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.
S9: It is not that science is incapable of providing much of the conventional and more limited wisdom, which is highly useful, if not necessary, to a comfortable life within finitude. It is more that, so often the ‘disciples of science’ outlandishly claim that science has all of the answers, and that there is no other way of knowing anything, which isn’t either some form of foolishness, or outright insanity.
A form of scientific fascism…is that too strong? ; ^ ) kidding
This is my only objection against the scientific zealots.
I worked in medicine (the science of medicine) for many decades, and saw that it was actually in constant flux, adding new or change data constantly, and admitted to being a work in progress.
Anyone who works in medicine and thinks that he has all of the answers already, when he gets out of school, simply isn’t doing his reading of the journals and keeping up with changes. In turn, he may actually be cheating his patients and doing harm through ignorance of these changes. Science in order to be useful to the max, must be flexible.
I believe there are very few people here on this forum that are actually against science. I know that I, personally, am only taking acception with the way that Mat paints the rational with a brush first dipped only into black paint, and than into white paint with a seperate brush entirely, and NEVER gray paint, (rather restictive).
To me such a narrow definition of what is reasonable is cutting Mat off from the deeper forms of Buddhism, Buddhism's vast richness, and that is a real shame. So I try to open his windows and introduce a bit of fresh air into his world view. : ^ ) Isn't this a form of compassion?
It is more that, so often the ‘disciples of science’ outlandishly claim that science has all of the answers, and that there is no other way of knowing anything, which isn’t either some form of foolishness, or outright insanity.
But, that is how it is. In terms of knowing about the workings of the world there is only science. Not philosophy. Not meditation.
That is just what it is, Science is how the world works.
So when you talk about afterlife you are making claims that the world works in ways that science says it cannot and doesn't.
Stay mystical, and that's fine. But you just cannot silence science with mysticism. Its futile:)
A form of scientific fascism…is that too strong? ; ^ ) kidding
I think dharma can be read as saying we need to be fascistic about the truth with ourselves at least:)
I believe there are very few people here on this forum that are actually against science. I know that I, personally, am only taking acception with the way that Mat paints the rational with a brush first dipped only into black paint, and than into white paint with a seperate brush entirely, and NEVER gray paint, (rather restictive).
I doubt everything, you are not prepared to. Where exactly do you expect us to meet in these terms?
To me such a narrow definition of what is reasonable is cutting Mat off from the deeper forms of Buddhism, Buddhism's vast richness, and that is a real shame. So I try to open his windows and introduce a bit of fresh air into his world view. : ^ ) Isn't this a form of compassion?
I am fine, thanks:) I have no doubts about afterlife:)
Assume that you have a self-interested system in a time, space and energy finite possibility space.
Assume that there are other systems competing in this possibility space.
There will thresholds of complexity* beyond which cooperative and altruistic systems will have an increased chance of persistence over the opposite.
This fact in addition to karma is the essence of dharmic morality, it explains why meta exists and has reality.
As I understand it it is also being backed up by studies in the evolution of alturism.
I don't really understand why this would be an issue of contention for Buddhists. Should we not be pleased that dharmic morality can be grounded and that it has evidence in nature?
What is the alternative view? It is that dharmic morality gets its goodness from some permanent universal that is logically incompatible with annica and anataman?
If The Buddha discovered emergent morality two and a half millennia ago then that is a cause for celebration more than argument, surely?
Well wishes:)
mat
I have no real problem with this, Mat, except that it is not based on rational argument but on imaginative assumptions.
So, let's start again, unless you want to notice that, in order to exercise Reason, you must first hypothesise through Imagination (as Hazlitt points out), which suggests that even the most closely-reasoned argument will be founded on a basis of story, where 'story' is a pattern or narrative that we impose on the world around us, translated into words, formulae, etc.
The fact that we would prefer to believe that we have a 'good essence' does not make for a persuasive argument when we look at the evidence of humanity over history: it takes an act of faith. And, once we accept an initial mystery, we are pretty stuffed when we challenge others.
And what is this '"good" essence' of which you speak? Show me rational proof that such a thing exists outside stories told to children.
Look up "evolutionary altruism". You'll find many examples on the net, better get some books on biology or psychology of it. Richard Dawkins writes very well on it, as well as presenting, biological, social and evolutionary evidence for it.
