Science And Buddhism

[camerata]

Although investigation of Dhamma is similar in approach to scientific investigation of the material world, and all matter/energy seems to be impermanent, I haven't been impressed with other claims that Buddhism is scientific.

One of the most ridiculous claims I've heard is that some guy in England was able to function as a normal human being even though his brain was mush, and that proves conciousness/mind are not tied to the brain. Scientists/doctors, of course, are supressing the facts because they contradict established science.

However... the Buddhist idea of living in the present moment jumped into my mind when I read the following sentences about the absence of a flow in time, from Brian Greene's new book, The Fabric of the Cosmos:

Just as we envision all of space as really being out there, as really existing, we should also envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing, too. Past, present, and future certainly seem to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent. The only thing that's real is the whole of spacetime.

In this way of thinking, events, regardless of when they happen from any particular perspective, just are. They all exist. They eternally occupy their particular point in spacetime. There is no flow.

[Suthep_Steve]

One of the most ridiculous claims I've heard is that some guy in England was able to function as a normal human being even though his brain was mush, and that proves conciousness/mind are not tied to the brain. Scientists/doctors, of course, are supressing the facts because they contradict established science.

Speaking as an English guy our normal mode of existance is to have brains that are mush. However I cannot recall meeting one of my fellow countrymen who could function as a normal human being.

Therefore I have to agree with you that you can't use English guys to solve the mind brain dicotomy. The lights are on but no one is at home.

[Suthep_Steve]

On a more serious note. I think parallels between science and Buddhism are interesting and can be useful to help individuals understand certain Buddhist ideas. Personally I find Rutherford’s discoveries that the atom is 99....% space very helpful in understanding Mahayana ideas about reality.

However trying to draw too close a link is often unhelpful. Science tends to start from the premise that there is a solid universe out there waiting to be discovered that is not effected by the observer in any way. It then behaves accordingly codifying and categorising that physical universe.

For me Buddhism is more a quest to understand mind and how it relates to the universe and how the two effect one another.

[Abandon]

Science tells us that particular areas of the brain carry out specific functions, so how do people with damaged or underdeveloped brains still function normally?

In 1996 in the US, a young buy, here referred to as James, was about to undergo a serious operation. James was only eight years old and suffered from a condition known as Sturge-Weber syndrome, which had caused the formation of abnormal blood vessels in the left hemisphere of his brain. As a result he was afflicted by regular epileptic fits and had a very low mental age; the only word in James's vocabulary was 'mamma'.

In an attempt to to rectify the problem, doctors felt forced to take drastic steps. They decided to remove the entire left side of his brain the medical team knew that, since the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, the operation to save James's life would also leave him partially paralysed. What they didn't expect, however, were the developments in James's condition which occurred soon after the surgery.

Within weeks, James began to talk and, two years after, he was close to reaching a normal mental age. Amazingly, the operation to remove an entire hemisphere of his brain appears to have cured James of his learning difficulties.

Medical Mystery.

Such remarkable examples of adaptability are far more common than we might think. In conflict with established medical thinking, there are literally hundreds of cases where people have either been born with an underdeveloped brain, or have had large areas of their brain damaged in an accident, but are still able to function normally.

Such anomalies were partly explained when it was discovered that we have the ability to relocate particular brain functions to other areas of the brain. Exactly how this works is still beyond modern science, and so the ability lies in limbo between accepted medical fact and that which is still regarded as nonsense. However, it may be that this discovery is only the tip of the iceberg, for there are people whose very existence seems to indicate that our brains are nowhere near as vital to our survival as we might think.

In countries across the world, there are hundreds of cases of a condition called hydrocephalus (often known colloquially as 'water on the brain'), where cavities form in the brain that can be so large that they account for 95% of the brain's mass. this leaves only a fluid-filled bubble of the outermost cerebral tissue which, in extreme cases, has been found to be less than one millimeter thick. (Ordinarily, the walls of the cerebrum are 45mm thick.) The condition is so serious that, if it is recognized before birth, a decision is often taken to terminate the pregnancy because only a small proportion of sufferers survive.

In those born with this condition, the body's production of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) which fills the cavities in the brain is working at a rate well above the norm. This usually leads to a swelling of the cranium; one six-year-old boy had a skull with a circumference 72cm greater than that of the average adult. Modern techniques, however, allowed doctors to drain the fluid until normal pressure was restored and the boy survived.

Despite the seriousness of this condition, in some people it appears to have little or no affect on their intellectual abilities. Indeed, to the surprise of the medical establishment, in a study of 253 hydrocephalus sufferers carried out by the University of Sheffield, Professor John Lorber discovered tat there is no relation between volume of brain tissue and IQ.

Surprising Results.

Of the 253 subjects in the study, 9 were found to have approximately only 5% of the normal amount of brain tissue. Despite this, 4 had IQ's of above 100, the national average, and another 2 had IQ's of above 126, while one of the subjects proved to be as intelligent as those studying him, he had a first-class degree in maths.

