- This topic has 11 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Hi Lal,
Thank you for your new post on this topic! I have two questions.
1. You wrote that seeing the anatta nature requires understanding the origin of colour perception through the kamma generation process in Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda. Is that origin about the moment-by-moment process, where each sensory event starts with the built-in distorted saññā? Or does it also cover how that saññā came to be built into our bodies across existences? In #11 of “Introduction – What is Suffering?” you write that it is built in via “upādāna paccayā bhava” and “bhava paccayā jāti.”
2. One cannot watch the purāṇa kamma stage directly. In #1 of “Upādāna Paccayā Bhava – Two Types of Bhava,” you write that attachment at that stage is automatic and instantaneous, and that we have no conscious control over it. We only become aware of it at the upādāna stage, a few seconds later. So does understanding the purāṇa kamma stage mean watching upādāna and working back from there?
-
Good questions. I will think about them and answer later today.
- I just revised #13 of that new post, “Consciousness and Color Perception – Current Scientific Understanding,” as follows.
13. There are two aspects to ‘clearly see with wisdom’ the ‘anatta nature’:
- To fully realize the implications of the fact that our sensory experiences are not real, one must also understand the origin of color perception. To see that, one must fully understand the complete ‘kamma generation process’ (including the ‘purāna kamma‘ stage) in Idappacayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda.
- One must also connect this to the issue of ‘suffering’. Any ‘pleasure’ experienced is temporary and leads to much more suffering in the cycle of rebirth.
- That is why understanding that color perception is illusory is not enough to ‘see the anatta nature’ as long as one believes that illusion arises in the brain.
- Regarding (ii): the ‘eye faculty’ in any existence depends on the ‘gati‘ (pronounced ‘gathi’) that led to that specific existence. See “Loka – Each Person Perceives the ‘External World’ Differently.”
- Thus, scientists and philosophers will never understand the ‘anatta nature’. They are trying to figure out how perception and consciousness can arise in inert matter, i.e., in the brain. They are on the wrong track.
- A brain made of atoms and molecules cannot generate consciousness or any type of perception, let alone the perception of light. Also see “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind.”
___________
Again, I will follow up with another comment later today. Please feel free to ask further questions. All are encouraged to ask questions. This is the only way I can decide which issues to address.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Answers to Jaro’s two questions.
1. A specific set of ‘distorted saññā‘ is built into a living being in a given realm. For example, the set for a human is vastly different from that of a bat, and both are vastly different from that of a worm. We see objects with color perception; as the second video in the post explains, bats don’t see colors, but identify objects via sonar (detecting sound waves reflected by the objects). Worms have neither, but have enough sensory capacity to sustain their lives; they probably use smell to find food.
- That set of ‘distorted saññā‘ arises based on the gati associated with the realm. A human can cultivate any type of gati. They can cultivate gati (and thus, a set of ‘distorted saññā‘) suitable for a bat or a worm. They can cultivate anariya jhana (and thus, a set of ‘distorted saññā‘) suitable to be born a Brahma, too.
- Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda operating at a specific time runs according to the gati of the human at that time. For example, person A may get mad at someone and beat him to death; at that time he has animal gati. Person A is actually ‘born’ in that animal realm while engaging in that action, which may last for several minutes. Furthermore, kammic energy is generated and ‘stored’ in the vinnana dhatu that can bring him such an animal birth in the future; of course, that outcome is not guaranteed. If person A attains the Sotapanna stage, then that gati never appears in him after that, and therefore, that gati cannot be ‘grasped’ at a cuti-patisandhi moment of grasping a new existence in the future. For example, Angulimala killed many people and behaved like an animal in those instances. That kammic energy kept accumulating as he killed more people, and if he did not meet the Buddha and attain the Sotapanna stage, he could have been born in as an animal in the future. Are you familiar with how a new existence is ‘grasped’ at the end of the human bhava (existence)?
- The specific set of ‘distorted saññā‘ that comes into play with a given sensory event is a different mechanism. Any sensory event starts at the ‘dhatu‘ stage, and the corresponding ‘distorted saññā‘ automatically arises in the mind. A human can have six primary types of saññā: rupa saññā, sadda saññā, rasa saññā, gandha saññā, pottabbha saññā, and dhamma saññā. Each of those can trigger kama sankappa, vyapada sankappa, vihimsa sankappa, or their mundane opposites (nekkamma sankappa, avyapada sankappa, avihimsa sankappa). Which type of sankappa is automatically triggered depends on the specific arammana and the person’s remaining samyojana and gati at that time. Those are the six root causes that initiate an Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda process. See “Six Root Causes – Loka Samudaya (Arising of Suffering) and Loka Nirodhaya (Nibbāna).”