Look up "evolutionary altruism". You'll find many examples on the net, better get some books on biology or psychology of it. Richard Dawkins writes very well on it, as well as presenting, biological, social and evolutionary evidence for it.
Having read Dawkins et al., I am driven to the conclusion that "evolutionary altruism" is yet another story for children based on a false premise of post hoc ergo propter hoc. This does not mean that they are wrong, it simply means that I have yet to see any convincing evidence other than imaginative interpretations of skimpy data.
IMO, "evolutionary altruism" is merely a 'place-marker' for a genuine, verifiable theory, just like, for example, the phlogiston hypothesis or the language instinct. It is justification after the fact. In the case of Dawkins, he appears to want selfish genes (selfish but not self-aware) to produce altruistic humans, thus having his cake long after he has eaten it.
Having read Dawkins et al., I am driven to the conclusion that "evolutionary altruism" is yet another story for children based on a false premise of post hoc ergo propter hoc. This does not mean that they are wrong, it simply means that I have yet to see any convincing evidence other than imaginative interpretations of skimpy data.
Can you tell us what that means please!:)
IMO, "evolutionary altruism" is merely a 'place-marker' for a genuine, verifiable theory, just like, for example, the phlogiston hypothesis or the language instinct.
But dharma explains why it should be so:) Do you really not see that?
Phlogiston is more like rebirth, only there is evidence for phlogiston:)
In the case of Dawkins, he appears to want selfish genes (selfish but not self-aware) to produce altruistic humans, thus having his cake long after he has eaten it.
Its nothing that remarkable that simple behavioural elements should produce complex emergent behaviours the opposite of the simple.
phlogiston hypothesis and evolutionary altruism what a very odd thought. I can see the link with it and dark matter, or the link with the "thingy" that's reborn but is not the soul / self. But evolutionary altruism? Really?
Of course this is a pointless debate, you already shown your hand, putting both science and any poster in there place with the nice statement "yet another story for children".
Having read Dawkins et al., I am driven to the conclusion that "evolutionary altruism" is yet another story for children based on a false premise of post hoc ergo propter hoc. This does not mean that they are wrong, it simply means that I have yet to see any convincing evidence other than imaginative interpretations of skimpy data.
Can you tell us what that means please!
With pleasure.
Following the example of my idol, Spinoza, and contrary to my usual (to some incomprehensible) elliptical approach, I shall "show my workings" as Mrs Kaye used to demand in our Applied Mathematics classes.
Definition/explanation of terms used:
Story for children. This is a term which I have borrowed (and I apologise for omitting the attribution earlier) from Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen (The Science of Discworld Ebury Press. 2000ff). This is a quotation from the Introduction to the first volume:
This human trait doesn't affect what the rules say - not much, anyway - but it does determine which rules we are willing to contemplate in the first place.... Humans think in stories. Classically, at least, science itself has been the discovery of 'stories' - think of all those books that had titles like The Story of Mankind, The Descent of Man, and, if it comes to that, A Brief History of Time./quote]
It seems to me that "evolutionary biology", when it ventures into theories of the mind, weaves stories which are more wish-fulfilling than evidence-led. Wish-fulfilling because we would all like to believe that people are basically good and that the universe is either indifferent or friendly but not inimical to life - despite some evidence to the contrary, which we prefer to ignore.
The use of the word 'story' is not meant to deride or trivialise, nor should it be taken as synonymous with untrue. Like a mosaic, a story, in all its meanings, is a method of assembling diverse pieces (tesserae) to make a picture, or it is an arrangement of jigsaw puzzle pieces to form a recognisable picture. And, of course, the stories have to be changed as new pieces or gaps appear. Science is not unlike a Scrabble game where new and unexpected tiles turn up which, when uncovered, may enable us to change whole 'words' which had previously been put down. Other 'players' will then object and rummage through dictionaries, try out new versions, spread gossip about their rivals, etc. This is called "peer review", a process by which one particular story is agreed upon. It could be argued that the Councils of the Sangha after the Buddha's passing were peer reviews, although an example that included backbiting and murder would be the Council of Nicaea.
On reflection, it might have been better to say that evolutionary altruism is a story that some evolutionary biologists are telling and which awaits peer approval.
