That is sidestep. I am not suggesting any opinion. I am merely asking how physicalism fits in with Buddhist doctrine. Are there any suttas to back up such a position? Furthermore, if the origin of dukkha is purely physical, then it would mean that the path to nibbana is also purely physical. That would seem to change the whole nature of Buddhism. Actually, the implication of such a position is that we could simply take medication to cure our dukkha; in the same way that we take meds to cure all our other ills.
In DN 15 we can all read that the namarupa is conditioned by the vinnana and the vinnana is conditioned by the namarupa. One possible interpretation of this (and there can certainly be more interpretations and I don’t really subscribe to this interpretaton 100%) is that the mental and material phenomena are interdependent, i.e. that the mental phenomena have in some sense a material base. A similar opinion about the interdependence of these phenomena is expressed by Ven. Sariputta in MN 43, if I am not mistaken. So, physicalism can be viewed as in line with the Buddhist teaching if you throw in a couple of additional theses.
Also, the sankharas are not mentioned in this Sutta, but then again the problem is what is the precise defnitioned of the sankharas in the context of the DO, whether we can regard them as mental phenomena, etc., which can be a tricky task. However, if we talk about such mental phenomena as perception or consciousness, they can be readily interpreted as depending on a material base. Again for the record: I don’t think it is the only possible interpretation and I am not 100% sure it is correct (among other things because the Buddha is possibly describing the phenomenology of experience), but this shows that physicalism as we know it can indeed be re-interpreted as partially true according to the Buddhism.
In Buddhism the mind is not split off or somehow disconnected from the body (at least in Humans, who can get Alzheimer’s dementia).
-
Nama-Rupa (Mentality-Materiality) arise together at the sense bases (of the body). Without sense bases the corresponding Nama would not arise. Even Nama that arises at the mind-sense base would be memories and thoughts who’s topic would be dependant on physical bodies that existed in the past.
-
consciousness needs Nama-Rupa, to arise and vice versa (see Mahanidana sutta to see how in the foetus’s consciousness is dependent on its body and mind continuing to exist and vice versa). No body means no mind (Nama+Vinnana).
-
when a non-returner is in nirodhasamapatti, his body (and his life force) is still said to exist.
As long as the body exists and is alive he has to become aware again in his own body. His mind cannot free itself while the body is alive and go to parinibbana. They are interdependent. -
consciousness arises elsewhere (in rebirth) only when the body is dead, not before. These two have a strong ‘1:1’ relationship.
If particular bits of the brain are destroyed it will have a predictable pattern of loss of mental activity in the mind. The pattern of mental symptoms of some types of fits can be used to locate (localise) tumours in the brain portions.
The idea (not the ‘fact’) that the mind is special and consciousness even more so, is a result of ignorance. It arises from believing that one portion of our existence more satisfactory than the other bit. However they are equally unsatisfactory (dukkha), not distinct.
With metta
1 Like
Mat, thanks for your reply, but I think you have misunderstood me.
Firstly, I am not questioning the truth of physicalism. I am merely asking how buddhist doctrine may be compatible with physicalism. Secondly, your statements seem to create more issues rather than answer the question.
You say, “His mind cannot free itself while the body is alive and go to parinibbana.” The implication here is that his mind goes to parinibbana only after it is freed from the body. But that would mean it exists independently of the physical body. Can you explain how a mind exists independently free from the body, if everything is dependant on the physical?
You say that: “consciousness arises elsewhere (in rebirth) only when the body is dead”. Can you explain how consciousness can exist independently of a dead brain? You seem to be contradicting the idea that everything is dependant on the physical.
Furthermore, your implication is that dukkha and nibbana have a physical root. That would mean that it is possible, at least in principle, to take some form of medication (which is yet to be discovered) to cure dukkha and attain nibbana. Do you believe that?
As we know the at the point the aggregates pass away (death of the individual) if it doesn’t arise again (due attaining Nibbana) that is the end of it. There is no ‘mind’ that flies to ‘Nibbana’ after that.
Similarly if consciousness would arise elsewhere only in another mind and another body (Mahanidana sutta).
Dukkha (Google depression) does have physical causes. Drink alcohol to excess or go without sleep and see how happy you are the next day (dukkhe dukkha). The single arrow will always be there. We can avoid being struck by double arrows in this life.
Nibbana doesn’t have a physical root. It’s just the end.
Are there antidepressants? Yes there are. Is there paracetamol to help headaches? Chemicals (medicine or recreational drugs) might temporarily help reduce some of the five hindrances (except doubt- unless we consider persecutory thoughts as doubts). They won’t achieve the fine, well attuned samadhi acquired through meditation of course. Insight Would be complete out of reach.
With metta
Mat
1 Like
Your two sentences contradict each other.
Again, you imply that the 5 aggregates survive physical death if there is no nibbana.
That is a contradiction of physicalism. You are basically saying that if there is no nibbana, then something survives the death of the physical body and goes on to be subject to kamma and rebirth. That is simply a contradiction of the view that nothing can survive the death of of the biological physical body.
p.s. sorry about the multiple edits. i’m still learning the interface.
