Buddha'S Teachings Vis-A-Vis Modern Physics

[huli]

Anyone not interested in leading a very superficial life tries to understand reality deeper one way or another. Insights of superior beings like Buddha, and the scientific method would both come to mind in this regard. I find it highly significant when there is some agreement between Buddha's teachings and modern science, with one essentially corroborating the other.

I have just finished reading a book called The Matter Myth - Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge our Understanding of Physical Reality by Davies and Gribbin. I admit that I could not envision a lot of what I read concerning the implications of Relativity and Quantum Theories. From what I understand, it's pretty much impossible to envision this stuff for the average person anyways, certainly subatomic reality. But a whole lot has been verified by experiment.

As for the nature of time, it seems that modern science now believes in time itself having a fundamental unit beyond which intervals can not be subdivided. Of, course, it is incredibly small. I remember that Buddha also said that there are discrete mind-moments that are indivisible and likewise incredibly small. How could he see this? What a Superman!

Likewise, in Quantum mechanics, there is the conclusion that the human observer plays a central role in fixing the nature of reality. Look for a wave, you find a wave. Look for a particle, that is what you find. The observer and the observed are actually interwoven, which is not common sense to our preconceived notion of reality. We think of ourselves as separate. Buddha famously said we are really not, and isn't it interesting that science has been able to prove it?

It is not so much that we can see for ourselves what modern science says, but to know that it is said, in an authoritative book, and it agrees with what Buddha said, well, it gives a person some faith that Buddha was right and probably about a lot of other stuff too.

[lungmi]

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/payutto.htm

In this link you can find all what you need, Science and authentic Buddhism - no antagonism.

[healthcaretaker]

http://www.buddhanet...dsg/payutto.htm

In this link you can find all what you need, Science and authentic Buddhism - no antagonism.

Wonderful.

It could have been much better and more convincing to some people if he did it my way. I relate Science to Buddhism in their 2 most important theories:

1) The Law of Karma - is corroborated by Newton's Law and later with Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

2) REBIRTH - the only possible explaination on life and after death with Eintein's discovery of Energy that it cannot be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

[fabianfred]

2) REBIRTH - the only possible explaination on life and after death with Eintein's discovery of Energy that it cannot be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

is that energy or matter which cannot be destroyed??? I would tend to think matter...

[Several]

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

[MrRealDeal]

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

That is not accurate at all ..... and as far as conservation goes it's both, and while you can change matter to energy and energy to matter everything is not a varying state of energy. Thier are both Laws of conservation of energy and matter.

Because most things have energy does not mean they are energy in some varying state.

And please do a little research on your own before trying to argue the point because I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining more of this. Or responing to symantical or Non Scientificly accepted arguments.

Edited June 28, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[AnandaSatvha]

The OP thanks for the post. I will check out that book sounds fascinating, I've been learning about buddhism for the last few months and its the only religion I've ever observed to have the least contradictions. Are you a Monk by chance?

[Several]

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

That is not accurate at all ..... and as far as conservation goes it's both, and while you can change matter to energy and energy to matter everything is not a varying state of energy. Thier are both Laws of conservation of energy and matter.

Because most things have energy does not mean they are energy in some varying state.

And please do a little research on your own before trying to argue the point because I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining more of this. Or responing to symantical or Non Scientificly accepted arguments.

I could be wrong. I was once before. But I can't think of anything that does not have an energetic aspect. I mean even a shadow is visible because it is a lack of energy in an area. But I don't mind being wrong because thats how you learn. Science frequently forgets it is searching for answers and simply assumes is has them all or is 'very close'. Read any scientific litetature from a hundred years ago and it makes all kinds of absolute statements about things that have since been disproven. What makes you think today is any different? I find science very interesting but it is based on the assumtion that there are immutable laws of the universe without, as far as I know, proof. What makes a law is that scientists find the explaination aesthetically pleasing. Now that may be good enough for many but to me it sounds like another faith. A universal organising force that nobody can prove the existence of. So I'm only as concerned with 'scientifically accepted' arguments as with others. Science is an evolving part of the picture, it is not the entire gallery. But hey, I'm quite willing to be wrong. The truth outweighs the ego.

