Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Explain what Buddhism has to say about materialism
I am a materialist in a sense. I think all conscious states are caused by physical activity in the brain. I think there is no life after death or reincarnation.
To someone like me, neglecting the possibility for a change in my beliefs, particularly that all conscious activity can be described by physical brain activity, what truth can Buddhism still purport? Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?
This is the central question. Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?
To someone like me, neglecting the possibility for a change in my beliefs, particularly that all conscious activity can be described by physical brain activity, what truth can Buddhism still purport? Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?
This is the central question. Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Enlightenment means using meditation (exercise) to change the thought patterns in the brain. You exercise your brain in a different way, to activate specific thought patterns and eliminate others.
But in a Mind-speak sense, you merely 'change your mind' and move away from the negative.
This is all purely speculative on my part, and I know nothing of the technical mechanics required.
But the Dalai Lama has made a study of this....
You ask what we consider Buddhism says about materialism, but then in your first post you completely change tack, and instead seek the answer to "Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?"
Which is it to be, exactly....?
Now, having stated this, there are indeed contrary views specifically those of Stephen Batchelor (he has a book: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist) who pretty much claims there is no rebirth and other Buddhist concepts. This is by no means mainstream Buddhism and I certainly don't think it's "valid" as a Buddhist path, however, you might find it useful to read Stephen's thoughts on this.
It is an illusion in the sense that your body, thoughts, beliefs, mind, etc. are all dependent upon an infinite number of dependently arisen phenomena. Your consciousness has arisen due to volitional impressions (specifically karma)that have arisen from a state of ignorance.
You are both the cause and effect of karma. This ever-changing stream of consciousness is what is reborn in every fleeting moment, in this life, in lives past, and in lives to come. There is no "you" that is reincarnated or left behind with the passing of the body. The only thing that ever remains are volitional impressions (Karma) that are the effects of ones thoughts, actions, and words.
So, the short answer to his question is that Buddhism does consider the mind to be separate from the physical body and that in fact, it discusses beings that are composed of mind-only and no bodies. So Buddhism can't be said to be purely materialistic.
I myself do not believe anything I have not confirmed myself and I don't see it as an obstacle to learn from Buddhas teachings, but the opposite actually. To believe in something I have not confirmed for myself, would be adding unnecessary delusions. I don't see Buddhism as a teaching, that tries to impose a belief system. I see Buddhism's goal to be the opposite - to give up attachment to any beliefs, even one calling oneself a Buddhist etc.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
~Buddha
I was still misled a little though. It's possible others might be also.
Thanks.
Enlightenment is wisdom that causes the mind to let go. It is not so difficult to understand. For example, your mind realises something like the drug heroin is deadly poison therefore your mind has no craving towards the drug heroin. Your mind lets go of the drug heroin.
Physiologically, I'm not sure if we should separate the mind from the brain. Although we generally have concious control of our thoughts, this is not always the case. All the body's systems feed information into the brain and this impacts on our behaviour.
For example, I was sad and anxious today. I don't know why...maybe my cortisol levels were too high.... I snapped at a colleague and then had to say sorry. If I was happy, it wouldn't have happened.
Vangelis, you make your points well, but maybe Buddha would suggest that you're being overly dogmatic. I don't believe in rebirth because I have no real evidence to support it. I don't dismiss it though.
The Buddha taught the cause for faith in the Dhamma is suffering.
When the mind actually experiences suffering, it fully understands the urgency of extinguishing that suffering immediately.
When I was a child, it was repeatedly flogged into me by my religion teacher (who I would vigorously debate) to never begin an opinion with the words "I don't think". Although I was staunchly anti-Christian, my kind (ordained) Christian teacher at least had the lovingness to set me on a logical path.
"I certainly don't think..."
You don't think???
It appears so, with your blind faith opinions.
:buck:
I think it would be wise to add that I am a determinist and believe that humans have no free will. This may shed some light on my views.
