graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 15, 2013 5:12:28 GMT 1
The Mind is awareness. Simply consciousness that is either closed and selfish or selfless and open. Meditation frees the mind from attachments, aversions and delusions. The Mind is an expression of the brain. It's like a projection onto the world. It is the interface between within and without. Some minds are greater than others. A buddha's mind is excellent whereas a bipolar, criminal drug addict's mind is very poor. It depends alot on cultivation and enhancement and of course genetics. Some people don't want to be enlightened. They prefer the darkness and will stay there all their lives. I feel sorry and compassionate for them but they apparently must exist. Just as pain must exist for there to be pleasure. But overall, Mind is mostly an illusion, a dreamcatcher. Let it gather goodness and helpfulness and let go of bad stones. I would agree. However, this is not the same sentiment as others on this board. If I understand the posts I've read correctly, there are some who believe that the mind exists independently of the brain. I'm not so sure about that one just yet. I get stuck on the idea that, if the mind is a product of the brain... why is my mind different from yours? This makes me think we all generally have the same "me" experience. On the other hand, if the mind is independent of the brain, I would conclude that it shares the same permanent qualities as the idea of a soul. If so, how many minds are out there, and why? |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 15, 2013 7:54:21 GMT 1
I would agree that everything has a net of causes but that to be able to follow the threads of all those causes and conditions is beyond me except at the most superficial level.
Think about all the causes and conditions of you sitting down, reading and replying on this forum...
Clive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Apr 15, 2013 14:47:16 GMT 1
Hi Graham, Scientifically 'provable' or not, according to Buddhism, the mind is not a function of the brain. Mind is a non-material phenomenon. However, it is very closely linked to subtle energy, and - in our human existence - undoubtedly with our human body and brain. When we die, the brain stops, but the mind - in its most subtle form - continues to the next existence. There is even one philosophical school in Buddhism that denies the existence of everything but mind...  That does not mean that the mind itself is unchanging though; just like a river remains existing over thousands of years, it still changes moment by moment. The Buddha rejected the idea of an unchanging soul or atman as some Hindus in his age believed in. They considered the soul to be a permanent, completely unchanging phenomenon. So, it is sometimes explained (in analogy to a flowing river) that the mindstream continues to exist from life to life, but it changes from moment to moment. Science is likely never able to prove or disprove such a thing, as they only tend to examine material things. So when people come with memories of past lives, scientists tend to go beserk, looking for all kinds of reasons where or how someone could have learned these facts But the answer is obvious if you believe in the continuation of the mindstream from one life to the other. But most of the (western-styled) scientist community believe that rebirth/reincarnation is not possible, simply because the linking element (the mindstream) does not show up with tools made to check matter. Even if a scientist would have memories of a previous lifetime, he would not be able to scientifically prove that it is a true memory - just a limitation of science. What we as westerners often tend to forget is that science does have its limits, and we tend to consider it as something with absolute power as an all-knowing God or something.... This is why I seriously think that quite a few westerners have science as a kind of religion, despite the point that even scientists warn for the limitations. |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 15, 2013 16:38:28 GMT 1
I would agree that everything has a net of causes but that to be able to follow the threads of all those causes and conditions is beyond me except at the most superficial level. Think about all the causes and conditions of you sitting down, reading and replying on this forum... Clive. No one's arguing that it's not beyond you or I. I still contend that everything has a cause and we learn more about these causes every day of our lives. |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 15, 2013 16:52:41 GMT 1