You have no right to tell people what they can say and how they can express themselves. You can give constructive answers or opinions, or you can choose not to answer if you dislike the direction of the argument. I only stated what I had heard and that seems to be true. I am not looking for an argument, so I will reaserch what you say tomorrow.

Right now it would take too much energy.

[MrRealDeal]

Huli you are somewhat missstating that ..... It's not that the observer effect as it is called, creates, the reality due to looking or observing as in look for a wave and you will find one .... It's that the act of observing many different things changes the reality of what you are observing by the actions of observing it , the basic school example would be if you check the tire pressure you will lose a small amount of air in the testing device and change the pressure in the tire from what you wanted to observe to something different. It's not so much that the observer himself changes the equation as much as it's the equipment used or procedure that the observer is using that changes the equation.

It might at first glance sound like semantics , the person the tool who cares the person is using the tool ..... however since their are alternate ways to test tire pressure and alternate ways to observe most things that change the reality of what you are observing differently ,, the point of the observer effect is that it's the TYPE of observation that is done that changes the reality not that the reality is changed by the intrduction of a human because they are so connected.

Once we know the state and walk away the state or reality does not change if in fact the observer was interconnected the act of walking away would change it's state or reality ..... I probabbly didn't explain it in a way you can understand but the point is that the observer effect is about the TYPE of observation being done and how THAT changes reality not that the human observer is connected to everything in a way that changes it's reality.

However things are interconnected by many things like gravity for example so he was correct about that part , but using the observer effect to explain it is an incorrect use of that scientific effect.

[MrRealDeal]

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

That is not accurate at all ..... and as far as conservation goes it's both, and while you can change matter to energy and energy to matter everything is not a varying state of energy. Thier are both Laws of conservation of energy and matter.

Because most things have energy does not mean they are energy in some varying state.

And please do a little research on your own before trying to argue the point because I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining more of this. Or responing to symantical or Non Scientificly accepted arguments.

I could be wrong. I was once before. But I can't think of anything that does not have an energetic aspect. I mean even a shadow is visible because it is a lack of energy in an area. But I don't mind being wrong because thats how you learn. Science frequently forgets it is searching for answers and simply assumes is has them all or is 'very close'. Read any scientific litetature from a hundred years ago and it makes all kinds of absolute statements about things that have since been disproven. What makes you think today is any different? I find science very interesting but it is based on the assumtion that there are immutable laws of the universe without, as far as I know, proof. What makes a law is that scientists find the explaination aesthetically pleasing. Now that may be good enough for many but to me it sounds like another faith. A universal organising force that nobody can prove the existence of. So I'm only as concerned with 'scientifically accepted' arguments as with others. Science is an evolving part of the picture, it is not the entire gallery. But hey, I'm quite willing to be wrong. The truth outweighs the ego.

You have no right to tell people what they can say and how they can express themselves. You can give constructive answers or opinions, or you can choose not to answer if you dislike the direction of the argument. I only stated what I had heard and that seems to be true. I am not looking for an argument, so I will reaserch what you say tomorrow.

Right now it would take too much energy.

Point taken ..... The reason I said accepted science is otherwise we are discussing something closer to an idea that has not even reached the hypothesis stage of even being testable let alone tested , I didn't mean to anger you , sorry for that , ..... What makes a Scientific Law is not that it's pleasing it's that it has been elevated from the hypothesis stage of being testable to actually being tested and found to be true , Science literature is one thing Science Laws are another, you won't find any Laws that have been disproven , it's a common misconception for example that Newtons laws of motion were found to be wrong by Einstien.

