Faulty cosmology and doubt

Discussion
63

Based on the earliest Buddhist texts (SN/SA), one can find the core teachings of the Buddha (such as the four noble truths, anicca-dukkha-anatta, the middle way), and also identify some religious myths and beliefs (such as devas, Brahmas, Mara) shared in common in Early Buddhism/EBTs. So, the term atheism or atheist is certainly inappropriate for the Buddhist tradition. Buddhism may be regarded as not a religion, non-theistic religion, or as psychotherapy for mental health, because it is not just based on ‘devotional faith’.

Cf.: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=732786#p732786

64

I’d like to join the discussion here, if it’s no trouble to both of you.

The Buddha found those things through insight, not through first-hand experience. Meaning: he probably was sitting deep in meditation when these “knowledges” arose in him - and then he decided to accept them as factual and use them as a basis for his own doctrine.

Are they true? Are they actually real? Can they be verified in any way?

It seems to me we are making a fundamental mistake in interpreting insight gained during meditation as the literal, objective truth, and using those insights to construct beliefs and practices.

How can we know with any degree of certainty whether insights gained during meditation are trustworthy and not just the mind deluding itself? If the answer is “we have to trust the early texts”, then we have a problem, because we are not supposed to trust texts and/or teachers and/or anything we have not experienced ourselves.

Ultimately, it seems to me that we are supposed to trust our own direct experience of the world, and to check that against whatever aspects of reality we can determine with at least a modicum of objectivity.

1 Like
65

In SN22.95, the lord Buddha taught:

“Suppose, bhikkhus, that a magician or a magician’s apprentice would display a magical illusion at a crossroads. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a magical illusion? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in consciousness?

It seems that the mark of the modern materialist scientific view is that causation cannot be distinguished from correlation with certainty. When matter (the earth element) becomes the criterion for truth (because truth matters), then it becomes safe to conclude that modern scientists were magicians in their past lives, falling into their own bag of trickery.

66

As I understand Buddhism, “knowledge” refers strictly to first-hand experience. That’s what it means to say that one should know the teachings by oneself.

I think this is by far the biggest objection to Buddhist theory of knowledge: “Why should we trust insight? How can we be sure it’s accurate?” However, from what I’ve studied, trusting insight seems to be indeed the early Buddhist take, which is also maintained by modern tradition.

I think the basic idea is that misapprehension of reality comes from the five hindrances, but, when one overcomes them, perception is trustworthy. By developing the jhanas, one could expand the range of consciousness and achieve extrasensory perception, which would give access to the workings of kamma and rebirth. As unappealing as it may sound to modern Western ears, this seems to be the Buddha’s Dhamma.

We could discuss whether the whole thing is just caused by the mind itself, like psychosis or some mental condition. I personally think we have good reasons to reject this hypothesis, but this would deviate too much from this topic of discussion.

1 Like
67

Incorrect. The method described is to study the suttas, then prove them through experience. “the voice of another” includes reading, which provides the criteria for “appropriate attention” :

" “Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which two? The voice of another and inappropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view.”

“Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which two? The voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

—Anguttara Nikaya 125-6

Spoken by Sariputta:

" There is the case where right view is assisted by virtue, assisted by learning, assisted by discussion, assisted by tranquility, assisted by insight."

—Majjhima Nikaya 43

Practitioners would not be expected to formulate their own path when it has already been found and documented by the Buddha.

2 Likes
68

I think that in order to correctly address these issues one has to know how to question the assumptions at play, our starting point from which we judge what is real and what counts as knowledge.

I see that discussing these matters, generally the starting point is something you could roughly call “scientific materialism”, with the big premises being the metaphysical stand that matter precedes mind and the epistemological one that science, and only science, can bring us Truth. Now, these may be true, but the important point is that we need to be well aware that these are assumptions, and that they are philosophical theses, not facts. This recognition opens up the possibility for a better comparison of the Suttas and today’s worldview (the scientific materialism that is generally just assumed).

If anyone is familiar with Phenomenology, these assumptions are roughly what Edmund Husserl refers to as “the natural attitude”, and his famous “phenomenological reduction/epojé” is basically his methodological answer to this dogma: we suspend the belief in these assumptions and start with what is actually given. I think that this was the attitude in ancient India generally, and the Buddha in particular.

