A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
Hmmm. The earth goes around the sun. The world is not flat, nor is it composed of four symmetrical continents with a giant mountain in the middle. There are 98+ physical elements, not four. I do not think we can safely ignore these things, or use the broom of phenomenology to sweep them under the carpet.dharmagoat wrote:Science by its own admission does not 'prove' anything, so we are safe.
What an impoverished view of scientists! What about all those 18th and 18th Century old dead white guys for whom enlightenment = reason?catmoon wrote:Scientists do not speak about enlightenment. Unless it's their day off and they've had a few too many beers anyhow. If someone is making authoritative statements about enlightenment, they are by definition not a scientist.
I was surprised to read that last statement. I always assumed that presentation of karma in Universe was for the sake of the scientists. I have always thought of both karma and pratītyasamutpāda as "special theory" cases of a "general theory" of causation.Tom wrote:...a quote from, The Universe in a Single Atom,
"By invoking karma here, I am not suggesting that according to Buddhism everything is a function of karma. We must distinguish between the operation of the natural law of causality, by which once a certain set of conditions are put in motion they will have a certain set of effects, and the law of karma, by which an intentional act will reap certain fruits. So, for example, if a campfire is left in a forest and catches onto some dry twigs, leading to a forest fire, the fact that once the trees are aflame they burn, becoming charcoal and smoke, is simply the operation of the natural law of causality, given the nature of fire and the materials that are burning. There is no karma involved in this sequence of events. But a sentient being choosing to light a campfire and forgetting to put it out—which began the chain of events—here karmic causation is involved."
It is a vey interesting position and I don't think you will find many older Geshe's giving this type of presentation. It has been said that this type of presentation is for Western scientist or Westerners in general - however, I have heard the Dalai Lama give a similar presentation in Tibetan to an audience of mostly Tibetan monks with very few Westerns in attendance!
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p120900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I may be misunderstanding your surprise, but karma is just one of many causation laws (niyamas) recognized by Buddhism.viniketa wrote:I was surprised to read that last statement. I always assumed that presentation of karma in Universe was for the sake of the scientists. I have always thought of both karma and pratītyasamutpāda as "special theory" cases of a "general theory" of causation.
So, I wonder, why is HHDL limiting these "laws" to "mere consciousness"?
Exactly. So, why is HHDL divvying-up the world into the "natural" and the "mind"?Fu Ri Shin wrote:I may be misunderstanding your surprise, but karma is just one of many causation laws (niyamas) recognized by Buddhism.
See this.
To the extent that any thing is "made", no thing is "made of mind" (or even by mind). However, mind is used in perception of all "things".Andrew108 wrote:Because not everything is made of mind. But we've had this debate before with the yogachara debate.
Reason can be discussed in a scientific context. Enlightenment and God - no way.viniketa wrote:What an impoverished view of scientists! What about all those 18th and 18th Century old dead white guys for whom enlightenment = reason?catmoon wrote:Scientists do not speak about enlightenment. Unless it's their day off and they've had a few too many beers anyhow. If someone is making authoritative statements about enlightenment, they are by definition not a scientist.
The natural and mind can be separated. You asked why HHDL was making that separation. It's important for scientists to make this separation and it's important for Buddhists to do this also. The debate I was referring to is the Yogachara debate over in the Dzogchen forum.viniketa wrote:To the extent that any thing is "made", no thing is "made of mind" (or even by mind). However, mind is used in perception of all "things".Andrew108 wrote:Because not everything is made of mind. But we've had this debate before with the yogachara debate.
To which Yogācāra debate do you refer?
The universe can be divided-up into as many "parts" as we'd like for conventional discussion and research. That's not the point. The point is that this particular separation, in this particular case, seems to be: a) downplaying the overall understanding of "cosmic" laws of causality that historical Buddhist thought offers; and b) seems to indicate that modern Buddhism has no interest in and has no understanding of the "natural", so let's just leave it all to Western science. Especially if that is the explanation being given not only with Western scientists, but to Tibetan monks. Perhaps it just "hit me" strangely, but that's how it hit.Andrew108 wrote:The natural and mind can be separated. You asked why HHDL was making that separation. It's important for scientists to make this separation and it's important for Buddhists to do this also.
I've not been following that since it turned especially nasty.Andrew108 wrote:The debate I was referring to is the Yogachara debate over in the Dzogchen forum.
This seems a rather restricted view of 'science', as well. Certainly, one cannot take a Popperian approach to "finding God" -- at least, I've never thought of a falsifiable hypothesis. Further, it would be next to impossible to find any "funding" for such research. On the other hand, look at the fMRI research that's being done on meditation. Look at how David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti (along with other quantum physicists) 'brainstormed' theories of the quantum. Or Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana in their approach to autopoesis. These aren't the types of theoretical undertakings of the average Associate Professor looking for tenure, however. It seems one must gain a certain "stature" in the academy to be taken seriously when one starts going out on these limbs... but quite a few well-respected scientists do crawl out there in their latter years.catmoon wrote:Reason can be discussed in a scientific context. Enlightenment and God - no way.
Yup and it signals to the community that it is high time they should no longer be listened to, as scientists at least. Linus Pauling's senile rants on Vitamin C come to mind. It was so bad that he forgot about the need for significant sample sizes and blind trials.viniketa wrote: It seems one must gain a certain "stature" in the academy to be taken seriously when one starts going out on these limbs... but quite a few well-respected scientists do crawl out there in their latter years.
I forget, did Pauling see God in Vitamin C?catmoon wrote:Yup and it signals to the community that it is high time they should no longer be listened to, as scientists at least. Linus Pauling's senile rants on Vitamin C come to mind.