Another common example would be people who say that the improvement or increased complexity of the Earth proves the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, that basicly says things deteriorate unless you fix them wrong, because the earth has become increasingly more complex since the first single cell as opposed to deterioratiing , but they skip the part of the Law that says "in a closed system" and the earth is not a closed system and not what the Law is talking about. ( It's a common argument people use to both disprove that and prove God had to do it at the same time )

But as a point of fact it's impossible to have a Law of science without proof and while most have been enhanced by looking at different states than the person who made the origional was even talking about with exceptions or comframations thats what has always happened they are enhanced to include things in addition to the origional you will not find any Laws that have been found to be wrong .... as of yet.... and while I understand anything may be possible I am just not into talking about how things that have been proven to be true might not be.

As I stated just because most everything has energy or an aspect of energy doesnt make it energy according to the defenition , we need to have a foundation to comunicate and we can't just make up our own defnitions as we go along and i'm not saying you are either ..... but to say for example because an object at absolute zero that would be void of energy, could be heated back up and therefore has an aspect of energy, makes it energy, is just not how the word is correctly used and is an absurd statement from a Scientific point of view because absolute zero is the lack of all energy. Your definition that things that lack energy have an aspect of energy is true ..... the aspect is .... they lack energy as you stated and therfore have none ! Having no money might be an aspect of money but it is NOT money it's the absence of it.

I hope I explained it well enough but probabbly not and thats cool ..... sorry for the first I like talking about this kind of thing I was just tired at the time.

Edited June 28, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[MrRealDeal]

PS as it relates to the above , the reason the observer effect is called an effect rather than a Law is that it's not always true , the act of observing the great wall of China from the space station does not have an effect on the Great Wall of China for example. However you could certianly manufacture some way to observe it and change it from space with powerfull laser for example.

[MrRealDeal]

Here is one that hard to understand for fun ..... the shortest possible distance is called the Planck length it's impossible to measure today and therfore theory as opposed to fact , however the concept is that at this very short distance you enter the realm of Quantum and therefore it would be impossible to measure anything smaller ...... ok ........ what if I took 2 planck lengths and put them at an angle and measured the distance of the angle between them , wouldn't that be shorter than the lengths ?

As one theory goes it would not because less than that distance the structure of spacetime would become dominated by the quantum effects and impossible to meashure

Another theory says the Planck length is the order of magnitude of the oscillating strings that form elementary particles, and shorter lengths do not make physical sense.

Their are a few more equally baffling explanations as to why it would be impossible but my point is 2 fold ... One.... it goes along with what Several says .... im my own words and a little more harsh to Science .... it only makes any sence at all, if you chose to believe in things that only make sense, based on thinking it makes sense, not because anyone has or can even meashure or observe it in the first place !

And my second point would be it's a pretty piss poor excuse for an explanation because I know less than I did before I even read it !

But thats a Theory for ya ..... in this case A theoretical explanation for a distance that may or may not exist , based on oscilating strings that may or may not exist , forming elementary particles that may or may not exist , in the end at least admitting that at least something doesn't make sence at the physical level .....

The most bizzare part of all that is that in order to understand this theory that is based on a number of levels of mathmaticly accruate but none the less speculative pie in the sky drempt up inventions not much better or different than the Vulcan neck pinch you need a pretty extensive education ! ...... and people say science is no fun !

[huli]

Mr. RealDeal,

IMO, Buddha's teachings and modern physics have in common, as I noted in my OP, that there are discrete time or mind moments, and there is no indivisible, separate human self. It seems to me that both of these concepts are difficult to understand and communicate, in both paradigms.

We both seem to have a keen interest in Modern Physics. However, if I may say so, I don't think this Buddhist Forum is the place for purely physics discussions. The members want to read about Buddhist stuff. I am not a moderator, or anybody's boss, but I did write the OP and you did address me directly in one of your posts, so I want to say that.

Do you agree that Buddha's teachings and observations in his prescientific era seem to resonate with many of the theories in modern physics?

regards

Huli

[Several]

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

That is not accurate at all ..... and as far as conservation goes it's both, and while you can change matter to energy and energy to matter everything is not a varying state of energy. Thier are both Laws of conservation of energy and matter.

