Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Johnny, It is important to read the following posts carefully (if you are really interested in this particular subject):
What Is a Wave and What Is a Particle?
Photons Are Particles Not Waves
Contrary to what you learned in the old days (as we all did), light is not a wave. Light is a stream of particles called photons. Don’t feel bad. I know some physicists who still think of light as a wave. It is very important to understand the difference between a wave and a wave function, as discussed in the first three posts.
After reading the above posts carefully, also read #10 of the new post. There I point out that the observation of zero signal with experiments done with large plate thicknesses again disprove light is a wave, for the same reasons that you pointed out (#1 off of the top surface is gone even before #2 coming from the bottom surface gets there; thus destructive interference of “waves” cannot happen).
P.S. Of course many phenomena involving light can be explained with light treated as an electromagnetic wave, just like the motion of large particles can be treated with Newtonian mechanics.
But when analyzing quantum phenomena, neither the EM theory nor the Newtonian mechanics work.Johnny said: “Since matter is created by the mind, how then is matter evolved into lakes and mountains, stars and galaxies, and other physical objects that we see around us? What is the doctrine governing this mechanism and evolution?”
That is a long story, which is condensed in the Agganna Sutta. It will take a long time to correctly describe what is in that sutta. If we start on that now, it will be hard to make sense.
However, what is important now is to just see that QM cannot explain consciousness.
However, the correct interpretation of QM is based on the “interconnectedness” of everything around us (including inert matter), and that is the second item of importance.Again, I don’t want to distract people from the actual practice. This section is for those who really want to “get to the bottom of it”. But this section is not necessary to attain the Sotapanna stage or any magga phala.
P.S. I just saw the comment by Vilas: “Mind makes matter and this is the right forum to explore within oneselves and get rid of Satkayaditti”
That is true.By the way, our proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on the work of Professor Richard Feynman. The book that mentioned in the posts was based on a series of 4 lectures.
These are simple lectures delivered to non-physicists, and could be useful especially if one does not have access to the book:
QED: Photons — Corpuscles of Light — Richard Feynman (1/4)Yes, Vilas. You got it!
What you described is the essence of what happens.
Rupa are created in our minds, of course in minute amounts that we cannot even see. In fact, they are emitted in rays, and that is what some people call “aura”.Some key facts that we will discuss in detail in the future:
1.Gati get into rupa (via bhuta and maha bhuta stages) via varna, gandha, rasa, oja as well as the four satara maha bhuta (patavi, apo, tejo, vayo) in the suddhashtaka. Remember that suddhashataka means “made of eight”.
2.The energy is embedded via bramana (rotation) and paribramana (spin or rotation around its own axis). A suddhadshtaka created by the mind lasts one-quarter of a maha kappa (age of the Solar system). The Solar system is destroyed when that energy runs out.3. Each star system dies that way. Each individual start systems (like our Solar system) is destroyed after around 5-10 billion years, and that is a called a “supernova” event.
4. While a normal human generates only insignificant of matter (suddhashtaka), one in jhana samapatti (where javana citta run continuously) one can generate significant amount of matter. This is how yogis with abhinna powers can create material things or convert one thing to another. But that requires a lot of practice.
5. Energy embedded in spin and rotational modes can be seen everywhere: in electron orbital in atoms. Atomic orbitals in molecules. Solar system with its planets undergoing both spin and rotation. Whole galaxies undergoing rotation, etc.
Anyway, that is just a brief summary. And now you can see why most physicists are wrong in saying that consciousness arises via quantum processes in the brain (from inert matter in the brain). It is the other way around: All matter is created via citta (specifically via javana citta). But a full explanation needs lot more details. This new section just lays the foundation.
QM cannot explain ANYTHING about mental aspects. That is what I was trying to say in my previous comment above.
Many people have tried to show that QM can EXPLAIN how consciousness arises from inert matter. That is WRONG, and that is what I am trying to explain in the new section. I am working on a couple of posts to explain why their interpretations are not correct.
This is why we could not get our paper published. Too many physicists think consciousness arise from inert matter in the brain, and that QM can explain how that happens. There are many papers/books written on that premise.
However, when the correct interpretation of QM is understood, one can see the “interconnected-ness” of Nature. That is the importance of QM for us: to build confidence in Buddha Dhamma.
With our new interpretation of QM one can see the interconnectedness of Nature, and that can explain how the Nature “knows” relationships among different people. For example, this is how X will be assigned an anantariya kamma vipaka, if X kills an Arahant. X may not have any idea who he killed.
