Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Kaccāni » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:30 pm

weenid wrote: A corollary of not believing in Buddhist cosmology, specifically Mount Meru, must also mean we should believe in only 2 realms of existence (humans and animals) as opposed to the other 4 realms (hells, hungry ghosts, asuras, gods) which are cosmologically located below and above Mount Meru. This was articulated by Donald Lopez in his book, The Scientific Buddha.
That is a map of consciousness, not earth.

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Indrajala » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:30 pm

Malcolm wrote:Sure, but Babylonian:

Image


http://ufodigest.com/ is not a valid source. :anjali:
tad etat sarvajñānaṃ karuṇāmūlaṃ bodhicittahetukam upāyaparyavasānam iti |
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Kaccāni » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm

orgyen jigmed wrote:According to Karl Popper the discrimination criterion that distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is the principle of falsifiability. Strictly speaking Buddhist Cosmology has not been falsified, and thus it cannot be disproved.
That was Popper's biggest mistake, or the mistake of those who took him ontologically. He didn't notice he's trapped in a circular argument there, or some didn't notice he was only arguing for the sake of science, not ontology. Consider this: He argues along the lines that true is the opposite of false, over an extensive period of time, and the longer the period of non-falsification, the likelier the truth value. But ... and that is the main point ... that needs a definition of "false".

If you're a computer scientist, dealing with programming languages, C particularly, you might remember the following:

#define FALSE 0
#define True (!FALSE)

Same story.

Popper made a stipulative definition what false may be (for the sake of science, and in the same moment he defined truth along with it, following a preset set of logic rules that were accepted in a consensus). Both, his true and false, are only perspectives, how Thomas S. Kuhn pointed out, periods of scientific consensus or disagreement. Although, for the body of science, Popper's definitions are logically consistent. Which is a good thing, for the sake of "normal science", which tries to disprove or elaborate on the current consensus. Until a flaw sets in, things become false, and a new model and consensus must be found. Which happened again and again in the history of science, and will happen again and again. Newton. Tesla. Einstein. Four Elements. Atoms. Standard Model (Quarks). Quantum Field Theory. Loop Quantum Gravity. And now maybe a new particle and questions about gravity will cause re-thinking once more. Same with psychology and medicine: Four humours. Five elements and meridians. Brain as mass of glibber and soul. Phrenology, with brain as machine. Neuronal science, brain as recurrent network of neurons with multiple closures. What next?

But it is a bad thing if you try to create existential truth from Popper's statements. Popper's argument is not one about substance, or at least it should not be.

Human conscisousness is able to take on many perspectives (mirror, diamond, likely: all perspectives which there are secondary causes for (roughly equal to) that can be seen). Some are easier, some more difficult to take on, dependent on the way you grew up and what you experienced up to now (conditioning). The scientific consensus is just one model of many. Undeniably a very practical one when it comes to physics and the understanding of such an abstract description of conventional dynamics. Enables us of tool use that has never been there before. It should be followed and elaborated on.

But ontologically, it's the fallacy of a circular argument.

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:03 pm

Hahah, the illustration is much older than that website and the info is accurate.

But here you go:

Image

And:

http://slideplayer.com/slide/2799874/
Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Sure, but Babylonian:

Image




http://ufodigest.com/ is not a valid source. :anjali:
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Kaccāni » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

So? Animistic maps don't differentiate much between "the world" and "consciousness", as self-similarity (association) is the prevailing operation of "logic" available. Pretty much the same with all that five element association feng shui (although the basic two-circuit dynamics were astoundingly "modern"). Serves some purpose, but shouldn't leave the context it was made in.
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

BuddhaFollower
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by BuddhaFollower » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:09 am

Malcolm wrote:
orgyen jigmed wrote:
Whoever is a Buddhist must believe in Buddhist cosmology.
According to Karl Popper the discrimination criterion that distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is the principle of falsifiability. Strictly speaking Buddhist Cosmology has not been falsified, and thus it cannot be disproved.
Saying something is nonfalsifible is not the same thing as saying something cannot be falsified. For example, where is Mt. Meru on planet Earth?

If you claim that Meru is actually some structure out in space somewhere, where is it? Things that have been falsified in Meru Cosmology are such things as a geocentric orbit, a flat world and so on.

