Solution to what?
Except countless testimonials as to their existence that come down through the ages, across cultures, etc…
Do you think the ants have put together a definitive proof for the existence of human beings? And yet their lack of proof is not sufficient cause for us to stop existing.
Well, it can’t be the case that both Nordic and Indian cosmologies are True; your ongoing testimonials heavily contradict one another. Then of course there are testimonials about the Loch Ness monster, so really, this is a very weak & fallacious argumentum ad populum.
Ants don’t argue for our existence, just as we don’t argue for the existence of clouds; and, gods are not apparent the way ants & clouds are. This is a bad comparison.
I’m not sure what your point is.
No, again, your logic is conflating phenomenal and physical events. We know that when electromagnetic radiation reflects off a physical tree into a retina it produces physical effects in a human body, primarily a stream of nervous stimulation down the optic nerve bundles. These physical causes and effects are what various scientific disciplines can study.
For example, the movement of the subject’s mouth is quite definitely caused by nervous stimulation from the brain’s motor cortex and cerebellum after the retinal stimulation is received and processed by the whole brain. We can even see this happening in real time nowadays with the latest neuroscience scanners, if your budget allows.
Then in response, issuing from the reporting subject’s mouth are a pattern sequence of acoustic vibrations that are diffused into the acoustic space, reflecting off an analyst’s pinnae into their inner ear, hair cells and through to the auditory cortex and whole brain.
These acoustic vibrations, also called a voice, then cause appropriate behavioural responses in the analyst’s body.
The reason that we know that this physical causal chain is correlated with actual phenomenal experiences is that both the analyst and the reporter are presumably not philosophical zombies and would agree that they both live in this shared phenomenal world. That there is only a correlation between the physical and the phenomenal based on reportage and agreement about shared phenomenal experiences is one of the hard problems concerning the debate about the role of causality. Your contention that mental phenomena ‘cause’ physical phenomena is precisely a hot topic and vehemently denied by many analysts, who then grapple with the subsequent problem of epiphenomenalism. Which drives others to suppose that the mental has to somehow cause physical effects but we have no idea how … and so on. Your belief in a metaphysics of interactive dualism is part of the hard problem, not its solution!
Apart from your apparently deeply held ontological belief that physical events must somehow cause mental events and that this physical causality is overwhelmingly obvious. And likewise with a bet each way, that mental events must somehow cause physical events, presumably in a reversal of physical causality. Thus you conflate temporal continuity and correlation with causality, and the phenomenal with the physical, and so the tangle of thinking tightens.
That is to say, of course, it is your personal experience of meditation that has not told you anything much about the ultimate nature of phenomenal experience? This much is apparent but you should not then generalise that specific experience to all humanity and the meditation itself!
It is much harder to open one’s ownmost presuppositions to question than it is to close off avenues of thought by holding to seemingly obvious beliefs, don’t you think? And openness to the phenomena is merely the barest beginning for thinking about them!
I find your comments arrogant and dismissive. Have a good day.
Perhaps we could inject some more clarity into the discussion if you would be more specific about what exactly you take causality to consist in. It seems to me that you are operating with an exceptionally stringent notion of causality, one that goes beyond the way that concept in employed in everyday science when it confirms or disconfirms hypotheses about how phenomena are or are not causally related.
I have asked you a particular kind of question in each of my last three posts that, in each case, you have declined to answer. I assume that’s because the answer is somewhat embarrassing to you. I asked whether, when you open your eyes and look at a tree, you truly doubt that the existence of the tree, and the reflection of light off that tree, are causally responsible of the fact that you then have a conscious experience of a tree. I also asked whether you truly doubt that when you move the knobs on your electronic instruments, those physical motions are causally responsible for the fact that your audience members then have conscious mental experiences or various sounds.
You might try answering the questions yes or no.
Perhaps you might then share with us some of your own deep insights into the fundamental nature of conscious phenomena, as they have been gleaned from your meditation practice.
As for myself, meditation seems to tell me a great deal about how certain kinds of conscious experiences appear to give rise to other kinds of conscious experiences, about the patterns in which these experiences tend to fall, and also about the experienced phenomenal structure of events that are amenable to this kind of introspective observation. Above all it gives me insight into the varieties of suffering and the varieties of liberation one can cultivate to bring those kinds of suffering to an end. But it neither does, nor could, tell me anything about the contingent extrinsic relations those experiences might or might not bear to other things in the world, since there is no reason at all to think that the totality of such relationships is introspectively accessible. My conscious mind is but a small corner of a vast universe, and so the most careful observation of my conscious mind should not be expected to tell me much beyond the details of what is located in that small corner.
