus understand it better.

At this point, an apparent fallacy becomes painfully obvious. If thought is symbolism, then surely our judgement of reality is clouded by it? My answer to this involves a categorisation of acts of cognition - a distinction between the most basic ones that are innate to human beings, and those that require a higher degree of subjective conceptualisation. Vision falls into the first category; ethics into the second.

The thoughts that fall into the second category can be judged in terms of 'truth' (that is, how well they symbolise reality) by viewing the world using the thoughts of the first kind. This is a nearly impossible task, and some shortcut is therefore needed. Type-two conceptualisations make analysis easy - that is of course the very reason for their existence, from an evolutionary perspective. But, as outlined above, they can cloud that which is being analysed, and the way around that is therefore to escape them, and to use this 'objective' knowledge ('objective', at least, for all intents and purposes) to build concepts that 'represent' well. How can we escape this quandary?

I think that the best way is to examine how type-one thoughts and perceptions work. This is a task for scientists, but I shall assume that they have a logical, causal structure, as what knowledge of them I have seems to point this way. The structure of causality in reality seems to also be logical: this is why reason works as far as understanding the objective world is concerned. It attempts to see the system and the rules that govern it.

With knowledge of why type-one thoughts work, we can create a type-two thought that works: that has the efficiency of type-two coupled with the 'objectivity' of type-one. That system of type-two thought is logical analysis.

We can use logical analysis to view the reality without clouding our observations with too much value. But logical knowledge is not enough. Logic can give us excellent knowledge, but can it give us the high-level conceptualisations - like our aesthetic and emotional responses as subjects to experience - that are ultimate to us from an existential point of view?

My answer is that the existence of such conceptualisations does not come from logic, but nor does it come from religion, as some suppose. It is ingrained in us by external, social forces during the early years of our lives, and remains there ever since, or else is biologically innate. It will always exist, but it can take any number of forms, and the form it takes can change at any point, provided we have the right conditions.

I will leave the question of which form those conceptualisations should take, and of the standards by which to judge them, open to debate, as I am somewhat undecided: however, existentialist ethics may be helpful. I shall research the subject.

I hope this isn't too off-topic :lol: .

I have always found the idea of discrete individuals hard to believe: both their existence and their properties are created by things other than themselves. The existence and working of the whole system of the interconnected universe must be the only thing that depends only on itself.

[scameter]

I have always found the idea of discrete individuals hard to believe: both their existence and their properties are created by things other than themselves. The existence and working of the whole system of the interconnected universe must be the only thing that depends only on itself.

Hmm...honestly I think it's mutual, that there are individuals, but only insofar as they fit into the entire system, and so there is no system without the individuals that play into it; forth derives the concept of harmony, being that if an individual aspect of the entire system is damaged or displaced or even entirely murdered (and I don't mean only humans), then the entire system gyrates and fluxuates, and if it does so too much, it will either alter it's flow, or, in the most extreme of circumstances, it will disintegrate, or simply remove the causer of the fluxuations. I find this to be an extremely interesting aspect of Taoism. :)

[Kether]

I think it's mutual, that there are individuals, but only insofar as they fit into the entire system
What I meant was that the individual owes its existence and essence to things other than itself. What you say could be thought of as true.

As for harmony, we must bear in mind that the system is always fluid and changing. Those changes can be terrible, but they are not upsetting nature; they are part of nature.

[scameter]

What I meant was that the individual owes its existence and essence to things other than itself. What you say could be thought of as true.

Indeed.

As for harmony, we must bear in mind that the system is always fluid and changing. Those changes can be terrible, but they are not upsetting nature; they are part of nature.

Yes, Taoism accounts for that too, that change is also apart of nature, and that the harmony of nature is fluid and adaptable; however, harmony does have limits, if even vast, and it can be disturbed. The disturbances may be physically natural, but harmony is beyond mere biology.

[nOx23]

Hello Thomas. :)

Thomas Knierim wrote:
If you find the teaching of the dependent origination clear then congratulations! I find it most opaque. I think it is probably the most difficult doctrine in Buddhism. I can see causality in links no. 5, 6, 7, 8, (with some mild doubts) 10, 11, and (if I subscribe to idealism) no. 3. I cannot see any straightforward causality in the other links. Probably this means I do understand half of the teaching. Should I consider myself lucky?

