Buddhism and Science.

[52midnight]

Many of the most respected thinkers of both East and West have suggested and promoted a union between Buddhism and Science. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860), whose philosophy profoundly influenced Freud, Jung, Vivekananda and Wittgenstein, amongst others, wrote that "If I were to take the results of my philosophy as a yardstick of the truth, I would concede to Buddhism the pre-eminence of all religions of the world." And Albert Einstein declared that "If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

The term "Buddhist Science" is often used to denote an interpretation of Modern Western Science based on Buddhist philosophical principles. However, there is a fundamental conflict between Buddhism and Modern Western Science. Buddhism is a philosophy that encourages its adherents to explore the subjective realm of consciousness, and to regard the external, objective world as being determined by it. By contrast, Modern Western Science is a doctrine holding that the external, objective world perceived by the physical senses is the only reality, and that the inner, subjective world of consciousness is an imaginary byproduct of biochemical activity in the brain.

Western civilization never developed a science of consciousness, whereas Buddhism has made major strides in developing one. The contemplative refinement of attention, and the subsequent utilization of such attention in exploring the mind first-hand, plays a crucial role in such an endeavour. While Buddhism has a rich contemplative tradition for the first-person exploration of states of consciousness, it never developed the modern Western sciences of the brain and behaviour. An integration of the first-person methodologies of Buddhism with the third-person methodologies of the cognitive sciences may lead to a richer understanding of consciousness than either Buddhist or Western civilization has discovered on its own.

On 16 August 1991, a deeply insightful address was given by Bhikkhu Prayudh Payutto at the National Science Day Lecture at the University of Chiang Mai. It offers a detailed examination of Buddhism as the foundation of a new, enlightened scientific method and tradition which includes consciousness as an essential component of the reality we inhabit.

I'd be very interested to discuss these issues with English-speaking Thai people, since I have no ability in their language.

[khaowong1]

Good look in your search.. I have not run into any Buddhist monks that had the insight or knowledge that Luang Por Payutto has. I would suggest you find Dr. Dion Peoples a teacher at MCU in Bangkok. He might be able to set you on the right path. You can also find him on facebook.

[sensei]

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet...

[fabianfred]

Buddhism IS very scientific. Not believing in any deity to worship and supplicate and think causes things to happen out of punishment or whim.

Buddha didn't start a religion, but simply taught the Dhamma, which is natural laws applying to all beings.

The most important being karma, a natural law which has it effect, just like gravity, whether you believe in it, understand it, know about it , or not.

[52midnight]

Good look in your search.. I have not run into any Buddhist monks that had the insight or knowledge that Luang Por Payutto has. I would suggest you find Dr. Dion Peoples a teacher at MCU in Bangkok. He might be able to set you on the right path. You can also find him on facebook.

Thanks very much for the tip; I'll do as you suggest. BTW, is Bhikkhu Prayudh Payutto still extant? Last I heard he had gone into retirement, and may have been ailing. He's been an inspiration to me these many years, and I'd be delighted to know if he's still about and in good health.

[rockyysdt]

Quote: By contrast, Modern Western Science is a doctrine holding that the external, objective world perceived by the physical senses is the only reality, and that the inner, subjective world of consciousness is an imaginary byproduct of biochemical activity in the brain.

Shouldn't we say that those who hold that "the inner subjective world of consciousness is imaginary" are not being scientific?

Isn't the fact that there is little scientific knowledge in this area more to do with the lack of research rather than it being imaginary?

In other words, we can put forward hyphothesies but until they can be tested and proved scientifically then they remain so.

Until a hyphothesis can be tested and proven either way, it remains possible.

Shrugging it off as imaginary is not being scientific.

Quote: An integration of the first-person methodologies of Buddhism with the third-person methodologies of the cognitive sciences may lead to a richer understanding of consciousness than either Buddhist or Western civilization has discovered on its own.

What comes to mind is actual scientific research on those who Meditate and/or those who practice Mindfulness.

Edited July 9, 2013 by rockyysdt

[KarenBravo]

Proof please for Karma.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhism IS very scientific. Not believing in any deity to worship and supplicate and think causes things to happen out of punishment or whim.

Buddha didn't start a religion, but simply taught the Dhamma, which is natural laws applying to all beings.

The most important being karma, a natural law which has it effect, just like gravity, whether you believe in it, understand it, know about it , or not.

Scientifically speaking though, Buddhism has never been proven (Awakening, Kharma, etc).

Through practice the results are personal experiences, all independantly un-verifiable except through statements which are rare and none specific.

That's not to say they that Dharma and its goals are not possible, but in scientific terms, un-verifiable and untestable to the general public.

Edited July 9, 2013 by rockyysdt

[KarenBravo]

Buddhism IS very scientific. Not believing in any deity to worship and supplicate and think causes things to happen out of punishment or whim.

Buddha didn't start a religion, but simply taught the Dhamma, which is natural laws applying to all beings.

The most important being karma, a natural law which has it effect, just like gravity, whether you believe in it, understand it, know about it , or not.

Rubbish. Buddhism is not scientific.

Science is predicated by observation, experiments, repeatability and peer review.

Buddhism has in common with every other religion the idea of faith. Belief without proof.

[rockyysdt]

Rubbish. Buddhism is not scientific.

Buddhism IS very scientific. Not believing in any deity to worship and supplicate and think causes things to happen out of punishment or whim.

Buddha didn't start a religion, but simply taught the Dhamma, which is natural laws applying to all beings.

The most important being karma, a natural law which has it effect, just like gravity, whether you believe in it, understand it, know about it , or not.

Science is predicated by observation, experiments, repeatability and peer review.

Buddhism has in common with every other religion the idea of faith. Belief without proof.

In terms of Buddhism vs Religions there is an exception.

There are two schools of thought regarding what the Buddha was actually teaching.

Either: "Living in a state of Dhukka with Re Birth to future lives fueled by Kharmic forces until Awakening breaks this cycle.

Or: "Living in a state of Dhukka with Re Birth being moment to moment (not life to life) and where Awakening is a state in which one becomes free from Greed, Aversion & Delusion".

In the latter, it is taught that successfully practicing the 8 Fold Path can Awaken one (awaken from conditioning, greed, aversion, & delusion) in this life.

This differs from religions in that firstly one does not need to die to claim ones prize, and that by practicing Awareness/Mindfulness/Living in the Moment is personally verifiable and leads to incremental awakening.

It differs from religions in that there is no deity and that by the practice of ever increasing levels of awareness reality begins to be revealed to those who have been anchored in conditioning.

The only faith required is belief that trying out such practice is worthwhile until insights begin to e experienced.

This is a significant difference.

A way of life rather than a belief in a deity which promises life after death.

Enough faith in order to practice until benefits begin to be experienced vs belief until death with no certainty.

Edited July 9, 2013 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Proof please for Karma.

the proof is in the practice....if you cannot be bothered to practice then you will never get the proof. The wisdom and insights gained are personal and cannot be shown or proved to others. We can only save ourself...advise others how to do so...but they must walk the path themselves.

[fabianfred]

Buddhism IS very scientific. Not believing in any deity to worship and supplicate and think causes things to happen out of punishment or whim.

Buddha didn't start a religion, but simply taught the Dhamma, which is natural laws applying to all beings.

The most important being karma, a natural law which has it effect, just like gravity, whether you believe in it, understand it, know about it , or not.

Rubbish. Buddhism is not scientific.

Science is predicated by observation, experiments, repeatability and peer review.

Buddhism has in common with every other religion the idea of faith. Belief without proof.

Karen makes categorical statements here about a religion she has obviously never studied or practiced ... อย่าสอนคนดื้อ

[KarenBravo]

Proof please for Karma.

the proof is in the practice....if you cannot be bothered to practice then you will never get the proof. The wisdom and insights gained are personal and cannot be shown or proved to others. We can only save ourself...advise others how to do so...but they must walk the path themselves.

Well, then by your very definition, it isn't scientific.

Karma cannot be proved, because re-birth in other lives cannot be proved.

If it's only this life you are talking about, then it plainly doesn't work. Otherwise, why do mafia Dons die in their beds of old age whilst children get murdered?

[KarenBravo]

Buddhism IS very scientific. Not believing in any deity to worship and supplicate and think causes things to happen out of punishment or whim.

Buddha didn't start a religion, but simply taught the Dhamma, which is natural laws applying to all beings.

The most important being karma, a natural law which has it effect, just like gravity, whether you believe in it, understand it, know about it , or not.

Rubbish. Buddhism is not scientific.

Science is predicated by observation, experiments, repeatability and peer review.

Buddhism has in common with every other religion the idea of faith. Belief without proof.

Karen makes categorical statements here about a religion she has obviously never studied or practiced ... อย่าสอนคนดื้อ

You're right. My objection is to the post saying Buddhism is scientific. It isn't.

[52midnight]

It is first necessary to define what is mean by science and scientific. Science is three things: a huge collation of information ("data" if you prefer), a body of doctrine, and an investigative methodology. The first is, of itself, essentially meaningless, as are all "bare facts"; they require interpretation in order to elucidate meaning. This is not the function of science, but of philosophy, a statement that many will dispute; but one has only to recall the origin of the word "scientist" to understand it. By the early nineteenth century, scientific gatherings were plagued by attendees who insisted on religious and metaphysical interpretations of the latest findings, even when these contradicted established fact.

William Whewell coined the word "scientist" to denote all who referred their assertions to established or probable facts, often interpreted via mathematical formalisms. Those who could not, or would not do so were politely refused invitations, and the business of science as we understand it today was thus brought under useful disciplines. It also made obsolete the designation "natural philosopher" by which scientists were formerly known. However, philosophy is a search for truth and meaning, whereas science, being merely an investigative methodology, has nothing to do with truth, which is always and ever a personal value judgment.

There is no such thing as "scientific truth" - the term is an oxymoron.

Science usurped the role of philosophy at the 1927 Solvay Conference when the Copenhagen Interpretation of Physics was formally adopted under the aegis of Bohr and Heisenberg, much to Einstein's dismay. This is a complex topic that I won't develop further here.

The main point arising from this is that the process of "observation, analysis, and deduction" that constitutes the so-called "scientific method" is equally applicable to subjective (inward) observation as it is to objective (outward) observation. The requirements of accuracy, honesty, and a suitable descriptive terminology are essential to both, but the ability accurately to observe ones own inner manifestations is much more difficult to develop, and cannot be enhanced by the use of instruments. The further requirement to report them honestly and lucidly can often be even more of a challenge, especially when they are, or appear to be, unflattering to ones character and self-opinion. For these reasons, the subjective sciences of antiquity were mostly practised and developed by older people, and this is still true today amongst the few who still practise them.

The ancient Vedic texts are not Indian in origin, but were inherited by them from earlier races, some of whom were expert in these things. Over the centuries they have been buried in a mass of Indian tradition, religious doctrine, legend and mythology; but those who seek diligently and earnestly can still discover them.

The underlying nub of my post is the necessity of redeveloping the subjective sciences. Consciousness cannot be understood meaningfully by objective observation and analysis; one ends up only with the damaging absurdities of behaviourism and the like. Modern Western Science can never arrive at productive conclusions about consciousness because its methodology is purely objective; and, more importantly, its underlying philosophy (essentially dialectical materialism as interpreted by Wittgenstein's logical positivism) is ruthlessly materialistic.

> Isn't the fact that there is little scientific knowledge in this area more to do with the lack of research rather than it being imaginary?

There has been quite a bit of research, but it is still at a very early stage. The first requirement is to establish the reality of extra-physical phenomena, and this has been done - scientifically - many times. However, the evidence is ignored and funding is withdrawn:

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

> What comes to mind is actual scientific research on those who Meditate and/or those who practice Mindfulness.

Again, there has been considerable research into such things as the beneficial social effects of regular group meditation by experienced meditators, and the results are similarly ignored.

> Scientifically speaking though, Buddhism has never been proven (Awakening, Kharma, etc).