When even the HH Dalai Lama has rhetorically requested Vasubandhu to rewrite the third chapter of the Abhidharmakośa, and masters like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu consistently poke fun at Tibetans who insist on adhering to this outmoded traditional belief, I find it amazing that obtuse westerners insist that literal adherence to this cosmology is somehow something of great value.

If you really believe that the only thing preventing us all from being suffocated by the lethal fumes of the border hells is the ring of iron mountains around the four continents and Meru, honestly I feel a little sorry for you.
Meru cosmology is valid in the lucid dream planes, where Tertons travel the Pure Lands.
Just recognize the conceptualizing mind.

weenid
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 3:33 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by weenid » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:23 am

Malcolm wrote:
Saying something is nonfalsifible is not the same thing as saying something cannot be falsified. For example, where is Mt. Meru on planet Earth?

If you claim that Meru is actually some structure out in space somewhere, where is it? Things that have been falsified in Meru Cosmology are such things as a geocentric orbit, a flat world and so on.
Mount Meru can be Mount Sineru, the North Pole which is the axis mundi of Earth.
Sineru Sumeru as magnetic lines of force WQ original idea satyr.msfc.nasa.gov.gif
Sineru Sumeru as magnetic lines of force WQ original idea satyr.msfc.nasa.gov.gif (58.75 KiB) Viewed 1583 times
https://wisdomquarterly.blogspot.sg/200 ... mundi.html
https://wisdomquarterly.blogspot.sg/200 ... ineru.html

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:04 pm

weenid wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Saying something is nonfalsifible is not the same thing as saying something cannot be falsified. For example, where is Mt. Meru on planet Earth?

If you claim that Meru is actually some structure out in space somewhere, where is it? Things that have been falsified in Meru Cosmology are such things as a geocentric orbit, a flat world and so on.
Mount Meru can be Mount Sineru, the North Pole which is the axis mundi of Earth.
It is true that some Hindus, who had a round earth theory, maintained that Sumeru was at the poles. But that is equally problematical.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Kaccāni » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:51 pm

What's conserved in the Mount Meru model is the "view" of the people, a description of their experience and thinking. Not the geology. Use it as a means to grasp the view, and put it into context with the rest that was written at the time. It's the best guess at following the predominant way of thinking at the time there is. And it suits well other examples of developing mythologies. But in the end, the Enlightenment wave of the time tried to go beyond them.

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Anders » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:44 pm

Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Indrajala wrote:...but the geography of Mt. Meru is really originally an Indo-European idea. You find it throughout Indo-European civilizations.
Maybe so, maybe not.
Norse:

Image
I don't see how nordic mythology fits the bill. It's based on a world tree, not a mountain.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:56 pm

Anders wrote:
Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Maybe so, maybe not.
Norse:

Image
I don't see how nordic mythology fits the bill. It's based on a world tree, not a mountain.
Yes, but it comes from a well reputed site of impeccable credentials...so it must be valid... :roll:
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

BuddhaFollower
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by BuddhaFollower » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:21 pm

All the accounts I have read of tertons flying to Copper Colored Mountain in lucid dreams involves Meru geography.
Just recognize the conceptualizing mind.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Malcolm » Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:53 am

BuddhaFollower wrote:All the accounts I have read of tertons flying to Copper Colored Mountain in lucid dreams involves Meru geography.
Of course, we do not have in dreams the same limitations we have when we are awake.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

pothigai
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:26 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by pothigai » Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:01 am

https://chomsky.info/201401__/

I found this to be quite an interesting reflection on the history of materialist philosophy, along with the philosophy of language, linguistics and epistemology.
ہستی اپنی حباب کی سی ہے
یہ نمائش سراب کی سی ہے

hasti apni habaab ki si hai
yeh numaaish saraab ki si hai

Like a bubble is your existence
This display is like an illusion

- Mir Taqi Mir (1725-1810)

orgyen jigmed
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by orgyen jigmed » Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:58 am

Looking around, I find the perception of beings to be truly amazing:
They fixate on what is not real as real, so that it certainly seems real.
They fixate on confusion where there is no confusion, so that there certainly seems to be confusion.
They reify what is indeterminate as determinate, so that it certainly seems determinate.
They reify what is not so as being so, so that it certainly seems so.
They reify what is untenable as tenable, so that it certainly seems tenable

