August 19, 2019 at 11:17 am #24386AxelSnaxelParticipant
When i stumbled upon the Rice experiment video a while ago i found this documentary of the research of Dr. Masaru Emoto
He did research on the effect of the Mind on the formation of ice crystals.
At the timestamp i linked he puts the words of nice and beautiful dhammā on some bottles of distilled water, words like Truth, Love, Thank you etc. And he put the words of ugly and mean dhammās on other bottles, things like “I will kill you” etc.
When he then froze the water under the microscope, he saw that the water with nice words formed nice symmetric and geometric ice crystals, what you would perceive as beautiful. The water with ugly words formed unsymmetrical and disorderly ice crystal, what you would normally perceive as ugly.
This is very interesting, and such a strong correlation should have a underlying mechanism as a cause. Sadly there is nothing in modern science that would allow for such an interaction. Luckily we have Buddha Dhamma.
My hypothesis according to Buddha Dhamma of what’s taking place here is that the mental associations and cetana the experimenter has when labeling the bottles is creating a small amount of kammic energy that is ruling the formation of the crystals, in order for the form to be such that you get a sanna and vedana (vipaka) similar and according to the initial cetana you had when labeling it.
To elaborate a bit more in detail. When the experimenter labels the bottles, his cetana is imbued with his associations of that word giving rise to sobhana or asobhana cetasika. Upon reading the good words the experimenter brings to mind wholesome things and may even for a split second recognize and rejoice in that and make it a part of his state of mind. Thereby he creates a small amount of good kamma, by having sobhana cetasika in his mind. Now since he is doing this towards a bottle of water, the kammic energy becomes associated with that water. When he then makes crystals out of it. The formation of the crystal is ruled by the kammic energy such that the form when perceived by the experimenter gives a pleasant vedana.
Similarly when he labels with a mean word, the experimenter because he still has underlying bad gati, slightly gets the cetana of that when doing the labeling. And there by creates a slight bad kamma. Making the crystal form such that it creates a slight unpleasant vedana upon perceiving it.
This is my hypothesis, and it needs more testing to see if that’s what is happening or if there is other things at play. For example it would be very interesting to see what would happen if the words where chosen by a computer and the bottles labeled by a machine, and no human sees the label on the bottle until after the crystal would form.
Also what would happen if during the process another person would look at each bottle for 5 min and in one experiment contemplate on the morality of the word and in another experiment embody the meaning of the world to each bottle in his mind one at a time. And then give the water to the scientist making the crystal without him knowing the word.
And another experiment, what would happen if you labeled the bottle with a word like “dad” and made different people think about that word in a room with that bottle. Some of those people having normal upbringing and some of them with abusive fathers.
Sadly, this scientist is dead. So if any of you reading this intend to become scientist and prove the validity of dhamma, it would be very interesting to test this.
What this made me realize is that the formation of the material world is governed by kammic energy. For example the creation of the first cell and the earth, growth of the body and nature.
In the example of a forest, it grows because there are beings who’s kammic existence require that to be there. But also because there are other beings like humans who gets pleasant vedana from taking a hike through nature and enjoying the fruits of past good deeds. But the type of vedana and sanna a being gets from being in nature depends on it’s kammic ties to it. someone who has littered, destroyed and killed in the forest in the past might experience dislike or maybe even fear when entering a certain forest.
To take it further, in order for you to get pleasant vedana from the things you get sense pleasure from it requires that you have stores of good kamma. This is why lust only leads to lower realms. Because without Buddha Dhamma, the main way beings make themselves happy is through lustful attachment to vedana they get from sense impression in order to create assada/gratification. The problem with this is that in order to become gratified we have to attach, and the more we attach the more we become addicted and have to keep doing it. Long term when we keep doing that our kamma for being able to get that pleasant vedana runs out and then we suffer and have to try more and more extreme things in order to get the same assada, and then we eventually do immoral things for them. This is very similar to how people become criminals through addiction to drugs, except in reality all sense pleasure are like drugs and will eventually lead to you becoming just like those drug addicts.
There’s a well known physician by the name of Gabor Maté who worked with drug addicts and wrote a best selling book about addiction and named it “In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts”. This is the danger of lust
If you have any thoughts or corrections please share them :)
August 19, 2019 at 3:17 pm #24388
What you say is exactly right.
This is why some people are unable to get the correct results by repeating the “rice experiment”:
“The Rice Experiment (Video)“.
Experiments on inert matter (most scientific experiments belong to this category) can be correctly repeated by anyone. Those do not involve the “mental state” of the experimenter. Of course, the experimenter needs to competent in carrying out the steps involved.
But in the “rice experiment” or the “water experiment” that you referred to, the mental state of the experimenter plays a key role. One has to “put one’s mind into it”, rather than just following the necessary steps mechanically.
