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.
What is a materialist
KaldenYungdrung
Netherlands Explorer
Materialists would be persons who see in matter the first principle.
Materialists are not convinced about reincarnation and karma
- So materialists can never practice or understand Buddha Dharma?
Best wishes
KY
1
Comments
use 'never' is too harsh?
there is a possibility one day materialist too come to understand Buddha Dharma
We're all materialistic to one extent or another, although as Buddhists, we understand the undeniable concept of NOT clinging, grasping or forming excessive and exaggerated attachments; it is still a difficult thing to practise.
We get there, by and by, until we die. Then, we have no choice BUT to release and abandon whatever level of materialism we might still have.
So what is Buddhism, philosophically speaking? Dualism? I think Yogacara was the only idealist school?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#In_Buddhist_philosophy
Buddhist / Buddhism, are no nihilists and also no eternalists.
Philosophically speaking Buddhism is the Middle Way between these 2 extreme visions.
Best wishes
KY
I am not interested in whether or not one is reborn. I find the whole issue irrelevant, an unnecessary distraction from what is central to the Dhamma: how to live a good life here and now. If there is rebirth and a law of karma, then this would surely be the best way to prepare for a future life. But if there is not, then one has lived optimally here and now. Moreover, this very point is explicitly made by the Buddha himself in the Kalama Sutta.
Stephen Bachelor (a Buddhist)
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhisms-new-rationalists/
As a cherry picking Buddhist, I tend to be pragmatic. Personally I find a limited but useful teaching in karma; cause and effect is apparant. I find little evidence for and have little interest in reincarnation. I find atheists, theists, scientists, policewomen, materialists, socialists, ice cream fanatics, reincarnated llamas and the ignorant can practice and find dharma useful ...
That doesn't answer my question.
Indeed if we die we do not need a suitcase. Buddhists are maybe to some extent materialists but they know it and see it as a mistake if this materialism or ego clinging to matter, becomes too strong.
KY
Attachment to things and people is not wrong. Dependence upon them to create an ideal, Is.
Clinging applies to all five aggregates, not just form.
No awareness of to be attached that is wrong.
To have awareness of the attachment and not reacting is also wrong (gambling)
Attachment is general wrong because it does not stop and accumulates / speeds up the process of illusions etc.
Attachment to little money can result in the never ending thirst for more etc.
One should take attachment to the roots and not only by the branches.
KY
"What is a materialist"
Madonna ???
Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo (official)
Sorry but what is the meaning here regarding your message in relation to the topic, "What is a materialist" ?
Hi Kalden, I was thinking of materialism in the sense of wanting to gain rather than the idea of thoughts not being eminations or reductions of brain activity such as synapses firing.
This talk about materialism reminds me of a story a Vietnamese monk told on youtube.
There was this man who had a dog that kept guarding a tree, he didn't know why so he asked this monk, and apparently this monk had great powers. The monk told the man that the dog was the man's father in previous life and that he buried a jar of gold next to the tree. So when his father died unwilling to let go of the thought of owning this jar of gold reincarnated as a dog to guard this jar of gold. At first the man didn't believe the monk but after some digging, he found a jar of gold. So the man believed in the monk and became his student/disciple.
Materialists are folks presently unable to live in accord with the four seals of Buddhism.
Their attachments to "things" prevent them from seeing that...
Yes materialists speeds up the attachment to matter , because out of matter is all derived. For them is attachment to matter and the satisfaction of it and the hunting after it, the core of their live.
But remarkable is that they do not believe in reincarnation and karma.
Because of that they never can practice Buddha Dharma.
Mostly they are atheists and if one comes to close to their properties etc. they can declare war very easy.
Well one can say but Buddhists can do the same.
Ok but the difference is that a Buddhist can get insight in his behaviour and change that according the Dharma.
The materialist does know only one way.
Nevertheless a materialist can become a Buddhist and a Buddhist a materialist.
Best wishes
KY
It depends to what extent you define attachment, of course.....
In regards to who can be a Buddhist I think @how is on point. Buddhism's own definition of what is Buddhism are the 4 (or 3 depending who you ask) marks of existence and there really isn't anything in there about the sort of material/immaterial metaphysics of reality.