One possible explanation for such achievements as this is the neopallium, which forms the very outermost layer of the brain. Since the brains are larger with hydrocephalus sufferers, they have larger neopalliums while the brain mass is diminished in bulk. The neopallium is the site for some of the most important mental functions, such as the power of reasoning.

Cases such as these have been cropping up regularly to test the stability of modern medicine, yet are largely disregarded. They undermine established beliefs about the relationship between the human brain and the site of consciousness and so are largely ignored by mainstream medical science. When asked about the impact of his research into hydrocephalus sufferers, Professor Lorber said it had 'suffered a fate like much of the literature of phenomenological science: it was ignored.'

While science chooses to blinker itself, these medical anomalies continue to walk the streets, their fluid-filled craniums not preventing them from leading normal lives and taking degrees.

Brainless Boy.

One related case that has received more exposure than most is that of Andrew Vandal, who was born on 12th July 1984. In the early stages of his development in the womb a cyst appeared on the stem of his brain. Known as an atelencephic aprosencephaly, this destructive event left the boy with a cranium containing nothing but fluid. In some cases, it can even leave victims with no detectible brain at all - a condition known as anencephaly or 'brainlessness'.

Cases like Andrew's are again usually terminated before birth, but in this instance the subject was born and then put up for adoption. He was adopted by a paediatric nurse, Kaye Vandal, from Wallingford, Connecticut, US, who, when last asked about Andrew's welfare, stated that she remained devoted to 'giving him the best quality life for however long he lives.'

At the same time, Kaye stated that, against doctors' predictions, Andrew was able to laugh, giggle and smile and, has a 'glowing, outgoing, bubbly personality'. Kaye also stated that her young charge was able to respond to stimulus and was maturing mentally; both of which doctors believed to be impossible, considering his complete absence of brain matter.

Andrew was, however, unable to speak, and was cortically blind; that is, he could see images, but was unable unable to interpret them. Andrew was also incapable of walking, but did manage to drag himself along on his back.

[camerata]

Here's another instance of medical science being used to bolster the idea that body and mind/consciousness are separate (from Ayya Khema's "Kamma is Intention"):

We are now technologically advanced enough, so that in some instances, people who were clinically dead, could be brought back to life, using new methods that are available in Western hospitals. A number of these people talked to their doctors about their "death" experiences. Some doctors, particularly Dr. Moody, wrote about these phenomena. An outstanding feature of the stories told, is the fact that they were practically identical in their important aspects. This gives us another clue to non-self (anatta). All of them, without fail, were extremely pleased with their "death" and reluctant to come back. One woke up extremely angry at the doctor for being instrumental in re-establishing the life continuum.

The experiences were all connected with a very bright light, containing total awareness of the mind, but lacking a body. Each person was able to see his/her own body in the hospital bed and wandered off towards the bright light, quite aware of these occurrences, including watching the doctor at work. Then, removing themselves from the hospital and entering an area of bliss, happiness and great peace, some of them talked about beings they met. Most of them described one particular being which was "light." None of the descriptions had any religious symbolism in them but all of them were similar, some identical.

But as Carl Sagan pointed out, the near-death experience of being drawn towards a bright light is very likely a re-awakened memory of being born. It doesn't necessarily mean a person enters a new realm or that the memory occured while there was no brain activity. More likely it occured as the person was jolted back to life and effectively re-born in this life.

[Suthep_Steve]

What Is the Mind?

by Gen Jangsem

I was recently listening to a radio talk show on which a psychotherapist was saying that ninety percent of illness starts in the mind. The interviewer asked him to define what he meant by "mind," and the therapist replied that he meant "soul." However, he did not offer any more explanation. It seems that in Western science, religious thought, and modern culture, there is a great deal of confusion about the mind. What exactly is it? What is the nature of consciousness? What is this ethereal thing that determines our experiences and reality?

Buddha’s teachings can help us to gain both an intellectual understanding and personal experience of the nature of mind. In Kadampa Buddhism, "mind" is defined as that which is clarity and cognizing. "Clarity" carries the meaning that the mind is nonphysical; it does not possess any physical characteristics whatsoever. You cannot see it with your eyes, touch it with your hands, smell it, taste it, or hear it. It is immaterial and insubstantial.

In his latest book, Transform Your Life, renowned Buddhist teacher Geshe Kelsang Gyatso writes, "Some people think that the mind is the brain or some other part or function of the body, but this is incorrect. The brain is a physical object that can be seen with the eyes and that can be photographed or operated on in surgery. The mind, on the other hand, is not a physical object. It cannot be seen with the eyes, nor can it be photographed or repaired by surgery. The brain therefore is not the mind but simply part of the body."

