Buddhism And Neuroscience

[sabaijai]

Buddhism and Neuroscience

By David Weisman, M.D.

Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com)

Created Jan 26 2011 - 5:33pm

Did Buddhism get the brain right?

One of my previous essays was picked up with approval by at least one Buddhist, saying it "could be a basic Buddhist teaching text." That essay concerned neurology's demonstration that the thing we take as our unified mind is false. Our mind is not unified and, indeed, can barely be said to exist. It mostly fools itself into being, and it is easily fractured into separate parts, in which the subject maintains subjective unity through the use of confabulation.

At the time, I'm sorry to say I was privately dismissive. One hears this sort of thing all the time, especially about Buddhism and the brain. Like any religion, Buddhism made pre-scientific claims about the world and will root itself in the real when allowed.

When science supports a particular religious teaching, you can expect members of that religion to become strict empiricists, telling themselves and the world that their belief is grounded in reality. For example, the Judeo-Christian tradition happily accepts a weather model out of the University of Colorado showing how wind could have created a land bridge for Moses and his exodus. They are less happy to accept scientific data that contradicts their preconceived beliefs, witness the religious response to evolution.

No surprise there. No human likes to be wrong, but science doesn't care. Science, at least good science, tells us about the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Sometimes what science finds will be consistent with what religion wishes it to be. But usually not, and I should note that on every large issue: human origins, our place in the universe, cosmology, and our minds, science finds profound contradictions to most religious thought.

My understanding of Buddhism is incomplete, but I think I have the essentials down. Briefly: one of Buddhism's central dogmas teaches the world is constantly changing and there is no such thing as a permanent state. This seems appropriate as far as the natural world is concerned, and apparently it should not be applied to mathematical truths or moral certainties, but is sometimes applied to Buddhism's own dogmas. Buddhism has had eons to work out the seeming contradictions, and it is only someone who was not indoctrinated into Buddhism who finds any of this weird. Or at least any more weird than any other religious dogmas, like, say, the belief that a God breathed a soul into the first human and since then all (or at least most) humans have them.

When a Buddhist applies the idea of constant change to the self and the soul, he gains an insight that other religions lack. What we call a mind (or a self, or a soul) is actually something that changes so much and is so uncertain, that our terms for it do not find meaning. The Buddhist word for self is anatta and it means 'no self.' It is used to refer to oneself, while cleverly reminding the user of the word that there is such thing.

Within this framework, one is immediately struck by the disconnect between perception and religious teaching. All is endlessly changing, but I feel unified and unchanged from moment to moment, year to year. The way things feel becomes suspect, just as it does in modern neuroscience. Broadly, both Buddhism and neuroscience converge on similar points of view: the way it feels to be you isn't how it is, that even our language about ourselves is to be distrusted (witness the tortured negation of anatta), and there is no permanent, constant soul in the background.

Despite saying there is no self, Buddhism does posit an immaterial thing that survives the brain's death. Through life there is a consciousness, always changing like the world, one mental state rising like a wave to crash on the beach, then another and another. After a person's death, the consciousness re-incarnates. This isn't much of a trick, since even during a Buddhist life, each moment can be considered a re-incarnation from the moment before. The waves still lap, the beach shifted. If you're good, they might lap at a higher organism. If you're not, well, insects clearly have consciousness and someone's waves need to supply it.

So how does Buddhism do? Pretty well. Buddhism lays out the concept that there is no mind the way we tend to consider them (as we consider our self). In broad strokes, neuroscience and neurology agree.

Brain problems give rise to an altered experience of the world, and the alteration nearly always challenges one's unified, static perception of one's self. This is because every experience you have depends on the neuronal machinery working silently below the surface of awareness. These neurons give rise to your personality, memory, ability to plan, your emotional valence and the emotional charges assigned to people, places, things, and goals. The loss or dysfunction of these neurons produces problems with what the brain does: the production of our mind.

Alzheimer's disease typically affects the brain cells responsible for forming new memories. Without them, there is no memory. One might want to remember, but without the neuronal machinery, it is impossible. Sad, but it demonstrates pretty much what Buddhism tells us, the self is constantly changing, sometimes for the worse.

The brain is also constantly shifting, creating unconscious streams which can sway what we still call, in our ignorance about ourselves, our volition. Neuroscience is getting at this fact. In one study, typical of its kind, subjects were asked to play a sort of shell game in which high rewards were hidden behind risky choices and low rewards were hidden behind low risk choices. It has been shown that humans with damage to the right pre-frontal cortex tend to make risky and ill-considered choices. One man I knew, who had a frontal dementia, engaged the services of a prostitute and brought her home, intending to introduce her to his family.

The study subjects played the game after low frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced slight dysfunction in their right or left frontal lobe. They made riskier choices after TMS to the right frontal lobe.

This study, and many others like it, offers support to the view that a decision is not a single process, or a monolithic , unified machine, even if that's the way it feels. The reality is that a decision is the result of many streams, some at odds with each other, the winner is what we call a volitional decision.

Of course this study is also perfectly compatible with naturalism. But the results challenge every theology on the planet - with the possible exception of Buddhism.

Does this endorse Buddhism? Well, yes it does, and it does so surprisingly well. Buddhism gets quite a bit correct. It does so in a vague manner of course: they get to propose a soulish thing that accounts for mental activity and partially survives one's death and they get to deny this thing as well. The dogma of a surviving bit of self that gets reincarnated is, of course, without support. But the extent to which Buddhists get things right is in proportion to their comfort with neuroscience. When it comes to finding support for their religious beliefs, the comfort can become unseemly when some seek out labs and findings in which the self is shown to divisible, a slave to brain function, and illusionary.

How did they do it?

I speak here as an outsider, but it seems to me that Buddhism started with a bit of empiricism. Perhaps the founders of Buddhism were pre-scientific, but they did use empirical data. They noted the natural world is changing, and this is certainly right. If there is one constant in our world, it is constant change. At the same time, Buddhism made an important connection: we are part of the natural world, and processes in the natural world apply equally to rocks, trees, insects, and human selves. Thus, if change is central to the natural world, it is central to our nature as well. The monotheistic religions instead elevated humans above and beyond nature. So a great deal of conflict with science concerns taking humans off their delusional pedestal: from our proper place at the fringe of the universe to our descent from common ape-like ancestors. Because Buddhism never made these errors, it seems better able to handle scientific theory and observation.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/54633

[christiaan]

Thanks for this long contribution.

