Huseng wrote:Materialist Neurology, which generally posits that the mind is produced by the brain, is considered realistic and reasonable.
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, MN 38 wrote: Consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises.
Lazy_eye wrote:Are we sure that neuroscience is the very antithesis of dharma, as some assume?
Generally speaking, what neuroscience shows is a strong correlation between mind and brain -- that is, between mental functions and neural activity located in specific brain regions.
The Buddha, likewise, taught there is a close interdependency between conscious functions and the six sense spheres:
Huseng wrote:do you think it is realistic or just a belief?"
Dexing wrote:...those organs are simply tools to help mind-consciousness know objects.
Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.
Lazy_eye wrote:In other words, consciousness does not come into play apart from the aggregates, and it is all dependently originated. So the dhamma can't be conveniently pegged as "dualism" or "monism" because it is using an altogether different paradigm, and again there is no conflict with science here.
All this is important to the rebirth question because it is the materialistic conception of mind which forms the main objection people have to rebirth -- as Astus mentioned.
Lazy_eye wrote:That's true, Huseng, but here we are talking about the human and animal realms. Formless (i.e. non-physical) states are almost by definition outside the scope of science.
shel wrote:Huseng wrote:In other words you can't point to arupa-loka in the sky and chart it out, but you can experience it for yourself. At that point it is not a belief, but direct knowledge gained from genuine experience.
What is experienced? what is the knowledge?
Is it like having visited a particular place that few make the required effort to experience for themselves? If so, what's it like? I bet it's a lot like the material world, indeed, how could it not be.Again, however, it is limited to the individual who experienced it. It is religion and not science.
What possible relevance could the immaterial world have to the material world or science?
Users browsing this forum: Norwegian and 6 guests