Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

[Kim OHara]

The world" that is being talked about in your text is the world of personal experience, the only thing that really matters in terms of Buddha-Dhamma. It is "in this very fathom-long body" that drama of the Dhamma plays out.

Yes, it's this personal/internal world that the Buddha is speaking about here. Such statements say nothing about the "reality", or otherwise, of the "external world", how it works, and so on. My impression from studying the suttas is that what one believes about the "external world" is irrelevant to Dhamma practice.


Mike

... except that our beliefs about the external world are a very significant part of our internal world?


Kim

[mikenz66]

... except that our beliefs about the external world are a very significant part of our internal world?

Sure, but can you show where beliefs or theories about the external world (e.g. quantum theory) would be important to Dhamma?


Mike

[Kim OHara]

... except that our beliefs about the external world are a very significant part of our internal world?

Sure, but can you show where beliefs or theories about the external world (e.g. quantum theory) would be important to Dhamma?


Mike

May be tomorrow ... it's a bit late for me - and must be very late for you ...


Kim

[SamKR]

The world:

• My friend, I do proclaim that in this very fathom-long body, with its feelings and mind, is the world, the world's arising, the world's ceasing and the path leading to the world's ceasing.'-- AN II 48

The world" that is being talked about in your text is the world of personal experience, the only thing that really matters in terms of Buddha-Dhamma. It is "in this very fathom-long body" that drama of the Dhamma plays out.

True, it is the world of experience. But, the world of your experience = the world (the world you experience). That is my current understanding based on the suttas and dependent origination.

In this sutta you quoted also, the Buddha is comparing the-world-you-travel (physical world) to the world of experience (this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect).

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

The Buddha used the same word loka to mean both the physical world (world out there) and the world of experience (world in here).
I think it is because both are the same and one but we have this innate tendency to assume that there are two worlds - the world in-here and the world out-there. This is an assumption, and based on this assumption we have various views about this outer world: the outer world is knowable, the outer world (noumena) is not knowable, etc. Whatever we see or experience "outside" - the stars, the galaxies, molecules, atoms, etc. - they are the part of our experiences.

[SamKR]

The world" that is being talked about in your text is the world of personal experience, the only thing that really matters in terms of Buddha-Dhamma. It is "in this very fathom-long body" that drama of the Dhamma plays out.

Yes, it's this personal/internal world that the Buddha is speaking about here. Such statements say nothing about the "reality", or otherwise, of the "external world", how it works, and so on. My impression from studying the suttas is that what one believes about the "external world" is irrelevant to Dhamma practice.

I think what one believes about the "external world" is very relevant to Dhamma practice. It is because, as I posted above, the external world is the world of experience. If the external world were something separate detached from the world of experience, then it would have been irrelevant to Dhamma practice. But reading the suttas my impression is that the external world as well as internal world is the same one - the world born of avijja and sankhara. The distinction of here and there is an illusion.

[mikenz66]

I think what one believes about the "external world" is very relevant to Dhamma practice. It is because, as I posted above, the external world is the world of experience. If the external world were something separate detached from the world of experience, then it would have been irrelevant to Dhamma practice. But reading the suttas my impression is that the external world as well as internal world is the same one - the world born of avijja and sankhara. The distinction of here and there is an illusion.

I didn't mean to refer to a "detatched" external world. That would, indeed be irrelevant. My prejudice (assumption) is that what is experienced is, in part, caused by external phenomena. However, what we experience is all we have to work with, so whether or not internal and external are "one and the same" or not has no practical consequence to Dhamma practice that I can discern.

It is, of course, an extremely interesting question for science and philosophy...


Mike

[SamKR]

My prejudice (assumption) is that what is experienced is, in part, caused by external phenomena. However, what we experience is all we have to work with, so whether or not internal and external are "one and the same" or not has no practical consequence to Dhamma practice that I can discern.

I see where we agree and disagree. We both agree that dhamma practice is concerned with only what is experienced.

The first point of disagreement is: You believe that "external phenomena" cause, in part, what is experienced. I believe that externality of these phenomena are mere conceiving - arising due to avijja-based-experiences. Therefore, "external phenomena" don't directly cause what is experienced, rather what-is-experienced leads to our belief of "external phenomena"; though this belief may in turn condition the experiences. The world outside ("external phenomena") is this very experience.