I wonder if this is right : processes in the natural world apply equally to rocks, trees, insects, and human selves.

I would rather think all named phenomenons are in their specific processes.

The processes in a human body are not to find in a rock or a plant and some of them also not in any animal.

Then it is confusing to read this also would apply to human selves, since there is no self according to Buddhism, shouldn't this be human minds ?

Furter on I think it is possible we have the same problem in Judea-Christian religion as in any other religion. The main stream, in their way, is explaining their religious texts as they see it. I would say the popular way, the easy to understand way. This doesnot necessarily have to be the correct explanation.

In esoteric christianity (battled by the institutionalised Christian Churches) there is a different and much wider explanation of evolution and there the explanation is not based on just material empirism but more on spiritual 'empirism'. But how many Buddhists are aware of this?

Science in general is looking for answers to questions as they are formulated in that specific time in human history, human evolution.

One of the wonderfull aspects of science is that it is evolving in time to, in contrary to most religions.

This means science is also in change and constantly correcting itself.

In fact, the state of the science represents the state of human abbiltity to formulate questions and find answers relagted to those questions, those abillties are also not constant.

We also have to realise, by observation, many answers were found by intuition and by coincidence.

Then, where does the neoroscience finds or locate the waves of consciousness within the brain that doesnot 'die' after dead?

Some people would say this is just as fantastic as the breath of God just wishfull thinking.

[AYJAYDEE]

religions arent evolving over time??

Thanks for this long contribution.

I wonder if this is right : processes in the natural world apply equally to rocks, trees, insects, and human selves.

I would rather think all named phenomenons are in their specific processes.

The processes in a human body are not to find in a rock or a plant and some of them also not in any animal.

Then it is confusing to read this also would apply to human selves, since there is no self according to Buddhism, shouldn't this be human minds ?

Furter on I think it is possible we have the same problem in Judea-Christian religion as in any other religion. The main stream, in their way, is explaining their religious texts as they see it. I would say the popular way, the easy to understand way. This doesnot necessarily have to be the correct explanation.

In esoteric christianity (battled by the institutionalised Christian Churches) there is a different and much wider explanation of evolution and there the explanation is not based on just material empirism but more on spiritual 'empirism'. But how many Buddhists are aware of this?

Science in general is looking for answers to questions as they are formulated in that specific time in human history, human evolution.

One of the wonderfull aspects of science is that it is evolving in time to, in contrary to most religions.

This means science is also in change and constantly correcting itself.

In fact, the state of the science represents the state of human abbiltity to formulate questions and find answers relagted to those questions, those abillties are also not constant.

We also have to realise, by observation, many answers were found by intuition and by coincidence.

Then, where does the neoroscience finds or locate the waves of consciousness within the brain that doesnot 'die' after dead?

Some people would say this is just as fantastic as the breath of God just wishfull thinking.

[christiaan]

religions arent evolving over time??

Thanks for this long contribution.

I wonder if this is right : processes in the natural world apply equally to rocks, trees, insects, and human selves.

I would rather think all named phenomenons are in their specific processes.

The processes in a human body are not to find in a rock or a plant and some of them also not in any animal.

Then it is confusing to read this also would apply to human selves, since there is no self according to Buddhism, shouldn't this be human minds ?

Furter on I think it is possible we have the same problem in Judea-Christian religion as in any other religion. The main stream, in their way, is explaining their religious texts as they see it. I would say the popular way, the easy to understand way. This doesnot necessarily have to be the correct explanation.

In esoteric christianity (battled by the institutionalised Christian Churches) there is a different and much wider explanation of evolution and there the explanation is not based on just material empirism but more on spiritual 'empirism'. But how many Buddhists are aware of this?

Science in general is looking for answers to questions as they are formulated in that specific time in human history, human evolution.

One of the wonderfull aspects of science is that it is evolving in time to, in contrary to most religions.

This means science is also in change and constantly correcting itself.

In fact, the state of the science represents the state of human abbiltity to formulate questions and find answers relagted to those questions, those abillties are also not constant.

We also have to realise, by observation, many answers were found by intuition and by coincidence.

Then, where does the neoroscience finds or locate the waves of consciousness within the brain that doesnot 'die' after dead?

Some people would say this is just as fantastic as the breath of God just wishfull thinking.

I think and understand people do have different opinions about this.

To discuss that would be another topic.

[lungmi]

http://eurotas.org/uploads/pdf/abpf.pdf

A good article.

He connects modern psychological cognitions with Buddhism in the mirror of P.A.Payutto.

[lungmi]

FREDRIK FALKENSTRÖM

A BUDDHIST CONTRIBUTION TO THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF

Self as system

One of the leading contemporary psychoanalytic theoreticians, Otto Kernberg, has

proposed to 'reserve the term "self" for the sum total of self-representations in intimate

connection with the sum total of object representations' (1982 p. 900). The self in

Kernberg's view is a kind of overarching system of self-representations, and this self

can be integrated, split, differentiated, undifferentiated and so on. As Westen (1990)

has pointed out, this is actually a kind of circular defi nition (the self is the sum of

self-representations, and self-representations are representations of the self). Even so,

Kernberg's view has been enormously infl uential and useful in psychoanalytic character

diagnosis and therapy with severe personality disorders.

Kernberg's self-concept is one further level of abstraction and thus further removed

from actual experience. A self-image is a snapshot of the person self in a certain moment,

a self-representation is made up of several images, and the self (in Kernberg's defi nition)

is made up of several representations. This hierarchical differentiation between the more

specific representations of self in interaction with other and the overarching system of

all representations of self in relation to objects is especially useful for the diagnostic

understanding of the degree of integration or diffusion of ego identity. It is unfortunate,

though, that the term 'self' is used to mean both the actual person and a complex

system of representations, because of the confusion it creates. Other authors use the

term representation to denote the higher organization of representations as well as the

more specific ones, but this usage is also problematic in that it obscures which level of

abstraction is currently implied in the use of the term. One way to solve the problem

would be to use the term 'self-concept' for the overarching system of self-representations

and 'object concept' for the overarching system of object representations.