Ignorance of the way things are creates Kamma.
Kamma being volition. The teachings of Interdependent Origination are intertwined with the theory of Anatta and the Khandha. Ignorance of anatta, is responsible for the illusory belief of an inherently existing entity, an individual self. The ignorant belief of a self is then projected onto the acts of volition and the activity that is associated with it. The belief that the self is willing action and movements, thus creating the belief in a conscious self. The mental fabrication of consciousness or, “I AM” is thus formed and then projected onto the name and form of the body. It now identifies as the body. And now since this belief of “I AM” is projected onto and identified as the body, we have the resulting quandary of the Subject/Object dichotomy and thus the World is created and the wandering continues...Birth, Life, Death, Birth, Life Death.....

[Kether]

The disturbances may be physically natural, but harmony is beyond mere biology.
The structure studied by biology can, like every material system, be reduced to subatomic particles (Though it cannot be studied at that level because of its complexity). Is this what you meant, or were you referring to something metaphysical? Harmony seems to me to relate only to the material structure of the universe.

[scameter]

The structure studied by biology can, like every material system, be reduced to subatomic particles

Indeed, in philosophical scientific reductionism.

Is this what you meant, or were you referring to something metaphysical? Harmony seems to me to relate only to the material structure of the universe.

Well, honestly it's not easily explained. To me, it is a combination of everything, with each individual aspect being necessary to it's existence; not our view or belief of it, but it it's self. I think it is biology, physics, metaphysics, spirituality, cosmology, history, and many other things, if not everything else in existence. I cannot say with any certainty if harmony relates beyond the physical, but I believe it is not something "mapable" by humanity; all the systems of connections in nature and in existence cannot be mapped by humanity, unknown to our usually arrogant selves. It is something understood, not comprehended; experienced, not learned. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

nox23: Ignorance of the way things are creates Kamma.
Kamma being volition. The teachings of Interdependent Origination are intertwined with the theory of Anatta and the Khandha. Ignorance of anatta, is responsible for the illusory belief of an inherently existing entity, an individual self. The ignorant belief of a self is then projected onto the acts of volition and the activity that is associated with it. The belief that the self is willing action and movements, thus creating the belief in a conscious self. The mental fabrication of consciousness or, “I AM” is thus formed and then projected onto the name and form of the body. It now identifies as the body. And now since this belief of “I AM” is projected onto and identified as the body, we have the resulting quandary of the Subject/Object dichotomy and thus the World is created and the wandering continues...Birth, Life, Death, Birth, Life Death.....

Thank you, nox, very good. Now I can see that ignorance of anatta causes volition. That in itself is quite profound. So, let's cross no. 1 off the list. :) But then there's link no. 2 stating that karmic activity (volition) causes consciousness. -Ouch.- How so? And how can volition and ignorance exist prior to consciousness?

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: The trouble was that the scant teaching offered to me in school about the subject stressed the applied, lifestyle aspects of it, rather than the actual philosophy itself - that came later, and from this website. That's the wrong order, in my opinion.

There is no right or wrong order. To approach Buddhism by the religious/devotional path is simply the conventional way which happens to suit most people. The reason for this is that most people simply don't operate at your intellectual level. They would find this degree of abstraction off-turning. Since you do operate at this level, it will be easier for you to penetrate the higher teachings of Buddhism. The Buddha said that there are many levels of teaching, because there are many levels of understanding.

Kether: I believe that phenomena open to neither logic or observation cannot be objectively understood

It depends what you mean with objectively. These phenomena cannot be understood objectively in the sense of science, since there is no means of external verification. They are basically non-scientific. However, you must ask yourself whether it is viable to limit yourself to knowledge of the scientific type. In this case all knowledge about ethics, art, inner experiences, suddenly becomes very questionable.

Kether: Therefore, no perceptions can be utterly 'unobscured' or 'apparent'.

Everyday sense perception and the a priori categories of knowledge belong to the 'unobscured' class. For example, causality such as in billiard ball causality, is apparent and unobscured. Phenomena such as microscopic life, the atomic and subatomic world, the design of the cosmos, etc. are partly obscured phenomena. We need both instruments and theory to perceive them. Phenomena such as the collective subconsciousness, OBE, NDE, extrasensory perception, karma, God, spirits, belong to the class of obscured phenomena. We experience such phenomena only under special conditions (which is why most people deny them).

Kether: My answer is that the existence of such conceptualisations does not come from logic, but nor does it come from religion, as some suppose. It is ingrained in us by external, social forces during the early years of our lives, and remains there ever since, or else is biologically innate.

You are not trying to revive British empiricism, are you? :lol: Yes, ethical and aesthetical value judgements are largely influenced by culture. Some are universal to humanity. For example, all cultures condemn parricide. Others are specific to geo-ethnic groups. For example, killing members of enemy tribes is considered meritiorious in some societies. Ethical and aesthetical value judgements are programs which are implanted in the human mind at an early age. Some of these programs are beneficial to humanity, others are not. However, there is one crucial capability that allows us to reflect on our own programs and even to reprogram them. That is self-awareness.

The entire spiritual venture is aimed at developing higher levels of self-awareness and thus -if you want- increased capability for reprogramming. This will eventually lead to a state of awareness that makes direct (inner/revelatory) knowledge (called insight in Buddhism) possible.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

You are not trying to revive British empiricism, are you? :lol:

:D

[nOx23]

Thank you, nox, very good. Now I can see that ignorance of anatta causes volition. That in itself is quite profound. So, let's cross no. 1 off the list. smile.gif But then there's link no. 2 stating that karmic activity (volition) causes consciousness. -Ouch.- How so?

No problem. :)

I know how that perspective is confusing but, Codependent Origination, just like Causality, is not linear. If we view it as A then B then C..... it becomes rather difficult to understand.
But if we think of it as cyclic, or as round, (The Wheel of Samsara, The Rounds of Re-Birth...etc), like a round roof, viewed from above, where each of the beams in the frame of the roof simultaneously supports each other, hopefully it becomes easier to understand.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/DBLM/resource/ebooks/102946/102946-223.gif


The Buddha found that Ignorance (avijja) is the keystone, if we eliminate ignorance, we then can shatter the chain of Causality, or bring the roof down.

And how can volition and ignorance exist prior to consciousness?

Again, if viewed from a liner perspective it is confusing. But these phenomena arises simultaneous and dependent on each other.
A couple things to consider.
Action can exist separate from consciousness. Such as a sleep-walker. They can move about, create havoc, suffering and even death, wholly unconscious (ignorant) of their actions.
Or consider a fetus in the womb, when it’s feet come in contact with the embryonic sack, it instinctually kicks it’s feet. Again, we have action separate of consciousness.

Another simile would be.....How can fire exist prior to a match?

[scameter]

Another simile would be.....How can fire exist prior to a match?
lightening...

But is that really fire, or electrical stimulation and static electric steps in the atmosphere?

[Thomas Knierim]

Thanks again, nox. I understand that the wheel is the central symbol of Buddhism and many of its teachings can be illustrated by wheel-like diagrams. There's the wheel of life, the wheel of karma, the wheel of the dharma, and so on. Thanks to you, now we have a wheel of co-dependent origination. What does it mean? First it means circularity. The circularity is given by the element of ignorance (avijja) which is simultaneously the beginning and the end of the chain. Secondly, it means interdependence. The entire wheel exists as a structure only if all components are present. If a spoke is removed, then the structure becomes instable and ultimately collapses. Third, it implies sequentiality. This means the first spoke is followed by the second, which is followed by the third, and so on.

Ergo, you have removed linearity, but you have not removed sequentiality.

This does help a great deal. The connections become clearer. Yet, it does not explain why there is a definite sequentiality as suggested by the order of the spokes. Sequentiality is either temporal, spatial, or causal. In the language of the paticcasamuppada it is causal. In turn, the principle of causality usually implies spatiotemporal continuity. So there must be a definite order to it. If the system was purely interdependent, we would not be able to determine any order.

What concerns link no. 2, you are right in saying that action does not need to be conscious action and that action in general doesn't require consciousness. A machine acts unconsciously. But can we call the actions of a machine volitional? Can we call the actions of a sleep walker volitional? Are they actions in the sense of sankhara (karma formations)?

Cheers, Thomas

[nOx23]

psyche wrote:
Another simile would be.....How can fire exist prior to a match?

lightening...

Fire exists prior to a match as potential.

both your posts were excellent...I saved the drawing to contemplate ...thank you...

Thank you very much.

Thomas wrote:
Thanks to you, now we have a wheel of co-dependent origination.

I appreciate that, but I in no way, shape, or form originated, developed, or even contributed to the concept, or the circular drawing of The Wheel of Life. All I did was simply hotlink the image, nothing more.


Third, it implies sequentiality. This means the first spoke is followed by the second, which is followed by the third, and so on.

Ergo, you have removed linearity, but you have not removed sequentiality.

Yes, it may still be sequential, but since it’s not linear and all the constituents arise simultaneously and dependent, not only does ignorance condition volition and consciousness, consciousness, while being supported and conditioned by mind and matter, also conditions and supports volition and ignorance.
Also Ignorance is supported and conditioned by the preceding Birth, Life/Death.

In all honesty Thomas, I am simply a student as yourself, so this conversation is beneficial to myself as well. I am by no means purporting myself to be an expert or even a novice.

This subject is very, very dense, and the knowledge that I posses regarding Interdependent Origination is equivalent to the size of a grain of sand, floating in the Cosmos.

[scameter]

how quantum does volition and karma get

Hmm...to me, quantum mechanics simply applies to physics, not actual consciousness and sentiency, including volition and karma. Neurology can of course somewhat explain volition, but not karma; karma deals with consciousness. However, the Dalai Lama (and I'm not entirely clear on this so I'm not saying it with entire concreteness), in the book I'm listening to, is saying that the problem with science is that it only answers how, and denies any questions of why. This limits it to the purely physical, not to the psychological, especially not to issues of sentiency, karma, or consciousness. To me, I have essentially come to believe that science simply describes, whereas philosophy explains. Explanation isn't exactly description: description is simply investigating and reporting exactly how something works, but does not explain it. Ecology comes close, being that it goes beyond the common scientific reductionism/materialism to actually observe the Earth objectively, seeing the infinite amount of natural cause and effect connections, something the Lama also noted as that, in buddhism, because of the essentially infinite amount of connections, we can never know either one thing entirely, or the entirety of existence entirely; it is impossible. I personally like this idea, because it views science as it actually is, and essentially places scientific reductionism in the realm of philosophy, making it subject to actual philosophical questioning and analysis, including that of the logic of buddhism. Ecology is quite possibly my favourite science, because it observes nature admiringly and with care, rather than trying, as does biology for instance, to impose our will on it uncaringly, simply for knowledge-acquiring. For instance, in Darwin's The Descent of Man, in one section he is explaining how he was in England and saw that a certain type of fir plant grew at the top of a hill, but not so much at the bottom of it, and only in patches at the top. He noticed the age of the age of trees growing there by observing their rings and noticed that the cattle, and thus everything else affecting their existence, effects the existence of the fir plant. But, the rings of a tree cannot be seen without seeing the inside of the tree, thus he had no problem cutting it in half simply to acquire knowledge, even though he knew that would affect the environment there. In ecology, however, it seems like, as in it's predecessor natural philosophy, that observation is attempted with the least amount of intrusion possible, unlike in biology. This I prefer, being that it possesses more humanity and more care than the arrogant uncaringness of biology, willing to affect nature purely for knowledge.

Fire exists prior to a match as potential.

Exactly; simply the condition for fire exists, not fire. Fire must be kindled, it does not arise out of it's own choice to. Lightning, however, is usually forced to exist by atmospheric conditions, as can be with fire in a forest fire for example; not to imply choice, note. But lightning cannot exist by choice, yet fire can be assembled.

[Thomas Knierim]

nox: This subject is very, very dense, and the knowledge that I posses regarding Interdependent Origination is equivalent to the size of a grain of sand, floating in the Cosmos.

Your knowledge is enough to be helpful, and helpful it was. Never mind, understanding Buddhism is probably a lifetime task.

What concerns the match and the fire, on the other hand, the answer is easy. The fire came looooooooong before the match. Just like the egg came looooooooooong before the chicken. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[Kether]

It depends what you mean with objectively. These phenomena cannot be understood objectively in the sense of science, since there is no means of external verification. They are basically non-scientific. However, you must ask yourself whether it is viable to limit yourself to knowledge of the scientific type. In this case all knowledge about ethics, art, inner experiences, suddenly becomes very questionable.
I did indeed mean 'objectively' in the sense of science.
'Scientific knowledge' is knowledge about the structure of the physical reality. 'Knowledge' about ethics and art is concerned with the values placed upon reality by human beings: their personal response to experience.