1 Like
Well, ummm… no?
The question of why there are things rather than nothing is a philosophical question concerning being and existence. It’s where philosophy begins and yes, maybe Y is a crooked letter that can’t be straightened but what is unknown is not therefore certainly unknowable. Assuming that the answer to life, the universe and everything is just that ‘it is’ would itself be a metaphysical position concerning one’s sincere belief in the limits of human understanding.
The hard problem however is a genuine scientific question for the neurosciences, how do phenomena ‘arise’ from a bunch of brain meat, and is ‘supervenience’ even an appropriate way of thinking about this relationship? The latter is a philosophical question of course.
To state baldly that “subjective experience just is the ongoing process of a neurological system” says nothing much apart from begging the question of ‘what is’ subjective experience such that this non-physical phenomenon could be the product of a physical process, so let us put our faith in the religion of scientistic physicalism instead!
That’s not very scientific or philosophical of you daverupa, it’s actually more akin to professing a religious faith in the miracle of alchemy. I prefer to defer to the hard problem of phenomena, for it certainly opens a can of scientific worms.
New thread please
As worthy as this discussion may be – and it is of personal interest to me – in my opinion it is way off topic of this post.
I believe this post as well as the topic above would be better served by starting a new new thread.
I offer for example this thread 
brilliantly conceived by yours truly:
3 Likes
…well, it’s a little difficult to follow your ideas. I guess we have different opinions! Good idea you have there, Feynman.
From above: “If someone suggests the spaghetti monster to you, and another person suggests Indian gods, and another person suggests Amerindian gods, and another suggests Nordic gods (and so on), you are deciding that at least one of these options is “obviously” false. But you are merely asserting it, and have given no reasons.”
Alright David, I will give you the reasons why I don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster and why I keep an open-mind about devas and rebirth:
If you ask me if there is a flying spaghetti monster or a flying pink elephant I will provide you with a simple answer: NO
Why will I provide that answer: because of my prior knowledge and experience of spaghetti and elephants.
After having had these experiences I can logically conclude that spaghetti does not spontaneously self-assemble into a sentient flying monster and, elephants don’t behave in that way i.e. they do not fly - unless placed on an airplane and they generally are not pink unless they are painted that colour. It surprises me that you would ask me the question: how would I decide that these pure-fictions do not exist! Again, all of the above seems self-evident to me! For an eminently logical chap you seem to ask some peculiar questions.
As to devas and such like, I have no prior experience of these things - of any consequence - to provide an informed opinion.
It may or may not be the case that there are devas, and rebirth may or may not exist. If somebody were to ask me if devas or rebirth exists or, don’t they exist. I would have to answer honestly: I DONT KNOW
All we need to do is establish what you do know and don’t know in order to determine if you are expressing an informed opinion or you are expressing a belief that is not based on direct experience. I base my logic on direct experience! I do not have metaphysical or physicalist beliefs about things I have no experience of and, that I am unable to establish as true or false. In other words, I keep an open-mind for the sake of mental-hygiene and so as the unique and unexpected has room to enter the field of attention without being arrested by the thought-police.
In contrast, you like to draw conclusions about things: such as devas and rebirth based on what you have experienced, by way of extension. You also seem to be saying, if someone has not come to the same conclusions you have about devas and rebirth and spaghetti monsters then they are missing out on something important. I am glad that you are filled with such self-confidence when it comes to your ability to extend your understanding into the unknown - the uncertain. I prefer to err on the side of caution - all good!
There is also another explanation as to why people believe in gods or don’t believe in gods that has nothing to do with logical inference. It is called: conditioning! A god-botherer may have a thought-bubble of associated ideas that pops-up when they think about their favourite God - or gods etc.
Another individual who does not believe in God - or gods - may have a thought-bubble that manifests when they think about god, rebirth, tarot cards, homeopathy etc. In that thought-bubble there may also be a flying spaghetti monster? I get the impression you may be one of these types of individuals?
In other words - people like this - regardless of their belief-system are simply predisposed to associate things together. We all do this of course but some of us do it in a way that suggests they have been ‘got at’ by ideologues. They have succumbed to ideology - they are true-believers. They may not have to be particularly clever, logical or, reasonable to perform these cognitive feats - repeat the party line!