__________
2. Yes. One cannot experience the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage. It is an extremely fast process. One does not need to experience it to attain the Sotapanna stage.
- But one must understand the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage: how it is triggered and how it can grow and reach the upādāna stage for some sensory inputs (those that one attaches to with kama guna).
- It is also necessary to understand that kama guna (enticing qualities) are not associated with external sensory inputs (a beautiful woman, for example) but are in one’s own mind. See “Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā).”
- Also, one doesn’t need to actively work to overcome the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage, either (unless one is Sotapanna and is trying to attain higher magga phala). That will become necessary only after attaining the Sotapanna stage. That is when one must cultivate Satipatthana to overcome the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage and enter the Satipatthana Bhumi to cultivate Satta Bojjhanga to attain the Sakadagami and higher stages of Nibbana.
- If you need further details, please don’t hesitate to ask. Others can also ask questions about any unclear aspect in this comment or in the post.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Thank you for your detailed response! This is how I understand the origin of colour perception.
Past valuing built an eye with its saññā built in. The saññā presents green as out there and beauty as belonging to the object. The mind attaches, and the gratification wears off at the moment of contact. The frustration renews the value and the expectation, which generate kamma, which builds the next eye.
So the green we see is produced by equipment our own past attaching ordered, and our response to it orders the next set. Physics has no term for an observer’s response feeding into the construction of the next observer. The loop also spans lifetimes, which no laboratory can observe. We cannot see our past births. Since the saññā is built in, nobody can uncover the trick from inside it; it took a Buddha. That is why this knowledge first reaches us as something heard, and only later as something seen.
A physicist will object that evolution also explains the eye, and that evolution is a loop too. It is, but it runs on differential survival across a species and has no regard for what any individual valued. The Dhamma’s loop runs on one mindstream’s own valuing, and it has an exit. Every link in the physics chain is a mechanism. The only way to stop the colour is to break a link: no light, a damaged eye, a dead brain. That means blindness or death. On the Dhamma account, death does not stop anything, because the valuing has already ordered the next eye.
-
I will comment on the first part of your comment later today. But I wanted to comment on the following:
Jaro wrote: “A physicist will object that evolution also explains the eye, and that evolution is a loop too. It is, but it runs on differential survival across a species and has no regard for what any individual valued. “
The ‘evolution mechanism’ for the eyes put forth by a physicist (or modern science in general) can be rejected based on the necessary condition for that hypothesis. The necessary condition for the theory of evolution to hold is to show how that consciousness evolved first.
That is what I tried to explain with the following section in the post “Consciousness and Color Perception – Current Scientific Understanding”:
Explanation by Modern Science
6. Answer to the first question: Science says those sensors evolved as the human species evolved from the early lifeforms that did not have perception of light. The early lifeforms perceived only light energy, without color perception. However, as lifeforms evolved to be more complex, the sensors also ‘advanced’ to generate the ‘perception of various colors.’
- However, before being able to experience perception, the ability to be aware of the environment, i.e., consciousness, must be there. Therefore, to demonstrate the validity of the evolution of those millions of tiny sensors in the back of our eyes, science must first explain how conscious living beings evolved from inert matter; i.e., it must answer the second question first.
- Answer to the second question: Science cannot answer this question. Science cannot even answer a related third key question that comes up even before the issue of ‘color perception’.
- That third key question is: How did sentient life with the ‘ability to think’ evolve from inert matter?
- ‘Color perception’ (or ‘seeing things of various colors’) is secondary to consciousness, even though it is a critical part of the consciousness of advanced lifeforms like humans. There are many ‘lower lifeforms’ (like worms) who have consciousness, but cannot see, i.e., they have no ‘color perception’. How did the earliest microscopic lifeforms acquire the ‘ability to think’ or ‘become aware of their environment’? Modern science definitely cannot answer the second and third questions.
The Order of the Answers Should be Reversed
7. Their answer to the first question remains unconfirmed until they can answer the second and third questions, i.e., until they can prove that consciousness and perception emerged from inert matter (well before the evolution of ‘eyes’ with built-in millions of tiny sensors).