The 'evolution' part of it appears to me to be beyond doubt now, passing from hypothesis to theory. There remains much to be studied before we can assert with any degree of confidence what, if any, evolutionary principles and laws apply to mental states.
In the case of Buddha Nature, the way in which this is proposed, as descriptive of the 'essence', does not appear to admit of evolutionary pressure. If, therefore, we consider Buddha Nature to be exempt from the process of evolution, and if we also consider that altruism arises from it, altruism itself would appear to be exempt also.
On a personal note, I would say that something along the lines of the last paragraph approaches my own position. At the same time, I recognise that I am using faculties alongside Reason to arrive at this conclusion. Reason alone cannot, yet, give me reasons for believing it is better to be benevolent than egotistic. Eppur se muove
It seems to me that "evolutionary biology", when it ventures into theories of the mind, weaves stories which are more wish-fulfilling than evidence-led.
Mind evolved. Should we not expect it to be as it seems?
Wish-fulfilling because we would all like to believe that people are basically good and that the universe is either indifferent or friendly but not inimical to life - despite some evidence to the contrary, which we prefer to ignore.
I hadn't thought of that actually.
I think the base state is the assumption of inhernet nuetrality if you look just biologically. The dharmic conditions are what turns the neutral in good (buddha nature), I belive.
Science is not unlike a Scrabble game where new and unexpected tiles turn up which, when uncovered, may enable us to change whole 'words' which had previously been put down.
Sure, but to use your analogy, there is an underlying set of rules and words which remains constant throughout the games. If you were to try to majic anything in scarbble you would just be breaking the rules.:)
It could be argued that the Councils of the Sangha after the Buddha's passing were peer reviews, although an example that included backbiting and murder would be the Council of Nicaea.
It could be argued they were anything, we have no idea if they really happened or if they are anchient mistakes made doctrine and history.
The 'evolution' part of it appears to me to be beyond doubt now, passing from hypothesis to theory. There remains much to be studied before we can assert with any degree of confidence what, if any, evolutionary principles and laws apply to mental states.
As above, if you think the mind evolved, then you seem compelled to believe mental properties will be mundane emergent evolutionary properties.
In the case of Buddha Nature, the way in which this is proposed, as descriptive of the 'essence', does not appear to admit of evolutionary pressure. If, therefore, we consider Buddha Nature to be exempt from the process of evolution, and if we also consider that altruism arises from it, altruism itself would appear to be exempt also.
I dont consider it exempt:)
What is wrong with Buddha nature just being a name for a part of the psyche that is invigorated by dharma? Like ones "heart", "mind", "libedo" or "intellec are all invigorated by other things:)
SimonThePilgrim, sorry I misunderstood the use of your term, I thought you were trying a cleaver/cute putdown.<O:p</O:p
As for ToM I wish my wife (a psychologist whose done a lot on this) would post. Unfortunately she has no time for Buddhism . But something I work with I "feel" (ahhh) that from chaos maths, there is something going on. Chaos always seems to want to become orderly. I think altruism is evolutionary but is somehow linked to Chaos maths. Hope I don't sound to mad here! <O:p</O:p
Thank you for that it was very well put and I enjoyed it. But…there are other ways of viewing this.
S: In the case of Buddha Nature, the way in which this is proposed, as descriptive of the 'essence', does not appear to admit of evolutionary pressure.
S9: I don’t believe that Buddha Nature, or Essence for that matter, would disallow evolutionary stories one little bit, if in fact the material world was just a dream. Essence in that case would be outside of that dream state.
When Buddha “Woke Up,” he stepped beyond the dream state (what some have called the 4th state, the other 3 being sleeping, waking, and deep sleep within the brain).
Buddha had no need to change the dream, manipulate the illusions, much as we no longer indulge in fixing our dreams when we wake up each morning (a metaphor).
S: If, therefore, we consider Buddha Nature to be exempt from the process of evolution, and if we also consider that altruism arises from it, altruism itself would appear to be exempt also.
S9: Yes, of course, because they are entirely different dimensions. Finitude is only temporary. Essence (AKA Buddha Nature) supports the possibility of this dream. This dream is like a river, which flows back into the Ocean (AKA Essence), or a wave that is merely temporary movement, a process.
from Gampopa is a perspective on Buddha nature offered to be of help to readers I feel. He is basicly saying that the Buddha nature is no other than emptiness.