Because most things have energy does not mean they are energy in some varying state.

And please do a little research on your own before trying to argue the point because I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining more of this. Or responing to symantical or Non Scientificly accepted arguments.

I could be wrong. I was once before. But I can't think of anything that does not have an energetic aspect. I mean even a shadow is visible because it is a lack of energy in an area. But I don't mind being wrong because thats how you learn. Science frequently forgets it is searching for answers and simply assumes is has them all or is 'very close'. Read any scientific litetature from a hundred years ago and it makes all kinds of absolute statements about things that have since been disproven. What makes you think today is any different? I find science very interesting but it is based on the assumtion that there are immutable laws of the universe without, as far as I know, proof. What makes a law is that scientists find the explaination aesthetically pleasing. Now that may be good enough for many but to me it sounds like another faith. A universal organising force that nobody can prove the existence of. So I'm only as concerned with 'scientifically accepted' arguments as with others. Science is an evolving part of the picture, it is not the entire gallery. But hey, I'm quite willing to be wrong. The truth outweighs the ego.

You have no right to tell people what they can say and how they can express themselves. You can give constructive answers or opinions, or you can choose not to answer if you dislike the direction of the argument. I only stated what I had heard and that seems to be true. I am not looking for an argument, so I will reaserch what you say tomorrow.

Right now it would take too much energy.

Point taken ..... The reason I said accepted science is otherwise we are discussing something closer to an idea that has not even reached the hypothesis stage of even being testable let alone tested , I didn't mean to anger you , sorry for that , ..... What makes a Scientific Law is not that it's pleasing it's that it has been elevated from the hypothesis stage of being testable to actually being tested and found to be true , Science literature is one thing Science Laws are another, you won't find any Laws that have been disproven , it's a common misconception for example that Newtons laws of motion were found to be wrong by Einstien.

Another common example would be people who say that the improvement or increased complexity of the Earth proves the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, that basicly says things deteriorate unless you fix them wrong, because the earth has become increasingly more complex since the first single cell as opposed to deterioratiing , but they skip the part of the Law that says "in a closed system" and the earth is not a closed system and not what the Law is talking about. ( It's a common argument people use to both disprove that and prove God had to do it at the same time )

But as a point of fact it's impossible to have a Law of science without proof and while most have been enhanced by looking at different states than the person who made the origional was even talking about with exceptions or comframations thats what has always happened they are enhanced to include things in addition to the origional you will not find any Laws that have been found to be wrong .... as of yet.... and while I understand anything may be possible I am just not into talking about how things that have been proven to be true might not be.

As I stated just because most everything has energy or an aspect of energy doesnt make it energy according to the defenition , we need to have a foundation to comunicate and we can't just make up our own defnitions as we go along and i'm not saying you are either ..... but to say for example because an object at absolute zero that would be void of energy, could be heated back up and therefore has an aspect of energy, makes it energy, is just not how the word is correctly used and is an absurd statement from a Scientific point of view because absolute zero is the lack of all energy. Your definition that things that lack energy have an aspect of energy is true ..... the aspect is .... they lack energy as you stated and therfore have none ! Having no money might be an aspect of money but it is NOT money it's the absence of it.

I hope I explained it well enough but probabbly not and thats cool ..... sorry for the first I like talking about this kind of thing I was just tired at the time.

No worries my friend. You have encouraged me to reserch things more before I post, and I like your reply. Including the one above about the observer. Always found that fascinating.

So, it's all good.

[camerata]

However, if I may say so, I don't think this Buddhist Forum is the place for purely physics discussions. The members want to read about Buddhist stuff.

Exactly. Stick to the topic, guys, and keep it relevant to Buddhism.