The belief-system whether it is theistic or atheistic provides a sense of security - a bulwark against the unknown - that some people find terrifying. This goes to the question of mindless adherence or blind-conformity when it comes to different forms of ideology. The fact is David, what you take to be a ‘rational’ process may simply be an expression of your ideological proclivities. There are also other explanations for why people ‘believe’ the things they do - language-games is one of these alternative explanations. 
This is quite an interesting discussion, so sorry for popping in, but I have a short small question:
how lack of experience concerning selfassembling sphaghetti is different from lack of experience concerning a type of beings, called devas?
2 Likes
Hi @Feynman,
no worries if this thread is getting too long, I think we’re largely done(!?) For me it remains more or less on topic though as I was responding to Brahmali’s initial provocation regarding the role that science plays in validating Buddhist cosmology and rebirth claims.
As is probably clear here, while science of course is wonderfully relevant where it comes to understanding physical phenomena, I’m just not sure scientific method is the best measure of phenomenal experience in general… But then I am just an unreconstructed existential phenomenologist!
Heterophenomenology takes the cake here, I think.
Oh… just one last go then!
If by “selfassembling sphaghetti” we’re referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is a fictional character made up to satirise creationism and the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ alongside evolutionary science. No one is seriously suggesting that it’s a real being, unless you mean that guy who had too much datura as a teen and is now a bit … special.
With Devas on the other hand there are those who attest to their existence and those who claim a door can be opened to other realms via meditation. I have no experience of this so can’t bear witness.
But wouldn’t it be amusing if string theory finally got its unverifiable pseudo-science act together, solved quantum gravity and proved the existence of the multiverse leading to the construction of a quantum ham radio that allowed communication with inter dimensional beings who live in a fine material world with a slightly different Planck constant?
“Oh and the Maha Brahma says ‘hi’, she’s really sorry she had to leave you in the lurch like that back in the Enlightenment but Gautama was right after all!”
1 Like
Dear Tuvok, what I have prior experience of is ‘spaghetti’. Forget the spaghetti monster for a moment - just think of spaghetti. Good! Now, I hear about the spaghetti monster that flies. I think, wait a minute, spaghetti is something you eat, it does not self-assemble into a flying-monster and fly about the place. Therefore, I surmise that a spaghetti monster must be an imaginary being. I know of other imaginary beings like mickey mouse and Dumbo. This is how I deduce the fact that a flying spaghetti monster is imaginary.
Now, when it comes to Devas - I have zero prior experience of anything susbstantive related to this kind of (hypothetical) entity. Unlike spaghetti and its general characteristics - that includes its non-flying ability - unless it is flung across the room by a naughty child, when it comes to Devas, this is an entirely new category, or thing, that I know absolutely nothing about. I have opinions about things I know things about. For me, I try not to express opinions about things of which I know absolutely nothing. But, I do know something about spaghetti.
So, you don’t know about rebirth, and to that exact extent you don’t know about Nordic gods, right? You aren’t sure about layers of the cosmos asserted in both cases, and so on, right? And of course you don’t know about any other religious claim, do you? You have to say “I DON’T KNOW” in every case.
That’s agnosticism.
It depends on the religious claim in question. I have independently verified some religious claims. In the case of the religious claims I have verified through direct experience - I can concur with some religious claims made by the Buddha. Therefore, agnosticism? answer: no
Others confirm e.g. Nordic gods & practices, etc. So that’s a choice on your part to see those experiences as confirmation of your pre-existing cosmological ideology. Somewhat conditioning, isn’t it?
No confirmation of previous cosmological ideology has taken place - but thanks for the valid concern. Previous cosmological models - of a religious nature - were torn to shreds. Cosmological models are ‘just that’ - models - there is a difference between reading a guide-book and seeing the sights.
My brother use to make models when he was a kid and hang them from strings on the ceiling and display them on shelves. Children can tell the difference between a model and the real thing - the truth that liberates is not rocket science. The liberating Dhamma is a living truth! It pertains to our lived reality - the one we don’t inhabit when we are making other plans! Zeug was getting at the same thing with his discussion of phenomenology. The finger is pointing at the moon - do not mistake the finger for the moon. - Zen Wisdom
The good news is, it is impossible to confuse a working model with a lived reality. We already know the difference. At least, I hope so? I don’t expect - for a moment - that you should believe me. I certainly hope you never do! My purpose has never been to persuade anyone of anything. That would be a foolish endeavour of no ‘vital’ importance! Persuasion is the preoccupation of ideologues - religious and secular - and I am not an ideologue or one of their followers. The realisation of the teachings is like seeing something clearly - it is a complete surprise - a beautiful surprise.