When we look at the moon, the moon appears in our experience (dhamma) but we assume that behind this appearance a "real" moon is hanging out there, and further even assume that it is the moon out-there that is the cause of this experience of vision. The reality, I believe, is that the moon (that is seen to be existing and assumed to be causing vision) is this very experience (vinnana with nama-rupa arising due to sankhara).

Another point of disagreement is: You think that knowing whether "external phenomena" are the same as experiences or not is not relevant to dhamma practice. But I believe that knowing this thing is a step towards vijja. I could be wrong though.

It is, of course, an extremely interesting question for science and philosophy...

Indeed.

[mikenz66]

Hi Sam,

Thanks, it's useful to spell out those differences. What I can't see is how either view is more (or less) compatible with the suttas or more or less conducive to practical progress. I'd be interested to have an example of how these different views would lead to different approaches to practice.


Mike

[Kim OHara]

Yes, it's this personal/internal world that the Buddha is speaking about here. Such statements say nothing about the "reality", or otherwise, of the "external world", how it works, and so on. My impression from studying the suttas is that what one believes about the "external world" is irrelevant to Dhamma practice.


Mike

... except that our beliefs about the external world are a very significant part of our internal world?

Kim

Sure, but can you show where beliefs or theories about the external world (e.g. quantum theory) would be important to Dhamma?

Hi, Mike,
Getting back to this ...
It seems to me that our beliefs about the "real" world must affect our dhamma practice quite profoundly, although I'm not sure how much difference QM vs Newtonian physics will make. Here are a few propositions to consider:
BELIEF ---> CONSEQUENCE (OR AT LEAST A TENDENCY) IN PRACTICE
Determinism ---> "We can't change ourselves or our future so why bother trying."
Belief that supernatural beings intervene in our world all the time ---> faith in propitiatory rituals, spirit houses, etc; loss of trust in science.
Scientism (belief that science can in principle explain everything) ---> Materialism; loss or lack of interest in spiritual life.
Materialism ---> Denial of rebirth on the grounds that "science hasn't discovered anything that is separate from the brain and could be reborn"

These are all stated very crudely but I think they point to common tendencies.


Kim

[mikenz66]

Hi Kim,

OK, yes, it's true that there are those certain general principles to do with right view. That actions have consequences, that liberation is possible, etc, etc.

But I don't see where right view has anything to say about philosophical distinctions, e.g. realism vs. idealism.


Mike

[Kim OHara]

Hi Kim,

OK, yes, it's true that there are those certain general principles to do with right view. That actions have consequences, that liberation is possible, etc, etc.

But I don't see where right view has anything to say about philosophical distinctions, e.g. realism vs. idealism.


Mike

Hi, Mike,
From this response it looks to me as if your question may have shifted a bit, but I'm not quite sure - and I'm not sure it matters, anyway.
How our beliefs about the "real" world affect our dhamma practice is one question, and we seem to agree on the answer.
The implications of such beliefs for the truth/validity of the Dhamma is another, and we may agree there too: I can't see that the core of the Dhamma can be threatened by science or philosophy. The weasel-word, of course, is "core". Is rebirth "core"? Questions like that have driven the whole "Secular Buddhism" programme.

But we have moved a long way from the OP and it might be time to let the thread peacefully pass away ...


Kim

[chownah]

... except that our beliefs about the external world are a very significant part of our internal world?

Sure, but can you show where beliefs or theories about the external world (e.g. quantum theory) would be important to Dhamma?


Mike

mikenz66,
I think that the theory of the external world which can be important to Dhamma is the theory that the external world exists.....or to use dhamma lingo the view that the external world exists is important. Here are some ideas.