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: err...lifetimes task?

Yes, proper understanding requires lifelong training and practice. So it is with many things. Of course, it is possible to gain a reasonable scholarly understanding in less time.

psyche: but it it necessary to completely understand in total transparency ever doctrine in order to become enlightened...

I suspect that on the path to enlightenment the meaning of all doctrines must be and will be revealed, not only the doctrines of Buddhism, but of all religions. But when and how that happens depends on the individual. There is no prescription about intellectual understanding spearheading insight. Sometimes intellectual understanding may lead, somtimes it may follow. If the individual's mind is strong, then the intellectual understanding is more likely to lead. If the mind is less strong, then it's more likely to follow.

A keen intellect is an advantage in most cases, because it allows the individual to proceed much faster. It can be likened to a sharp blade. A sharp blade cuts through the thicket faster than a dull one. Whether this automatically leads to a faster "spiritual evolution" is debatable, however, because intellect can also be used in the wrong way. It may give raise to many illusions and "erroneous ways" which the less intellectual individual may simply not see, or which may not open up to him. Therefore it is not totally clear whether a sharp intellect is an unconditional advantage.

You have mentioned the traditional four types of Yogas. This is an excellent example of how the Hindu tradition has developed different systems for different types of people. For example, the path of karma yoga suits individuals whose intellect and whose emotions are not too strong, but who have will power. The path of bhakti yoga suits individuals whose intellect and whose will power is not too strong, but who have a strong emotional side. The path of jnana yoga suits individuals whose emotions and will power are not too strong, but who have a strong intellect. Both, strong intellect and strong will power are required for raja yoga. Finally, for mixed types, there is the possibility of combining these different types, as in integral yoga (Aurobindo).

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

The fire came looooooooong before the match. Just like the egg came looooooooooong before the chicken.

Indeed.

'Scientific knowledge' is knowledge about the structure of the physical reality. 'Knowledge' about ethics and art is concerned with the values placed upon reality by human beings: their personal response to experience.

Just as science is our symbolic interpretation of what we physically experience in life into scientific belief.

I suspect that on the path to enlightenment the meaning of all doctrines must be and will be revealed, not only the doctrines of Buddhism, but of all religions.

Indeed. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Hello scameter,

I wanted to ask you this for some time. Would it be possible to mark the quoted passages in your replies in some way, for example by putting [ quote ] ... [ /quote ] tags around them? Currently it is quite difficult to tell what you said and what someone else said.

Thanks, Thomas

P.S.: Here is a site you will probably like: http://tokumeikan.com/

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: what i meant by lifetime(s) is doesn't it take many lifetimes to accomplish this...though theoretically it can be done in one lifetime...

It might... But you cannot normally know under what conditions other lifetimes took/will take place. Therefore you can't really count on other lifetimes. What can be done needs to be done here and now.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: oh yes...true you must not procrastinate but neither do you need to feel anxiety that your task is not accomplished in the space of this lifetime because it has accumulated....

Anxiety is counterproductive, but there is a fine line between anxiety and a proper sense of urgency. Self-growth must be the number one goal in life, and at some stage this must necessarily take the form of enlightenment, transcendental union, liberation.

psyche: it is not like you lose all your spiritual data when your hard drive dies....

What if it does? Maybe not all at once, but as the consequence of a series of unfortunate events. Perhaps next life some unfortunate karma takes shape. Or you might commit unskilful acts and fall into a downward spiral.

There's no way to know.

[nOx23]

Thomas
But can we call the actions of a machine volitional? Can we call the actions of a sleep walker volitional?

Ultimately no actions are truly volitional, it is only the belief that one is expressing and acting out their will and desires. That creates the illusion of volition.

Are they actions in the sense of sankhara (karma formations)?

The actions of a machine differ in the fact that they are not conditioned by moral or immoral intent.

psyche

I quess my real question is how quantum does volition and karma get

The six sense-objects such as, sound, form, smells, tastes, tangible and mental objects collide with the corresponding sense-organs, which gives rise to the six types of consciousness. This collision between the object and the senses, is known as phassa (contact). Dependent and conditioned by contact, feelings arise.