Clearly, there is a relationship between the mind and the brain, but this should not lead us to infer that they are one and the same. For example, there is a relationship between a driver and her car — when she brakes, the car stops, and so forth — but one would not infer from this relationship that they are the same entity. When the car stops, she can get out! Western science has observed that there is a relationship between brain activity and cognitive processes, but it is a false inference to then say that cognition is the brain or a byproduct of purely physical processes. This has not been proved, and never will be, because the mind is a different entity from the body.

As Geshe Kelsang says, "There is nothing within the body that can be identified as being our mind because our body and mind are different entities. For example, sometimes when our body is relaxed and immobile our mind can be very busy, darting from one object to another. This indicates that our body and mind are not the same entity. In Buddhist scriptures our body is compared to a guest house and our mind to a guest dwelling within it. When we die our mind leaves our body and goes to the next life, just like a guest leaving a guest house and going somewhere else."

Being a different entity from the body, the mind has its own causes that are not physical. You can see how your present body exists within its own continuum, each moment of body giving rise to the next moment of body, your body of today coming from your body of yesterday, and so forth. If you trace this back, eventually you come to the sperm and ovum of your parents as the substantial causes of your body. The mind also exists in a continuum, each moment of mind giving rise to the next moment of mind, the mind you have today coming from yesterday’s mind, and so forth. If you trace your mind back through your life, childhood, and birth, you once again come to the germ cells in your mother’s womb, but these cannot be the cause of consciousness because they are physical and the mind is nonphysical. So where did your mental continuum come from?

It came from your previous life. When you died in your last life, your mind left your previous physical form and entered what is known as the intermediate state, or bardo, in Tibetan. From this dreamlike state, your mind entered the fertilized ovum in your mother’s womb and you were conceived. Both a mental continuum and a physical continuum had to come together to create a new human being. Similarly, when this present physical form dies, the mental continuum does not die with it. It leaves like a bird leaving its nest, and is blown by the winds of your karma to your next incarnation.

To understand this process of death, intermediate state, and rebirth, it is very helpful to consider sleeping, dreaming, and waking. When you are awake, you have a gross mind with all your sense faculties. You are fully aware of this world and perform many different functions within it. As you fall asleep, your gross mind, including your senses, draws inward and this world disappears, but this does not mean that your mind stops. It merely absorbs into a more subtle state until you reach the deepest and most subtle level of mind, the clear light mind.

Unfortunately, we have no mindfulness at these subtle levels of mind, so we cannot remember them. However, advanced meditators can follow this dissolution of consciousness and meditate with the blissful mind of clear light. Indeed, it is this very subtle mind that, when completely purified, transforms into the omniscient mind of an enlightened being. From the clear light of sleep, your mind becomes more gross, and you enter the dream state within which you have many fleeting experiences. Eventually, as our mind becomes still more gross, you wake up and once again become aware of your ordinary world.

Falling asleep is analogous to dying, because as we die our gross minds and our sense awarenesses draw inward and the world of this life disappears. The mind becomes increasingly subtle until one experiences the clear light of death. Now, instead of arising into the dream state, one enters the intermediate state and experiences many different visions and hallucinations. After a while, karma ripens sufficiently and the mind enters into a new form. Gradually we "wake up" in our new bodies and become aware of our new worlds. Thus an understanding of the nature of mind helps one understand reincarnation. The mind is a formless continuum, a stream of consciousness that dips from gross to subtle levels as it moves from life to life. We have had many lives in the past, and will have many lives in the future.

As my teacher Geshe Kelsang says in Transform Your Life, "If we understand clearly the nature of our mind we shall definitely realize that the continuum of our mind does not cease when we die, and there will be no basis for doubting the existence of our future lives. If we realize the existence of our future lives we shall naturally be concerned for our welfare and happiness in those lives, and we shall use this present life to make the appropriate preparations. This will prevent us from wasting our precious human life on the preoccupations of this life alone. Therefore, a correct understanding of the mind is absolutely essential."

Gen Jangsem is a Kadampa Buddhist monk and a close disciple of Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. He teaches introductory and in-depth classes at the Vajralama Buddhist Center in Seattle. For more information, visit http://www.vajralama.org/

[sabaijai]

This just arrived in my email inbox today.

DALAI LAMA, TOP SCIENTISTS TO DISCUSS SCIENCE & CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF MEDITATION AT MIND & LIFE CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, DC

November 8-10 Conference Addresses Western Medicine & Society’s Embrace of Meditation Press Meeting with Dalai Lama, Hopkins Medical Dean Edward Miller and Georgetown Professor Aviad Haramati at 8am

Dalai Lama Will Also Make Historic Address at Neuroscience Convention November 12

WASHINGTON, DC ­ With Western medicine’s increasing interest in meditation’s affect on mental and physical well-being, the Mind & Life Institute, in partnership with the Georgetown University Medical Center, and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine will host “Mind & Life XIII: The Science and Clinical Applications of Mediation,” November 8-10, 2005 at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, DC. The historic conference on meditation, a convergence of Eastern and Western thinkers, will feature acclaimed speakers from the scientific and contemplative communities, among them the His Holiness the Dalai Lama. A pre-event press meeting with the Dalai Lama, Johns Hopkins Medical Dean Edward Miller, and Georgetown University Professor Aviad Haramati will be held 8:00 ­ 9:00 am on Tuesday, November 8 on the “C” Street lobby level of DAR Constitution Hall.