This phenomenological reduction gives way to new epistemological considerations, since we cannot have as starting point all the vast knowledge of the sciences (since we are bracketing these). Instead, we want to find firm epistemological ground which will be the foundation of the sciences. So with this bracketing, you just sit and investigate your experience, and start to find out that a lot of the assumptions that were implicit in our understanding or reality are not as straightforward as they might seem. The most prominent one being the assumption of a subject independent of the objects “out there”. Now if that most-pervasive assumption turned out not to be true, which is in my opinion the foundation of the metaphysical assumption of matter first, mind second, what else could I be missing? I think then that Samadhi is the methodological tool to investigate our starting point (experience), and the tool to actually investigate what mind/consciousness is.

So in this analysis, it seems plausible that

  1. Mind/consciousness precedes matter. So mind is more fundamental. It goes without saying that this would radically alter our understanding of that is real, so all the stuff about Mt Meru, the various planes of existence, etc, would find their grounding here.
  2. Science gives us only partial knowledge of reality (maybe limited to the Kamabumi?). More fundamental knowledge is obtained through the methodological device of Samadhi.
1 Like
69

Hi @Sergio
Welcome to Discover and Discuss (D&D) forum. We hope you find the discussions here beneficial and enjoyable. Please make use of the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads; you can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in. Forum guidelines are here:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/guidelines

If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.
With Metta,
trusolo
On Behalf of the Moderators

2 Likes
70

Samadhi alone will produce an unbalanced practice and encourage sloth since it is a passive component. Tranquillity should be balanced by the practice of its opposite, insight (Anguttara Nikaya 2.30).

1 Like
71

Thanks for sharing.

This is close to the Buddha’s teachings in SN35.23

Well, not quite. you may wish to have a look at DN15: "What is a condition for name and form?’ you should answer, ‘Consciousness is a condition for name and form.’
What is a condition for consciousness?’ you should answer, ‘Name and form are conditions for consciousness.’

Consciousness and nāmarupa are co-dependent. We might say,consciousness and all experiences are co-dependent.

Regarding definitions in the EBTs for consciousness and mind, Ven. Sujato:

And

:pray:

1 Like
72

A well explained perspective that demonstrates how mind/consciousness comes first, not matter (25 minute video):

3 Likes
73

Well, the point is, you’re not supposed to believe in anything until you experience it. Just because someone told you so, you are not supposed to believe it. Just because it’s written in your books, or because it’s widely accepted by society, or because you believe that a scientist has experimented it, or because your religious teacher told you so, or anything like that. We should only believe once we experiment it ourselves, by direct experience. If it’s something we cannot experience, then we should ask ourselves, “By believing this, does it lead to reduction or increase of lobha, dosa, moha?”. And if it leads to no decrease in lobha dosa or moha, then it is of no use to your practice as an upasaka or monk. This is from the Kalama Sutta.

So we don’t know whether the suttas are true. We don’t know whether what science and archeology say is true. Why, because we never experienced it. We are just blindly believing that someone else, or some group of people know what they are doing, and are telling us the truth. But truth is. We don’t know. We don’t know how old the earth is. How long people lived in the past, whether dinosaurs existed. Whether humans came from gods, or from monkeys. It’s all just useless clutter that isn’t related to the noble truths at all.

What does matter is… We can only experience sights, sounds, scents, tastes, bodily feelings and thoughts. Therefore, everything that we desire and hate, also revolves around those 6. Everything that causes us to suffer, and others to suffer, also revolve around those 6. Therefore, we have tanha, tatratatrabhinandini (We seek delight in sights, sounds, scents, tastes, bodily feelings, and thoughts), and this is the cause of all the wars, killings, rapes, murders, thefts, unfairness, greed, hatred, objectification, violence, which has plagued humanity ever since. So, any sane person would want to remove the desire for sights, sounds, scents, tastes, bodily feelings and thoughts, and that would be for the benefit of you, and all those around you. If you help others to at least reduce their tanha, then the world becomes a more beautiful place for everyone. When the desire is no longer there, the hatred also is no longer there. The mental pain, fear, anxiety, etc, is all gone. You will be able to lead a peaceful and satisfied life, no matter what life throws at you.

Then comes, how do you remove that desire? You must first recognize when the desire arises. For that you must watch your mind, feelings, bodily postures, etc (satipatthana), then through that, you must develop the 10 perceptions (anicca, dukkha, anatta, asubha, etc). Then you can train your mind to perceive different situations in different ways… so that you do not suffer, nor you do not cause any suffering to others.