Thanks for all the comments, I appreciate this discussion.
:eek2:
Buddha taught his core teachings for those with little dust in their eyes.
Buddha taught reincarnation to protect ordinary unenlightened people from self-harm.
Your view simply sheds light on enlightenment deficiency.
Thanks!
So if we read the whole of the supporting conditions that faith is responsible for, we see that whilst suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith in fact supports: joy/rapture/tranquility/happiness/concentration/knowledge of things as they really are/disenchantment/dispassion/emancipation/knowledge of destruction (of the cankers). So we see that in fact, faith is the supporting factor for awakening and destruction of the cankers. It supports path factors such as concentration and wisdom (knowledge of things as they really are). It is pivotal to the path.
It should be mentioned, however, that there are 2 types of faith. Blind faith is belief in anything with no evidence and the faith the the Buddha talks about is faith based on having seen part of the path for oneself.
Faith is listed as one of the seven treasures (dhanas), one of the five spiritual faculties (indriyas), one of the four streams of merit and one or the spiritual powers (balas). There are many suttas that discuss faith and its support of progress on the path, however, rather than go into all of them in this post, here is a link that discusses some of them: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Faith_in_Buddhism_-_Faith_in_Early_Buddhism_Theravada/id/1290150
and of course, there is always wikipedia which I loath to quote because of the amount of misinformation in it but for what it's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism
And now for my: "superstitious unverified speculations about rebirth?". I have faith that the Buddhist monks and nuns I speak to do not lie. I therefore believe them when they tell me that there is rebirth. I have faith when they tell me how one can experience one's past lives. I have faith when some (very few) have related some of their past lives to me. I don't have faith when they talk about some of the "superstitious speculations" because I have actually experienced them for myself but as for past lives and rebirth, I have faith (and ensuring logical consistency of course) that they are not lying to me and that rebirth exists. I also have faith that one day, as progression occurs along the path, rebirth will be realised as part of that.
So, from the point of view of someone that states "I don't believe in rebirth, tell me how Buddhism is applicable", I can't do that. All I can say is that if you really strongly believe that there is no rebirth then there is no point in worrying about Buddhism. This seems to be the right path for someone that thinks like that.
But to imply that there is no room for faith in Buddhism is to misrepresent the dhamma.
There is no need for you to mention what I already mentioned.
I posted a quote on bright faith & mentioned your blind faith.
As you said: "I have [blind] faith that the Buddhist monks and nuns I speak to do not lie."
The Buddha himself did not lie. The Dhamma states the following: When the Buddha said birth (jati) is the condition for suffering, he was referring to self-identification, when the mind mentally appropriates the objects of sense and the five aggregates.
You are misrepresenting the Buddha here. Just because the experience of the physical body ceases, this does not mean there is no physical body.
Allow me to share an example with you. When I was a child, my younger sister would close her eyes and then excitedly say to me: "You can't see me, you can't see me!"
There is a similar example in the suttas, when Sariputta was deep in meditation and a Yaka set him a blow on the head with a stick. Sariputta did not feel the blow on the head when in meditation but when his mind emerged from its meditation, it certainaly felt a headache. Sariputta later felt the physical pain from the blow on the head.
Of arupa jhanas, the Buddha regarded these as conditioned states. As for the state of enlightenment, the Buddha advised this includes the physical body:
:dunce:
I have faith in the monks/nuns that I speak with because I watch listen and notice what they do and say to ensure that there is conformance. When I see conformance, then I understand that they are genuine and are not likely to lie. When they talk about some of their lay followers that they have been teaching having experienced their past life(s) then there is no reason to not believe them. No, but he has been misrepresented many, many times. Taking quotes out of context is one such deceptive trick used to misrepresent him. No, the Buddha did not lie and he did not speak in parables. When he says birth, he means birth. When he says death, he means death. From Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html
It's quite clear what he means by birth and death here.