The upcoming conference, on the cutting-edge of science and meditation, will be only the second public dialogue on this topic with the Dalai Lama, the internationally recognized Nobel laureate and Tibetan spiritual leader. In 2003, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT co-sponsored the first public conference on how the mind works, involving Buddhist leaders, including the Dalai Lama, and neuroscientists. That meeting received international media coverage and was included in a cover story on meditation in TIME Magazine.

The Mind & Life conference offers science and medical professionals a rare opportunity to learn about the intersection of meditation and medicine. The conference, which will be held in dialogue format, will feature sessions on meditation-based clinical interventions: science, practice, and implementation, possible biological substrates of meditation, clinical research on meditation and mental Health, and clinical research on meditation and physical health.

Following the conference the Dalai Lama will participate in two other historic events in Washington, DC. First, he will address the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, which expects 30,000 attendees on Saturday, November 12, from 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM in the Washington Convention Center, Hall D. SfN is the world’s largest organization of scientists and physicians dedicated to understanding the brain and the nervous system. On Sunday, November 13, the Dalai Lama will also speak at the public Global Peace through Compassion event at 3:00 pm at the MCI Center. This public event is co-sponsored by the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) and the Mind and Life Institute.

The first Mind & Life Conference took place in October 1987 in India and was followed by other private meetings in India and the United States that have made enormous contributions to the field of research about affects of meditation on mind and body. Dozens of books have been published as a result of these conferences. The Institute has been a driving force in the new and widespread acceptance of meditation in the West.

Adam Engle, Chairman and co-founder with the Dalai Lama of the Mind & Life Institute, said, “Various applications of meditation have already made their way into the mainstream of medicine and psychiatry in the treatment of stress, pain, and a large range of chronic diseases. The Mind and Life conference is an opportunity to review some of the recent work that has been unfolding in these areas, and to map out the potential for both broadening and deepening these investigations.”

“The meeting will provide an opportunity for scientists whose research is focused on basic mind-brain-body interactions to learn more about meditation and to contribute to an ongoing dialogue about the mechanisms by which meditation may influence physical and mental health,” Engle added.

This event also provides medical professionals the opportunity to earn Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits.

The Dalai Lama, Edward D. Miller, M.D., C.E.O. of Johns Hopkins Medicine and Dean of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Avid Haramati, Ph.D., professor and Director of Education in the Departments of Physiology & Biophysics and Medicine at Georgetown University’s School of Medicine; and Adam Engle, Chairman and co-founder of the Mind & Life Institute, will participate in a press meeting on Tuesday, November 8 at 8:00 am on the “C” Street lobby level of DAR Constitution Hall.

Journalists are invited to apply for credentials. Press must register to attend the Mind & Life meeting and the press conference at http://www.investigatingthemind.org/press....reditation.html

More information on the Mind & Life XIII public meeting is available at www.mindandlife.org and www.investigatingthemind.org.

For information relating to the Dalai Lama’s public talk at the MCI Center, contact Kate Saunders at (202) 785-1515 or via email, [email protected].

For information on his speech to the Society for Neuroscience please contact Joe Carey in the media office at (202) 462-6688 or via email, [email protected].

[TokyoT]

Quote from the book - Albert Einstein: The Human Side

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both natural and spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”

Also from Mr. Einstein a quote from a letter Mr. Einstein wrote to a rabbi quoted in the book – Mathematical Circles Adieu: Fourth Collection of Mathematical Stories and Anecdotes.

“A human being is part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole the nature in its beauty.”

[Abandon]

Einstein - people kinda feel that if he endorsed it then it must be clever .... I personally do not feel that he had any useful input into spirituality. Rather like the Creationists not having anything useful to say about the Cosmos.

Even his famous time/space hotchpotch 'model' and the Big Bang it created, is on its way out. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Nice old duffer though ....

Science and Buddhism - psychology has a lot to offer various elements of Buddhsim, especially in its investigation of perception (sanya)

[chownah]

At the risk of getting off topic I would like to say that the Buddha's teachings are much more akin to science than the Intelligent Design philosophy. The Buddha suggested that people try different things and evaluate what happens so that you can decide if or how you want to continue. This is not so very different from the Scientific Method. The Intelligent Design people haven't developed any sort of way for people to try something and then evaluate...and doing this is something that is necessary in science.

[sabaijai]

At the risk of getting off topic I would like to say that the Buddha's teachings are much more akin to science than the Intelligent Design philosophy.  The Buddha suggested that people try different things and evaluate what happens so that you can decide if or how you want to continue.  This is not so very different from the Scientific Method.  The Intelligent Design people haven't developed any sort of way for people to try something and then evaluate...and doing this is something that is necessary in science.

That's a good point. You could say that Buddha approaches the mind as a sort of laboratory.

Buddhism is certainly one of the more scientific - if by 'scientific' you mean based on empiricism - of the world religions. What empiricism and Buddhism have in common is the predictiveness of theorems, e.g., if x occurs, y follows, a predictiveness based more on observation than revelation.

Although Buddhism may appeal to the rational mind more than any other religion, there are still aspects of Theravada Buddhism that are mystical rather than rational, e.g., nibbana.

I think the ongoing Mind and Life project is pretty interesting in the way it's searching for knowledge to supplement the Buddhist perspective. Who knows whether it will really prove anything useful to mankind. I imagine it will draw Buddhist converts from among a select group of scientists, in the same way Transcendental Meditation™ has its own camp of scientists., also Intelligent Design among Christian creationists.

[Abandon]

LOOK! Intelligent design is not Creationism ok !!!!!!!!!!

There are lots of us (yes us) who are not creationists, that feel the Intelligent design concept shows up the holes in the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution. No, it is not a 'theory' with testable hypothesis, and does not claim to be. It simply shows that the mechanism of neo-darwinism (genetic mutation + natural selection) cannot account for evolution as we see it. There are lots of Christians and others who believe in evolution, but not in Neo-Darwinism.

'Science' requires people to believe that its ideas are fact when it comes to evolution, but in fact the debate is wide open for research. But this "if you ain't with us you are a scumbag Creationist" argument is pathetically lame. Lamarkianism, morphic resonance, mutant monster theory, punctuated equilibrium and others show there is lots of scope for research, as does the feeble 'evidence' of the fossil record.

There are other fields of science that are equally dogmatic and wrong. Such as the gravitational model of the universe with its Big Bang (aka Big Con). take a peek at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

If ne-darwinism is a sound theory it should be able to prove itself in examination and welcome investigation. But it relies on a series of hypothesis that cannot account for the cmoplexity of cells (IT does not need to go beyond cellular level) - no one has shown evolution on a cellular level in action.

The issue is interesting from a Buddhist perspective, because the Buddha said that humans are descended from angels (agganya sutta and others) and that humankind stretches back through many world systems where even heavanly realms fold up and cease. Yet evolution says humans come from apes in the recent past.

And yes, as sabaijai points out, though Buddhism is 'rational' in approach, it holds to heaven, he11, past lives, ghosts, gods, demons, demi-gods, and memory that can stretch back to previous lives and world systems.

ok, I have had my rant.

[robitusson]

LOOK! Intelligent design is not Creationism ok !!!!!!!!!!

There are lots of us (yes us) who are not creationists, that  feel the Intelligent design concept shows up the holes in the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution. No, it is not a 'theory' with testable hypothesis, and does not claim to be. It simply shows that the mechanism of neo-darwinism (genetic mutation + natural selection) cannot account for evolution as we see it. There are lots of Christians and others who believe in evolution, but not in Neo-Darwinism.

'Science' requires people to believe that its ideas are fact when it comes to evolution, but in fact the debate is wide open for research. But this "if you ain't with us you are a scumbag Creationist" argument is pathetically lame. Lamarkianism, morphic resonance, mutant monster theory, punctuated equilibrium and others show there is lots of scope for research, as does the feeble 'evidence' of the fossil record.

There are other fields of science that are equally dogmatic and wrong. Such as the gravitational model of the universe with its Big Bang (aka Big Con). take a peek at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

If ne-darwinism is a sound theory it should be able to prove itself in examination and welcome investigation. But it relies on a series of hypothesis that cannot account for the cmoplexity of cells (IT does not need to go beyond cellular level) - no one has shown evolution on a cellular level in action.

The issue is interesting from a Buddhist perspective, because the Buddha said that humans are descended from angels (agganya sutta and others) and that humankind stretches back through many world systems where even heavanly realms fold up and cease. Yet evolution says humans come from apes in the recent past.

And yes, as sabaijai points out, though Buddhism is 'rational' in approach, it holds to heaven, he11, past lives, ghosts, gods, demons, demi-gods, and memory that can stretch back to previous lives and world systems.

ok, I have had my rant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wholeheartedly agree. The belief in the unprovable theory of evolution is just that a belief. No less of a belief as the Creationist view. Science is now held up to be the new religion with people blindly accepting things that are refuted and disproved as it changes. The Middle Way has to be between the 7 day creation story and narrow scientific materialism.

[sabaijai]

LOOK! Intelligent design is not Creationism ok !!!!!!!!!!

Whatever you say, Pandit. You're way ahead of me, I don't understand the difference.

Creationism's Trojan Horse

[TokyoT]

I consider myself an agnostic, but have begun to read more about Buddhism over the past couple of months – more to help me better understand my wife’s believes than anything else. Most of my reading has been stuff by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. But much of what you are calling Buddhism here is actually more cultural items that in the present day are cloaked in Buddhism, or even Tibetan Buddhism, and not so much Theravada Buddhism prominent here in Thailand?

The issue is interesting from a Buddhist perspective, because the Buddha said that humans are descended from angels (agganya sutta and others) and that humankind stretches back through many world systems where even heavanly realms fold up and cease. Yet evolution says humans come from apes in the recent past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of particular interest to me is your reference to Buddha saying that humans are descended from angels. As it is my current understanding firstly that Buddha did not believe in angles, and that his general idea in regard to creation was that it was something beyond our ability to understand, and therefore not to be worried with. Can anyone help me with where I might be able to find more on this topic?

And yes, as sabaijai points out, though Buddhism is 'rational' in approach, it holds to heaven, he11, past lives, ghosts, gods, demons, demi-gods, and memory that can stretch back to previous lives and world systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is my understanding while many Thai Buddhists believe in heaven, h*ll, ghosts, gods, demons, and such that these are more cultural baggage (left over from ancient animistic beliefs, and even Hindu beliefs) cloaked in Buddhism for the lay person, and not part of the fundamental teachings of Theravada Buddhism. Anyone care to comment on this point?

[Abandon]

Tokyo - for the most part threads in this forum are frequented by a small few regulars, with occasional 'pop ins' by the wider TV population. Oftentimes we assume to be chatting with those few .... Not really representitive of the wider, Theravada Buddhist party line.

You are quite right in that the Buddha paid little interest or attention to teaching cosmology or history, and it is hardly a central tenet of the teaching. As to point one, the scriptures - as far as we can get to the original word - do continually refer to Devas, and Gods that populate the heavens and he11 realms . It is not really presented as a relevant aspect of finding liberation. It is also not true that these aspects are just animist beliefs added on at a later date. As to original creation - it is one of the four imponderables, along with the mind of a Buddha, the mind of Jhana meditation, and the mind of the opposite sex.

These sites might put you on the track you seem to be asking about

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?act=idx

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

But then again, what do I know, I have high regard for the insights of Michael Behe and Intelligent Design, therefore, I must be a Creationist. Darn!

[TokyoT]

Pandit - Thanks for the sites – Should help with my continuing education. The point in regard to the existence of Deva is well taken.

[Suthep_Steve]

It is my understanding while many Thai Buddhists believe in heaven, h*ll, ghosts, gods, demons, and such that these are more cultural baggage (left over from ancient animistic beliefs, and even Hindu beliefs) cloaked in Buddhism for the lay person, and not part of the fundamental teachings of Theravada Buddhism. Anyone care to comment on this point?

I would say that belief in the 6 realms some of which appear in your list is actually fairly fundamental to a full on Buddhist. Why do I make this obviously contentious statement.

If we wish to attain Nirvana we need to be motivated in the correct way. What is the correct motivation for a Theravadian Buddhist? My guess is that it is Renunciation, the wish to escape from the continual cycle of birth, death and rebirth within Samsara. I think Buddha was talking about a wish not to be born in the lower realms as well as a wish not to be born as a human, demi god or god as part but by no means all of that motivation.

Personally I feel that a way in to looking at the lower realms in particular is to look at people with some forms of mental illness and see what their experience of the must be like.

Buddhism paints a very large picture and looking at the detail with out a good grounding of the whole can be pretty freeky. Also my views are probably pretty far out even by Buddhist standards.

[camerata]

The mind, on the other hand, is not a physical object. It cannot be seen with the eyes, nor can it be photographed or repaired by surgery. The brain therefore is not the mind but simply part of the body."

Clearly, there is a relationship between the mind and the brain, but this should not lead us to infer that they are one and the same. For example, there is a relationship between a driver and her car — when she brakes, the car stops, and so forth — but one would not infer from this relationship that they are the same entity. When the car stops, she can get out! Western science has observed that there is a relationship between brain activity and cognitive processes, but it is a false inference to then say that cognition is the brain or a byproduct of purely physical processes. This has not been proved, and never will be, because the mind is a different entity from the body.

The writer's logic is somewhat flawed here. A good analogy for the mind would be a computer program running in a computer. We can't photograph the program as it runs, but we could photograph all the on/off bits in memory. Similarly, we can't photograph the mind, but in many years to come we'll likely be able to digitally map every neuron that fires as the mind is active.

So in my view, the mind is not the brain but it depends on the brain (specifically the electrical activity of the brain) for its activity. And cognition is a "byproduct of purely physical processes." The big mystery is self-awareness. We assume that only humans (sane humans and not babies) are self-aware, and in fact only humans, chimps/bonobos and orangutans can recognize themselves in a mirror, suggesting that a very complex brain is required for even basic self-awareness.

This begs the old sci-fi scenario question, "Can a sufficiently complex computer become self-aware?". If science one day proves it can (a rather frightening thought), I think this would be a good indicator that the mind is dependent on the brain.

Since I think that memory is a function of the brain, I have a hard time accepting the Mahayana idea of "store consciousness" that passes from life to life. It seems too neat to me - like some concept that was thought up by a bunch of scholars. I find it easier to accept the idea that something passes from the mind of one person in one life to another person in another life, but not that the mind itself (or the mind's consciousness) migrates from one body to another taking with it a few select memories.

[camerata]

Although Buddhism may appeal to the rational mind more than any other religion, there are still aspects of Theravada Buddhism that are mystical rather than rational, e.g., nibbana. 

For me, nibbana is both mystical and rational.

[chownah]

Although Buddhism may appeal to the rational mind more than any other religion, there are still aspects of Theravada Buddhism that are mystical rather than rational, e.g., nibbana. 

For me, nibbana is both mystical and rational.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you talk a bit about these two attitudes that you have about nibbana. I'm very interested in how you describe it as being 'rational'. I don't understand what you mean by this.

[Suthep_Steve]

The writer's logic is somewhat flawed here. A good analogy for the mind would be a computer program running in a computer. We can't photograph the program as it runs, but we could photograph all the on/off bits in memory. Similarly, we can't photograph the mind, but in many years to come we'll likely be able to digitally map every neuron that fires as the mind is active.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think your right to say that the writer’s logic is inconclusive but that could be said about your computer / software analogy. Neither side can prove its arguments by logic alone you have to experience mindfully the process of dying and being reborn. Then you can say their is something non physical that passes from life to life.

Ideas that point in the direction of the mind and the brain being separate are:

The mind or consciousness is formless therefore its cause must be formless. It may be effected by the conditions that surround i.e. the physical environment of the brain or sensory stimuli from the senses but these are conditional factors and not primary courses. The cause of mind is its previous moment of mind. From this we can infer that when we die our mind lives on because the last moment of mind of this life is a cause that must give rise to an effect. Causes always give rise to effects. One moment of mind gives rise to another moment of mind therefore the mind lives on after death. You can use a very similar argument to say you had a mind before birth or conception. So what exactly passes from life to life from a Mahayana point of view? Not so much all our memories but our root mind which forms the basis for causing all these to arise again. The Karma we have created with this mind will effect the path it takes in its next life.

As discussed in another topic when you remove parts of the brain or parts of the brain are absent. The functions supposedly controlled by that area of the brain can still be performed.

On a lighter note you can't become more intelligent by eating brains but you can become physically stronger by eating bodies.

[camerata]

Ideas that point in the direction of the mind and the brain being separate are:

The mind or consciousness is formless therefore its cause must be formless.

Well, an active computer program is formless, but its cause isn't.

The cause of mind is its previous moment of mind.

But for me, at least, each moment of mind is made possible by underlying electrical activity in the brain, just as each instruction in a computer program results from the previous instruction, yet the whole thing is made possible by a silicon chip.

As discussed in another topic when you remove parts of the brain or parts of the brain are absent. The functions supposedly controlled by that area of the brain can still be performed.

This is fairly well explained by science, though. Given time, some functions of the brain can be shifted to another area which serves as a backup system. Typically, in millions of cases, when the brain is suddenly damaged, those damaged functions don't immediately recover (as they would if the mind was independent). But sometimes they can be re-learnt over time. More often, though, the person is incapacitated in some way.

The most famous case was Prof Lorber's boy with an IQ of 126 and a cerebrum squashed to 1mm thick by a condition known as "water on the brain":

"Observations such as Lorber's suggest that input-output functions of different parts of the brain can be shifted and that there's a great deal of functional plasticity in it. Indeed, in recent years, plasticity has become a major topic among neuroscientists. That valid maps exist at all--and they do--suggests that there is a strong tendency as we mature for certain regions to assume particular chores. But that a brain one millimeter thick functions as well as its 4 to 5 millimeter counterpart illustrates that these tendencies are not etched in stone."

All of this leads to the question, "How much is the mind involved in the workings of the body?" I think many Buddhists feel that it is closely involved, but doesn't need to be. That leaves it free to leave the body when the body dies. However, this isn't convincing to me... yet.

[camerata]

Can you talk a bit about these two attitudes that you have about nibbana.  I'm very interested in how you describe it as being 'rational'.  I don't understand what you mean by this.