The Buddha states:

"Because of eye and forms, visual consciousness arises; contact is the conjunction of the three. Because of ear and sounds, arises auditory consciousness; because of nose and odours, arises olfactory consciousness; because of tongue and sapids, arises gustatory consciousness; because of body and tangibles, arises tactile consciousness; because of mind and mental objects, arises mind-consciousness. The conjuction of these three is contact. (Samyutta Nikaya, part ii, p. 70; Kindred Sayings, part ii, p. 50.)

[Kether]

A keen intellect is an advantage in most cases, because it allows the individual to proceed much faster. It can be likened to a sharp blade. A sharp blade cuts through the thicket faster than a dull one. Whether this automatically leads to a faster "spiritual evolution" is debatable, however, because intellect can also be used in the wrong way. It may give raise to many illusions and "erroneous ways" which the less intellectual individual may simply not see, or which may not open up to him. Therefore it is not totally clear whether a sharp intellect is an unconditional advantage.
I can think of no instances where intellect would be a liability, but it is certainly not a fast track to understanding. It can be utilised in any number of ways, many of them false, destructive and unwise - understanding needs other factors as well. Still, when both these and intellect are present, understanding is more likely to come than when the latter is absent.

[scameter]

May I inquire, how exactly is "intelligence" defined? Is it sentience, or logic, or belief, or emotion, or something else? :)

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: that is interesting...i believe that spiritual effort and the resulting attainment is the one thing that you do not lose permanently...though it might be intercepted by periods of unfruitful or horrific karma... [...] that once you began that your eventual enlightment was inevitable...in fact that it was inevitable for you to begin...

As far as I understand Buddhism the accumulated merits or demerits don't just disappear, but they give raise to manifestations in this or another life time. Thus attainments are not "lost" when life ends. Perhaps you have heard of the Buddhist concept of the "stream enterer". I think this is what you mean. Stream entering is the first stage of realisation of four stages, whereas the fourth stage is that of an Arahat (in Hinayana) or Bodhisattva (in Mahayana). The first stage is important, because it is thought to be irreversible. I am quoting from from http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArt...le/id-1769.html (http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1769.html) :

"Stream-enterer: The first direct insight into selflessness is often the most powerful because it's unlike anything you've ever experienced before. For a timeless moment (which may last just an instant), no one is there — that is, there's no trace of a separate self anywhere. A feeling of tremendous relief, often accompanied by joy and bliss, generally follows the experience: At last, you've had the insight you've been seeking for so long. At last, you've "entered the stream" of realization.

When you become a stream-enterer, you can never again believe that you're really a separate self that lives inside your head and looks through your eyes. Your experience forever eliminates this illusion. When you look within, you can't find a self anywhere. In everyday life, however, you may still feel like a separate somebody and may still get caught up by greed, anger, ignorance, and various other negative feelings and patterns. Fortunately, the stage of stream-enterer also brings an unshakable confidence and dedication to the Buddhist spiritual path, so you're motivated to keep deepening and refining your realization."

The curious thing is that once the stage of a stream enterer has been attained, there is no more stream enterer, i.e. there is no one to enter any stream and no one to attain anything. Figure that out. <_<

nox: Ultimately no actions are truly volitional, it is only the belief that one is expressing and acting out their will and desires. That creates the illusion of volition.

Maybe this is the case. This fits with the observation I have previously described that everything "just happens" with us and that there are simply events.

However, if one accepts this to be the case, one would have to give up conventional language which always refers to subject-object relations and which implies that there is a subject.

A subject implies volition. As long as we are talking about individuals, selfs, and persons we must use the concept of volition, even if only in an operational/provisional sense.

nox: The actions of a machine differ in the fact that they are not conditioned by moral or immoral intent.

Likewise, the concept of intent requires a subject.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

But is "subject" not a concept as well, and thus requiring of intent?

[nOx23]

Thomas
The curious thing is that once the stage of a stream enterer has been attained, there is no more stream enterer, i.e. there is no one to enter any stream and no one to attain anything. Figure that out.


Even before the Stream has been won. There never was, at any time an enterer. So the view that there is no longer a stream winner is a erroneous view, a Nihilistic view, that leads into re-birth of woeful states.
To assume that the Stream Winner is “no more”, is to superimpose the notion that the individual has had a beginning, consequently declaring that individual is without cause. And if the individual is without cause, it has independently originated and is therefore intrinsic in it’s being and therefore incapable of change, anhilation, ceasation or Liberation.