:dunce:
In the First Sermon, 'birth' means physical birth rather than the mental birth I referred to.
Allow me to offer some examples about how physical birth is suffering & also an example of mental birth in Dependent Origination: About the word, 'birth', Buddhagosa explains in his Vissiddhimagga: Wikipedia comforms with Buddhagosa's usage of 'clan': This kind of definition of jati is most readily found in MN 98, where it is said:
The Nakulapita Sutta (SN 22.1) describes how birth is the condition for suffering, as follows: Change & alteration = aging & death
I never said there was no room for blind faith in Buddhism. The Buddha himself advised, in MN 22, his community was six-fold, namely, arahants, non-returners, once-returners, stream-enterers, dhamma-followers & faith-followers.
However, you appear to have asserted there is no room for non-rebirthers in Buddhism.
When remembering one's past dwellings (lit: 'homes'), the Buddha advised his monks as follows: however, contrary to the Buddha, the Buddhist monks and nuns you speak to do not understand what they regard as "their past life or self" are just mental fabrications
contrary to the Buddha, the Buddhist monks and nuns you speak to do not tear down but build up; do not abandon but cling; do not discard but pull in; do not scatter but pile up.
In his first three sermons, the Buddha produced many arahants but did not even mention rebirth.
The Buddha taught rebirth belief is mundane right view that sides with merit but also sides with attachment & fermentations (asava). The Buddha taught rebirth belief is not a factor of the supramundane path (see MN 117).
I can only suggest you straighten out your bizzare, dangerous & disrespectful views.
Many sincere Buddhists, including renowned teachers & monks, do not believe in rebirth. Amongst these, I am not including Stephen Batchelor. I am referring to dedicated practitioners.
The Buddha never once included rebirth in a description of his core teachings.
Regardless of virtues or powers a monk can display, accepting unverifiable teachings from such monks remains blind faith.
All the best
Attachment (initial thought of "I") > becoming > birth (full belief or identification as "I" & "mine"
> suffering due to aging & death of object of attachment
:zombie:
If a doctor hooked up electrodes to your brain and said that you were thinking of an elephant based on the reaings. But you were not. It would be an extreme to believe the doctor rather than your own experience.
I will also point out that it is the mental thinking that makes the material world seem substantial. But actually the mind activity is the foundation. Its an assumption that mind is emanating from a physical reality. The truth is that there is a mental process. And from that mental process we have a concept of 'physical' 'real' 'exists'.
If you don't see that in my 3rd paragraph then you cannot penetrate the dharma teachings to the level of emptiness from an experienced perspective. Though you could cognitively understand it via various explanations such as dependent origination.
In other words you would have a subtle grasping to the concepts 'physical' 'material' etc which would cause suffering due to the strain of holding onto something that is insubstantial and the need to defend your views. Until that grasping were overcome you would not have achieved the goal of the holy life which is liberation of the heart.
Personally I neither believe nor disbelieve in rebirth because its not something I think about these days although I've received teachings about it.
In general,this lifetime is the one we're living right now and the Buddhas's teachings are practiced in this lifetime. Speculation about past or future lives is irrelevant to what's happening in the here and now.
:screwy:
if you say i'm not a buddhist i don't believe in any afterlife that's fine, but trying to second guess the buddha and claim he said it all, i don't think so, scriptures in the bible seem to directly contradict themselves all the time, the same can be true of buddhist scriptures too especially when things are taken out of context,
proof text buddhism is just as ridiculous as proof text christianity or judaism, you pretty much have to read whole books or chapters to get the true context of a given passage and even then you can be often thrown off by a bad translation or misunderstanding a word, that's why i'd take the words of the monk who's studied scripture their whole life over my own interpretation of one small page out of hundreds of volumes of buddha scripture.
a typical example of proof text mentality is the anti homosexual christian message, a few verses put together, nothing whatsoever in jesus' words and a whole section of society, millions of people are condemned. we need to move beyond that, we cant say you have to believe in reincarnation to practise buddhism, but we certainly cant say buddhist's don't believe in reincarnation either, dare i say it, middle path????