Our state of the mind CAN affect mindless things like rice, water, and plants. There is an interesting book, “The Secret Life of Plants” by P. Tompkins and C. Bird. They describe some interesting experiments with plants. But others have objected by saying that when they tried to repeat those experiments, they did not get the same results.
– That is because they were mechanically repeating the experiments, just like other scientific experiments.
– These experiments involve “mind power”.
November 10, 2019 at 4:58 am #25483
I wonder – doesn’t affecting matter in such a precise and targeted manner require a person to have abhiññā? Further, could puthujjanā produce any effects at all?
November 10, 2019 at 6:54 am #25485
That is a good question, sumbodhi.
Such effects require at least a “focused mind.” The more concentrated or focused the mind is, it gets easier for such phenomena to materialize.
This is why faith or saddha (a genuine belief) in whatever one is thinking about matters.
The person who reported this experiment is likely to have had a real determination to see the effect. Therefore, his/her javana power would be intense.
– On the other hand, one who does not believe in such an effect may conduct the same experiment, and his/her GOAL is to show that it is a foolish idea. So, they do not “put a real effort” into their thoughts while doing the experiment.
We can confirm this by thinking about our own experiences. Think about two different cases. In one, we really want to get something done. In the other, we just want to get something done because a parent is asking to do it and we had no choice.
– In the first case, we are enthusiastic and our minds work at “full potential.” In the latter, we just “go through the motions” without any real effort.
Of course, someone who can get into jhana samapatti (Ariya or anariya) would have “more javana power” in their thoughts (citta). In a jhana samapatti, citta with the “same focus” or “arammana” can flow uninterrupted. Thus the “intention” is fully focused.
– That is why such yogis can even do “supernormal” things, like making a flower with their mind power.
– An analogy, in this case, is comparing an oil lamp to a laser beam. An oil lamp just put out a little light. In a laser beam, light energy concentrated. It can cut a metal sheet. The mind power of an average person (even when focused) is like that of the oil lamp. That of one in a jhana samapatti is like a laser beam.
November 10, 2019 at 10:37 am #25488
Thanks Lal for the reply, really interesting.
Regarding the experiments – since phenomena are conditioned does that mean that we actually create the conditions for the results to manifest rather than ‘magically’ make them happen?
I read the mind actually creates suddhātthakā in minute quantities, but do they pop into existence just like that and not as a result of conditions? Would our mind be the direct ‘condition’ then? Would the results in the experiments be related to the experimenter’s creating suddhātthakā?
It would seem to me that if all living beings in all realms stopped creating conditions for dhammā then “the universe as we know it” would seize to exist, because “nobody would need it”. Is that a correct assumption? That would mean that as in the experiment so in daily life we bring everything to ourselves on our own.
So all suffering, in all realms, is made by the very same beings which experience it and they experience it because they don’t know/believe they’re “willingly” creating it (or creating the conditions for it).
November 10, 2019 at 4:42 pm #25490
sumbodhi asked: “Regarding the experiments – since phenomena are conditioned does that mean that we actually create the conditions for the results to manifest rather than ‘magically’ make them happen?”
“Magic” implies things can happen without causes and conditions. For anything to happen there must be CAUSES and CONDITIONS.
– For example, for a tree to come to exist there must be a seed AND there must be suitable conditions (like good soil, water, and sunlight) for the seed to germinate and grow.
sumbodhi asked: “I read the mind actually creates suddhātthakā in minute quantities, but do they pop into existence just like that and not as a result of conditions? Would our mind be the direct ‘condition’ then? Would the results in the experiments be related to the experimenter’s creating suddhātthakā?”
Yes. Our minds do create suddhātthakā in minute quantities.
– There are always six root causes: lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha.
– The conditions are per Paticca Samuppada. That is why Paticca Samuppada is sometimes translated as “Conditional Arising.”
– However, there is no simple explanation.
That is why I started the “Origin of Life” series. It will also address your other question under the other topic of consciousness and matter.
– Both questions involve getting to the heart of the Buddha Dhamma.
– It may take some time to go through the required steps. But both those questions will be answered at the end.
November 11, 2019 at 1:24 am #25493
Thank you Lal for your answers. The work you’re doing is incredible, the depth you reach to find answers..
Since we’re discussing in the ‘science’ forum, I’m wondering if influencing reality like this isn’t a game of strengthening probabilities. Which would be somewhat consistent with QM, altho sub-suddhātthakā levels seem more like ‘fields’ to me. What people with abhiññā make seems impossible, but impossibilities are also within QM as something that’s very highly unlikely. So my thinking is that with our mind we make certain very improbable events much more probable to the extent where they’re the most probable event.
A simplified example of this is that it’s highly improbable that I teleport from here to the Moon, but “science” doesn’t prohibit it, it just says it’s highly unlikely. Science still doesn’t quite answer how (other than describe) these probabilities work.
It is strange that probabilities exist at all… and I’m thinking that for now I can’t see a better explanation other than the “mind” being before matter (or all dhammā). Can’t wait to read your thoughts on all this in your future posts!
November 11, 2019 at 7:40 am #25494
sumbodhi wrote: “altho sub-suddhātthakā levels seem more like ‘fields’ to me.”
That is correct. Even the suddhātthaka level is below the “atoms” in modern science.
– As I pointed out in the post, “Mystical Phenomena in Buddhism?,” some of the “mystical phenomena” can be explained by learning about such details.
– For example, our physical bodies (as well as walls) are mostly empty as explained there. One with iddhi powers can “reduce the body” to suddhātthaka level and then go through the “mostly empty walls.” I hope you can get the idea.
So, that explanation does not involve QM (Quantum Mechanics).
– Teleporting (in Buddha Dhamma) is similar.
Traveling to Brahma loka is normally done with just the mental body (manomaya kaya or gandhabba.) That manomaya kaya has only a few suddhātthaka.
Anyway, I mention these only to show that these phenomena are NOT “magical” once one understands the concepts.
– Modern science is far behind.
November 11, 2019 at 8:55 am #25496
I read your article “Mystical Phenomena in Buddhism?”, really enlightening.
Looking at the scale it seems quarks qualify as having a size comparable to suddhātthakā as the most recent data would put them around 1b times or smaller (depending on the flavor) than the atom.
However you mention suddhātthaka aren’t electrically charged, which means suddhātthaka is another sort of particle possibly outside of the standard model.
By the way, where does the suddhātthaka scale come from? Is it explicitly mentioned in Tipitaka?
November 11, 2019 at 9:37 am #25499
“However you mention suddhātthaka aren’t electrically charged, which means suddhātthaka is another sort of particle possibly outside of the standard model.”
Yes. Science is still far away from “getting the whole picture”.
“By the way, where does the suddhātthaka scale come from? Is it explicitly mentioned in Tipitaka?”
Yes. It is not in the suttas. It is in Abhidhamma Piṭaka. I need to spend some time at some point in getting to those details.
– But discussing Paticca Samuppada has priority. That is what is done in the “Origin of Life” series.
November 11, 2019 at 10:10 am #25500
I agree other truths are more fundamental (i.e. more on Paticca Samuppada, Ariya magga on the practical level etc). It’s just some natural curiosity I have. I realize that ultimately it’s in vain because it’s exploring the realm we have to “escape” from.
I remember reading somewhere on the website the simile about the leaves-in-hand vs. leaves-in-forest. I think it’s still worthwhile to explore connections between the ‘newest’ science and Dhamma as it might be easier to explain to wider public using “modern” terminology.
For example it might be easier for many to understand part of the meaning of anatta by comparing a being to a video game character. Why? Because in a video game we identify with the character, but it could take another form, get upgraded, die, be reborn etc. Also since the rules of the game (“dhamma”) govern the game the outside player (actual human) has not much control over the character than given by the rules of the game.
Of course such comparisons are only helpful as an introduction but still helpful to some. I have only been reading about Buddha Dhamma for 3 months now and at first your web-page seemed very technical, especially with so many Pāḷi words. My gati (of which natural curiosity and being linguistically inclined are part) helped me stick thru. So such lightweight introductory comparisons helped a lot, even if I had to abandon them when understanding things on a deeper level.
November 11, 2019 at 7:37 pm #25507
sumbodhi wrote: ” I think it’s still worthwhile to explore connections between the ‘newest’ science and Dhamma as it might be easier to explain to wider public using “modern” terminology.”
Yes. I do that whenever possible. New findings of science are compatible with Buddha Dhamma in many cases. The exception is “mental phenomena.” Science is clueless in saying that thoughts arise in an inert brain.
See, “Dhamma and Science”
sumbodhi: “Of course such comparisons are only helpful as an introduction but still helpful to some. I have only been reading about Buddha Dhamma for 3 months now and at first your web-page seemed very technical, especially with so many Pāḷi words.”
Yes. I struggle with trying to find middle ground. You are on one end of the spectrum. At the other end are those ask for Tipitaka references and explanations.
In any case, one NEEDS to learn the meanings of the key Pali words, if one is truly interested in learning Buddha Dhamma. Some Pali words like anicca, anatta, sankhara, vinnana DO NOT have exact translations to English. The first sub-sections in the following section could be helpful:
Also, “Moral Living and Fundamentals“
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.