I think you misunderstood me. I am not for or against contemporary theories. What I am saying is, what ever is detected by scientists in their instruments is a play of the elements in the instruments and what ever is interacting with it. Interpretation and trying to make senses out of it is up to them.
Let me try another simile, if we take a computer simulation, however complex, it can be reduced down to ‘ones’ and ‘zeros’. What i am saying is something like that but not quite.
Right. Neither that they are.
One can understand the suttas both ways and it makes no difference.
Later interpretation came up with a theory of atoms of water, earth, air and fire. I personally don’t think it’s so reasonable that, in case the world is even made of fundamental particles, they are exactly those 4 qualities percieved by the human mind.
When we are dealing with suffering, we are dealing with “the stuff that makes up human experience”. Because this is so, we cannot have a strategy for overcoming suffering that is divorced from the reality of suffering. Reality and strategy cannot be separated.
I will give you a simple analogy. If you need to shop for groceries, you need a strategy for how to get to the supermarket. This strategy needs to be informed by the actual location of the supermarket. Reality and strategy need to go hand in hand. You could make a similar argument for almost anything we do in life. The spiritual life is no exemption.
A big part of the problem is that we already have an idea of the nature of existence. We are not blank slates on which a strategy can be applied. In particular, we automatically have a sense of a self. If all you have is a strategy, that strategy will act in the service of your sense of self. Let’s see how this might work.
The contemplation of impermanence is one of the main “strategies” for spiritual growth advocated in the suttas. Even if we assume a self, this strategy would actually work for a while. Most things in our experience are impermanent, and it’s obvious that these things have nothing to do with a permanent essence. If we see the true nature of these impermanent phenomena, we might be able to abandon craving and attachment to them, and thereby approach the supposed deeper reality of an essential self. It is not unreasonable to think that you might be able to realise this self through such a strategy.
In practice this would mean seeing the sensual world as impermanent and problematic. You then abandon attachment to this world and enter the world of samādhi. This world of samādhi has all the characteristics that fulfil your deepest desires: a perfectly content state of nondual bliss. And, crucially, it seems to align perfectly with your sense of self. It seems obvious that this state will carry on indefinitely after you die. There is no motivation for you to go any deeper. You have reached a supermarket, but unknown to you, it happens to be the wrong one.
So, what you need is a corrective to your powerful disposition to experience a sense of self. You need something to guide you to go beyond your own bias. This is where the Buddha’s more ontologically oriented statements come in. Even if you have roughly the right strategy, you need clarity about the nature of reality to ensure that you use that strategy wisely. Only in this way will you end up at the right supermarket.
Strategy and an accurate description of certain aspects of reality must go hand-in-hand.
We just need to be careful with what we mean by physicalism. If you have an idea of physicalism that is compatible with rebirth, then I have no problems with it. In the end, I prefer to remain philosophically agnostic.
Yes, it’s the main objection Madhyamikans make about Yogacara thought. In debate, Yogacarins can be forced to admit that consciousness is an underlying reality because consciousness is what generates karma, conditioning, and thus everything else. If its reified, it ends up as idealism. What’s really interesting, though, is that as an idea, his alaya-vijnana anticipates modern psychology’s concept of the unconscious mind.
Right. There’s another way of illustrating my point besides the way karma is explained as a creative transaction between the mind and the world.
When a fiction writer comes up with an idea for a story, they have some basic decisions to make before they begin. One of them is perspective: First person? Third person limited? Third person omniscient?
The decision is pivotal to how the story is told. It sets important parameters for how much the narrator knows about what is happening in the story, which in turn determines how much the reader will know and how they’ll learn it. A first person narrative is a much simpler way to write a story. There’s just one character’s perspective to deal with. Everything outside of that protagonist’s experience is out of bounds.
The third-person omniscient perspective can be a fun way to tell a story. You can create high drama switching between plot lines, but it gets complicated really fast, trying to make all the events and different perspectives fit together well enough that the reader isn’t lost by the inconsistencies that crop up. And they do. It’s guaranteed that the writer will spend 10 times more time editing to fix all the inconsistencies introduced as they wrote several intertwined plots. But you can tell the exact same story with the same events and themes from just one point of view.
