A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Abhidharma asserts a material objective condition. Substitute consciousness with energy and you are very close to what some materialists posit. Depersonalize consciousness and really what you have is energy.
The Blessed One said:
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Andrew108 wrote:Abhidharma asserts a material objective condition. Substitute consciousness with energy and you are very close to what some materialists posit. Depersonalize consciousness and really what you have is energy.
Yes, that is why the Abhidharmika perspective of realism is negated by higher tenet systems. Nevertheless, without understanding Abhidharma, one will not understand the object of negation of higher tenet systems, and one will also not understand how it is that modern physics and so on is also subject to the same refutations.
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
PS The Dark Ages was a historical period from 500-1500AD, the five elements model is much older than that. In India it predated Buddhism (that puts it somewhere before 500BC). In Europe it was developed by Pre-Socratic philosophers (physicists-naturalists), so that places it around 500-600BC. So quite clearly, historically, it has NOTHING to do with the Dark Ages, though it did influence Middle Ages philosophy.Sherab Dorje wrote:If you consider Buddhism "Dark Ages" then yes, welcome back.oushi wrote:Dark Ages, welcome back!
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
You have to understand, here, most people consider anything before the invention of the internet the dark ages.Sherab Dorje wrote:PS The Dark Ages was a historical period from 500-1500AD, the five elements model is much older than that. In India it predated Buddhism (that puts it somewhere before 500BC). In Europe it was developed by Pre-Socratic philosophers (physicists-naturalists), so that places it around 500-600BC. So quite clearly, historically, it has NOTHING to do with the Dark Ages, though it did influence Middle Ages philosophy.Sherab Dorje wrote:If you consider Buddhism "Dark Ages" then yes, welcome back.oushi wrote:Dark Ages, welcome back!
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Nice.You have to understand, here, most people consider anything before the invention of the internet the dark ages.
Actually I put it as anything before the smartphone. How did we ever live without it?
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Well, no, that would be the Renaissance. The invention of the smart phone was the Enlightenment.smcj wrote:Nice.You have to understand, here, most people consider anything before the invention of the internet the dark ages.
Actually I put as anything before the smartphone. How did we ever live without it?
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Indeed. A Buddhist view has a certain value viz. Buddhist practice, no?Malcolm wrote:You cannot use the periodic table of elements to achieve rainbow however, or to immolate yourself as Ananda did by entering the fire element, in order to save lay people from the hassle of dealing with his death.Jikan wrote:Good question, shel. Here's my attempt at an answer:
I'd understood the five elements generally to be a set of categories for understanding the phenomena of the world--names for specific bandwidth a thing might occupy, so to speak. It's possible to understand matter through the lens of the periodic chart; it's possible to understand phenomenal experience through the lens of the five elements, just as one can use the skandhas as a way to understand the components of one's experience of oneself.
My point was that for mundane purposes, one hermeneutic is just as good as another. if one insists on a mundane view, as I think shel seems to, then either of these mundane views (that of the elements in a vulgar sense or the periodic chart you learned in the 7th grade) may be acceptable.
Back to the broader point, I think it's important for all of us to remember that the Buddha Dharma is taught in the way it's taught because it has some value in advancing people in practice, including some aspects that seem extraneous or hard to wrap one's mind around, as in the case of the 5 elements.
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Indeed, it is a pity so few understand this.Jikan wrote:
Indeed. A Buddhist view has a certain value viz. Buddhist practice, no?
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
I understood the five elements to be aids for practice. If I try to theorize them, I get very confused.
They perhaps help to show the emptiness, i.e. lack of inherency of even apparently objective material objects like a hunk of rock, a chemical reaction, or the periodic table.
That we can stick very refined numbers on things these days has made the position of an inherent physicality external to us difficult to examine critically.
I find the five elements to be just such a skillful means.
Namu Amida Butsu
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
My question, which as far as I can tell hasn't been addressed, was what is the fundamental difference between these two hermeneutics?Jikan wrote:My point was that for mundane purposes, one hermeneutic is just as good as another. if one insists on a mundane view, as I think shel seems to, then either of these mundane views (that of the elements in a vulgar sense or the periodic chart you learned in the 7th grade) may be acceptable.
And I don't insist on any particular view. Why would I? I just don't see the fundamental difference between the two models. It seems to me that if there were a fundamental difference, and someone understood what that fundamental difference was, they could easily explain it.
Or maybe it's just tradition. Can you, for instance, immolate yourself using the five element model to spare your friends the cost of cremation? I'm thinking probably not, right? That doesn't mean the Ananda story doesn't have significant meaning for practitioners.Back to the broader point, I think it's important for all of us to remember that the Buddha Dharma is taught in the way it's taught because it has some value in advancing people in practice,
I don't see what's hard to wrap ones mind around.including some aspects that seem extraneous or hard to wrap one's mind around, as in the case of the 5 elements.