Ordinary mind is seduced by trivial sense objects in all their variety.
One's useless focus moment by moment extends into a continuum,
as days, months, years, whole lives go by.
Beings are deceived by misconstruing what is not dualistic as dualistic.
- Longchen Rabjam
"If the aspiration for enlightenment is your motivation in coming to see me, there is no remedy except meditative practice. I, too, will only practice." - Zurpoche Sakya Jungne

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Malcolm » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:55 pm

orgyen jigmed wrote:
- Longchen Rabjam
Who also derides those who do not accept empirical conventions...
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Kaccāni » Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:21 pm

pothigai wrote:https://chomsky.info/201401__/

I found this to be quite an interesting reflection on the history of materialist philosophy, along with the philosophy of language, linguistics and epistemology.
Money quote: "They were all in so far genuine Materialists in the sense of ancient Materialism that they made immediate contact a condition of influence"

Consider that, when meditating on the mirror-comparison, two sides of the same, and the immediate contact that is postulated there. The prevailing view was: No cause without immediate contact.

Also nice: The emphasis on moving science away from ontology, not trying to explain the substance, but the observable dynamics.

Best wishes
Kc
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!

User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by catmoon » Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:17 am

That was Popper's biggest mistake, or the mistake of those who took him ontologically. He didn't notice he's trapped in a circular argument there, or some didn't notice he was only arguing for the sake of science, not ontology. Consider this: He argues along the lines that true is the opposite of false, over an extensive period of time, and the longer the period of non-falsification, the likelier the truth value. But ... and that is the main point ... that needs a definition of "false".
Scientific truth has nothing to do with consensus at all - except possibly in the mind of the uneducated public and some conspiracy theorists.

The fellow who has his hands on a consistently predictive model is the one who has a piece of truth in his hands, even if every other scientist in the world disagrees with him.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Wayfarer » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:19 am

Repeatability and peer review are huge parts of scientific practice and they amount to a kind of consensus. There is also a consensus as to what constitutes a valid area of research, and what doesn't, and where the prevailing assumptions are materialist, those who dare challenge it are frequently ostracised. A case in point is Rupert Sheldrake, who is a working scientist but has been typecast as 'new age maverick' due to his theory of morphic resonance, as well as the reception of philosopher Thomas Nagel's last book, as mentioned previously in this thread.

Anyway, because of what has happened in physics itself, the old idea of atomistic materialism has now been thoroughly discredited, and instread materialism now amounts to the kind of general allegiance to what is thought to be 'the scientific worldview'. But strictly speaking, science is an attitude, and a method, and ought not to be in the position of making normative judgements about the world. Especially because at this point in history, it has become evident that even the physical sciences are unable to account for 96% of the total mass~energy of the Universe.

And apart from all that, there have been very critical studies of the repeatability of peer-reviewed scientific research, especially in some areas such as neuro-science and the like (see here for example.
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's mind there are few ~ Suzuki-roshi

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Indrajala » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:15 pm

Repeatability and peer review are huge parts of scientific practice and they amount to a kind of consensus. There is also a consensus as to what constitutes a valid area of research, and what doesn't, and where the prevailing assumptions are materialist, those who dare challenge it are frequently ostracised.
I think part of the reason behind this is the underlying belief in progress. Everything before materialism was clearly wrong and in the past, therefore suggesting an substantial alternative to materialism and the materialist worldview is basically challenging the belief in linear progress. We (apparently) know that psychic phenomena cannot and must not exist, so unlike past peoples who believed otherwise, we're obligated to maintain the truth against infiltration by superstition. Many seem to think scientists are the custodians of truth and the alternative is the 'Dark Ages' or Southern Baptist Creationism.

There's a lot of unstated emotional investment in the narrative of progress.
Wayfarer wrote:A case in point is Rupert Sheldrake, who is a working scientist but has been typecast as 'new age maverick' due to his theory of morphic resonance, as well as the reception of philosopher Thomas Nagel's last book, as mentioned previously in this thread.
Aside from Rupert Sheldrake's experiments, one compelling element in his case is the man himself: very elegant speaker, stoic and generous. He doesn't have that antagonism you see with Richard Dawkins, which is a point in Sheldrake's favor since clearly he is confident enough in his hypothesis and research to not be emotionally compromised.

There's a number of interviews and talks with Sheldrake on youtube that are worth watching.
tad etat sarvajñānaṃ karuṇāmūlaṃ bodhicittahetukam upāyaparyavasānam iti |
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart, KiwiNFLFan, lelopa, MiphamFan, Soar and 48 guests