1) There is no proof that an external world exists and in fact it seems that there is no way to prove or falsify the existence of an external world.
2) Most people cling very tightly to their views of the existence of an external world and loathe to even discuss the fact that their views can never be proven or falsified......even to the point of ridiculing anyone wanting to establish that fact.
3) While there are Sutta references which can, in a tenuous way, be construed to indicate the existence of an external world, the Buddha never came out and made the very simple declaration that an external world exists......in fact the Buddha defines the World and the All very explicitly as being experiential in origin and dependent on the six sense media. The Buddha never described our experience as being a reflection of an external world or dependent on an external world except perhaps for the six external sense media.
4) The Buddha definitely taught that views are to be dropped.....the term fetter comes to mind but I can't remember if that term was applied to views.
5) The concept of internal/external begs the question of internal/external to what......and sophisticated Buddhists have seen this question enough that they have dredged up all sorts of references to come up with an answer that avoids saying "relative to the self" since sophisticated Buddhist know that to say that it is relative to the self is a big no no even though it is clearly obvious to a dispassionate observer that by and large and for the most part the concept of internal/external as viewed by most people is just an exercise in self dogma in spite of the logical gyrations and tenuous scripture references used in trying to avoid this fact.

So, my view is that to cling so tightly to a view about something the Buddha never mentioned and even had the opportunity and stage to mention but didn't.....and which is unprovable to the degree that there is no discernible method that could even theoretically prove it.....and a view about something so inextricably intertwined with self view.....to cling so tightly to this view is not beneficial on progressing on the path.

In addition, there is no benefit to holding a view that an external world exists. Your brain will not turn to mush if you abandon this view......your body will not stink and alienate your friends......your enjoyment of esoteric art forms will not diminish......your chess game will not fall apart......your fashion sense will not become passé......etc. On the other hand by loosening ones grip on this view it will likely give a bit of an advantage in giving up self views.

In addition to this the Buddha taught to drop views....even what seems like perfectly good ones.......so what is the rationale for so tenaciously holding to this view of an external world?

I guess........don't know for sure.........
chownah

[mikenz66]

In addition to this the Buddha taught to drop views....even what seems like perfectly good ones.......so what is the rationale for so tenaciously holding to this view of an external world?

I mostly agree. As you say, insisting on the existence of an external world would be clinging to one particular view. On the other hand, insisting that there is no external world, and that anyone who does have the view that there is an external world is misguided, is also clinging to a particular view.

Neither view is supported by the suttas, as far as I can tell. Therefore, whatever view you happen to have right now (and all of us have some view...) is largely irrelevant, as long as is it not insisted on.


Mike

[SamKR]

Hi Sam,

Thanks, it's useful to spell out those differences. What I can't see is how either view is more (or less) compatible with the suttas or more or less conducive to practical progress. I'd be interested to have an example of how these different views would lead to different approaches to practice.

Hi Mike,

Yes, it is hard to show convincingly how any of the views is more or less compatible with the suttas. It depends upon personal inclination and interpretation, I guess. Personally in my practice, considering everything in the "external" and "internal" world that is seen, heard, sensed, cognized as merely seen, heard, sensed, cognized - just experiences arising dependently yet naturally and effortlessly (without assuming any object/subject, and here/there) - has been more helpful, I think. Also, contemplating that experienced world (normally considered to be somewhere out there) is the experience itself arising nowhere (without location) has changed my understanding of dependent origination - which I find to fit with the Pali suttas, and things that didn't make sense before are making sense now. Whatever "external object" I see is an experience arising without location, and it can already be a meditation if there is mindfulness. However, as I said before I am not able to show convincingly to others that only this view is more correct and compatible with the suttas.

[equilibrium]

Maybe this is of interest.

By deleting all mention of a "dimension of transcendence" the futurist could portray a humanity pledged to the idea that the ultimate good is to be realized by gaining mastery over the external world rather than mastery over ourselves. Given that life involves suffering, and that suffering arises from the clash between our desires and the nature of the world, we can deal with suffering either by changing the world so that it conforms to our desires or by changing ourselves so that our desires harmonize with the world. The picture drawn by the futurist showed a future in which the first alternative prevailed; but the Buddha, and all humanity's other great spiritual teachers as well, unanimously recommend the second route. For them our task is not so much to manipulate the outer conditions responsible for our discontent as it is to overcome the subjective roots of discontent, to vanquish our own selfishness, craving, and ignorance.

(Better than a hundred years; Bhikkhu Bodhi)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_41.html