“We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.” - T. S. Eliot
The Buddha simply shared his discoveries with all of us - of course we are going to question and come to our own conclusions. Our assessments will be influenced by our background and our cherished beliefs - our preset conclusions. Its a different ball-game when we ‘see’ the Dhamma - to varying degrees - this does not mean we will fall inline and lose our capacity for critical thought. We do need to question everything down to the root of our ‘own’ phenomenal reality - in real time - or give up: read spy novels etc.
"Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.” - Rohitassa Sutta
Nibbana is not a phenomenal reality and it is not something else - either. This is why the Buddha’s liberating insight cannot be explained by physicalism or metaphysics. This is why he taught that the middle-way lies between annihilationism and eternalism. Much of this discussion is already present in the EBT’s the only difference is the context created by time, place and circumstance.
"It’s not to be reached by traveling,
the end of the cosmos —
regardless.
And it’s not without reaching
the end of the cosmos
that there is release
from suffering & stress …
So, truly, the wise one,
an expert with regard to the cosmos,
a knower of the end of the cosmos,
having fulfilled the holy life,
calmed,
knowing the cosmos’ end,
doesn’t long for this cosmos
or for any other." - Rohitassa Sutta
A knower of the end of the cosmos must mean the end of the phenomenal - how can physicalism survive the ending of the phenomenal, how can phenomena survive the ending of the cosmos?? With the ending of the known there is also the ending of the knower. That which knows this ending is a mortally wounded chitta. The stream of consciousness loses momentum and ceases - PEACE AT LAST.
The Buddha’s teachings are not like those dusty old faith traditions we have rejected in order to arrive right here - right now - the Buddha was just telling it as he saw it. Just as the dusty old faith traditions tell us to believe things they do not know - like the blind leading the blind - for the very same reason many of us reject modern secular ideologies.
To believe in the existence of devas or to believe in the non-existence of devas are two sides of the same coin - they are articles of faith. The only thing that could break this impasse would be direct knowledge and vision i.e. actually seeing and/or interacting with devas - this seems obvious. If this has not happened I see no harm in keeping an open mind - maintaining a rational objectivity with regards to the unknown.
As in science, the Buddha encouraged open-minded inquiry. He cautioned us to not accept anything blindly. Blind-faith of any kind - secular or religious - is incompatible with the Buddha’s teachings. We can have provisional acceptance of things we don’t understand in the Dhamma but never blind acceptance. As in science, Buddhism has an underlying paradigm. Our practice is informed by direct insight as we proceed. The Buddha insisted on this approach in the middle-way.
“Suppose there were a row of blind men, each holding on to the one in front of him: the first one doesn’t see, the middle one doesn’t see, the last one doesn’t see. In the same way, the statement of the Brahmans turns out to be a row of blind men, as it were: the first one doesn’t see, the middle one doesn’t see, the last one doesn’t see.” — Canki Sutta (MN 95)
Some of us are looking for more in the Dhamma than a belief-system - ancient or modern. When somebody makes a truth-claim the first thing I try to establish is whether they actually know - through direct experience - what they profess to be true. If it turns out they have no experience of what they take to be true, I understand, how this has come to pass and, why. I understand what it is that drives people into an ideological fixation - secular or religious - through direct experience. It is not difficult to understand? We may ask: what is the importance of this kind of understanding? Answer: how are we going to realise the truth which liberates if we don’t understand ourselves?
We can start an argument with the Buddha if we feel the need - he would not have objected. He did not teach: take me at my word, for you cannot see for yourself. The Dhamma is an open-invitation requiring an open heart and an inquiring mind. May you be well and happy, may you realise the truth which liberates - thats what we are here for!
The teachings are for stubborn stains - it all comes out in the wash.
“As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on aversion… His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not aversive. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.” - Canki Sutta 
Its only colonialism if a colonial power is doing it. Accusing someone of ‘colonialism’ or ‘neocolonialism’ is a slippery slope, similar to accusing someone of racism. The people who hold the cards in society for deciding what “oppression/racism/colonialism” is, I do think, here in Canada & America at least, would raise their eyebrows considerably at the notion that a non-white non-European ideology is engaging in “colonialism”. For right or wrong.
Either way, the point you made above, would be dismissed at, for instance, the university I used to attend (York University in Toronto), on the grounds that Buddhists cannot colonize because they lack the “power” to be oppressors. Just as black people cannot be racist, on similar reasonings, be those reasonings sound or unsound.
Buddhists have been perennialists for far longer than the Christians have. I would not myself suggest that perennialism was an invention of a colonizing West.