[camerata]

Those of you interested in Buddhism and physics might find this book interesting:

"Unarguably, science has long been the authoritative voice in story telling about practically everything –from the universe to stars and galaxies; the big bang and black holes; atoms and quarks, matter and energy; plants, animals and humans; chromosomes and DNA; body and mind; life and death; etc. This book retells those same stories but from a rather different voice, dharma. After having read the book, those stories may never sound the same again."

http://www.woodyprie...?products_id=30

[Xangsamhua]

Note also http://www.thaivisa....page__hl__woody

A very short thread on Dr Woody's theory of "vivergy as the underpinning life-force that gives rise to all action-based phenomena in the universe and forms of life wherever they may be".

[Several]

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

[hookedondhamma]

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

[lungmi]

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

My explanation of the Acintita Sutta:

1. There are no stupid questions, the answers may be stupid. (the mind of an investigating human)

2. A question knowing there will be no answer is the top of ignorance and delusion.

[huli]

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

I never heard that Buddha said those things in the Acinitita Sutta. As one example, there has been a lot of discussion on this Forum about exactly how karma works if there is actually no self. The search for this answer causes "madness and vexation". haha

By all means, don't ask about where the world came from either! (Unless you are a scientist, but even then the answer will just be descriptive)

We probably ought to remember this Sutta more often.

Edited July 8, 2012 by huli

[Xangsamhua]

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

I never heard that Buddha said those things in the Acinitita Sutta. As one example, there has been a lot of discussion on this Forum about exactly how karma works if there is actually no self. The search for this answer causes "madness and vexation". haha

By all means, don't ask about where the world came from either! (Unless you are a scientist, but even then the answer will just be descriptive)

We probably ought to remember this Sutta more often.

In the Acintita Sutta the Buddha is focused on "conjecture", i.e. "speculation" regarding something that can't be verified. People who don't like theory and exhort us to focus on practice may be attracted to this sutta as a proof-text, and with some justification, as the Buddha was quite hostile to the sterile and highly speculative conjecture some brahmins of his time engaged in.

However, the pursuit of a theory of existence (ontology and cosmology) is hardly contrary to the practice of dhamma. The theory of kamma, if you take it just a bit beyond the "actions have consequences" level and link it to a proposition that one's kamma must be worked out over lives, is a powerful ontology and moral philosophy that simply begs so many questions that not to explore them reduces the Buddhadhamma to a kind of self-help, personal development regime.

When I studied "Systematic Theology" as a unit in my theology degree, I was confronted with what I think the Buddha would regard as conjecture, and I'd agree with him. People write whole books on whether God can suffer or whether God is entirely transcendent or also immanent, etc, all of which is mere conjecture (unless you have a prior belief that the scriptures reveal God's word on this, which I certainly didn't). However, to analyse the theory underpinning the Buddha's teaching, as the Abhidhammists did and the Madhyamaka and Yogacara philosophers did, is not only inevitable, it acknowledges that the Buddha was not just a kind of ancient Antony Robbins or Wayne Dyer, but a teacher grounded in a view of the cosmos and human life that gave direction to his teaching. As soon as the Buddha opened his mouth and gave his first sermon at Isipathana he made ontological claims (in respect to the eightfold path - "right" thought, "right" action and so on) that he developed later and which led to anicca (impermanence) and anatta (no-self) that simply cry out for examination.

It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. One can turn one's back on investigation (one may have a disposition against that sort of thing anyway), but to do so diminishes one's credibility in any discussion on anything other than the purely practical (if there is such a thing).

[huli]

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

I never heard that Buddha said those things in the Acinitita Sutta. As one example, there has been a lot of discussion on this Forum about exactly how karma works if there is actually no self. The search for this answer causes "madness and vexation". haha

By all means, don't ask about where the world came from either! (Unless you are a scientist, but even then the answer will just be descriptive)

We probably ought to remember this Sutta more often.

In the Acintita Sutta the Buddha is focused on "conjecture", i.e. "speculation" regarding something that can't be verified. People who don't like theory and exhort us to focus on practice may be attracted to this sutta as a proof-text, and with some justification, as the Buddha was quite hostile to the sterile and highly speculative conjecture some brahmins of his time engaged in.