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

The cycle of dependent origination

The emergence of a sense of self is described in the second of the Buddha's four noble

truths, in the theory of dependent origination (Payutto, 1994). The theory is made up

of twelve causal links, starting with ignorance (of the impermanent, unsatisfactory

and selfless nature of reality) and ending with birth, aging and death. According to the

Buddha, this process is the root cause of suffering and unsatisfactoriness in life. The

standard interpretation of dependent origination is one of rebirth, but there is also another

interpretation that focuses on the birth and death of the sense of self on a moment-to-moment

basis. It is this latter interpretation that is of interest here.

The cycle of dependent origination is made up of the following twelve links:

1) Ignorance

2) Volitional impulses

3) Consciousness

4) Body and mind

5) The six sense bases

6) Contact

7) Feeling

8) Craving

9) Clinging

10) Becoming

11) Birth

12) Aging and death—resulting in suffering (Payutto, 1994).

Basically, this means that, in a moment when there is ignorance (of the nature of reality)

in the mind, volitional impulses based on that ignorance will tend to be created. This

will in turn tend to affect the nature of consciousness and the state of the body and the

mind in that moment. This affects the six sense bases (mind with its thoughts and feelings

being the sixth sense base in Buddhist psychology) to receive stimuli in a certain way.

In the moment of contact between awareness and the inner or outer world (through one

or more of the six sense bases and its stimulus) there will arise a pleasant, neutral or

unpleasant feeling. With the arising of feeling there will arise craving; the desire to seek

pleasurable sense objects and avoid unpleasant ones. When this desire becomes stronger

it is called clinging, a kind of preoccupation that creates a fi xed attitude and evaluation

in the mind toward the object of desire or aversion. This conditions the mind to behave

in certain ways or form certain beliefs (becoming), which is then followed by the birth

of a sense of self—a perception of someone who acts, succeeds, fails and so on. With

the arising of a sense of self there will inevitably be the experience of decline and death

of that self, resulting in more or less subtle forms of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and

despair. Because of the changing nature and inherent complexity of reality there will be

constant threat and anxious efforts to protect this self, resulting in contraction and the

creation of defense around the perceived self (Payutto, 1994).

The cycle described above, with ignorance as the basic foundation, is what is called

'samsara'—

---------------------------.

The underlining comes from me. P.A Payutto in his interpretation is focused

on the moment-to-moment experience, not on the Three-Lifes-Theory

lungmi

[healthcaretaker]

Another good article that brings sceince closer to Buddhism. I am sure Bruce....... will find it useful.

As I mentioned several times, Buddhism is the only religion that has nothing ever taught being proven to be wrong or untrue by science.

Buddhism is already 2500 over years, science only several hundred years the most ?

In other words, Buddha discovered his "knowledge" in a pre-sceintific time through his own state of mind where ordinary common people could not do. Now it is time for science to prove them slowely but I am sure with more advanced technology now, it will not need another 2500 years for science to prove karma and rebirth.

Just wait for someone to write more on the energy formula and theory. That is even more convincing and believable.

Some religions like christianity especially, will not like it but too bad, they have to accept it eventually.

[christiaan]

FREDRIK FALKENSTRÖM

A BUDDHIST CONTRIBUTION TO THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF

Self as system

One of the leading contemporary psychoanalytic theoreticians, Otto Kernberg, has

proposed to 'reserve the term "self" for the sum total of self-representations in intimate

connection with the sum total of object representations' (1982 p. 900). The self in

Kernberg's view is a kind of overarching system of self-representations, and this self

can be integrated, split, differentiated, undifferentiated and so on. As Westen (1990)

has pointed out, this is actually a kind of circular defi nition (the self is the sum of

self-representations, and self-representations are representations of the self). Even so,

Kernberg's view has been enormously infl uential and useful in psychoanalytic character

diagnosis and therapy with severe personality disorders.

Kernberg's self-concept is one further level of abstraction and thus further removed

from actual experience. A self-image is a snapshot of the person self in a certain moment,

a self-representation is made up of several images, and the self (in Kernberg's defi nition)

is made up of several representations. This hierarchical differentiation between the more

specific representations of self in interaction with other and the overarching system of

all representations of self in relation to objects is especially useful for the diagnostic

understanding of the degree of integration or diffusion of ego identity. It is unfortunate,

though, that the term 'self' is used to mean both the actual person and a complex

system of representations, because of the confusion it creates. Other authors use the

term representation to denote the higher organization of representations as well as the

more specific ones, but this usage is also problematic in that it obscures which level of

abstraction is currently implied in the use of the term. One way to solve the problem

would be to use the term 'self-concept' for the overarching system of self-representations

and 'object concept' for the overarching system of object representations.

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

The cycle of dependent origination

The emergence of a sense of self is described in the second of the Buddha's four noble

truths, in the theory of dependent origination (Payutto, 1994). The theory is made up

of twelve causal links, starting with ignorance (of the impermanent, unsatisfactory

and selfless nature of reality) and ending with birth, aging and death. According to the

Buddha, this process is the root cause of suffering and unsatisfactoriness in life. The

standard interpretation of dependent origination is one of rebirth, but there is also another

interpretation that focuses on the birth and death of the sense of self on a moment-to-moment

basis. It is this latter interpretation that is of interest here.

The cycle of dependent origination is made up of the following twelve links:

1) Ignorance

2) Volitional impulses

3) Consciousness

4) Body and mind

5) The six sense bases

6) Contact

7) Feeling

8) Craving

9) Clinging

10) Becoming

11) Birth

12) Aging and death—resulting in suffering (Payutto, 1994).

Basically, this means that, in a moment when there is ignorance (of the nature of reality)

in the mind, volitional impulses based on that ignorance will tend to be created. This

will in turn tend to affect the nature of consciousness and the state of the body and the

mind in that moment. This affects the six sense bases (mind with its thoughts and feelings

being the sixth sense base in Buddhist psychology) to receive stimuli in a certain way.

In the moment of contact between awareness and the inner or outer world (through one

or more of the six sense bases and its stimulus) there will arise a pleasant, neutral or

unpleasant feeling. With the arising of feeling there will arise craving; the desire to seek

pleasurable sense objects and avoid unpleasant ones. When this desire becomes stronger

it is called clinging, a kind of preoccupation that creates a fi xed attitude and evaluation

in the mind toward the object of desire or aversion. This conditions the mind to behave

in certain ways or form certain beliefs (becoming), which is then followed by the birth

of a sense of self—a perception of someone who acts, succeeds, fails and so on. With

the arising of a sense of self there will inevitably be the experience of decline and death

of that self, resulting in more or less subtle forms of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and

despair. Because of the changing nature and inherent complexity of reality there will be

constant threat and anxious efforts to protect this self, resulting in contraction and the

creation of defense around the perceived self (Payutto, 1994).