1 Like
Why? What is the contradiction? The mind of an alive arahant cannot free itself of the body and go to parinibbana exactly because there is no mind going to parinibbana.
I mean, you seemed to think that Mat’s first sentence implies there is a mind going to parinibbana, but you just assumed it. As Mat explained later, he didn’t imply that, so there is no contradiction between his statements.
I could just as well say that an arahant can’t tear his left leg off for it to go to parinibbana while he is alive, but it wouldn’t mean I believe legs go to parinibbana.
1 Like
I don’t understand what you mean by the phrase “going to parinibbana”. What is it that goes or does not go to parinibbana?
@Matt That is simply wrong. The Buddha achieved nibbana whilst he was ALIVE and he taught the path to nibbana for many years. Nibbana is NOT the end, it was the beginning of his career as an awakened one.
Nothing, nothing is going in the parinibbana, parinibbana is the ultimate remainderless cessation of the five khandhas, there is nothing remaining beyong it, it is not a place or world or state or whatever. If you will, going to parinibbana is like going to annihiliation or going to extinction, you can go into extinction but if the extinction is there, there is no you. It is just a set phrase. You wouldn’t think someone really believes in nine clouds if they say they are on cloud nine, would you? This is pretty much the same thing.
2 Likes
In all fairness, I never ever said or thought of parinibbana as a place; I did not make any such suggestion. Anyway back to the point:
I might ask: how does parinibbana differ to ‘standard death’ (lol …never thought I would use such a term). You will say that in standard death a person is reborn. Then I would ask: what is it that is reborn? I have started a new topic with that very question and I look forward to your contribution.
Also, it seems to me that rebirth is not compatible with western science and physicalism. But go over to my new topic and prove me wrong please.
Sorry if I’m not being clear. Idiomatic use of a language can be perceived in the wrong way (‘going to Nibbana’ is not accurate) .
I didn’t mention physicalism - you assumed I was talking about that. Im talking about Buddhism (and that it is scientific, to a degree). I believe in the process of rebirth (not that anything survives but that a process continues) and karma.
The only alternative to spiritualism (?) is not physicallism. Buddhism teaches another way, which has the physical and the mental interdependent on each other.
With metta
3 Likes
@Mat I think I was just being reactionary, which I don’t like to be. Head on over to my topic and makes some contributions. I look forward to your input.
Peace and Respect.
it certainly was the end of his samsaric career, he just needed to complete the notice period to get his severance pay
Technically, there are two kinds of Nibbana, saupadisesa nibbana and anupadisesa Nibbana (don’t let’s forget nibbana means ‘extinguishment’, and this word meaning was still apparent for speaker of Prakrits in Ancient India). The former means ‘Nibbana with remainder’, refers to experiential states of an arahant during their lifetime, and can be very roughly defined as the cessation of greed, hatred and delusion and resulting experience. The latter is essentially Parinibbana, i.e. total final cessation of the Five Aggregates without any remainder whatsoever, so that it doesn’t even really make sense to talk about experiential states here. Is it terminologically neat? Not exactly, but the Buddhist terminology isn’t always neat and tidy, think about sankharas and dhammas.
So, to sum it all up, saupadisesa nibbana was the start of the Buddha’s teaching career, anupadisesa nibbana was its magnificent finale.
1 Like
the quotation is misattributed, it’s not mine 
1 Like
Good Sutta to study in this case.
No English translation.
Please note that Buddhha is not mentioning Manandriya (mind) affected by his age.
=======
“Evañhetaṃ, ānanda, hoti—jarādhammo yobbaññe, byādhidhammo ārogye, maraṇadhammo jīvite. Na ceva tāva parisuddho hoti chavivaṇṇo pariyodāto, sithilāni ca honti gattāni sabbāni valiyajātāni, purato pabbhāro ca kāyo, dissati ca indriyānaṃ aññathattaṃ—cakkhundriyassa sotindriyassa ghānindriyassa jivhindriyassa kāyindriyassā”ti.
English translation for SN48.41 can be found here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.041.than.html
Any reason why it is not in Sutta Central?
Sorry I did not is it in Sutta Central as well.
I do not mean to necro-post, but I have given the matter another turnover in my head and I do not think the answer that I gave before makes any sense if one if actually familiar with Alzheimer’s as a disease.
Alzeihmer’s is not just the loss of memory and “cognitive functions”, if it also categorized by pain, terrifying hallucinations, panic and confusion that have no obvious source, among over symptoms.
So earlier when I said “it would theoretically just not cause them suffering”, Alzheimer’s devoid of suffering, devoid of its features aside from memory loss, isn’t really Alzheimer’s at all.
Furthermore, if Alzheimer’s were “just” the loss of self-perception, the cessation of fabrications and suffering, the Buddha would have taught a path that cultivates maximum potentiality to develop Alzheimer’s, not all of this “dharma” business.
3 Likes