However, the pursuit of a theory of existence (ontology and cosmology) is hardly contrary to the practice of dhamma. The theory of kamma, if you take it just a bit beyond the "actions have consequences" level and link it to a proposition that one's kamma must be worked out over lives, is a powerful ontology and moral philosophy that simply begs so many questions that not to explore them reduces the Buddhadhamma to a kind of self-help, personal development regime.

When I studied "Systematic Theology" as a unit in my theology degree, I was confronted with what I think the Buddha would regard as conjecture, and I'd agree with him. People write whole books on whether God can suffer or whether God is entirely transcendent or also immanent, etc, all of which is mere conjecture (unless you have a prior belief that the scriptures reveal God's word on this, which I certainly didn't). However, to analyse the theory underpinning the Buddha's teaching, as the Abhidhammists did and the Madhyamaka and Yogacara philosophers did, is not only inevitable, it acknowledges that the Buddha was not just a kind of ancient Antony Robbins or Wayne Dyer, but a teacher grounded in a view of the cosmos and human life that gave direction to his teaching. As soon as the Buddha opened his mouth and gave his first sermon at Isipathana he made ontological claims (in respect to the eightfold path - "right" thought, "right" action and so on) that he developed later and which led to anicca (impermanence) and anatta (no-self) that simply cry out for examination.

It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. One can turn one's back on investigation (one may have a disposition against that sort of thing anyway), but to do so diminishes one's credibility in any discussion on anything other than the purely practical (if there is such a thing).

It is an honor to have you reply to my post Xangsamhua

if you wouldn't mind, could I make the following comments in the spirit of dialogue?

I am surprised to hear you say that the pursuit of a theory of existence is not contrary to the practice of dhamma. Any theory of existence will forever be debatable, it seems to me. Also, no such theory was presented by Buddha, who held nothing back, it is said. Therefore, any such theory or discussion can not claim to be Buddhist.

I did look up the meaning of ontological, and, by my reading, it means statements made about "being", which would not necessarily involve theories of existence, though of course they could. Buddha's teaching on Right action, was ontological in nature, true, but was without any reference to a theory of existence, having a concrete definition.

Buddhism has always been seen as short on including a complete theory of existence, having no answer for where the universe came from, for example. However, it seems to me that one can examine impermanence, or no-self as universal characteristics without such a theory. I don't find that calling Buddhism a self-help, personal development regime, a philosophy, or merely practical, diminishes it.

I can imagine that such a seasoned and agile mind such as yours would be eager for more than what Buddha taught, but he had his reasons, and his recorded words in the Acintita Sutta are pretty much to the point, it seems to me.

I can not say I am convinced that speculative conjecture has changed all that much since Buddha's time.

thanks again

with all due respect

Huli

Edited July 9, 2012 by huli

[hookedondhamma]

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

My explanation of the Acintita Sutta:

1. There are no stupid questions, the answers may be stupid. (the mind of an investigating human)

2. A question knowing there will be no answer is the top of ignorance and delusion.

That's interesting, Lungmi.

[Several]

I have heard it said by some Buddhists that the universe had no beginning and has always been and will always be because time does not really exist either. Though I'm personally not sure about that is this position based on something in scripture or in a lack of something, ie Buddha not describing a creation event?

Also, does science give us true understanding? Is their discovery of 'indivisible' things simply an inability of math to cope with a problem as Heisenberg Uncertainty shows? For example if a scientist could mathematically explain Nibbana would that enable an individual to achieve it?

The physicist Richard Feynman proposed in his Case by Histories that the results of any experiment are only results under certain circumstances and not comprehensive. No experiment has ever been conducted away from the influence of Sol for example. So to be certain of results every experiment would need to be conducted under every concieveable circumstance. So in truth science can be sure of its facts but not certain of them.

So did the Buddha propose things he had deduced or had direct experience of? The Zen monk Takuan Soho described those who use reason alone as 'men of half baked knowledge'.

Finally if there is no 'I' then there is no 'observer' and yet the effect still takes place by observation. If I am not but the universe is then it is the universe observing itself regardless of whether I am here or not. Trees make noises when they fall and the cat in the box died of something other than curiosity. Who said the observer needed to be a human?