"some people have no concept of rebirth, afterlife,heavens and hells till
they die,ie, passing judgment on believers and ridiculing the afterlife like dhamma did, and quoting or misquoting scripture is annoying, wait till you die to figure it out if you cant understand it, the buddha obviously talked a lot about his past lives, he may have said later it not important to dwell on it, but trying to turn a spiritual tradition of buddhism in to a vehicle to support secular humanism is ridiculous, "
And are you not passing judgement on others yourself?...and how on earth can a dead person 'figure it out'. Additionally the "afterlife" is a Christian concept.
As for DD'S quotes, they are always relevant.
To conclude:
"The Blessed One said:
You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past is left behind.
The future is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there, right there."
(MN 131 : Bhaddekaratta Sutta)
Time for me to attend to my offline life now.
You got it totally wrong imho. Datu was not ridiculing any believers. He was only trying to show, that there is room in Buddhism for ANYONE. He was trying to prove, with Buddhas own words, that even if you don't believe in rebirth, it is NO obstacle to learning from Buddhas teachings.
Believing in rebirth is not a prerequisite to understand/follow Buddhism.
It saddens me to see someone turning people away from Buddhism, just because they don't blindly believe in something, when in actuality Buddha strongly encouraged this kind of behavior.
Why the information in the brain translates to percieved colors, among a variety of other sensations, to an observer is something of a mystery. Its about as much of a mystery, in my view, to why matter has any of the properties it has, whether its creating gravitational fields by warping space and time or why photons get discharged when an electron goes into an excited state. Most of what we know about matter is the result of modeling it. Much of how it actually works is a mystery.
What I notice with materialism is it neglects the mystery of awareness and the internal observer. Its basically ignored. To many materialists, they believe the processes of matter precede consciousness. In my view, cosnciousness is an aspect of matter, as much as ionic bonding is an aspect of matter. I don't see much of a distinction. I think they're two sides of the same coin. I basically think the whole universe has elemental building blocks of consciousness build into it, and were a very complex organization of that consciousness, just as much as were a very complex organization of matter, which vicariously holds those same conscious properties.
The ego, in my view, is a kind of gravitational field that we, as conscious systems, are currently trapped in. The field, which is some result of electrons working in a very complex association with one another, gives the individual the temporary illusion that there's a "me" and an "everything else". Its not unlike how matter, when trapped in a gravitational field, clumps into a ball called a planet and how everything outside of that ball is the rest of the universe. That's one way to look at it I guess.
Anyway, I think there's consciousness or proto-consciousness existent in evrything, and that the complex organization of electrons that forms the human mind, plays off of the different states that proto-mind can exist in. The phenomenon of seeong Red, Green, and Yellow, tasting salty and bitter, feeling happy and sad are all complex diffractions and harmonizations of the protomind. I also think this proto-mind is also the basis of free woll. If matter preceeded consciousness, then there would be no free will. I don't think anything preceeds anything though. I think were as much linked with the governing laws of the universe as the wind or any "external" force is. The conscious phenomenon that drives the actions of the body is, I believe, the very same phenomenon that governs the laws of the universe. Were the laws, and the laws are us.
I hope that fills you in on where I'm coming from. Now based off of the idea that consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe as much as matter is, I believe that when we die, our consciousness doesn't completely dissapear. The current form and organization of it collapses into baser components, just as how the matter in our body doesn't completely dissapear. It just decays into baser elements. ...and it all gets reshaped into new forms based off of whatever path the universe goes on.
Anyway, that's the perspective of consciousness that much of Buddhism, as well as Eastern thought in general, is coming from. I'm sure others can fill you in on what the specific sects say about materialism, but this is much of where Sidhartha's perspective originated from.