dharmagoat wrote:Science by its own admission does not 'prove' anything, so we are safe.
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.
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!
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"?
Fu Ri Shin wrote:I may be misunderstanding your surprise, but karma is just one of many causation laws (niyamas) recognized by Buddhism.
Andrew108 wrote:Because not everything is made of mind. But we've had this debate before with the yogachara debate.
viniketa wrote: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.
What an impoverished view of scientists! What about all those 18th and 18th Century old dead white guys for whom enlightenment = reason?
viniketa wrote:Andrew108 wrote:Because not everything is made of mind. But we've had this debate before with the yogachara debate.
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".
To which Yogācāra debate do you refer?
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.
Andrew108 wrote:The debate I was referring to is the Yogachara debate over in the Dzogchen forum.
catmoon wrote:Reason can be discussed in a scientific context. Enlightenment and God - no way.
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.
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.