We need to attain unsurpassable enlightenment by freeing ourselves from the confused state of samsara. But, is it possible for inferior persons like ourselves to achieve enlightenment even if we make the effort? Why wouldn't we attain enlightenment if we made the effort! All sentient beings, including ourselves, already possess the primary cause for enlightenment, the Essence of the Well-gone-One. As is stated in the King of Meditative Absorption sutra
The essence of the Well-gone-One pervades all migrators.
The Small Parinirvana Sutra says:
All sentient beings have the Essence of the Thus-gone-One.
Also, the Sutra of the Great Parinirvana says:
For example, as butter permeates milk, likewise the Essence of the Thus-gone One pervades all sentient beings.
And in the Ornament of Mahayana Sutra:
Even though suchness is not different for any being, One is called "Thus-gone One" when it is fully purified. Therefore, all beings are of its essence.
By what meaning can it be shown that sentient beings have Buddhanature? Because all sentient beings are pervaded by the emptiness of Dharmakaya, because there are no differentiations in the nature of suchness, all because all sentient beings have a "family". For these reasons, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature. The unsurpassed Tantra says:
Because the perfect form of the Buddha radiates,
Because there are no distictions within suchness, and
Because all are in a "family,"
All sentient beings are always of the Essence of Enlightenment.
To explain the first reason, "all sentient beings are pervaded of the emptiness of Dharmakaya" means that the ultimate Buddhahood is Dharmakaya, Dharmakaya is all-pervading emptiness, and emptiness pervades all sentient beings. Therefore, all sentient beings are of the Buddha nature.
Saying "there are no differentiations in the nature of suchness" means that the suchness of a Buddha is identical to the suchness of sentient beings. None is better or worse; none is bigger or smaller; none is higher or lower. So, because of that, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature.
"All beings have a 'family' means that all sentient beings can be categorized into the five families of the Buddha. What are they? The summary:
The disconnected family, the indefinite family,
The Hearer family, the Solitary Realizer family, and
The Mahayana family-
These are the five families of the Buddha.
Comments
T: Here we go again, the science attack.
S9: It is not that science is incapable of providing much of the conventional and more limited wisdom, which is highly useful, if not necessary, to a comfortable life within finitude. It is more that, so often the ‘disciples of science’ outlandishly claim that science has all of the answers, and that there is no other way of knowing anything, which isn’t either some form of foolishness, or outright insanity.
A form of scientific fascism…is that too strong? ; ^ ) kidding
This is my only objection against the scientific zealots.
I worked in medicine (the science of medicine) for many decades, and saw that it was actually in constant flux, adding new or change data constantly, and admitted to being a work in progress.
Anyone who works in medicine and thinks that he has all of the answers already, when he gets out of school, simply isn’t doing his reading of the journals and keeping up with changes. In turn, he may actually be cheating his patients and doing harm through ignorance of these changes. Science in order to be useful to the max, must be flexible.
I believe there are very few people here on this forum that are actually against science. I know that I, personally, am only taking acception with the way that Mat paints the rational with a brush first dipped only into black paint, and than into white paint with a seperate brush entirely, and NEVER gray paint, (rather restictive).
To me such a narrow definition of what is reasonable is cutting Mat off from the deeper forms of Buddhism, Buddhism's vast richness, and that is a real shame. So I try to open his windows and introduce a bit of fresh air into his world view. : ^ ) Isn't this a form of compassion?
Respectfully,
S9
But, that is how it is. In terms of knowing about the workings of the world there is only science. Not philosophy. Not meditation.
That is just what it is, Science is how the world works.
So when you talk about afterlife you are making claims that the world works in ways that science says it cannot and doesn't.
Stay mystical, and that's fine. But you just cannot silence science with mysticism. Its futile:)
I think dharma can be read as saying we need to be fascistic about the truth with ourselves at least:)
I doubt everything, you are not prepared to. Where exactly do you expect us to meet in these terms?
I am fine, thanks:) I have no doubts about afterlife:)
Metta
Mat
I have no real problem with this, Mat, except that it is not based on rational argument but on imaginative assumptions.