The cycle described above, with ignorance as the basic foundation, is what is called

'samsara'—

---------------------------.

The underlining comes from me. P.A Payutto in his interpretation is focused

on the moment-to-moment experience, not on the Three-Lifes-Theory

lungmi

Some people would consider this a long even too long contribution but it is interesting .

The problem with these contribution however is that we could mention an almost endless number of 'scientists' to

[christiaan]

FREDRIK FALKENSTRÖM

A BUDDHIST CONTRIBUTION TO THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF

Self as system

One of the leading contemporary psychoanalytic theoreticians, Otto Kernberg, has

proposed to 'reserve the term "self" for the sum total of self-representations in intimate

connection with the sum total of object representations' (1982 p. 900). The self in

Kernberg's view is a kind of overarching system of self-representations, and this self

can be integrated, split, differentiated, undifferentiated and so on. As Westen (1990)

has pointed out, this is actually a kind of circular defi nition (the self is the sum of

self-representations, and self-representations are representations of the self). Even so,

Kernberg's view has been enormously infl uential and useful in psychoanalytic character

diagnosis and therapy with severe personality disorders.

Kernberg's self-concept is one further level of abstraction and thus further removed

from actual experience. A self-image is a snapshot of the person self in a certain moment,

a self-representation is made up of several images, and the self (in Kernberg's defi nition)

is made up of several representations. This hierarchical differentiation between the more

specific representations of self in interaction with other and the overarching system of

all representations of self in relation to objects is especially useful for the diagnostic

understanding of the degree of integration or diffusion of ego identity. It is unfortunate,

though, that the term 'self' is used to mean both the actual person and a complex

system of representations, because of the confusion it creates. Other authors use the

term representation to denote the higher organization of representations as well as the

more specific ones, but this usage is also problematic in that it obscures which level of

abstraction is currently implied in the use of the term. One way to solve the problem

would be to use the term 'self-concept' for the overarching system of self-representations

and 'object concept' for the overarching system of object representations.

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

The cycle of dependent origination

The emergence of a sense of self is described in the second of the Buddha's four noble

truths, in the theory of dependent origination (Payutto, 1994). The theory is made up

of twelve causal links, starting with ignorance (of the impermanent, unsatisfactory

and selfless nature of reality) and ending with birth, aging and death. According to the

Buddha, this process is the root cause of suffering and unsatisfactoriness in life. The

standard interpretation of dependent origination is one of rebirth, but there is also another

interpretation that focuses on the birth and death of the sense of self on a moment-to-moment

basis. It is this latter interpretation that is of interest here.

The cycle of dependent origination is made up of the following twelve links:

1) Ignorance

2) Volitional impulses

3) Consciousness

4) Body and mind

5) The six sense bases

6) Contact

7) Feeling

8) Craving

9) Clinging

10) Becoming

11) Birth

12) Aging and death—resulting in suffering (Payutto, 1994).

Basically, this means that, in a moment when there is ignorance (of the nature of reality)

in the mind, volitional impulses based on that ignorance will tend to be created. This

will in turn tend to affect the nature of consciousness and the state of the body and the

mind in that moment. This affects the six sense bases (mind with its thoughts and feelings

being the sixth sense base in Buddhist psychology) to receive stimuli in a certain way.

In the moment of contact between awareness and the inner or outer world (through one

or more of the six sense bases and its stimulus) there will arise a pleasant, neutral or

unpleasant feeling. With the arising of feeling there will arise craving; the desire to seek

pleasurable sense objects and avoid unpleasant ones. When this desire becomes stronger

it is called clinging, a kind of preoccupation that creates a fi xed attitude and evaluation

in the mind toward the object of desire or aversion. This conditions the mind to behave

in certain ways or form certain beliefs (becoming), which is then followed by the birth

of a sense of self—a perception of someone who acts, succeeds, fails and so on. With

the arising of a sense of self there will inevitably be the experience of decline and death

of that self, resulting in more or less subtle forms of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and

despair. Because of the changing nature and inherent complexity of reality there will be

constant threat and anxious efforts to protect this self, resulting in contraction and the

creation of defense around the perceived self (Payutto, 1994).

The cycle described above, with ignorance as the basic foundation, is what is called

'samsara'—

---------------------------.

The underlining comes from me. P.A Payutto in his interpretation is focused

on the moment-to-moment experience, not on the Three-Lifes-Theory

lungmi

Some people would consider this a long even too long contribution but it is interesting .

The problem with this contribution however is that we could mention an almost endless number of 'scientists' to support Buddhist view and also an almost endless number of ' scientists' who would do the contrary.

Out of a subjective - maybe even ignoring - (as I read about ignorance in another contribution) attitude we very much prefer to quote all the pro-scientists and 'forget' the contra-scientists.

Out of my experience I discovered it is very interesting and mind-blowing also to look into all the contrary arguments since it is just the easy way when just stay with the pro arguments.That is the attitude of building a fort.

I like the idea, every argument, every view can be true as long as it is not in contradiction with it self.

So, going back to Fredrik Falkenstrom, this is one view, his view, and it is interesting and might cover a lot of the true facts as long as we consider the self to be the other expression for 'soul'.

Maybe that is where the problem often occur. When the self is considered to be the soul, and by this also considered to be the ego and we are all agreeing about this then the problem is not that big.

But when the self is also used, as the term or phrase for the existing or non-existing I , we do have a problem.

Refering to remarks made about Buddha 'discovering' knowledge, (where I would say: ' the world 'above' knowledge) I would say, as far as we can judge about today, Buddha was completely right within every thing he discovered.

We however would ask our selfs , when the world is transforming and transcending, - not only the material world but also the non material world - , also knowledge is transcending, what could mean that when Buddha would have been living now, his message, his teachings would be transcended also. That would not mean the former teachings would have turned out to be wrong, since the former teachings would be enclosed in the transcended teachings, they would just be 'more complete' compared with the former teachings.

At the moment we are halfway in time related to the coming of the Maitreya Buddha, and I hope I am not denigrating towards the former Buddha, - I certainly have no intention to do so - we might expect the Maitrey Buddha will bring this new transcended message and teachings in 2500 years. And since The Maitreya is living a sequence of lives as a Boddhisatva - probably living on earth somewhere now - I would assume he is gaining all he needs to gain for his task for humanity in future, in the past, now and the coming 2500 years.

He is, as a Boddhisatva transcending (knowedge) all the 'time' .

For people who like to know, there is a lot of information to find about new knowledge, it is there for a long time already, but it seems to be more outside the traditional paths of subjective pro 'Buddhist' thinking.

But for this one needs to have, or develop, an open mind, one needs not to be ignorant to the 'knowledge' available today, one needs to be less subjective and less attached to maybe being a kind of Buddhist.

[AYJAYDEE]

knowledge is unecessary for the attainment of insight

FREDRIK FALKENSTRÖM

A BUDDHIST CONTRIBUTION TO THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF

Self as system

One of the leading contemporary psychoanalytic theoreticians, Otto Kernberg, has

proposed to 'reserve the term "self" for the sum total of self-representations in intimate

connection with the sum total of object representations' (1982 p. 900). The self in

Kernberg's view is a kind of overarching system of self-representations, and this self

can be integrated, split, differentiated, undifferentiated and so on. As Westen (1990)

has pointed out, this is actually a kind of circular defi nition (the self is the sum of

self-representations, and self-representations are representations of the self). Even so,

Kernberg's view has been enormously infl uential and useful in psychoanalytic character

diagnosis and therapy with severe personality disorders.

Kernberg's self-concept is one further level of abstraction and thus further removed

from actual experience. A self-image is a snapshot of the person self in a certain moment,

a self-representation is made up of several images, and the self (in Kernberg's defi nition)

is made up of several representations. This hierarchical differentiation between the more

specific representations of self in interaction with other and the overarching system of

all representations of self in relation to objects is especially useful for the diagnostic

understanding of the degree of integration or diffusion of ego identity. It is unfortunate,

though, that the term 'self' is used to mean both the actual person and a complex

system of representations, because of the confusion it creates. Other authors use the

term representation to denote the higher organization of representations as well as the

more specific ones, but this usage is also problematic in that it obscures which level of

abstraction is currently implied in the use of the term. One way to solve the problem

would be to use the term 'self-concept' for the overarching system of self-representations

and 'object concept' for the overarching system of object representations.

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

The cycle of dependent origination

The emergence of a sense of self is described in the second of the Buddha's four noble

truths, in the theory of dependent origination (Payutto, 1994). The theory is made up

of twelve causal links, starting with ignorance (of the impermanent, unsatisfactory

and selfless nature of reality) and ending with birth, aging and death. According to the

Buddha, this process is the root cause of suffering and unsatisfactoriness in life. The

standard interpretation of dependent origination is one of rebirth, but there is also another

interpretation that focuses on the birth and death of the sense of self on a moment-to-moment

basis. It is this latter interpretation that is of interest here.

The cycle of dependent origination is made up of the following twelve links:

1) Ignorance

2) Volitional impulses

3) Consciousness

4) Body and mind

5) The six sense bases

6) Contact

7) Feeling

8) Craving

9) Clinging

10) Becoming

11) Birth

12) Aging and death—resulting in suffering (Payutto, 1994).

Basically, this means that, in a moment when there is ignorance (of the nature of reality)

in the mind, volitional impulses based on that ignorance will tend to be created. This

will in turn tend to affect the nature of consciousness and the state of the body and the

mind in that moment. This affects the six sense bases (mind with its thoughts and feelings

being the sixth sense base in Buddhist psychology) to receive stimuli in a certain way.

In the moment of contact between awareness and the inner or outer world (through one

or more of the six sense bases and its stimulus) there will arise a pleasant, neutral or

unpleasant feeling. With the arising of feeling there will arise craving; the desire to seek

pleasurable sense objects and avoid unpleasant ones. When this desire becomes stronger

it is called clinging, a kind of preoccupation that creates a fi xed attitude and evaluation

in the mind toward the object of desire or aversion. This conditions the mind to behave

in certain ways or form certain beliefs (becoming), which is then followed by the birth

of a sense of self—a perception of someone who acts, succeeds, fails and so on. With

the arising of a sense of self there will inevitably be the experience of decline and death

of that self, resulting in more or less subtle forms of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and

despair. Because of the changing nature and inherent complexity of reality there will be

constant threat and anxious efforts to protect this self, resulting in contraction and the

creation of defense around the perceived self (Payutto, 1994).

The cycle described above, with ignorance as the basic foundation, is what is called

'samsara'—

---------------------------.

The underlining comes from me. P.A Payutto in his interpretation is focused

on the moment-to-moment experience, not on the Three-Lifes-Theory

lungmi

Some people would consider this a long even too long contribution but it is interesting .

The problem with this contribution however is that we could mention an almost endless number of 'scientists' to support Buddhist view and also an almost endless number of ' scientists' who would do the contrary.

Out of a subjective - maybe even ignoring - (as I read about ignorance in another contribution) attitude we very much prefer to quote all the pro-scientists and 'forget' the contra-scientists.

Out of my experience I discovered it is very interesting and mind-blowing also to look into all the contrary arguments since it is just the easy way when just stay with the pro arguments.That is the attitude of building a fort.

I like the idea, every argument, every view can be true as long as it is not in contradiction with it self.

So, going back to Fredrik Falkenstrom, this is one view, his view, and it is interesting and might cover a lot of the true facts as long as we consider the self to be the other expression for 'soul'.

Maybe that is where the problem often occur. When the self is considered to be the soul, and by this also considered to be the ego and we are all agreeing about this then the problem is not that big.

But when the self is also used, as the term or phrase for the existing or non-existing I , we do have a problem.

Refering to remarks made about Buddha 'discovering' knowledge, (where I would say: ' the world 'above' knowledge) I would say, as far as we can judge about today, Buddha was completely right within every thing he discovered.

We however would ask our selfs , when the world is transforming and transcending, - not only the material world but also the non material world - , also knowledge is transcending, what could mean that when Buddha would have been living now, his message, his teachings would be transcended also. That would not mean the former teachings would have turned out to be wrong, since the former teachings would be enclosed in the transcended teachings, they would just be 'more complete' compared with the former teachings.