(apologies in advance if I have offended anyone.)

[Xangsamhua]

I am surprised to hear you say that the pursuit of a theory of existence is not contrary to the practice of dhamma. Any theory of existence will forever be debatable, it seems to me. Also, no such theory was presented by Buddha, who held nothing back, it is said. Therefore, any such theory or discussion can not claim to be Buddhist.

To my knowledge, the pursuit of a theory of existence is not contrary to the vinaya; nor does the Buddha forbid this pursuit, unless one is engaged in mere conjecture or the kind of hair-splitting intellectual exercises engaged in by some Brahmins of his time and that he found pointless and distracting. However, it may well be contrary to the spirit of the Buddhadhamma, so I should reconsider what I said above.

When asked speculative questions (about infinity, the nature of the soul, etc) by the monk Malunkyaputta, the Buddha replied by saying that he'd never said he'd teach about those things, that having a view on them does not necessarily lead to a holy life, and that the important thing is to be mindful of the four noble truths and to follow the eightfold path that leads to cessation of suffering. He chose not to express views on Malunkyaputta's questions, but that does not mean he had none.

The reality of suffering, impermanence and non-self are core teachings of the Buddha, but they relate to conditioned existence, not to all possible existence, because it was conditioned existence, especially as it formed personality and intention, that was the focus of the Buddha's project. He didn't set himself up as a speculative philosopher. There is no "form of the good" or "Brahman" or "Theos" in the Buddha's doctrine. One has to eliminate suffering and the causes of suffering in one's own being by one's own efforts. No noumenal or metaphysical agent is going to help.

However, beyond his focus on conditioned phenomena, manifest in personality and will, and active with karmic effect, the Buddha did posit a kind of existence that was unconditioned. This is nibbana/nirvana and it is attainment of this kind of existence to which our intentions and actions should be directed.

Nibbana is "unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned", the existence of which makes possible "escape from the born, become, made and conditoned". (Udana 8:3/80) It is also said to be "the unborn, unageing, unailing, deathless, sorrowless, undefiled supreme security from bondage". (MN 26.18) So, clearly, there is another realm of existence which is not subject to dependent origination, which transcends phenomena, which in fact is metaphysical, noumenal and ideal. However, to talk about and think about nibbana, which would be only natural, given its importance, is not to be advised, as that would be conjectural. One is expected simply to accept it because the Buddha taught it and because some people are said to have had experiences of it in deep meditation (as did the Buddha on the night of his enlightenment). One is encouraged to try and attain similar states through their own meditation.

Now, I might go beyond the pale of acceptable Buddhist discourse and suggest that the concept of Nirvana makes no sense in a philosophy centered on impermanence and non-self. Obviously there is something permanent and essential. It's nirvana, and nirvana only makes sense in the Vedic, Upanishadic framework in which it emerged as the goal of liberation from the bonds of phenomenal experience, with the latter's delusion, confusion and suffering. This liberation was to be achieved by a return to, a re-identification with the Self, Brahman, the unconditioned, uncaused, essential consciousness that underpins and constitutes the fundamental nature of all phenomena, including ourselves.

Nirvana, then, in the Upanishadic view, is a return to the "unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned". In Buddhism, however, it is seen as a state to be attained, but an unconditoned one, hence uncaused. It's just there, but unconnected with those who aspire to it. There's always a duality between the aspirant, fundamentally lacking in essence and permanence, and the state to which he or she aspires. To attain this state requires a total qualitative change in the enlightened person from one kind of being to another.

I apologize for perhaps going beyond the terms of reference of this Buddhist forum, but I've been studying the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta in the last few months and they're on my mind. However, the understanding of nirvana that I've outlined in the previous paragraph seems to be common in Zen and, I think, in Dzogchen, but I'm not really sure. For myself, I'm just trying to work through these ideas. Now it's time to get back on the cushion.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Xangsamhua