- I hope you see the reasonableness of that revised order. It is critical to understand that things must happen in that time sequence.
- The order in which the science needs to answer the questions: (i) How did primitive lifeforms evolve from inert matter? (ii) How did color perception evolve in more advanced lifeforms? (iii) How did the human eye with millions of tiny sensors evolve?
- Science cannot explain the first question in that logical time sequence. The video in #9 (by a scientist) explains the current status.
Summary: Before we can agree with the hypothesis that our eyes (with millions of tiny sensors) evolved, science must first show how consciousness and perception evolved from inert matter.
- I hope everyone understands this point. There is no point in talking about the ‘evolution of the eyes’ until the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is solved by science.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
First part of Jaro’s comment:
“Past valuing built an eye with its saññā built in. The saññā presents green as out there and beauty as belonging to the object. The mind attaches, and the gratification wears off at the moment of contact. The frustration renews the value and the expectation, which generate kamma, which builds the next eye.
So the green we see is produced by equipment our own past attaching ordered, and our response to it orders the next set. Physics has no term for an observer’s response feeding into the construction of the next observer. The loop also spans lifetimes, which no laboratory can observe. We cannot see our past births. Since the saññā is built in, nobody can uncover the trick from inside it; it took a Buddha. That is why this knowledge first reaches us as something heard, and only later as something seen.”
1. Now, let us look at the first part of the above quote.
- Jaro wrote: “The mind attaches, and the gratification wears off at the moment of contact. The frustration renews the value and the expectation, which generate kamma, which builds the next eye.”
- What I bolded above is the critical part in that sentence.
2. Then, Jaro followed up with: “So the green we see is produced by equipment our own past attaching ordered, and our response to it orders the next set.”
- I think what Jaro means there is, “Our current color experience arose from our attachment to such colors in previous lives. When we attach to colors in this life, that will lead another life to ‘see more colors’.”
- That is what maintains the rebirth process; that is correct!
3. Then, Jaro observed: “Physics has no term for an observer’s response feeding into the construction of the next observer.”
- In the ‘evolution of the eyes’ model proposed by physics/science, there is no such connection to the next life or rebirth.
- That is the basis of the theory of evolution. It cannot, and it does not even try to connect to future lives. Those scientists DO NOT believe in rebirth. Their model is based on a life that ends at the death of the physical body.
- This is the clear distinction between the two models. Evolution is not meant to explain the rebirth process; it rejects rebirth. It tries to explain how human eyes evolved, starting with primitive sentient life that did not even have the capability of vision. But my point is that science cannot explain how that starting with primitive sentient life came into existence.
4. Summary: We cannot even start to compare the two models because the model presented by science is based on a faulty foundation. Their claim that ‘eyes evolved over time starting with eyeless sentient beings‘ does not make sense because they cannot prove how those eyeless sentient beings came into existence (starting with inert matter) in the first place!
- What they are trying to do is like building a second story on a house without the first level.
- Eyes cannot evolve in sentient beings without there being sentient beings without eyes!
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
The main difference between Buddha’s teachings and modern science is the following. I forgot to mention that in my previous comment.
- The rebirth process is sustained by accumulated kammic energies, i.e., via immoral or unwise deeds, speech, and thoughts.
- In the modern scientific model (the theory of evolution), kamma/kamma vipaka plays absolutely no role. Thus, it is unclear how one mind can engage in immoral deeds while another would not. What is the difference between those two brains (since they claim it is the brain itself that generates thoughts, speech, and actions)? I don’t see how they can explain that.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I can see that modern science has made the anatta nature more approachable than ever before. Physics and neuroscience have established that colours, tastes and smells are not in the objects or in light. Anyone can verify that today. That takes away the belief that the beauty I see belongs to the object. I suppose this belief was difficult to challenge before this evidence came to light?
But their theory that the brain is the source of human consciousness is wrong. As you explained in “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body,” the brain relays sensory inputs, and the experience itself arises in the mental body (gandhabba). Science stops at the brain because its instruments can only reach one physical body in one lifetime. They are putting themselves at risk of reaching the conclusion that ‘there is no self, only neurons’, which is the uccheda view that the Buddha rejected.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Yes. You have summarized it perfectly!