Hi Graham, Scientifically 'provable' or not, according to Buddhism, the mind is not a function of the brain. Mind is a non-material phenomenon. However, it is very closely linked to subtle energy, and - in our human existence - undoubtedly with our human body and brain. When we die, the brain stops, but the mind - in its most subtle form - continues to the next existence. There is even one philosophical school in Buddhism that denies the existence of everything but mind... That does not mean that the mind itself is unchanging though; just like a river remains existing over thousands of years, it still changes moment by moment. The Buddha rejected the idea of an unchanging soul or atman as some Hindus in his age believed in. They considered the soul to be a permanent, completely unchanging phenomenon. So, it is sometimes explained (in analogy to a flowing river) that the mindstream continues to exist from life to life, but it changes from moment to moment. Science is likely never able to prove or disprove such a thing, as they only tend to examine material things. So when people come with memories of past lives, scientists tend to go beserk, looking for all kinds of reasons where or how someone could have learned these facts But the answer is obvious if you believe in the continuation of the mindstream from one life to the other. But most of the (western-styled) scientist community believe that rebirth/reincarnation is not possible, simply because the linking element (the mindstream) does not show up with tools made to check matter. Even if a scientist would have memories of a previous lifetime, he would not be able to scientifically prove that it is a true memory - just a limitation of science. What we as westerners often tend to forget is that science does have its limits, and we tend to consider it as something with absolute power as an all-knowing God or something.... This is why I seriously think that quite a few westerners have science as a kind of religion, despite the point that even scientists warn for the limitations. That's a really good explanation. However, I don't think it's fair to put scientists all in the same category as scoffing at the idea of metaphysics. In fact, metaphysics is a branch of science, as are psychology, philosophy, sociology and theology... all fields that often deal in non-materail phenomena. It always surprises me the bad rap that science gets around here. Science is simply a process of discovery, and does not attempt to create anything or spread any form of dogma. People do that. Believe me, I am well aware of the limits, fallacies and biases that exist amongst scientists. However, science exists independently of the individuals who attempt to practice it. It is simply a method of investigation and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 15, 2013 18:09:38 GMT 1
Then you agree that some questions are unanswerable.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Apr 15, 2013 19:15:26 GMT 1
It is simply a method of investigation and nothing more. ;D That is exactly what I mean! ;D Science isn't holy, and does not have all the answers. By the way, I don't think that philosophy is part of science? |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 16, 2013 4:30:03 GMT 1
Then you agree that some questions are unanswerable. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm just saying I don't have them, and I'm assuming (perhaps falsely) that you don't either. Anyways, the answers exist... whether people are smart enough to understand them or not. |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 16, 2013 4:35:05 GMT 1
By the way, I don't think that philosophy is part of science?
It's definitely debatable, and I can see why some would say that it's even the antithesis to science. I can also see why some would say that this argument is hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 16, 2013 7:57:31 GMT 1
Anyway...the point for me is that some questions whilst intriguing are not worthwhile spending time investigating. The answers or explanations are beyond anyone suffering in samsara.
Fully understanding the weave of cause and effect and each individual thread is said to be one of the attributes of a fully enlightened buddha. So if I want to understand then I need to become enlightened by fully developing my ethics and morality, compassion and wisdom.
Talking as someone who studied Biology at university, never mind philosophy or theology, many scientists have trouble accepting any of the soft or social sciences as Science compared to the hard or natural sciences.
Clive.
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 16, 2013 15:22:18 GMT 1
Talking as someone who studied Biology at university, never mind philosophy or theology, many scientists have trouble accepting any of the soft or social sciences as Science compared to the hard or natural sciences. Clive. Having a master's degree in psychology and working as a researcher in the field, I can tell you that the line dividing hard and soft sciences if superficial and much thinner than many think. And once again, I think it's important to separate "science" from "scientist." A scientist is inherently flawed and biased. Science is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 16, 2013 19:08:54 GMT 1
Sorry, I don't hold science to be perfect. It is the product of flawed and partial understanding.
It is as good an explanation of the material universe as we have now and it improves over time because scientists accept that the explanations are temporary and partial.
But I don't expect science to give me a safe direction in my life, to explain suffering and its causes, or the path leading to the end of suffering.
Clive.