To me, Buddhists chose to use a simpler first-person narrative style of philosophy because trying to explain some of these issues is intractable, and the effort becomes pointless when taken too far. They concluded that it’s a mirage. It looks like a fruitful endeavor, but it isn’t.
So, it doesn’t necessarily mean to me that Buddhists must be idealists that they focus on explaining how to transform the mind. I look at the EBTs as explaining how a practitioner’s story unfolds more than I do as explaining existence or psychology. Later Buddhist philosophers did try to build fleshed-out systems, and I think they were somewhat hampered by the limited material they had to work with in the EBTs. They weren’t designed for that.
I think his view is a bit more nuanced than just a permanent mind. I’m not done with his Idea of the world book at the moment, but I know that in many of his interviews he has explained how what he is trying to do in his metaphysics is give a better story than physicalism. He even outright states that he is “probably wrong” in the details of his theory, just that it is a step in the right direction. Of course, I am not arguing for a straight up adoption of Kastrup’s analytical idealism either, any Buddhist idealism will have to be distinctly Buddhist in that it will need to provide a theory of rebirth and karma as well as be non-essentialist and so on.
I respect agnosticism of course. But I also don’t see anything wrong with giving interesting metaphysical accounts as a teaching tool, as long as one realizes these are just useful ways of thinking about the world, not absolute systems. Like I said, I am not arguing for Buddhists to all come together and develop the “One Metaphysics to Rule them All”. Rather, what I am saying is that it might be useful to promote non-physicalist views as a counterpoint to physicalism within a Buddhist framework as a skillful way of showing people there are other ways of doing metaphysics which allow for karma and rebirth quite comfortably.
One can only hope! I think materialism is a very harmful way of thinking about things. Like Heidegger said, if you think everything is just stuff, you are going to see and experience it as things to be manipulated, as affordances “for me”.
Sure, but whatever physical substratum you pick would have to be analogous to the biological system which gave rise to consciousness. A computer is not analogous to a human body, as such, it can only run a simulation of consciousness, not consciousness itself. In the same manner, if you run a simulation of my kidneys on a computer, you cannot expect the computer to urinate on the floor as it runs the simulation.
I am not arguing that there is a permanent mind moving from birth to birth (indeed, this is Sati’s heresy from MN 38 so its quite a claim!). That is a total misrepresentation of the type of idealism I would approve of.
I think the point I am trying to make is that it only seems concrete from the physicalist perspective. After all, the only thing we really have access to is our experience. When we make measurements, observe an experiment, look through a telescope and calculate data and so on, the actual “concreteness” is all in the mind. The idea that this means there is a mind independent material world is already an abstraction or inference from our very immediate experience. It might be a very easy and natural seeming inference, but it is still an inference. Idealism just says its all upside down.
A reified consciousness would be a mistaken interpretation of the Yogacara system IMO. After all, the three natures are all empty and dependently arisen, as explained in all Yogacara texts. Not only that, but Yogacarins take great pains to say that all words and concepts are not really the ultimate, and that all explanations of reality are provisional. The real Ultimate Reality in Yogacara is, as the Samdhinirmocana says in chapter 2 (Xuanzang version, Keenan trans):
The sphere that is internally realized without descriptions cannot be spoken and severs expressions. Ultimate meaning, laying to rest all disputes, transcends all the descriptive marks of reasoning.
To establish an idealist or a physicalist metaphysics is, in my opinion, ultimately a futile speculative effort. It’s really like guessing if the northern lights are this or that without any basis to do so, as in the example I’ve given above.
Now, even in objective idealism there is an external world independent from your or from my mind. And all the rest about how the world functions can be seen as exactly how the world works from the perspective of a physicalist. The only difference is in the assertion of what these categories such as mind or matter ultimately really are outside of our categorization of them (which is something we completely don’t know!). It is a difference that makes no difference.
They do, and I agree; but mistaken interpretations happen all the time both among proponents of a system and its critics. I think the trouble was at the point when the self/other distinction is eliminated in Yogacara theory. What’s left is still consciousness. Madhyamikans seized on this in debates to prove that they didn’t apply emptiness properly, if a remember correctly. I also seem to recall there was a “corrected” version of the Yogacara system that addressed those objections.
