Buddha On The Brain

[rikpa]

Folks,

I found this article on Buddhism and science very interesting. Alan Wallace makes some very interesting observations.

"The debate between science and religion typically gets stuck on the thorny question of God's existence. How do you reconcile an all-powerful God with the mechanistic slog of evolution? Can a rationalist do anything but sneer at the Bible's miracles? But what if another religion -- a non-theistic one -- offered a way out of this impasse? That's the promise that some people hold out for in Buddhism. The Dalai Lama himself is deeply invested in reconciling science and spirituality. He meets regularly with Western scientists, looking for links between Buddhism and the latest research in physics and neuroscience. In his book "The Universe in a Single Atom," he wrote, "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/11/27/...e/index_np.html

[jumnien]

Hmm. thought provoking, indeed! I have a lot of compassion for rationalists debating music, poetry, religion, art, the more spiritual and aesthetic areas of human experience. It seems they are hopelessly seeking conclusion in matters that promise expansion and mystery.

"The middle path is not difficult for he who holds no opinions"

Those who have resigned from the debating society seem to smile more often.

[pap]

I found this pretty entertaining.

http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-06/feat...od-experiments/

[ourmanflint]

If you're interested to know more, I suggest you read "Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra who many years ago saw the similarities between Buddhist thought and Quantum Mechanics... really it's true, and a fantastic read, the Physics stuff is pretty heavy but worth it in the end.

[rikpa]

If you're interested to know more, I suggest you read "Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra who many years ago saw the similarities between Buddhist thought and Quantum Mechanics... really it's true, and a fantastic read, the Physics stuff is pretty heavy but worth it in the end.

I recall really liking that book, and having the physics shot down by my rocket-scientist friends who'd read it. Oh well.

One science book that really rocks though is James Austin's "Zen and the Brain." He is a neuroscientist and a Zen practitioner (and a serious meditator) whose book is a real landmark.

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Brain-Understand...s/dp/0262011646

Edited December 5, 2006 by rikpa

[lannarebirth]

I've mentioned this book here before.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375500545...723#reader-link

Like most exercises designed to heal rifts. It searches for what is shared in common by different idealogies, rather than dwelling on the differences.

[tc101]

I also read the Buddha on the Brain article in Salon. I will just repost here my comments in another Buddhism forum:

B. Allen Wallace is very interested in the relationship of Science and Buddhism.

He is discussing brain science, and he makes quite a point about how

we don't know if there is some aspect of the mind that is independent

of the physical brain. He seems to think that there is, and he seems

to think that it is important so far as Buddhism and spiritual life are

concerned.

I see things differently. I have no idea if there is some aspect of

the mind that is independent of the physical brain, but for me it is

not important to my understanding of Buddhism one way or another. In

fact it seems to me that the desire to prove that there is something

beyond the physical is a sort of grasping, an attempt to find something

more permanent than our obviously impermanent physical selves.

My understanding of Buddhism is that suffering is created largely by

the futile attempt to grasp at the illusion of a permanent self. When

I let go of that grasping I am in a state of freedom and happiness.

Then it doesn't matter if I will eventually completely cease to exist

when my brain turns to dust. It doesn't matter because there was

really never any "I" to hold on to in the first place.

Of course I am not in that state most of the time and when I have to

face death I know there is a good chance I will be afraid. I am

talking about Buddhism as I understand it in my most awakened moments.

So my hypothesis is that this whole attempt to argue that there is

some consciousness beyond matter is connected with a fear of non

existence which is just the opposite of the truth of Buddhism.

What do you think?

[s.sophon]

Buddha is just a word meaning "a person who is enlightened".

Not a god or anything.

[chownah]

Usually in Buddhist writings the term "arahat" is used for someone who is enlightened and the term "Buddha" is used for someone who is enlightened in a special way...for instance there can only be one Buddha existing at a time (according to the Buddha's teachings).

Chownah

[tc101]

there can only be one Buddha existing at a time (according to the Buddha's teachings).

Chownah

When did he say that? I was not aware of it. If it is wrtten that he was supposed to have said it, my guess is that it was added later on by someone else. It sounds like the kind of thing that gets added when spirituality gets mixed up with politics.

[endure]

I thought that Buddha was someone who was self-enlightened?

[chownah]

there can only be one Buddha existing at a time (according to the Buddha's teachings).

Chownah

When did he say that? I was not aware of it. If it is wrtten that he was supposed to have said it, my guess is that it was added later on by someone else. It sounds like the kind of thing that gets added when spirituality gets mixed up with politics.