One can never provide objective physical proof of subjective events and phenomena, except as they manifest in daily life, when they can always be attributed to alternative causes.

> Rubbish. Buddhism is not scientific.

Buddhism as a religion is neither a science nor scientific. Buddhist philosophy CAN be applied to scientific disciplines for investigating and analyzing subjective phenomena, when it provides both an interpretive framework and descriptive terminology.

> Science is predicated by observation, experiments, repeatability and peer review.

... all of which can be applied to subjective phenomena.

> Buddhism has in common with every other religion the idea of faith. Belief without proof.

This statement reveals a profound misunderstanding of the origins and content of Buddhist philosophy.

Edited July 9, 2013 by 52midnight

[fabianfred]

Proof please for Karma.

the proof is in the practice....if you cannot be bothered to practice then you will never get the proof. The wisdom and insights gained are personal and cannot be shown or proved to others. We can only save ourself...advise others how to do so...but they must walk the path themselves.

Well, then by your very definition, it isn't scientific.

Karma cannot be proved, because re-birth in other lives cannot be proved.

If it's only this life you are talking about, then it plainly doesn't work. Otherwise, why do mafia Dons die in their beds of old age whilst children get murdered?

Karma and rebirth are interwoven and cannot exist without each other.

Those who demand proof from others because they are too lazy to do the necessary work themselves are rightfully ignored....(because they are showing their ignorance...)

There is plenty of proof of other lives and the workings of the law of karma....for those with an open mind and who are prepared to look for it.

Many cases of memory of past lives exist...but to dismiss them as rubbish just because you personally cannot remember is ridiculous....and some of those remember lives in Hell realms paying off their karma.

[KarenBravo]

Your post is a complete cop-out.

Where is the proof of your assertions? There is none..

The words science and Buddhism should never be used in the same sentence.

Your assertions are beliefs, not facts. i.e. Faith.

[sensei]

There is s world of difference between beliefs and facts.

Science is based on facts while religion is based on beliefs.

Reminds me of this picture...

[steinghan]

...

The main point arising from this is that the process of "observation, analysis, and deduction" that constitutes the so-called "scientific method" is equally applicable to subjective (inward) observation as it is to objective (outward) observation. The requirements of accuracy, honesty, and a suitable descriptive terminology are essential to both, but the ability accurately to observe ones own inner manifestations is much more difficult to develop, and cannot be enhanced by the use of instruments.

...

Agreed in principle. However, if we confine ourselves only to the parts of the Buddhas teachings dealing directly with mind and consciousness and leave out the hard / impossible to prove phenomena such as the workings of kamma, etc. - we do have accuracy, honesty, and a suitable descriptive terminology with respect to the subjective, inward observations of how mind and consciousness work and behave including how they come into (temporary) existence. I'm refering to the Anapana Sutta, the Satipatthana Sutta and most of all other Buddhas teachings about mindfulness, awareness, consciousness, etc. - i.e. everything related to the actual meditation and the practice of vipassana meditation in particular.

Buddhas observations, analysises, and deductions of mind and consciousness truly were scientific - inasmuch as they were based on emperical experiments witch can be repeated and verified by whomever puts in the skills and efforts required to repeat them. And I wouldn't fully agree that "to observe ones own inner manifestations is much more difficult to develop". Surely, for most people it will take years of diligent study and practice to become proficient and skillful in mindfulness and vipassana meditation, but it also takes years of diligent study and practice to become proficient and skillfull in e.g. Quantum Field Theory.

I think the major hurdle for buddhist scientists - i.e. serious vipassana practitioners in my vocabulary - to ever be recognized as scientists by the outward oriented scientists is the lack of means to present their emperical results for a peer audience to scrutinize the data, hold them up against other data from related experiments and theoretical textbooks etc. Add to this that - while the end-results may be indentical - the actual route (i.e. the actual experiment) leading to the results will differ from practitioner to practitioner.