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 17, 2013 17:54:14 GMT 1
It is the product of flawed and partial understanding. I was just curious as to what you meant by this (re: science). |
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Apr 17, 2013 18:39:16 GMT 1
A scientist is inherently flawed and biased. Science is not. Show me science without a scientist, and I agree with you.... But it sounds very much like the attitude I mentioned as if science is holy - by your implication: not flawed or biased; sounds very close to perfect to me, as if you are describing some religious idea. |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 17, 2013 19:12:28 GMT 1
A scientist is inherently flawed and biased. Science is not. Show me science without a scientist, and I agree with you.... But it sounds very much like the attitude I mentioned as if science is holy - by your implication: not flawed or biased; sounds very close to perfect to me, as if you are describing some religious idea. The nature of science if perfect and unflawed. That is the reason it exists. The aim of science is to describe reality in a completely objective way, free from bias. It is a philosophical ideal, not a "thing". However, the practice of science is far from perfect, as are the people who practice it. Whether the ideal of science is practical or achievable is hardly the point I am trying to make. |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Apr 18, 2013 0:13:41 GMT 1
flawed understanding because we think that we experience the world objectively yet it is all done through the medium of the mind which is subjective not objective and biased not neutral.
partial understanding because we do not have full access to all possible data and so by necessity our hypotheses are attempts to explain without the full facts.
Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for science. When looking at many questions about this world and its inhabitants, given a choice between a story written down 1800 years ago and a rigorously researched and tested scientific explanation of how and why things are as they are - I back science.
I just don't put science on a pedestal - it is not perfect.
Clive
|
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 18, 2013 2:55:56 GMT 1
Scientifically 'provable' or not, according to Buddhism, the mind is not a function of the brain. Mind is a non-material phenomenon. Rudy, in Buddhism where/how do the mind and the idea of a "self" differ? I know that there is no such thing as an inherent unchanging self. But this experience of "me"... what is that? That's the mind, no? So where does that sense of "me" go when I die, but my mind keeps on existing? |
|
graham
Senior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by graham on Apr 18, 2013 3:01:14 GMT 1
flawed understanding because we think that we experience the world objectively yet it is all done through the medium of the mind which is subjective not objective and biased not neutral. partial understanding because we do not have full access to all possible data and so by necessity our hypotheses are attempts to explain without the full facts. Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for science. When looking at many questions about this world and its inhabitants, given a choice between a story written down 1800 years ago and a rigorously researched and tested scientific explanation of how and why things are as they are - I back science. I just don't put science on a pedestal - it is not perfect. Clive I see. I think we may be differing on semantics a bit. In my view (if you care  , the philosophical ideal of science is perfect and exists independently of the mind and the imperfect people who use it. I agree that scientific "research" is imperfect. However, the nature of science is not. It is the very opposite of imperfection because it simply describes "what is" in the world. How could it be anything less than 100% accurate? The mediums in which science is performed, such as the instruments, methods and people who interpret it are very flawed, however. It's sort of like saying that everyone "has" a Buddha nature. However, few (if any) are Buddhas. |
|
|
|
Post by clive on Apr 18, 2013 15:24:30 GMT 1
My viewpoint is that science can't be separated from those who practise it. Science does not describe " what is" in the world, it describes " what appears to be" to the scientists doing the investigation. As such it can never be anything but less than 100% accurate. Not perfect but as good as we can get it at the moment.  Clive |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Apr 18, 2013 16:19:55 GMT 1
Graham: If you believe in cause and effect then every single phenomenon has a precise cause.
There are infinite reasons every single phenomenon in our world occurs. Every phenomenon has infinite causes.That is what interdependence means, and a strong part of why phenomena are empty.
This is where ordinary intelligence can actually work against us. You have no shortage of that, Graham, a very good mind. For the most part that helps, but at the same time it hinders. There is a saying in Tibetan, "If you are too clever you may miss the point."
You are trying to comprehend things that require an entirely new context, so a new way of thinking and hopefully that leads to a new kind of experience. Clive hinted at that when he said he suspects some of these questions would not make sense to Buddha. That is very true, when the context changes, a lot of questions un-ask themselves. Hence the Zen reply, "Mu."
|
|
, the philosophical ideal of science is perfect and exists independently of the mind and the imperfect people who use it. I agree that scientific "research" is imperfect. However, the nature of science is not. It is the very opposite of imperfection because it simply describes "what is" in the world. How could it be anything less than 100% accurate? The mediums in which science is performed, such as the instruments, methods and people who interpret it are very flawed, however. 