I looked around the net a bit to try to find a scriptural reference about there being only one Buddha at a time but couldn't find it....I'm not very good at looking up things about Buddhism. Where I learned this though was from a Theravadin source so it should be from some scripture that is recognized by most Buddhists as being authentic. Not only is there only one Buddha at a time (according to what I've read) but that the next Buddha to come will not come until the teachings of the present Buddha are completely lost. Sorry I haven't found a reference but if I remember I'll keep looking form time to time.

I did find this:

"There were other Buddhas before Gotama the Buddha. All Buddhas find the truth by themselves, without being led by others. However, there are two different kinds of Buddha: the 'Sammasambuddha' and the 'Pacceka Buddha' or 'Silent Buddha'. The Pacceka Buddha has not accumulated virtues to the same extent as the Sammasambuddha and thus he is not as qualified in teaching other people as the Sammasambuddha. Gotama the Buddha was a Sammasambuddha. There cannot be more than one Sammasambuddha in a 'Buddha era'; neither can there be any Pacceka Buddhas. The Buddha era in which we are living will be terminated when the Buddha's teachings have disappeared completely. The Buddha foretold that the further one is away from the time he lived, the more his teachings will be misinterpreted anc corrupted. Some time after his teachings have disappeared completely there will be the next Buddha and so the next Buddha era. The next Buddha will discover the truth again and he will teach other people the way to enlightenment."

which came from this:

http://www.zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ou...k/outlook-6.htm

It was written by Nina van Gorkom who is a well respected scholar of Buddhism. It is not a scriptural reference but the best I can do today.

Chownah

[tc101]

Thanks for the info Chownah.

I am skeptical of these kinds of things. I just wonder how anyone could know this. What is the source of the knowledge? If it is from an ancient scripture, how did the person who wrote the scripture know this?

I think the 4 Noble Truths and lots of the other Buddhists teachings are wonderful explainations of the human condition. I think they are true based on my own experience and observation of life. However, some of the other teachings just seem like old legends.

I read a book called "Buddhism without Beliefs" that expressed my ideas very well. I think it has been discussed in another thread here in the Buddhism forum.

Those are my thoughts. If I come to Thailand will I offend local Buddhists with my skepticism? I meditate every day and think of myself as a sort of a Buddhist, but I would probably not be seen as a Buddhist my most people in Thailand.

there can only be one Buddha existing at a time (according to the Buddha's teachings).

Chownah

When did he say that? I was not aware of it. If it is wrtten that he was supposed to have said it, my guess is that it was added later on by someone else. It sounds like the kind of thing that gets added when spirituality gets mixed up with politics.

I looked around the net a bit to try to find a scriptural reference about there being only one Buddha at a time but couldn't find it....I'm not very good at looking up things about Buddhism. Where I learned this though was from a Theravadin source so it should be from some scripture that is recognized by most Buddhists as being authentic. Not only is there only one Buddha at a time (according to what I've read) but that the next Buddha to come will not come until the teachings of the present Buddha are completely lost. Sorry I haven't found a reference but if I remember I'll keep looking form time to time.

I did find this:

"There were other Buddhas before Gotama the Buddha. All Buddhas find the truth by themselves, without being led by others. However, there are two different kinds of Buddha: the 'Sammasambuddha' and the 'Pacceka Buddha' or 'Silent Buddha'. The Pacceka Buddha has not accumulated virtues to the same extent as the Sammasambuddha and thus he is not as qualified in teaching other people as the Sammasambuddha. Gotama the Buddha was a Sammasambuddha. There cannot be more than one Sammasambuddha in a 'Buddha era'; neither can there be any Pacceka Buddhas. The Buddha era in which we are living will be terminated when the Buddha's teachings have disappeared completely. The Buddha foretold that the further one is away from the time he lived, the more his teachings will be misinterpreted anc corrupted. Some time after his teachings have disappeared completely there will be the next Buddha and so the next Buddha era. The next Buddha will discover the truth again and he will teach other people the way to enlightenment."

which came from this:

http://www.zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ou...k/outlook-6.htm

It was written by Nina van Gorkom who is a well respected scholar of Buddhism. It is not a scriptural reference but the best I can do today.

Chownah

[chownah]

Thanks for the info Chownah.

I am skeptical of these kinds of things. I just wonder how anyone could know this. What is the source of the knowledge? If it is from an ancient scripture, how did the person who wrote the scripture know this?

I think the 4 Noble Truths and lots of the other Buddhists teachings are wonderful explainations of the human condition. I think they are true based on my own experience and observation of life. However, some of the other teachings just seem like old legends.

I read a book called "Buddhism without Beliefs" that expressed my ideas very well. I think it has been discussed in another thread here in the Buddhism forum.