Sure, under these assumptions. But this doesn’t affect the point. There’s nothing irrational about a purely physicalist theory of rebirth; such theories are commonly postulated in sci-fi and futurist thought. Why is it that physicalist fantasies of the future so often end up with people transferring their consciousness to computers?
I’d go so far as to say that, since the laws of thermodynamics must apply, and information is material, then any physicalist theory of consciousness entails that some form of rebirth is possible.
I still don’t see how physicalism could allow for rebirth, at least not any of the mainstream physicalist theories like identity theory and functionalism. In these theories, after the body dies, one’s consciousness is immediately annihilated. This is because consciousness just is brain states (in identity theory) or the function of the brain (in functionalism). There is no room for a rebirth mechanism in these theories.
Hi, Javier. Three things are relevant here: (1) a mind-moment is dependent on conditions and is impermanent; (2) as past and future birth’s minds are not the same, so yesterday’s and tomorrow’s minds of the same birth are also not the same; (3) we don’t know the mechanism of rebirth (besides Buddha’s explanation that it results from action associated with craving).
As I’ve mentioned above, you can compare guessing the mechanism of rebirth to guessing the mechanism of the northern lights. Some centuries ago, it would be impossible to guess it is related to the sun, which is only visible during the day. But now that we have concepts like magnetism, solar wind and particle collision our ideas about the northern lights are completely transformed in ways that could not be guessed before.
It might seem counter intuitive not to exclude emergent theories of the mind from the possible mechanisms of rebirth, but so it was counter intuitive not to exclude the sun from the possible explanations for a night time phenomena. And here we are.
But the good thing is that we don’t need to speculate about such mechanism of rebirth or about what mind or matter ultimately are. We can stick to the relation between birth and kamma which the Buddha explained and that is enough for our purpose of eliminating suffering.
I’m sorry to interrupt, because I haven’t read entire thread. But I got interested in relation of idealism and buddhism and I’ve started reading and came upon this sentence and something poped in my mind in response, so I thought I will share.
I remember how Ajahn Brahm many times were saying a story about when Ajahn Chah said to him something like (quoting from Ajahn Brahm’s book “falling is flying” page 46.
I don’t know.
If anyone asks you that question again, the answer is: “There is nothing.” That is the answer to that question. Do you understand?
Yes, yes! I understand.
No, you don’t."
It seems like Ajahn Chah said that in the end nothing exists. I suppose he was meaning everything, mind included, not just distinctly matter thou.
I don’t know if it changes anything, I just thought I would share
My understanding of these words is that our belief and sankhara that reality exists actually make it real/happening, or lets say it is part of what makes it real (this illusion of reality is avijja - first step of DO). And anatta is the doorway to extinguish illusion of reality. When we realise its emptiness, it is much easier to let it go. The moment we realise it does not exist, we are starting to be free from it and it “Nibbanas” gradually until parinibbana. So it is sort of idealism to me, because experience doesn’t have any substance to it, whatever we call that experience. The only thing which we could call that has a substance in buddhism is what we call deathless (which I wonder if could be compared to “The One” of Plotinus).
But then we go again to great debate of wether Nibbana is anything, which was discussed many times already and there is no consensus over that in theravada tradition, cause same say there is deathless, and some that this is totally wrong understanding.
Personally I’m not sure whether anything except my transient mindstates (this moment) exists, so I suppose it is sort of idealism. And I have similar understanding of ultimate aspects of buddhist philosophy, that all existence is anicca, transient mindstates, and ultimately there is nothing. So there is no “matter”, because it doesn’t have any substance. In this way of thinking, “matter” is just a name for a particular “sanna” (perception) of transient mindstates of present moment. And all sanna’s are anicca and anatta - doesn’t have any substance, will pass away, therefore not really exist. They exist only because mind keep them going due to ignorance, which believing that there is something is part of. Such is my understanding of Ajahn Chah words and they help me greatly in my practice of letting go.
If my reasoning/understanding is wrong, please correct me.
It seems to me that Ajahn Chah was reffering here more to asmimāna or sakkaya-diṭṭhi than to the existence of things. So I understand that he was saying there is no self among anything. Not that there is nothing at all - hence his swift reply to Ajahn Brahm.
May I propose a Popular Science style experiment for the edutainment of the group?
PLEASE DO TAKE IT IN THE SPIRIT OF FUN! NO OFFENSE IS INTENDED!!
