the buddha said in dependence origination that it’s consciousness that causes matter/rupa and that’s a bold statement from him
Almost all scientist are materialist that Everything is just neuron firing in your brain there’s no consciousness outside of those neurons and their connections
I think form is matter or do you argue otherwise ?
if I am not mistaken Buddha said that contact is the meeting point between matter and mind if contact is mental/mind how do you explain that blind people even though they have mind they don’t see any sight at all ?
Scientist said that even consciousness and intention is matter these things is created and saved in our neuron and their connections ,we are our brain
Come on, who has the same books in the same editions lying around, and you didn’t even give the publicaion date. Please either provide a link, or a screenshot, or the textual information (in unabbreviated form).
You refer to the ‘Pali tradition’ as if it’s an unquestionable authority when in this topic we are long beyond the common understanding already. What’s the use in saying “But this is what they thought about namarupa 150 years ago”? My point is, also the ‘Pali tradition’ (whatever that is) has to be evaluated by their sources and not their supposed authority.
Hi venerable ,
If you are referring to nama as feeling perception intention contact attention , that might be pointing to different contact ! If you think in both cases they are the same then pls explain how you relate contact per in the nama above and contact as sense base vs sense object give rise to sense consciousness .
The mind knows the sights , doesnt means the sight or vision is made up of mental . Vision is physiological phenomena .
Oh, that part. That’s during the rebirth process. The new body and mind takes rebirth depending on the nature of the consciousness of the person who passed away, which depends on their actions (sankhara and kamma).
Yes, it’s trivial for us Buddhist that the mind is the biggest thing in the world, because the mind can see the whole universe and it fits into the mind.
Depends on the definition of matter, cause physics has been expanding to extend the range of physical things to not only matter (stuffs), but spacetime, information. I think of all those as roughly form.
Ok, good point. Meeting point, as it includes the physical sense base plus physical sense objects plus the mental consciousness. Blind people lack the well functioning physical sense base.
There are different interpretations i read in other forum . If both are the same meaning , does
" feeling perception intention contact attention " , this process follows in sequence or not necessary in such an order ?
In the sutta it doesnt describes vision as something mental . or does it ?
It’s good to read Abhidhamma for these kinda questions.
According to my knowledge of Abhidhamma, feeling, perception are always there, contact is followed by attention, which is followed by intention (javana). It’s a bit complicated, not easily sequenced like this. Search for the cetasikas in the thought process of 17 mind moments.
Define vision?
I just take it that light is physical, collection of lights in patterns such as shapes and colour can be recognized by AI (which as far as we know doesn’t have a mind), so all of these are physical.
What do you mean by physical ?
In hindu they said the body is composed by 5 elements
But the buddha said all forms are made from 4 elements not 5 elements excluding space
Furthermore if you want to enter that dimension you can only use space kasina or breath mental image
The only thing buddha called physical outside of 4 elements is mind made body but it’s mind made body not space made body
scientist never call space as physical or material
Here is one
under no circumstances should you conceive of space as though it’s a material, physical thing; it isn’t.
Ethan Siegel Ph.D. astrophysicist
Furthermore what is space made of according to you ?
All Physical objects are aggregates for example air is made of nitrogen atoms and oxygen atoms and other gases
If you argue that something is Physical it should be an aggregate too or do you argue otherwise ?
What’s the difference between dimension of infinite space and space ?
Physical means that which physics can examine, formulate laws for it, eg, equations and have it behave as the laws of physics dictates. General relativity clearly brings spacetime into the realm of physical.
Dimension of infinite space, is a meditative attainment, spacetime is the physical thing you live in, which is the fabric of the universe. As to whether one is reborn in the dimension of infinite space, one becomes space, I am less inclined towards that idea, but haven’t think it through to reject it completely.