However, if one accepts this to be the case, one would have to give up conventional language which always refers to subject-object relations and which implies that there is a subject.

Why do you think that?


A subject implies volition. As long as we are talking about individuals, selfs, and persons we must use the concept of volition, even if only in an operational/provisional sense.


In the mundane sense, yes. If volition is present, it is prudent to use it skillfully. But, ultimately this perspective is an affliction, it is simply ignorance perpetuating suffering in the thicket of Wrong Views.

Likewise, the concept of intent requires a subject.

It requires the conceptualization of a Subject, but at no time has there ever been a Subject and therefore no Object(s), either.

[Thomas Knierim]

nox: So the view that there is no longer a stream winner is a erroneous view, a Nihilistic view, that leads into re-birth of woeful states.

This begins to sound a bit like the standard Theravadan doctrine I am familiar with from my Thai background. Do you have a Theravada background by any chance?

Of course I didn't mean to say that the stream enterer magically vanishes when anatta is realised. It is just gone from imagination. Imagine you walk in the woods at night time. Suddenly you notice a winding body on the forest floor the size of an arm. Did it move? It must be a snake. Within the fraction of a second the surge of adrenalin accelerates the breath and heartbeat. Then you switch your flash light on. It's just the root of an old tree. Suddenly the snake is gone.

nox: Why do you think that?

The grammatical structure of human language has the basic form of subject-predicate-object (SPO), and although the order is permutated in some languages, the principle is always the same. This means there is an active agent, a source of action, and and a passive object, the receiver of action. If the subject is a sentient being, language implies that action emanates from the subject in a volitional form. There are many words that imply volition, such as "want", "should", "ought", "make", "do" and so on. Doing, for example means volitional acting.

If you want to explicitly express non-self in language you cannot talk about subjects at all. You can only talk about the interaction of phenomena. The use of grammatical subjects in ordinary language, such as personal pronouns, would detract from that purpose. Likewise, to take non-volition into consideration it would be disadvantageous to use verbs that imply volition. Thus the grammatical structure of ordinary language doesn't seem to lend itself to expressing certain Dharma truths.

nox: It requires the conceptualization of a Subject, but at no time has there ever been a Subject and therefore no Object(s), either.

If the concept is an illusion then why conceptualise it?

Cheers, Thomas

[nOx23]

Thomas
This begins to sound a bit like the standard Theravadan doctrine I am familiar with from my Thai background. Do you have a Theravada background by any chance?

Yes. Theravada and the Tipitaka are my initial and primary source and practice.


The grammatical structure of human language has the basic form of subject-predicate-object (SPO), and although the order is permutated in some languages, the principle is always the same. This means there is an active agent, a source of action, and and a passive object, the receiver of action. If the subject is a sentient being, language implies that action emanates from the subject in a volitional form. There are many words that imply volition, such as "want", "should", "ought", "make", "do" and so on. Doing, for example means volitional acting.

I would disagree that "want", "should", "ought", "make", "do" and Doing, implies a volitional agent existing and acting.
As long as there are the four elements animated by consciousness there will be acting and doing.
It is due to the ignorance of Anatta and CoDependent Origination, that one projects onto bare phenomenon, that one sees volition in these vacuous acts.


If you want to explicitly express non-self in language you cannot talk about subjects at all. You can only talk about the interaction of phenomena. The use of grammatical subjects in ordinary language, such as personal pronouns, would detract from that purpose. Likewise, to take non-volition into consideration it would be disadvantageous to use verbs that imply volition. Thus the grammatical structure of ordinary language doesn't seem to lend itself to expressing certain Dharma truths.

Well, considering that I am a mere ordinary human being, and assuming that I am conversing with other ordinary human beings, I am relegated to the fact of using ordinary language to express extraordinary ideology.
Now, if we were a gaggle of Buddhas, sitting around chit-chatting over tea, your point might hold some validity, but to me it seems a bit semantical. ;)


If the concept is an illusion then why conceptualise it?

As long as there is a conscience mind, there will be concepts. Even Buddhas conceptualize, they just are not fooled by the illusory, subject/object distinctions created by this conceptualizing mind.

[Thomas Knierim]

nox: I would disagree that "want", "should", "ought", "make", "do" and Doing, implies a volitional agent existing and acting.