At the moment we are halfway in time related to the coming of the Maitreya Buddha, and I hope I am not denigrating towards the former Buddha, - I certainly have no intention to do so - we might expect the Maitrey Buddha will bring this new transcended message and teachings in 2500 years. And since The Maitreya is living a sequence of lives as a Boddhisatva - probably living on earth somewhere now - I would assume he is gaining all he needs to gain for his task for humanity in future, in the past, now and the coming 2500 years.

He is, as a Boddhisatva transcending (knowedge) all the 'time' .

For people who like to know, there is a lot of information to find about new knowledge, it is there for a long time already, but it seems to be more outside the traditional paths of subjective pro 'Buddhist' thinking.

But for this one needs to have, or develop, an open mind, one needs not to be ignorant to the 'knowledge' available today, one needs to be less subjective and less attached to maybe being a kind of Buddhist.

[lungmi]

O.K. Christiaan. You don"t like long postings except they come from you.

Short answer:

Western science research the laws of nature (dhammas). Buddhist science research the law of nature (Dhamma)

What is the meaning of “Tathagata”?

Answer: Lord Buddha refers to himself as “the Tathagata,” which is usually translated as “thus

gone one” or “thus come one,” “Perfect One,” or one who has attained Supreme Enlightenment.

“Thus come one” or “thus gone one” is given the meaning “he who has come and gone as have

the former Buddhas.” It is a compound of the word “That” and “agata.” The “th” is a dental T,

not like “th” in English. The word “agata,” the same as Sanskrit “agatah,” means “attained.”

The word “Tath” or “Thatata” is translated from Pali as “essence” or “suchness.” “That” is also

a Sanskrit term translated as “reality,” or Universal Principle. Therefore, Tathagatha means one

who has attained reality. Mahayana schools translate “Tathagata” as one who has attained full

realization of Suchness (Thatata) or one who has become one with the Absolute (Dharmakaya).

Thatata is further explained as True Nature, that which is immutable, immovable, and beyond all

concepts and distinctions.

-----

I agree, already too long.

But as a five year old child I understood what is the meaning of "Thatata": The cloud you see is God to supervise your bad doing.---No, Grandfather, this is a cloud.

I started my live as scientist for human sciences and Buddhist.

The scientist of human science Fredrik Falkenstroem did the same.

Thatata - What is what? Suchness in English, das Sosein in German, la Telliete in French.

[christiaan]

O.K. Christiaan. You don"t like long postings except they come from you.

Short answer:

Western science research the laws of nature (dhammas). Buddhist science research the law of nature (Dhamma)

What is the meaning of "Tathagata"?

Answer: Lord Buddha refers to himself as "the Tathagata," which is usually translated as "thus

gone one" or "thus come one," "Perfect One," or one who has attained Supreme Enlightenment.

"Thus come one" or "thus gone one" is given the meaning "he who has come and gone as have

the former Buddhas." It is a compound of the word "That" and "agata." The "th" is a dental T,

not like "th" in English. The word "agata," the same as Sanskrit "agatah," means "attained."

The word "Tath" or "Thatata" is translated from Pali as "essence" or "suchness." "That" is also

a Sanskrit term translated as "reality," or Universal Principle. Therefore, Tathagatha means one

who has attained reality. Mahayana schools translate "Tathagata" as one who has attained full

realization of Suchness (Thatata) or one who has become one with the Absolute (Dharmakaya).

Thatata is further explained as True Nature, that which is immutable, immovable, and beyond all

concepts and distinctions.

-----

I agree, already too long.

But as a five year old child I understood what is the meaning of "Thatata": The cloud you see is God to supervise your bad doing.---No, Grandfather, this is a cloud.

I started my live as scientist for human sciences and Buddhist.

The scientist of human science Fredrik Falkenstroem did the same.

Thatata - What is what? Suchness in English, das Sosein in German, la Telliete in French.

Excuse me. this forum is About Buddhism and Buddhism is about truth?

Where did I ever wrote I did not like long contributions?

Where did I ever wrote I did not like long contributions except when they come from me?

Please show me.

When you would read the contributions you would have come to the knowledge it was Brucenkhamen who, at several occasions, demonstrated his antipathy to (my?) long contributions.

And when I pointed to the fact I was not the only one writing long contributions Brucenkhamen showed he was not aware of any other long contributions.

So for this reason, and for the fact I never noticed Brucenkhamen complained about other long contributions (how could he have done wen he is not aware of such) I put some more attention on long contributions, I just communicated about my experience of long contributions.

I nowhere did this out of some subjective feeling of sympathy or antipathy.

And when I did I noticed Brucenkhamen never compained about those other long contributions.

So what do we have here, 1 sympathiser of 'Buddhism' selectively complaining about - only my - long contributions, another sympathiser of 'Buddhism' accusing me of disliking long contributions except the one I write my self.

Can it be more worse?

For the rest of your - not long - contribution.

With regard to the Buddha we are both aware of the meaning of Tathagata.

We probably do not agree about the meaning of Thatata.

Buddha is dynamic, moving, transcending, and beyond all concepts.

But that was not the topic.

The cloud is not God supervising us, but the cloud is also not just some collection of vaporised water drifting in the air, water is not just material, a cloud is the material manifestation of a specific combination of spiritual powers.

One does not have to become a Buddha to be aware of this.

[Brucenkhamen]

Where did I ever wrote I did not like long contributions?

Where did I ever wrote I did not like long contributions except when they come from me?

Please show me.

When you would read the contributions you would have come to the knowledge it was Brucenkhamen who, at several occasions, demonstrated his antipathy to (my?) long contributions.

So predictable.

Several times you chose to bring up your discontent over my choosing not to read your long contributions in a snide way in unrelated threads, this is just cause and affect in operation, learn something.

And when I pointed to the fact I was not the only one writing long contributions Brucenkhamen showed he was not aware of any other long contributions.

So for this reason, and for the fact I never noticed Brucenkhamen complained about other long contributions (how could he have done wen he is not aware of such) I put some more attention on long contributions, I just communicated about my experience of long contributions.

I nowhere did this out of some subjective feeling of sympathy or antipathy.

And when I did I noticed Brucenkhamen never compained about those other long contributions.

I never said I wasn't aware of other long contributions.

There are two differences here.

Firstly I wasn't involved in a conversation with the poster where he attempted to dominate the conversation with much much longer and more convoluted contributions.