This question got me thinking because the concept doesn't seem to be addressed directly very often.
There were atomist philosophers in ancient India who were similar in philosophical terms to modern day materialists (I prefer the term physicalist which avoids confusion with the other meaning of materialism). This idea was rejected by Buddhist philosophers so Buddhists aren't physicalists.
Then there was the Yogacara school which were "mind only" idealists. Madhyamika rejects this notion too.
Maybe in everyday sort of dealings I suppose most traditional Buddhism would probably fall into some sort of dualism when they talk about the nature of mind its seen, apart from the senses, as not generated by the brain. Then there is the belief that the mind survives the death of the body to be reborn in another life.
But in Madhyamaka there is negation of all 4 possible forms of being (a tetralemma), existing, not existing, both existing and not existing and neither existing nor not existing.
Also throw in the two truths doctrine and it gets even more confusing.
So, I guess I would say that practically traditional Buddhism would be dualistic. But the philosophically rigorous answer would be, what? Emptinessists?
Yogacara is also based on Madyamaka and Nagarjuna. A lot of concise information can be found in Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche's book Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness. Cittamatra (mind only) predates Madyamaka and Nagarjuna but Shentong (empty other) is a refinement of cittamatra that is in light of Madyamaka and Nagarjuna. Book I mentioned is likely more useful than Wikipedia.
Indeed. Many thanks
Ideas and dharma can be clutter, much as mind states, experiences, dogma etc
Who would have thought ... and without the components and means even less so ...
Which eventually includes satisfactory and unsatisfactory constructions ...
Tee hee. Not sure which is more real or more empty ...
Samsara is Nirvana? Good gracious - beginners mind and far shore are just a blink away, tsk tsk ... who would have thought ... maybe best not to ...
Good luck with that.
^^ Traditionally in TB there are three motivations for practice: 1 to be happy in this life, 2 to end the wheel of birth and death, and 3 to liberate all beings to complete enlightenment.
So for the first motivation you do not need any belief in reincarnation.
I think the basic options philosophically are monism, dualism and idealism.
Materialism is a type of monism.
Oh dear. In the next life I am destined to become a dog chasing an ice-cream van.
I should be so lucky
hehe that's a funny photo, if the dog knew his pooped had to be scooped up by him wouldn't he just poop where it's meant to go...or is that some other dog's poop?
Other dog's poos .........
Yeah, I suppose talk of the "stuff" that makes up the universe falls in the realm of the conventional so talk of emptiness is probably tangential.
So my understanding is that materialism is based on empiricism. That is, the development of the scientific method in determining what we know and how we know it. And all we've been able to observe and measure has been physical stuff... kind of. To some, including myself, what has never been observed is another's mind. We can observe and measure brain states and each of us has our own internal experience. But no one has ever seen or measured the inner experience of another. In philosophical terms this has been called the hard problem of consciousness. Another being, or perhaps an artificial intelligence could show all the same indications of being conscious, even report being conscious but they lack a mind, that kind of being is called a philosophical zombie. Materialism has the strength of science backing it up but has no explanation for how matter gives rise to conscious experience (qualia). I've heard materialist philosophers, like Daniel Dennet, and some neuroscientists deal with consciousness by dismissing it as an illusion or some kind of evolutionary side effect.
The problem with dualism though is how does an immaterial consciousness effect the molecules and atoms in the brain? I've heard that the Dalai Lama in his talks with scientists has asked about this issue and wondered if there was some experiment or some kind of scientifically based hypothesis for how it could happen. In reading some about this topic when it came up here I came across an interesting form of ancient Indian dualism called Samkhya. They avoid the problem of mind influencing matter by including mind and thought in the material stuff of the universe. The immaterial portion seems to have no causal effect on the world, it only acts like a light of sorts, illuminating the intellect through some kind of fusion or interaction with matter.
I'm not that familiar with idealism. To me the flaw seems to be that matter interacts and creates lasting causes and effects even when there is no one around to observe it, like the early creation of the universe or solar system. Maybe they have some reason to explain that, idk.