For example. if you’re going on a bus, and someone throws a bucket of excrement on your head… you want to bring the perception of earth element… that this is just earth element. By doing so… your mind won’t become angry or disgusted. So it prevents the situation from escalating further. Its beneficial to you, and the other person. If you don’t develop that perception, or perception of impermanence, or non-self, then you will get angry, kill the guy, and go to jail for life. In this situation, the asubha sanna (perception of unattractiveness) comes automatically, so you must train your mind to bring a different perception in this situation.

If you see a hot girl, you automatically get the subha sanna (perception of beauty). therefore, you have to bring the asubha sanna (perception of unattractiveness) in this situation. So that your mind is not wandering and craving and seeking to scratch a never-ending itch.

74

EBTs in history only can be identified as essential teachings (such as knowing-seeing the four noble truths, the notion of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the middle way), or non-essential teachings (such as adaptations of Vedic religious myths) of Early Buddhism.

But all extant EBTs, such as the principal four Nikayas/Agamas, are just sectarian texts, some edited or collected early, some later. According to Ven. YinShun, SN/SA is the earliest and the foundation of the four Nikayas/Agamas in the formation of EBTs.

BuddhaDhamma is in fact essentially found in the major collection of SN/SA suttas.

75

I’d argue that there is less ‘nonsense’ in the abhidharma than there is in the sutra pitaka. Its more aligned with 4 noble truths, removing tanha, than alot of the sutra’s.

76

The authors of the abhidharma have to make their “less ‘nonsense’” points for their doctrines.

77

Dear All,

While we are all allowed with disagree with (some parts of) the Tipitaka, please express your opinion respectfully, especially in a forum which is mainly focused on EBT.

With Metta,
Ric

6 Likes
78

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy partaking the fruits of science. Some of them anyway. But for me it is not the measure of everything else. It has it’s place.

For me what science demonstrates more than anything else is the power of mind. But until quite recently it seems that science was quite determined to be oblivious to anything relating to Mind. Which is very funny to me. And it’s crazy that mental development is not a part of science other than going to school for many decades.

Even now if you don’t subscribe to physicalism(or at least appear to). Accusations of believing in spooky stuff might fly around. But philosophers might tell,there is not even much clarity around what is even meant by ‘physical’ or ‘physical property’.

You feel justified in believing in Quarks, but I feel justified in believing that, with mental development iddhi-bala ,Four fold Savaka-Bhodi, Pacceka-Bhodi , Samma Sambodhi are all possible.

79

This discussion has already seized, but I have to revive it a bit. Just a bit, ok?..
I have to ask: why do everyone participating in a discussion seems to think that Buddha Kassapa and his predecessors lived here, on this Earth?..
As far, as I know, Buddhist Cosmology states that there are thousands of worlds. And they are dying and emerging from the void anew all the time. So, my point is: Buddha Kassapa, as well as Buddha Sakyamuni in his previous lifes could have been living on the different planet, even BEFORE our Earth was born. This was a different kalpa, a different cycle of existence. And maybe there were no bharmins, no Ganges and no India on this planet… But Buddha had to name it somehow, right?.. He wouldn’t tell his disciples: “Allright, Buddha Kassapa was of green skin and with four arms”. It would raise too many questions, conserning matters that Buddha didn’t want to discuss. He had little time. It was easier to say: “There were… Ah, let’s call them “brahmins”, that’s basically what they were”.

I mean, that’s how I understand it.

2 Likes
80

Blockquote
how could Buddha see so much of his past lives but prescribe cow pee as a medicine.

Just seeing something does NOT mean you understand it. If you got to a medical lab, you won’t be able to make your own medicine, no matter how much you observe others do it. You need to know a LOT about pharmacology and other things to even have the hope of replicating it. Even if you have all the tools, there is a lot of know-hows and required skill that you don’t have. Nothing to say about getting equipment, and required chemicals to 5th BCE society.

It gets even harder if you are observing a high tech society. Just imagine a person living ~5th BCE observing something like iPhone being made. Would one even know what is going on?

81

can you explain the mt meru bit. i’m intrigued. Im pretty hardcore on cosmology so curious to hear a new a take

82

Science = Gravity

Buddhism: Levitation… :wink:

Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird.

Scientists = :penguin:
Ascetics = :eagle: