Nothingness, Science & Perception

[cathutch]

There is this great article in nautil.us on Nothingness from Amanda Gefter (who has great and famous acquaintances with the physics world). bit.ly/1sBXjDv
I personally think that the latest discoveries in physic are a wonderful testimony for Buddhism.
I would like to know your "point of view" on the matter, if you may?

Cheers

[sunsoul]

Hi cathutch,

Welcome to the site and I appreciate your comments and enthusiasm to share..

I can't click on the link - could you provide a full http link?

Regarding physics it is good to see some parallels. I would just caution against a strictly atomistic view which I think is also mentioned in the sutras. Nothingness is sometimes misinterpreted and indeed one of the misunderstandings that often hangs around Buddhism.

[cathutch]

I have a hard time with links - just copy and paste the bit.ly or nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/the-bridge-from-nowhere Url.

[sunsoul]

I have read the article and looked at some of the comments which are quite engaging as people debate the meaning of time, being, and causality.

Interestingly, the Buddha said that questions such as these concerning eternity and the beginning of time were not useful and of no consequence to the spiritual path. People can endlessly debate such matters that are outside the scope of the human mind to comprehend.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

Interestingly, the Buddha said that questions such as these concerning eternity and the beginning of time were not useful and of no consequence to the spiritual path. People can endlessly debate such matters that are outside the scope of the human mind to comprehend.

I agree. It is useless*; but if your knowledge of the cosmos, as a Buddhist, meets science, then the search for freedom is a lot easier. You have your mind set in much more conviction.

Indeed, I am more interested in this article by facts like the perfect symmetry of the Higgs bosom; which proves that at the origin of "creation" (the first aggregate of Self & phenomenal realm) there was no different points of views. That is a blow to Jainism, but not to Samkhya or Buddhism.
On a Samkhya/Buddhist "standpoint," point of views are the result of the aggregation of different selves with the Higgs, so to speak.

Cheers

* Useless in the sense that we must get rid of Self (as Purusha, not Ahamkara (ego) or Ksetraña (soul)) and Phenomenal realm [Prakriti as unmanifested, namely Buddhi(Spirit) and manifested, namely Ahamkara (ego) or Ksetraña (soul), Mana(mental) and Sthula butha (gross elements)] both together. And that this path to freedom does not require to know them at their origin, or beyond. And I agree even more in the sense that question like "what is death" (mara) are just a way to have death (mara) taking a hold on you.
Now no one can escape to think about death one day or the other. And this is where one of the most subtile concept of Buddha comes forth: The Noble and the ignoble search. It makes the all difference (and I always go for the former.)

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

the spiritual path

I have a hard time calling Buddhism a "Spiritual" path. For Spirit (Buddhi) the maker of Ahamkara/Ego), that later on becomes consciousness of the Unmanifested (a sort of partial awakening) is but a step to the path of freedom.
Spirit (Buddhi) belongs to the phenomenal realm of Matter (Prakriti) in Indian philosophy.

That is why I'd rather, IMHO, call it the freedom path.

Cheers

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

matters that are outside the scope of the human mind to comprehend.

I must say, with no offence (I am sometimes a bit frankish - a bit normal considering part of my Frankish ancestry,) that you sound like coming from the Judeo-Christian frame of mind. This is the kind of thought you find on Christian forums.
Indian philosophy, which is more than an auxiliary activity for me, does not see such questions outside the scope of the human mind. And certainly not in Buddhism.
Buddhi, as I said before, is a sort of frontier between the mental realm of which mind (Mana) is a part; and the Unmanifested. Beyond the "manifested" lies the Unmanifested, in which you quit the mind (no more vriti*) to enter nothingness and perception. Therefore what is beyond the mind is still of "this world", so to speak; (it still belongs to the phenomenal realm of the aggregate of selves (the many purushas' influences) and the phenomenal realm of Matter (Prakriti,) commonly called "creation"; in which the things and creatures of this universe are living in).

Question about nothingness is, therefore, of the scope of our path to freedom. What is not of the scope are questions about Purusha and Prakriti at the bare level; death and beyond; questions like that. Namely, anything that is beyond the concern of "freedom from the bond;" Ishvara included*.

Cheers

* Vriti - Ishvara: As a yogi, you should understand that.

[sunsoul]

As the posts go on you seem to be trying squirm your way out of agreement! Quite funny to see.. You are also using yogic terms when discussing Buddhism and I am not sure why..

Yes, the point I made does put a spanner in the works concerning metaphysical speculation but it is thoroughly grounded in Buddhist teaching.

I don't have the exact quotes to hand, but I am sure you remember them. In one of the sutras, the Buddha is asked about the beginning of time or creation. He replies that these type of questions cannot be answered and are useless for practitioners. They occupy the mind more than anything else.

If you actually read the article, and then go and read the comments, you will see people are endlessly speculating and almost talking in a meta language if we are to be frank!

Of course, there is nothing wrong in educating oneself. But, there are also the teachings at hand to take into account!

From my personal experience, I would take a position between the both of you. On one hand, Buddhist teachings tend to agree that obsession with concepts such as "nothing" or "something" (or even "mundane" and "holy") and the nature of things outside human reach can distract the community from the teaching. I also believe that one can achieve enlightenment with or without knowledge of science.

However, the flip side of this is the fact that my study of the sciences (my career has led me through both the theoretical and practical applications of natural science and applied maths) has provided me with ample analogies that have aided in my understanding of the teachings. The danger comes when we step into a science that we have never studied and try to apply it to increase our understanding of the teachings.

Intuitively grasping the way the universe works through science and using it to understand scriptural concepts that we don't quite grasp is one thing.. However, taking concepts we don't quite grasp from science (even if they SOUND good) and applying them to scriptures that we don't quite grasp is a recipe for befuddlement!

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

[sunsoul]

Yes, there is a difference between scientific analysis and metaphysical speculation although sometimes the lines may blur..