For myself the crux of the issue resides in the nature of consciousness. Can science eventually come up with an explanation for the arising of mind, they don't even have the first notion at present. Or is mind a sort of subtle fundamental particle of the universe? My inclination is to lean toward the Samkhya view but the truth is consciousness is at present a very unresolved issue.
Very interesting @person many thanks. A lot to ponder.
Science will have to explore consciousness increasingly. At the moment people cling to their zombie devices, phones and the like as sensory augmentation.
That change will contine as VR, AI, sensory drones, augmented reality and memory and enhanced processing, interfaces with humanity. As this develops, what constitutes consciousness and persona will need to be addressed. Buddhists will be in a unique position to offer experience and insight. A lot of Buddhist superstitions will be explored ... and dropped. Science and knowledge will expand and so will dharma. The only casuality will be ignorance.
Long Live Maitreya AI (not yet available)
I think empirically consciousness behaves like an emergent property of the brain. I'm not aware of any credible evidence for it being a discreet element. But who knows?
I'd argue that it isn't empirical. There is complete correlation between brain states and conscious reporting but correlation isn't the same as causation, mind as an emergent property of the brain is still an assumption, a logical and appropriate one, but an assumption. Also, the idea that anyone has inner experience at all isn't empirical, there isn't any way to observe or test for it. I can say for certain that I am conscious but how do I know that everyone else isn't a philosophical zombie?
And no there isn't any credible evidence for consciousness as a discreet element, it is more of a belief based on anecdotal testimony from experienced mystics and a lack of explanation from science.
We know that peoples' state of mind can be easily and predictably altered by any number of drugs which affect the electro-chemical behaviour of the brain, and also there are experiments like this: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/23338/scientists-can-mind-wipe-the-belief-in-god. I think such correlations are just too strong and consistent to be interpreted as anything other than causal.
Another other way to alter state of mind / consciousness is through meditative practices. These are inherently subjective experiences but there is a tendency to project them out, to assume they correspond to something objective "out there". It's possible that they do, of course, but I wonder whether the assumption of a mystical or religious dimension is more wishful thinking than objective analysis.
For example, are the formless jhanas just meditative states, or do they involve accessing actual dimensions beyond our own? There are different ways of interpreting this stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyāna_in_Buddhism#The_Arupa_Jh.C4.81nas
I think such correlations are just too strong and consistent to be interpreted as anything other than causal.
That is the going assumption, and it makes sense.
There are several scenarios that would explain %100 correlation.
Brain -> causes -> mind
or
Mind -> causes -> brain
or
Some third factor -> causes -> both mind and brain
or
Mind and Brain are just two different facets of one phenomena, like the convex and concave sides of semi circle.
The hard problem of consciousness isn't about the correlations, about how you can influence the brain to affect the mind. Its about why and how there is a mind at all, why doesn't the activity of the brain occur in the dark so to say.
I didn't see this edited bit this morning. I would word it differently than wishful thinking, I would say that in the absence of any sort of empirical evidence about the nature and origin of consciousness I don't see anything illogical about taking the mystical view over the materialist view. If knowledge changes in the future or I hear some compelling argument I could change my view but until then I feel confident where I am.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that some of yesterday's mysticism is today's materialism, no?
I don't think mind and brain are causes of one or another but I have a feeling the brain has evolved to better receive mind.
Pharmaceutical and psychological changes to the physical brain could hinder that process and make it seem as if mind is a creation of the brain.
So do have you have a personal theory of consciousness, and if so, what is it based on?
I'd go with something like the Samkhya view I described earlier. I see it like a movie projector, the brain is like the film doing its thing creating colors, shapes, words, but needs the projector bulb to illuminate it into conscious awareness.
I think that view preserves what neuroscience has found about brain functions while at the same time includes what the Tibetans describe as the fundamental nature of the mind as clear light, luminous and knowing, or as a mirror that reflects all that appears before it without effecting it. Also since it is always and everywhere present in our waking lives it could be said to be completely ordinary like is also said by Buddhists.
I imagine I'm in the minority view, science couldn't agree on that and everything I've heard from Buddhism seems to view the brain as more like a radio receiver for the mind.