- One day, scientists and philosophers who embrace uccheda ditthi (life ends with the death of the physical body because thoughts arise in the brain) will have no choice but to abandon that assumption.
- That could be when there is more evidence that the brain is not where thoughts arise, such as “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind“.
-
The following new video is an indication of the emerging realization that the brain is not where our thoughts arise:
In the video, she mentioned the famous case of ‘patient HM,’ who lost memories in a brain operation. I discussed that in “Patient H.M. – Different Roles of Brain in Memory“
More relevant posts in “Brain and the Gandhabba“
-
In the ‘evolution of the eyes’ model proposed by physics/science, there is no such connection to the next life or rebirth.
That is the basis of the theory of evolution. It cannot, and it does not even try to connect to future lives. Those scientists DO NOT believe in rebirth. Their model is based on a life that ends at the death of the physical body.In my opinion, the biggest proof of (presence of) rebirth is the variations we see everywhere. If there were no rebirth, then everything would be same, without any color! I believe the differentiation in any thing starts only from past causes and variations we see everywhere, including ourselves, are just different effects of different causes. If rebirth were not there, at that point, there are no causes for any differentiation to even start to take place. Idk if I am correct here, but it makes sense to me somehow.
Eyes cannot evolve in sentient beings without there being sentient beings without eyes!
I can really see the logic behind this sentence. It is like saying the tree comes to existence out of nowhere, without believing or knowing anything about seed. In my opinion, the eyes or any other organ, is grown because of causes. Something is there which cannot survive without them and craves something, which requires the eyes or any other sense organ as means.
The rebirth process is sustained by accumulated kammic energies, i.e., via immoral or unwise deeds, speech, and thoughts.
ven. Lal sir, here, can we say that rebirth process is also sustained by accumulated kammic energies, via also the moral or wise deeds, speech and thoughts??
One day, scientists and philosophers who embrace uccheda ditthi (life ends with the death of the physical body because thoughts arise in the brain) will have no choice but to abandon that assumption.
Sir, I used to also think that thoughts could not be arising in brain, but when I read your posts, it just gave me final proofs. I have one thing to add here. In my case at least, when I close my eyes and try to just witness or look inside, it doesn’t at all feels like I am sitting inside my head! Rather it seems I am either present somewhere hidden inside or all over inside, but in any case not inside the head/brain! Because I believe almost everyone has internal monologue, it is like validating one’s own existence continuously, subconsciously and automatically. I believe any one can do this experiment, if one tries to witness by closing eyes, one can see many proofs that thoughts do not arise in brain, brain just receives them and puts on the stage. I see it like, seeing something happen on laptop’s screen gives impression that everything is happening on the screen, but in reality, everything is happening in the cpu, gpu, ram, etc, and screen is just showing the output/result/effect. So brain is like screen and ram, cpu, gpu represent mind. This is not perfect analogy, but it came to my mind.
-
Saurabh’s next- to-last comment: “can we say that rebirth process is also sustained by accumulated kammic energies, via also the moral or wise deeds, speech and thoughts?”
- Yes, if you mean mundane moral or wise deeds, speech, and thoughts.
- Kammic energy is generated in both ways: (i) apunna abhisankhara involved in immoral deeds, speech, and thoughts, and (ii) punna abhisankhara involved in (mundane) moral deeds, speech, and thoughts. The latter category includes compassion, giving, etc that lead to rebirths in higher realms, while the former leads to rebirths in the apayas.
- Good point. Both sustain the rebirth process.
__________
Regarding Saurabh’s last comment:
- It is quite difficult to separate mental activity from brain activity.
- The mental body (gandhabba) is trapped inside the solid physical body. It receives only the sensory inputs that the brain transmits to it. This is why some people get into ‘vegetative states’ when their brain gets damaged. See “Persistent Vegetative State – Buddhist View”
- Thus, gandhabba is totally unaware of the external world unless it receives that information from the brain. See “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body.”
- However, if the gandhabba ‘pops out’ of the physical body, then it can see, hear, and think on its own. That is what happens in Near-Death Experiences: “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind“. Since it does not have a physical body (the ‘mental body’ is smaller than an atom in modern science), it can also go through walls, ceilings, etc. However, because it lacks a solid, physical body, it does not have taste, smell, or touch sensations.
- It is amazing that the Buddha discovered such details about our existence.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.