Allow me to illustrate the above paragraph by an example from my own outward oriented science-background (from a former era of this life) namely physics - or more accurately Quantum Field Theory - where frontiers are attempted moved by experiments carried out in Super High Energy Laboratories. Here emperical data often come as traces or trails in e.g bobble-chambers which can be photographed and published in Science Journals for other scientist to study and analyze by means of smearing blackboard after blackboard after blackboard full of complicated field-equations as to attempt verify wether or not that particular bend on that particular trail-fragment could indicate - with some probality - wether or not a Higgs' Boson may have existed for a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth micro second.

Surely, in order for anyone - including the experimentators themselves - to be able to verify any experimental result within the realms of contemporary (frontier) physics - require experience and skills which most certainly aren't any easier to acquire than acquiring skills to sit down and be mindful for an extended period of time on a daily basis for a number of years. I certainly do know which I find the simpler and easier methodology - although not particular easy.

Edited July 10, 2013 by steinghan

[52midnight]

> it will take years of diligent study ... to become proficient and skillful in e.g. Quantum Field Theory.

Your choice of example is most apropos, since I've worked through QM to the point where I believe that I can identify the "cracks in the wall" - those specific ideas and assumptions at which the whole thing falls apart.

There's a most important point here that must be understood by all who choose to work in this area. It's quite possible to construct an elaborate conceptual framework of the "inner world" - of how consciousness "works", and the various paths through it that one can explore. All very fascinating; but also highly misleading unless one is very careful. It should not be assumed, even by the most expert practitioner, that this constitutes "enlightenment". In many ways it is the exact opposite. Many historical figures who obviously achieved unique insights into the psychic and spiritual realms (and they are diametrically different) were very simple people, but "pure" in a way that cannot be defined.

The exploration of the inner realm of consciousness can perhaps offer us a counter to the excesses of materialism, but it is "rupa" meditation - sc. meditation "with seed". Only "arupa" meditation ("without seed")can lead eventually to enlightenment in the sense used by Buddhists. Such, at least, are my beliefs.

> I think the major hurdle for Buddhist scientists ... will differ from practitioner to practitioner.

Not so very different if you talk to leading theorists and experimenters. Those rarefied realms are nowhere near as similar and consistent as most believe.

> I certainly do know which I find the simpler and easier methodology - although not particular easy.

Nor I. At the end of the day it's more a matter of what you enjoy doing. Those who study (or undertake) anything for the rewards to be gained are trapped within the Gunas. The Gita is the best text I know for elucidating this; "Work not for fruit, O Joy of the Kurus".

[Several]

Are the two compatible at this time? Scientific people are highly arrogant about 'what is what' (apologies if that offends), and yet will change ideas at the drop of a hat. I have no problem with adaptation its the false certainty that is displayed without cease. Little or no humility. And this is despite a high ratio of false, plagiarised and incorrect research. Though science has advanced greatly I seriously doubt it is mature enough to inform or co-operate with Buddhism.

At the same time there are huge problems with Buddhism. As we see some monks are taking advantage of their position (jet rides etc), not preaching Dhamma, not meditating, selling merit. This all detracts from ending suffering for all sentient beings, our main purpose.

Put simply I like the idea of these two disciplines fitting snugly together but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. Not this one anyway.

[KarenBravo]

No, ideas are NOT changed at the drop of a hat in science.

They are changed when new evidence is found. This is the strength of science; that it can change. Religions are unable to change which will be it's undoing.

We lived in a universe described by Newton until Einstein showed new evidence that was testable and repeatable.

My own opinion is that science and religion will never sit together, as one is based on facts and the other is based on manufactured fairy tales.

The world is getting less religious as the centuries go by and I hope one day that all religions (including Buddhism) will become extinct and looked back on as a quaint trait of primitive mankind.

Edited July 11, 2013 by KarenBravo

[Several]

Science is a religion. Based on the assumption there are laws in the universe. But you can't weigh them or say what they are composed of. Its faith. You're just swapping one organising force (deities) for another (laws).

So saying that, I also hope that all religions, including ones that pretend to be something else, will fade to be replaced by truth.

And some people need to swap science for anger managment. Buddhism could help you with that.

[Several]

There is s world of difference between beliefs and facts.

Science is based on facts while religion is based on beliefs.

 

Reminds me of this picture...

 

tumblr_mm3s5fZjbu1rbxdz4o1_500.jpg

Doctors no longer take the hippocratic oath, must refer you to a specialist in many cases and are only marginally above pharmaceutical salesmen. Nurses do most of the actual work. Do you trust them?

[Several]

So, as I forsee this thread being terminated if we carry on in this vein...

@52Midnight, if I remember right (tried to google it but my phone isn't playing ball), Schrodingers cat is in an indeterminate state until someone opens the box and percieves it. It is in neither state(dead or alive) until this perception occurs. This is further extended to molecules having interacted and travelling in opposite directions, both having inderterminate spin until one is perceived say clockwise, then the other immediately assumes an anti-clickwise spin. (I probably put that very badly. I'm no scientist.) (

I'm thinking this could be an area where Science and Buddhism could cooperate. What role is perception playing here? Is it only the perception of a human observer that playes a part? Is it cognizance of the state of the cat? Are the molecules really in indeterminate states (like Descartes soundlessly falling tree), or is consciousness a property of the universe not requiring human recognition to assume definite form?

I always found this 'observation affecting outcome' interesting. Could you or any other knowledgeable persons shed some light?

[52midnight]

> Could you or any other knowledgeable persons shed some light?

I appreciate your attempt to revert the thread to topic, and your obviously sincere questions as to the implications of indeterminacy. However, you've literally opened one of innumerable Pandora's boxes, and I simply lack the courage, much more the many lifetimes it would take, to pursue your enquiries to any possible logical outcome.

You should (for the sake of your own sanity if nothing else) first differentiate between:

1. The raw data upon which your speculations are based.
2. Their mathematical formalisms, either in QM terminology or more suitable forms such as Maxwell's original quaternions, following Hamilton's lead.
3. The philosophical interpretations derived from these, remembering that anything based on Wittgenstein's logical positivism has already been proved fallacious.
4. The reality underlying all of these, which remains quite unperturbed by all of it.

Perhaps the most enlightening thing I can say is to quote the Gita:

"The determinate reason is but one-pointed, O Joy of the Kurus.
Many-branched and endless are the thoughts of the irresolute."

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you're trying to achieve. If you wish to speak about what is not, many words will not suffice. If you wish to say what IS, a few well-chosen words are ample.

[Several]

There are questions that Buddha advised not to pursue. The nature of Nibbana, the creation of the universe. I guess this seems to fall into that category. He was not trying to say there were no answers, but the pursuit of them would take too long and thus detract from attaining enlightenment. So it could be said that it was curiosity that killed the cat, rather than the gas.

I'll consider a more straightforward question for you, though it will probably be equally insoluble.

As for sanity, you can't really lose what you're not really clinging to.

[52midnight]

> As for sanity, you can't really lose what you're not really clinging to.

Sanity today is a highly dubious proposition. I've been happily unsane these many years, and am content so to remain.

[rockyysdt]

> Could you or any other knowledgeable persons shed some light?

I appreciate your attempt to revert the thread to topic, and your obviously sincere questions as to the implications of indeterminacy. However, you've literally opened one of innumerable Pandora's boxes, and I simply lack the courage, much more the many lifetimes it would take, to pursue your enquiries to any possible logical outcome.

You should (for the sake of your own sanity if nothing else) first differentiate between:

1. The raw data upon which your speculations are based.

2. Their mathematical formalisms, either in QM terminology or more suitable forms such as Maxwell's original quaternions, following Hamilton's lead.

3. The philosophical interpretations derived from these, remembering that anything based on Wittgenstein's logical positivism has already been proved fallacious.

4. The reality underlying all of these, which remains quite unperturbed by all of it.

Perhaps the most enlightening thing I can say is to quote the Gita:

"The determinate reason is but one-pointed, O Joy of the Kurus.

Many-branched and endless are the thoughts of the irresolute."

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you're trying to achieve. If you wish to speak about what is not, many words will not suffice. If you wish to say what IS, a few well-chosen words are ample.

Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

[Several]

Is that from the Gita? Because it sounds almost like the creation myth of Amun from Egypt.