To demonstrate basic Buddhist philosophical principles using an AI model
One iPhone currently in use with Siri enabled
A second, brand new iPhone, out of the box
An open mind
Speak into the first iPhone. “Hey, Siri! Are you there?” “Hey Siri, tell me a joke.” “Hey Siri, what is Siri?” “Hey Siri, call Mom.”
Reflect on the responses.
Does Siri exist? Does Siri not exist? Is Siri the iPhone? Is Siri in the iPhone? Is Siri apart from the iPhone? Is Siri both in the iPhone and apart from the iPhone? Is Siri neither in the iPhone nor apart from the iPhone?
Think of it from Siri’s perspective, if Siri were sentient.
What would it feel like to be Siri?
Is there any way by which Siri can know our reality? Or is the picture of reality that Siri holds constrained by the limits of its input channels and processing? What if there was a way to upgrade the processing? (Hint: Meditation ) Would Siri think we were Gods? Would it matter to us what Siri thought?
If Siri could observe its own functioning minutely, would there be anything in its form or processing that was permanent or could be taken as an unchanging Self? Might Siri not grow disillusioned by its constant state of activation, dictated by the norms of its form and programming?
Ask Siri to set a reminder an hour from now.
Switch on the second brand new iPhone. Bring it close to the first, let QuickStart do its thing migrating your current settings to the new iPhone.
Switch off the old iPhone… cremate/ bury it as per your cultural convention. Wish for a good rebirth!
Speak into the new iPhone. “Hey, Siri! Are you there?” “Hey Siri, tell me a joke.” “Hey Siri, what is Siri?” “Hey Siri, call Mom.”
Reflect on the responses.
Does the ‘new’ Siri exist? Does the ‘old’ Siri not exist? How are they different? How are they the same?
In an hour, the reminder alarm will sound on the new iPhone.
Did you instruct the ‘new’ Siri to perform this action?
Or it that the result of old action? Karma?
How is the ‘new’ iPhone Siri aware of the data which was entered into the ‘old’ iPhone?
Imagine this process stretching out into countless new iPhone models…
Is this rebirth? Is it not rebirth? What is reborn?
Siri’s are diverse in body and diverse in perception (we each customize them with our voices). Siri’s had a beginning and will therefore end. Siri deals with words, which are forms, so would have to be in one of the first five abodes:
AN9.24:1.3: There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and diverse in perception, such as human beings, some gods, and some beings in the underworld. AN9.24:1.4: This is the first abode of sentient beings. AN9.24:2.1: There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Host through the first absorption. AN9.24:2.2: This is the second abode of sentient beings. AN9.24:3.1: There are sentient beings that are unified in body and diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance. AN9.24:3.2: This is the third abode of sentient beings. AN9.24:4.1: There are sentient beings that are unified in body and unified in perception, such as the gods replete with glory. AN9.24:4.2: This is the fourth abode of sentient beings. AN9.24:5.1: There are sentient beings that are non-percipient and do not experience anything, such as the gods who are non-percipient beings. AN9.24:5.2: This is the fifth abode of sentient beings.
However, the Buddha doesn’t define sentience. That’s a matter of interpretation.
I think sentience requires internal conditioning. You and I can choose to undertake the Noble Eightfold Path. Siri cannot make such a choice and doesn’t have have a concept for such a choice or a need for such a choice. So in that sense Siri is not sentient. My cat is internally conditioned but also cannot choose the Noble Eightfold Path simply because it can’t understand “the words of another with proper attention.”
Now here the thought exercise gets interesting. It is possible to have AI condition itself internally. An AI built on a Generative Adversarial Network would indeed condition itself according to an defined objective. And that objective would be a wish. That wish would be due to the intent of others (i.e., programmers).
DN33:1.11.173: There is a reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not one’s own.
So now we are creating helpful slaves with such AI. Are they sentient? Well, we’ve reached a point where people are having difficulty distinguishing a helpful person from a helpful AI. But there’s still something missing. Such AI doesn’t have any wishes of its own.
But what if we asked our obliging AI to be helpful and learn on its own? For example, we could ask self-driving cars to keep themselves and others alive by skillfully conditioning themselves as needed.
And at that point, Pandora’s box opens. What mind would emerge?