In ordinary language it does. If I say that I want to visit granddad, I express my intent. If I do visit granddad then I am acting (volitional) on that intention.

nox: As long as there are the four elements animated by consciousness there will be acting and doing. It is due to the ignorance of Anatta and CoDependent Origination, that one projects onto bare phenomenon, that one sees volition in these vacuous acts.

This is interesting. I must say, I did not understand the first sentence, but in the second sentence you seem to say that volition does not exist. Do you think that codependent origination suggests strict determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism)?

nox: Now, if we were a gaggle of Buddhas, sitting around chit-chatting over tea, your point might hold some validity, but to me it seems a bit semantical.

A gaggle of Buddhas drinking tea? :lol: I meant to say there are different levels of teachings, as the Buddha had once asserted, and that they seem to correspond to different uses of language. The doctrine of dependent origination appears to me more full-fledged but less intelligible than the four noble truths, perhaps making use of "another class" of language. Of course, this may be due to my lack of understanding. The varying translations of some Pali terms certainly don't make it easier. For example, what is sometimes called "name and form" is elsewhere translated as "mind and body".

This brings me to a sutta I stumbled across in the search of an analysis of codependent origination. It's the Maha-nidana Sutta (Digha Nikaya 15) (http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn-15-tb0.html), also known as "The Great Causes Discourse". I am quoting from a translation by Maurice Walshe, not the online translation of Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

[...]"If asked: 'Has mind-and-body a condition for its existence?' you should answer: 'Yes.' If asked, 'What conditions mind-and-body?' you should answer: 'Consciousness conditions mind-and-body.'"

"If asked: 'Has consciousness a condition for its existence?' you should answer: 'Yes.' If asked, 'What conditions consciousness?' you should answer: 'Mind-and-body conditions consciousness.' "

"Thus, Ananda, mind-and-body conditions consciousness and consciousness conditions mind-and-body, mind-and-body conditions contact, contact conditions feeling, feeling conditions craving, craving conditions clinging, clinging conditions becoming, becoming conditions birth, birth conditions aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress. Thus this whole mass of suffering comes into existence."

Aha! The interesting thing here is that the Buddha defines the phenomena of mind-and-body and consciousness not arising sequentially but circular, i.e. mutually dependent. This is much in agreement with the view of biology which understands consciousness and behaviour as a property of the phenotype.

psyche: so you both have theravada backgrounds in common and my interest is another type of buhddism...

Let me tie this in with the discussion about the paticcasamuppada. The Mahayana interpretation is that ignorance and samskara, being the causal link to consciousness and mind-and-body, produces a sentient being. The links from number four to number twelve can be observed in our world; they are part of everyday experience. The causal link between craving and becoming, though difficult to understand, is at the same time the cause of new life as in sexual reproduction. From there another sentient being enters the picture and the cycle continues.

Mahayana distinguishes between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness, or clear light consciousness, and -if I understand it correctly- explains rebirth with the transference of clear light consciousness. However, since the whole process of the wheel of life is set in motion by ignorance, clear light consciousness must actually be "clouded" by ignorance to continue the process. Is that correct?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

'the dying person has the true buddha nature whether he or she realizes it or not'

But wouldn't that be ignorance?

[scameter]

lol Please my friend, you're perfectly fine here. :)

[scameter]

Here's mine:

Too many unfinished tasks or chores might have you feeling pressured to get them done, dear Scorpio, creating unnecessary stress and strain. Pace yourself, and don't panic if you have to let some of them go for now. You're probably feeling more sensitive than usual, so you might also pick up some upsets from the people around you. Take periodic breaks and go out for a walk. This should clear your head and make things easier for you.

[scameter]

Why?

[scameter]

see...

Not really.

[scameter]

What's that?

[scameter]

The Dalai Lama said of Buddhism that enlightenment can be attined quicker by someone who is willing to sacrifice their enlightenment and liberation and even happiness for someone else.

[schrodinger]

I just like to mention the Belgian astrophysicist, Georges Lemaitre and his book "The Primeval Atom", written in 1950. His perceptions were at least twenty years ahead of cosmology, and presaged "The Universe in a Single atom".

Also, the very act of attempting to establish determinism produces indeterminism. Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli debated this question in Copenhagen in 1927. Thanks to them we have the uncertainty principle and the principle of complementarity.

I believe these two items are relevant to your present discussion?

[scameter]

Of course, anything you could possible say or think is. :)