Secondly the post in question was a quotation of an external source, and while I'd prefer that be a link that supports a point made by the poster rather than a full reproduction, it is easier for the reader to skip it as it's supporting material rather than conversation.

So what do we have here, 1 sympathiser of 'Buddhism' selectively complaining about - only my - long contributions, another sympathiser of 'Buddhism' accusing me of disliking long contributions except the one I write my self.

Can it be more worse?

It was your choice to respond to a post by repeating parrot fashion somebody elses response to your posts you only have yourself to blame, why say it unless you mean it? Don't expect any sympathy by playing the woe is me I'm being persecuted card either.

[camerata]

knowledge is transcending, what could mean that when Buddha would have been living now, his message, his teachings would be transcended also. That would not mean the former teachings would have turned out to be wrong, since the former teachings would be enclosed in the transcended teachings, they would just be 'more complete' compared with the former teachings.

At the moment we are halfway in time related to the coming of the Maitreya Buddha, and I hope I am not denigrating towards the former Buddha, - I certainly have no intention to do so - we might expect the Maitrey Buddha will bring this new transcended message and teachings in 2500 years. And since The Maitreya is living a sequence of lives as a Boddhisatva - probably living on earth somewhere now - I would assume he is gaining all he needs to gain for his task for humanity in future, in the past, now and the coming 2500 years.

The only reference to Metteyya/Maitreya in the entire Pali Canon is this, from the Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta:

[The Buddha:] And in that time of the people with an eighty-thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed Lord, an arahant fully enlightened Buddha named Metteyya, endowed with wisdom and conduct, a Well-farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed, just as I am now.

That's it. All the rest is from Mahayana texts created centuries after the Buddha's death, or legend. According to non-Canonical texts, he is supposed to be in the Tusita Heaven now. It's a Chinese legend that he came back to earth as Budai, "the Laughing Buddha." There is no evidence in the Pali Canon that former Buddhas progressively transcended each other's knowledge and the historical Buddha clearly said that the future Buddha would be enlightened "just as I am now." While the future Buddha might go about teaching differently, the notion that he will transcend the knowledge of the historical Buddha has to be speculation, or wishful thinking.

[camerata]

a cloud is the material manifestation of a specific combination of spiritual powers.

Do you have a scriptural reference for this claim? It sounds more like Christiaanism than Buddhism to me.

[christiaan]

Where did I ever wrote I did not like long contributions?

Where did I ever wrote I did not like long contributions except when they come from me?

Please show me.

When you would read the contributions you would have come to the knowledge it was Brucenkhamen who, at several occasions, demonstrated his antipathy to (my?) long contributions.

So predictable.

Several times you chose to bring up your discontent over my choosing not to read your long contributions in a snide way in unrelated threads, this is just cause and affect in operation, learn something.

And when I pointed to the fact I was not the only one writing long contributions Brucenkhamen showed he was not aware of any other long contributions.

So for this reason, and for the fact I never noticed Brucenkhamen complained about other long contributions (how could he have done wen he is not aware of such) I put some more attention on long contributions, I just communicated about my experience of long contributions.

I nowhere did this out of some subjective feeling of sympathy or antipathy.

And when I did I noticed Brucenkhamen never compained about those other long contributions.

I never said I wasn't aware of other long contributions.

There are two differences here.

Firstly I wasn't involved in a conversation with the poster where he attempted to dominate the conversation with much much longer and more convoluted contributions.

Secondly the post in question was a quotation of an external source, and while I'd prefer that be a link that supports a point made by the poster rather than a full reproduction, it is easier for the reader to skip it as it's supporting material rather than conversation.

So what do we have here, 1 sympathiser of 'Buddhism' selectively complaining about - only my - long contributions, another sympathiser of 'Buddhism' accusing me of disliking long contributions except the one I write my self.

Can it be more worse?

It was your choice to respond to a post by repeating parrot fashion somebody elses response to your posts you only have yourself to blame, why say it unless you mean it? Don't expect any sympathy by playing the woe is me I'm being persecuted card either.

You just pass the fact you started the topic of long contents as your reaction to my contributions where you did not choose to go into the content.

As a moderator I would then have choosen to warn you since it is not up to you to complain about the length of contents.

It is the moderator who decides about this.

Now you suddenly have some more explanation about the length of contribution you never gave before.

Yes, all very predictable.

[christiaan]

That's it. All the rest is from Mahayana texts created centuries after the Buddha's death, or legend. According to non-Canonical texts, he is supposed to be in the Tusita Heaven now. It's a Chinese legend that he came back to earth as Budai, "the Laughing Buddha." There is no evidence in the Pali Canon that former Buddhas progressively transcended each other's knowledge and the historical Buddha clearly said that the future Buddha would be enlightened "just as I am now." While the future Buddha might go about teaching differently, the notion that he will transcend the knowledge of the historical Buddha has to be speculation, or wishful thinking.

The Maitreya will even be a Teacher of Gods and ofcourse he will be enlightened, how can you be a Buddha without being enlightened.

When his teachings will be different, as they will be, the knowledge will be different, will be transcendet.

Everything is transcending, continueing moving, heaven and earth, humans and "Gods" , and also nibbana is,

Nothing stays the same.

No wishfull thinking, no speculation, but awareness.

[rockyysdt]

The Maitreya will even be a Teacher of Gods and of course he will be enlightened, how can you be a Buddha without being enlightened.

When his teachings will be different, as they will be, the knowledge will be different, will be transcendet.

Everything is transcending, continueing moving, heaven and earth, humans and "Gods" , and also nibbana is,

Nothing stays the same.

No wishfull thinking, no speculation, but awareness.

Is it possible he will be a woman Buddha and allow Bikkuni's as well as Bikkus?

[camerata]

Everything is transcending, continueing moving, heaven and earth, humans and "Gods" , and also nibbana is,

Nothing stays the same.

You really need to read up on the teachings of the Buddha. Nibbana is unconditioned - it doesn't change.

[healthcaretaker]

Everything is transcending, continueing moving, heaven and earth, humans and "Gods" , and also nibbana is,

Nothing stays the same.

You really need to read up on the teachings of the Buddha. Nibbana is unconditioned - it doesn't change.

I will not waste time giving him/her unnecessary advice. His/her decision is pretty clear, just like his/her motive.

I will rather give useful replies to benefit those who find them useful.

[lungmi]

To close the topic.

Science is the research for what is what (Thatagata)

[lungmi]

Sorry, to close a topic is not my competence, we have good Mods.

[Brucenkhamen]

You just pass the fact you started the topic of long contents as your reaction to my contributions where you did not choose to go into the content.

As a moderator I would then have choosen to warn you since it is not up to you to complain about the length of contents.

It is the moderator who decides about this.

Now you suddenly have some more explanation about the length of contribution you never gave before.

Yes, all very predictable.

Fine, since that is obviously your wish next time I won't give the courtesy of feedback and leave you blogging in a vacuum wondering what happened to the person you were having a conversation at.

See it's not a matter of complaint so it has nothing to do with the moderators, it's a matter of feedback, it's a matter of learning something from the responses of others, this is something you've shown time and again is of no interest to you.

[christiaan]

You just pass the fact you started the topic of long contents as your reaction to my contributions where you did not choose to go into the content.

As a moderator I would then have choosen to warn you since it is not up to you to complain about the length of contents.

It is the moderator who decides about this.

Now you suddenly have some more explanation about the length of contribution you never gave before.

Yes, all very predictable.

Fine, since that is obviously your wish next time I won't give the courtesy of feedback and leave you blogging in a vacuum wondering what happened to the person you were having a conversation at.

See it's not a matter of complaint so it has nothing to do with the moderators, it's a matter of feedback, it's a matter of learning something from the responses of others, this is something you've shown time and again is of no interest to you.

Posted 2011-01-29 04:12:28

if(typeof(post_count) != 'undefined'){if (post_count == 0 ){document.write('' + google_ad_post + '');}if (post_count == 4 ){document.write('' + google_ad_post_5 + '');}}christiaan, on 2011-01-29 02:23:00, said:

It is not: " Far too long" it is " Far too long for you"

Brucenkhamen answered:

It's far too long for a discussion board.

I'd be interested to see if you can give an example of a longer post by somebody else.

Yes, I read publications of nowadays Buddhist teachers and I don't have a problem with the length of them because they write books rather that try to sermonise on a discussion board. Also because generally they stay on topic and are able to make points concisely without too much waffle, and finally because they don't spend a lot of it maintaining or defending their egos.

It's your choice, sermonise in a vacuum or develop some netiquette and have a discussion.

Christiaan today:

no need for this kind of feedback and bickering courtesy, just stay with the content or leave it the way it is.

[christiaan]

To close the topic.

Science is the research for what is what (Thatagata)

As I agree with.

[christiaan]

The Maitreya will even be a Teacher of Gods and of course he will be enlightened, how can you be a Buddha without being enlightened.

When his teachings will be different, as they will be, the knowledge will be different, will be transcendet.

Everything is transcending, continueing moving, heaven and earth, humans and "Gods" , and also nibbana is,

Nothing stays the same.

No wishfull thinking, no speculation, but awareness.

Is it possible he will be a woman Buddha and allow Bikkuni's as well as Bikkus?

Is it possible he will neither be a woman or a man, neither there will be no more woman and man atthat time like we know woman and man today?

[Brucenkhamen]

Brucenkhamen answered:

It's far too long for a discussion board.

I'd be interested to see if you can give an example of a longer post by somebody else.

Christiaan today:

no need for this kind of feedback and bickering courtesy, just stay with the content or leave it the way it is.

The post that this was referring to was 8467 characters, Lungmis post was 4141 characters. I think you've proved my point.

As previously mentioned I don't much of a have a problem with large external references posted in this way, the moderators regularly post these as conversation starters which I think is a good idea.

However if you wish to continue policing the post length of others in my name be my guest.

You can be assured in future I won't bother trying to be helpful.

[christiaan]

Brucenkhamen answered:

It's far too long for a discussion board.

I'd be interested to see if you can give an example of a longer post by somebody else.

Christiaan today:

no need for this kind of feedback and bickering courtesy, just stay with the content or leave it the way it is.

The post that this was referring to was 8467 characters, Lungmis post was 4141 characters. I think you've proved my point.

As previously mentioned I don't much of a have a problem with large external references posted in this way, the moderators regularly post these as conversation starters which I think is a good idea.

However if you wish to continue policing the post length of others in my name be my guest.

You can be assured in future I won't bother trying to be helpful.

Thank you very much.

[healthcaretaker]

To close the topic.

Science is the research for what is what (Thatagata)

Why close it ? All topics should stay so those less knowledgeable people can learn from them. Especially topic like this that link science to Buddhism.

[christiaan]

The problem with both neurolinguistic 'explanations' is that it describes a human as a biological organic machine.

The habit of explaining life out of a mechanic material view does not only show the absence of spirituality by the researcher/scientist but also the projection of this inner absence into an absence of spirituality in the world.

One can consider oneself to be just a biological machine subjected to pure organic /material laws, one can also look at oneself as a spiritual entity living inside a material body.

In other words, one can look at oneself as being a material instrument subjected to the laws of the materials the instrument is made of, one can also look at oneself being the spirit playing the instrument one has given disposal too by birth.

In the first situation one is a violin without music, suffering degradation by material laws, in the second situation one is the player playing and taking care the violin and making music.

I am afraid Buddhism is looked upon nowadays from a view, a way of pure material thinking, the nowadays 'modern' way of thinking.

The awareness of the world nowadays is material awareness and in general no spiritual awareness.

When Buddhism is considered - especially by western Buddhists - to be in accordance with modern science it is in fact telling it is in accordance with a pure material way of thinking.

The machine thinking machine toughts in a 'mechanical' way.

In my view Buddhism originally is no material way of thinking.

Buddha was no machine subjected or depending on the neuronal machinery working silently below the surface of his awareness. He was not subjected to neurons giving rise to his personality, memory, ability to plan, emotional valence and the emotional charges assigned to him, places, things, and goals. He was not subjected to having or loosing the functions of these neurons producing what the brain in this material view does: the production of our mind.

(Buddhism as a product of neurons? as a product of neurological chemical processes inside a material body?)

If he Buddha would have been, how would he ever could have escaped this since no machine is capable to repair itself out of its own laws of existence.

When a machine is repaired it is repaired by a power outside the laws of the materials and the processes of those materials out of wich it is made of, being the master of it.

To look upon this in the way neurologic science in both expanations tells, is a blunt denigration of Bhudda and every human.

To look upon this and to see Buddhism as similar as modern science is the downfall of Buddhism.