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
IMO, it is not applicable to make these comparisons between the 5 elements and physical science, the outlook of the former primarily correlating to one's personal experience of phenomena. An example for those reading this:Malcolm wrote: So, solidity can be measured in a modern element by its atomic weight and so on. Matter does not remain in one form, it moves through three phases depending on the presence or absence of heat. The three phases of matter with heat governing phase transition is merely a modern way of recasting the four elements. However, it is not as comprehensive as the four or five element model.
http://www.abhidhamma.org/Rupa%201.htm
The Element of Earth (in Pali: pathavi dhatu), which has been translated into English as “solidity” or “extension”, has the characteristic of hardness or softness. It can be directly experienced when we touch something hard or soft.
...
As to function, rupas have functions in relation to other rupas or in relation to nama. Solidity acts as a foundation, namely for the other rupas it arises together with in a group, that is its function. Smell, for example, could not arise alone, it needs solidity as foundation. It is the same with visible object or colour which can be experienced through the eyesense. Visible object or colour needs solidity as foundation or support, it could not arise alone. Solidity which arises together with visible object cannot be seen, only visible object can be seen. As regards manifestation, this is the way a reality habitually appears. Solidity is manifested as receiving, it receives the other rupas it arises together with since it acts as their foundation.
...
The element of water or cohesion cannot be experienced through the bodysense, only through the mind-door. When we touch what we call water, it is only solidity, temperature or motion which can be experienced through the bodysense, not cohesion. Cohesion has to arise together with whatever kind of materiality arises. It makes the other rupas it accompanies cohere so that they do not become scattered.
...
The element of heat or temperature can be experienced through the bodysense and it appears as heat or cold. Cold is a lesser degree of heat. The element of heat accompanies all kinds of materiality which arises, rupas of the body and materiality outside. It maintains or matures them. The element of heat is one of the four factors which produce rupas of the body. Kamma produces rupa from the first moment of life and after that temperature also starts to produce rupas of the body.
...
The element of wind or motion arises with all kinds of materiality, both of the body and outside the body. There is also motion with dead matter, such as a pot. It performs its function so that the pot holds its shape and does not collapse.
...
We should remember that the element of water or cohesion cannot be experienced through the bodysense, only through the mind-door, and that the elements of earth, fire and wind can be directly experienced through the bodysense. The element of earth appears as hardness or softness, the element of fire as heat or cold and the element of wind as motion or pressure.
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Which higher tenets negate Abhidharma's realist perspective? If we follow your views on textual criticism we would have to accept that Abhidharma was taught by the Buddha or at least is representative of what the Buddha wanted his followers to understand. Scholars believe that earliest Abhidharma came about in 300 BCE. Still these teachings are close to how Buddhism was presented originally. But I think only some later Buddhist developments negated Abhidharma. I'm not sure that Dzogchen (which you think is 90% a Tibetan invention) for instance negates the realism as outlined in early Buddhist Abhidharma.Malcolm wrote:Andrew108 wrote:Abhidharma asserts a material objective condition. Substitute consciousness with energy and you are very close to what some materialists posit. Depersonalize consciousness and really what you have is energy.
Yes, that is why the Abhidharmika perspective of realism is negated by higher tenet systems. Nevertheless, without understanding Abhidharma, one will not understand the object of negation of higher tenet systems, and one will also not understand how it is that modern physics and so on is also subject to the same refutations.
On the whole I think you have misunderstood 'scientific materialism'. But that is o.k because there are a few varieties. Perhaps in your mind you equate materialism with a view that is nihilist or simply a view that reduces all to the physical. Not all materialism is like this. The materialism in the Abhidharma texts being a case in point.
The Blessed One said:
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Since we are relying on Abhidharma here, this not really the case. For example, Vasubandhu writes:Lotus_Bitch wrote:Malcolm wrote:Lotus_Bitch wrote: IMO, it is not applicable to make these comparisons between the 5 elements and physical science, the outlook of the former primarily correlating to one's personal experience of phenomena. An example for those reading this:
- The so-called four great elements [mahābhūta] are great for the reason that they support all other matter [rūpa].
Clearly, in this instance the four elements are merely describing some category of perception.
Nor is it the case that they are doing so in the Garbhāvakrānti-sūtra:
- In the same way, since those four great elements mutually support and maintain one another, for that reason, the bodies in the oval stage arise because of the cause of the four great elements of the male, the female and the karmic wind.
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is a good (easily accessible) example of a rather extensive critique or refutation of Abhidharmic principles.Andrew108 wrote:Which higher tenets negate Abhidharma's realist perspective?
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
Yogacara and Madhyamaka of course.Andrew108 wrote:
Which higher tenets negate Abhidharma's realist perspective?