So, let's start again, unless you want to notice that, in order to exercise Reason, you must first hypothesise through Imagination (as Hazlitt points out), which suggests that even the most closely-reasoned argument will be founded on a basis of story, where 'story' is a pattern or narrative that we impose on the world around us, translated into words, formulae, etc.
The fact that we would prefer to believe that we have a 'good essence' does not make for a persuasive argument when we look at the evidence of humanity over history: it takes an act of faith. And, once we accept an initial mystery, we are pretty stuffed when we challenge others.
Look up "evolutionary altruism". You'll find many examples on the net, better get some books on biology or psychology of it. Richard Dawkins writes very well on it, as well as presenting, biological, social and evolutionary evidence for it.
Having read Dawkins et al., I am driven to the conclusion that "evolutionary altruism" is yet another story for children based on a false premise of post hoc ergo propter hoc. This does not mean that they are wrong, it simply means that I have yet to see any convincing evidence other than imaginative interpretations of skimpy data.
IMO, "evolutionary altruism" is merely a 'place-marker' for a genuine, verifiable theory, just like, for example, the phlogiston hypothesis or the language instinct. It is justification after the fact. In the case of Dawkins, he appears to want selfish genes (selfish but not self-aware) to produce altruistic humans, thus having his cake long after he has eaten it.
Can you tell us what that means please!:)
But dharma explains why it should be so:) Do you really not see that?
Phlogiston is more like rebirth, only there is evidence for phlogiston:)
Its nothing that remarkable that simple behavioural elements should produce complex emergent behaviours the opposite of the simple.
Mat
Of course this is a pointless debate, you already shown your hand, putting both science and any poster in there place with the nice statement "yet another story for children".
With pleasure.
Following the example of my idol, Spinoza, and contrary to my usual (to some incomprehensible) elliptical approach, I shall "show my workings" as Mrs Kaye used to demand in our Applied Mathematics classes.
Definition/explanation of terms used:
Story for children. This is a term which I have borrowed (and I apologise for omitting the attribution earlier) from Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen (The Science of Discworld Ebury Press. 2000ff). This is a quotation from the Introduction to the first volume:
Thanks for the explanation:)
To the discussion...
Mind evolved. Should we not expect it to be as it seems?
I hadn't thought of that actually.
I think the base state is the assumption of inhernet nuetrality if you look just biologically. The dharmic conditions are what turns the neutral in good (buddha nature), I belive.
Sure, but to use your analogy, there is an underlying set of rules and words which remains constant throughout the games. If you were to try to majic anything in scarbble you would just be breaking the rules.:)
It could be argued they were anything, we have no idea if they really happened or if they are anchient mistakes made doctrine and history.
As above, if you think the mind evolved, then you seem compelled to believe mental properties will be mundane emergent evolutionary properties.
I dont consider it exempt:)
What is wrong with Buddha nature just being a name for a part of the psyche that is invigorated by dharma? Like ones "heart", "mind", "libedo" or "intellec are all invigorated by other things:)
We are all just stardust,
Mat
As for ToM I wish my wife (a psychologist whose done a lot on this) would post. Unfortunately she has no time for Buddhism
Palzang
Thank you for that it was very well put and I enjoyed it. But…there are other ways of viewing this.
S: In the case of Buddha Nature, the way in which this is proposed, as descriptive of the 'essence', does not appear to admit of evolutionary pressure.
S9: I don’t believe that Buddha Nature, or Essence for that matter, would disallow evolutionary stories one little bit, if in fact the material world was just a dream. Essence in that case would be outside of that dream state.
When Buddha “Woke Up,” he stepped beyond the dream state (what some have called the 4th state, the other 3 being sleeping, waking, and deep sleep within the brain).
Buddha had no need to change the dream, manipulate the illusions, much as we no longer indulge in fixing our dreams when we wake up each morning (a metaphor).
S: If, therefore, we consider Buddha Nature to be exempt from the process of evolution, and if we also consider that altruism arises from it, altruism itself would appear to be exempt also.
S9: Yes, of course, because they are entirely different dimensions. Finitude is only temporary. Essence (AKA Buddha Nature) supports the possibility of this dream. This dream is like a river, which flows back into the Ocean (AKA Essence), or a wave that is merely temporary movement, a process.
Respectfully,
S9