Those are my thoughts. If I come to Thailand will I offend local Buddhists with my skepticism? I meditate every day and think of myself as a sort of a Buddhist, but I would probably not be seen as a Buddhist my most people in Thailand.

The Tipitaka is a huge collection of Buddhist scriptures and by most Buddhists it is accepted as authentic. It is vast and contains Buddhist cosmology among other unusual assertions. I would say that almost all Buddhists have a difficult time reconciling what is there with what they have learned and experienced. My personal view is that most of that type of thing is irrelevant. If you read the core teachings....the ones where the Buddha is talking about the impermanence of all things and the unsatisfactoriness of all things and about how desire is the root of our discomfort and pain in life....and how to end this discomfort and pain once and for all....if you read these I think you will see that they in themselves are a complete teaching and have no dependence on those unusual and hard to believe scriptures.

Chownah

[tc101]

The Tipitaka is a huge collection of Buddhist scriptures and by most Buddhists it is accepted as authentic. It is vast and contains Buddhist cosmology among other unusual assertions. I would say that almost all Buddhists have a difficult time reconciling what is there with what they have learned and experienced. My personal view is that most of that type of thing is irrelevant. If you read the core teachings....the ones where the Buddha is talking about the impermanence of all things and the unsatisfactoriness of all things and about how desire is the root of our discomfort and pain in life....and how to end this discomfort and pain once and for all....if you read these I think you will see that they in themselves are a complete teaching and have no dependence on those unusual and hard to believe scriptures.

Chownah

That is exactly the way I understand it also.

Chownah, are you Thai?

[chownah]

No, northern European via the US now in northern Thailand.

Chownah

[camerata]

I am skeptical of these kinds of things. I just wonder how anyone could know this. What is the source of the knowledge? If it is from an ancient scripture, how did the person who wrote the scripture know this?

I think this stems from the definition of a buddha as one who is enlightened (and then teaches) without help from pre-existing Dhamma teachings. In theory, I guess a buddha could arise independently while another or another's teachings exist, but in practice it's unlikely. This probably got solidified into some kind of natural law over time. Also the Buddha talked about one or two of the former buddhas, at least one of whom he'd encountered in a past life.

I read a book called "Buddhism without Beliefs" that expressed my ideas very well. I think it has been discussed in another thread here in the Buddhism forum.

I found the book useful in the beginning but there is really no spiritual component in Bachelor's scheme of things. According to him, nibbana is no big deal. Buddhism is reduced to just a self-improvement program.

Those are my thoughts. If I come to Thailand will I offend local Buddhists with my skepticism? I meditate every day and think of myself as a sort of a Buddhist, but I would probably not be seen as a Buddhist my most people in Thailand.

I don't think you'd offend them necessarily, but they wouldn't think of you as a Thai Buddhist!

[solid]

I did find this:

"There were other Buddhas before Gotama the Buddha. All Buddhas find the truth by themselves, without being led by others. However, there are two different kinds of Buddha: the 'Sammasambuddha' and the 'Pacceka Buddha' or 'Silent Buddha'. The Pacceka Buddha has not accumulated virtues to the same extent as the Sammasambuddha and thus he is not as qualified in teaching other people as the Sammasambuddha. Gotama the Buddha was a Sammasambuddha. There cannot be more than one Sammasambuddha in a 'Buddha era'; neither can there be any Pacceka Buddhas. The Buddha era in which we are living will be terminated when the Buddha's teachings have disappeared completely. The Buddha foretold that the further one is away from the time he lived, the more his teachings will be misinterpreted anc corrupted. Some time after his teachings have disappeared completely there will be the next Buddha and so the next Buddha era. The next Buddha will discover the truth again and he will teach other people the way to enlightenment."

which came from this:

http://www.zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ou...k/outlook-6.htm

It was written by Nina van Gorkom who is a well respected scholar of Buddhism. It is not a scriptural reference but the best I can do today.

Chownah

Hi guys,

I am a nube here. I have something to share, too.

I don't know if there must be only one Summasumbuddha at a time. But I am sure that there would be at least one before/after Gotama the Buddha. According to his core teaching: nothing is forever, this truth is also true for his teaching itself. One day his teaching will fade away from the world just like any other things. But Dhamma will be discovered again just like how Gotama discovered it since it's the truth of the universe. Buddha is just a person who picks it up (discover/enlightened)and shows (teaches) it to the world. Then it will fade away again. And the cycle will repeat like Sine wave.

[dog412]

thinking from the top down is a admirable trait, however, thinking from the bottom up, gives more insight.