Well, rational just means based on reason, and it seems entirely reasonable to me that if we train ourselves according to the Buddha's instructions we'll achieve a state like nibbana. Normally, we think of something mystical as being beyond reason but I think nibbana - from the limited descriptions we have - is the logical result of training the mind to eradicate self-view.

[Suthep_Steve]

Ideas that point in the direction of the mind and the brain being separate are:

The mind or consciousness is formless therefore its cause must be formless.

Well, an active computer program is formless, but its cause isn't.

Nice try but an active computer program has form. When you observe the transistors in the silicon. You can see the program as the high and low states. It has a physical pattern on the disc when inactive and a physical pattern on the silicon when active. You can montior and measure it's state hence you can see what happens when you change the inputs.

The cause of mind is its previous moment of mind.

But for me, at least, each moment of mind is made possible by underlying electrical activity in the brain, just as each instruction in a computer program results from the previous instruction, yet the whole thing is made possible by a silicon chip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you turn off a computer and then reboot it, it will return to its last saved state but when you turn off electricity from the brain and then re apply the mind does not go back to it's last saved state. Whether that be the mind at the point of turn off or the mind of the new born individual.

Computers are not self aware and they do not have a driving intelligence behind them. They can give a similitude of the mind and that is what makes them so interesting but at the end of the day, "the lights are on but no one is at home."

All of this leads to the question, "How much is the mind involved in the workings of the body?" I think many Buddhists feel that it is closely involved, but doesn't need to be. That leaves it free to leave the body when the body dies. However, this isn't convincing to me... yet.

It convices me at the moment. As a computer programmer I find the mind simply unattainable in computer / software terms.

[camerata]

Nice try but an active computer program has form. When you observe the transistors in the silicon. You can see the program as the high and low states. It has a physical pattern on the disc when inactive and a physical pattern on the silicon when active. You can montior and measure it's state hence you can see what happens when you change the inputs.

Sure, but a computer program is not normally visible, it needs some special equipment to display patterns on a silicon wafer. In the same way I believe that in the future, with much more sophisticated equipment, we'll be able to view specific brain activity. Already, researchers have mapped the areas of the brain used during loving-kindness meditation. One day I believe we'll be able to pull a visual image out of the brain like we can pull a jpg off a hard disk.

Anyway, an analogy is just an analogy. I'm not claiming the mind/brain work like a computer, I'm just using it to illustrate how I think things work. I wasn't knocking the Mahayana view of rebirth, but I am surprised that well-known Theravadins are espousing a similar view and invoking science as a justification.

By contrast, other well-respected Theravadins (Gunaratana et al) describe what passes between lives as "a stream of void processes," or "desire" or "kammic accumulations." This is very different, and it leans more to the view that the process is beyond conceptual thinking (and science).

When you turn off a computer and then reboot it, it will return to its last saved state but when you turn off electricity from the brain and then re apply the mind does not go back to it's last saved state.

Well, in the case of the mind this is because the brain decays after a very short time. But I guess there's no point in flogging this analogy to death.

The quote from my OP raises some intriguing possibilities for reading one's past lives. I had always thought of this as somehow accessing some kind of hidden memories in the mind, but if every event in spacetime exists eternally, perhaps reading past lives is really a technique for collecting and compiling spacetime events into coherent memories.

[chownah]

Maybe a running computer is like the mind of a normal person. The processes and programs running on the computer were all loaded during the boot and these are like the kamma and conditioning of the mind. Each step of every program and process is like the rising and falling of mental states and objects. Turning the computer off is like meditating...slowly the programs shut down and stop running...slowly the mind calms itself by dropping the unwanted mental processes. Rebooting the computer is like when you finish meditating....it doesn't take long for the computer to have all of its stuff up and running again...just like it doesn't take long (at least for me) for all that ocean of mental chatter to re-establish itself after meditating. When you reboot after meditation and no programs start running then you have reached nibbana....I guess.

Edited October 30, 2005 by chownah

[meadish_sweetball]

When you reboot after meditation and no programs start running then you have reached nibbana....I guess.

Not so sure if I would personally reach nibbana if my computer did not boot, but at least the computer would then not be able to divert my attention from more important priorities in life.

[Abandon]

When you reboot after meditation and no programs start running then you have reached nibbana....I guess.

Not so sure if I would personally reach nibbana if my computer did not boot, but at least the computer would then not be able to divert my attention from more important priorities in life.

Grrrr

[cobra]

... This begs the old sci-fi scenario question, "Can a sufficiently complex computer become self-aware?". If science one day proves it can (a rather frightening thought), I think this would be a good indicator that the mind is dependent on the brain ....

Interesting,

Also, thru out history science fiction writers have correctly foretold of future technologies.

Jules Verne correctly envisioned the submarine, space flight, etc,

With the exponential increase in CPU speed and memory, intelligent machines may well became sentient and self-aware, maybe a new life form unto themselves, then they too may ponder on these very same questions ...