The Sarvastivada tradition, the dominant Indian school in this regard, maintains that Abhidharma was not directly taught by the Buddha, but rather by senior Arhats such as Śāriputra and so on, in such texts as the Saṇgīti-paryaya, the Dharma-skandha and so on. So we can accept that Abhidharma sketches what the śravaka Sangha in India understood to be the Buddha's intention. Of course, the views of the Sarvastivadins were challenged by the Sautrantikas, a slightly higher position represented by the autocommentary on Vasubandhu's Kośakarikas.If we follow your views on textual criticism we would have to accept that Abhidharma was taught by the Buddha or at least is representative of what the Buddha wanted his followers to understand.
It does so most completely and thoroughly in countless texts, beginning for example in Sems sde.I'm not sure that Dzogchen for instance negates the realism as outlined in early Buddhist Abhidharma.
Abhidharma is realist, not materialist.The materialism in the Abhidharma texts being a case in point.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
…with the caveat that Malcolm considers Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka to be realist--in a sense. Tshongkahapa does not accept the Pali Abhidharma's view that atoms are real for instance.Malcolm wrote:Yogacara and Madhyamaka of course.Andrew108 wrote:Which higher tenets negate Abhidharma's realist perspective?
I don't agree that Tshongkahapa is a "realist", but I can't argue the point effectively.
I'm not into Dzogchen, but that sounds like you've missed the point. You might want to review the material. Dzogchen view is pretty out-there.I'm not sure that Dzogchen for instance negates the realism as outlined in early Buddhist Abhidharma.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
[quote="smcj"]
…with the caveat that Malcolm considers Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka to be realist--in a sense. Tshongkahapa does not accept the Pali Abhidharma's view that atoms are real for instance.[/quote[]
It tends towards realism because Tsongkhapa makes great pains not to violate ordinary people's sense of what is conventionally termed "real".
But of course Tsongkhapa is not realist in the sense that A108 is a realist.
…with the caveat that Malcolm considers Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka to be realist--in a sense. Tshongkahapa does not accept the Pali Abhidharma's view that atoms are real for instance.[/quote[]
It tends towards realism because Tsongkhapa makes great pains not to violate ordinary people's sense of what is conventionally termed "real".
But of course Tsongkhapa is not realist in the sense that A108 is a realist.
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
I think the real issue here is that I have had the temerity to challenge your authority and the religious dogma you are invested in. It seems very important to you that you have the last word in any given debate on Dharma Wheel. Now that I have questioned the literal intepretation of ancient Buddhist texts I have been cast in the role of a Materialist.Malcolm wrote:Of course there is. Just take off your materialist blinders and look around you.Wayfarer wrote:
There is not one scintilla of evidence for the existence of the 'five elements', which is a primitive form of physics that dates back to before the Common Era.
I understand that you do not have allegiance to scientific materialism, but nevertheless, you have adopted it as your worldview and conceptual framework.And I don't for a minute accept the idea that if you criticize it, that makes you 'a materialist'.
By doing so you have for example invalidated kashina meditation and the results that arise from it and so on. There are many, many negative consequences to abandoning the Buddha's teaching on the five elements.
I am not hurt, but surprised, because I expected better.Sherab Dorje wrote: can quite easily go into an analysis of each element of the periodic table based on the ratios present of each of the five elements. Would that convince you? Would that be evidence enough? Probably not. Mainly because you consider the five element model archaic, primitive and outdated, surpassed by the periodic model. That means that you prefer the periodic paradigm (a materialist paradigm) over the five element paradigm (a Buddhist paradigm, and qualitative to boot). So, weirdly enough, that makes you a materialist in regards to the subject at hand.
The periodic table is neither materialist, Buddhist, nor idealist, any more than the times table or the alphabet or the laws of the land. Recognizing the elements of the periodic table does not in any way mean 'acceptance of the materialist paradigm'. Hey, Max Planck, one of the leading physicists of the modern age, argued against materialism his entire life. So did many others.
Furthemore, scientific progress has done immense amounts to relieve human suffering - many of us would not even be here were it not for medicine. Of course science is also responsible for atomic weapons and nerve gas and many other horrible things, but that doesn't invalidate science. People can use religion to justify pretty horrible things too.
I am taking a break from Dharma Forum. I've enjoyed it, but it becomes habit-forming, and I have other things that need attention.
So long for now.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
That's why I like it!Malcolm wrote: It tends towards realism because Tsongkhapa makes great pains not to violate ordinary people's sense of what is conventionally termed "real".
That's why I like it!Wayfarer wrote:I am taking a break from Dharma Forum. I've enjoyed it, but it becomes habit-forming…
We'll yeah, there's always that. Sorry to see you go.... and I have other things that need attention.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: A Physicalist Theory of Mind
The real issues is that when it is pointed out to you that your stated opinions render harm to such phenomena as the results of kashina meditation and so on, not to mention the attainment of rainbow body, etc., what is your response? To flee.Wayfarer wrote: I think the real issue here is that I have had the temerity to challenge your authority and the religious dogma you are invested in. It seems very important to you that you have the last word in any given debate on Dharma Wheel. Now that I have questioned the literal intepretation of ancient Buddhist texts I have been cast in the role of a Materialist.
Ok.
M