I have discussed several such examples in those three posts. Even if one is not familiar with QM, one can get the basic idea from the those posts. The paper (given as a pdf) itself could be too technical.
That is essentially what I am doing in these posts. The deeper aspects of Dhamma, I learned from his desanas.
Embodied said: “A Deva of the Tāvatimsa devaloka – the lowest heaven of the lower plane thus – reborning as a human, or the opposite meaning a human reborning as a deva in the referred realm, is this possible ?”
In principle, any being can be born in any realm other than those reserved for the Anagamis; see, “31 Realms of Existence“.
For example, a human can be reborn a deva or an animal; a deva can be born a human or animal; an animal can be born a human or deva, even though that is rare.
Y not said: ” The only instance I can see where this may not be clear would be when a deva or brahma ‘descends’ to the human realm to listen to a desana – but then it cannot be said that he is ‘reborn’ here.”
Beings in the higher realms (devas and brahmas) can come to our world any time for a “visit”. In the days of the Buddha many came to hear discourses. It is said that while only one of the five ascetics attained the Sotapanna stage while listening to the first desana, Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta, millions of devas (including brahmas) attained various magga phala.
They can remain invisible to humans or become visible if they want to.
Both devas and brahmas have fine bodies that we cannot see (like gandhabbas). Deva bodies are more dense, but still cannot be seen by humans, unless they “present themselves”.On an interesting side note, the King of Tāvatimsa, Sakka, became a Sotapanna while listening to a desana by the Buddha. So, he may be still there as a Sotapanna.
Waharaka Thero has mentioned several instances where there were signs that devas came to listen to his desanas. It is still a tradition in Asian countries to invite devas to come and listen before a bhikkhu starts delivering a desana.
Yes. As Donna says (and others have implied), if one has understood the message of the Buddha, there should be only one item on the bucket list: To at least get released from the apayas, and then to get to the next stage.
I have not yet pointed out one key point that I am trying to make with the new section. But the comments by Vilas (vilaskadival) got me thinking about the importance of making that point now. Thanks to Vilas for his comments. I would like everyone to give some thoughts to the following points.
Puredhamma site so far has been all about the mind. The new section on quantum mechanics (QM), on the other hand, is all about matter (above the suddhashtaka stage).
Those two areas operate on very different rules.
Inert matter just follows a set of rules. Newtonian mechanics had a set of rules that were easier to grasp. QM rules (that deal with microscopic particles) are not so easy to grasp, but nonetheless are rules. If one knows the rules, one can calculate what is going to happen in a certain experiment that involves the motion of matter (in the case of QM, only probabilities can be calculated in many cases; but experimental results are always consistent with those calculations or predictions).
But the mind is very different. Each person is very unpredictable. Any given person X has his/her own mind, and no one else can predict how X is going to react to a certain situation. Put it in another way, two people will respond differently under the same conditions. Some responses may look similar, but not the same. The more complex the situation is, the larger the differences in responses.
There are many people who try to tie QM to consciousness. One may offhand think that I would try to do the same. But rules of QM are very different from the rules of the mind. What I am actually trying to do with this new section is to take this “perceived mystical aspect” out of QM. Once one understands some key basic facts, QM is actually easy to grasp. But the mind is unimaginably complex.
Of course, there are some commonalities between the mind and the microscopic realm probed by QM. That involves quantum entanglement. And, I have only emphasized that aspect so far in this new section. But we always need to keep in mind that matter above the suddhashtaka stage and the mind are in TWO DIFFERENT realities (or need to be treated differently). Mind is the root cause of matter.
Maybe I should write a post on this subject, because it is a very important issue. However, I would like us to discuss this in a bit more detail first to see whether what I am saying makes sense or not. It was not easy to explain these details in the paper that we submitted. So, one should really the posts where things are explained in more detail. In particular, the next post will be a critical one.
So, I am glad that Vilas brought up his ideas. Instead of commenting specifically on them, I would like him and others to first think about what I described above.
Yes. I did say, “but I am still working on trying to see the dangers of sense pleasures and thereby making a convincing case that all we perceive as “pleasures” in the human and dēva realms are in fact CAUSES for future suffering” in that post.
However, I meant more in the sense of results in future lives. For example, one will not be released from the apayas as long as one enjoys hurting others/animals, and one is not released from the “good realms in kama loka” (human and deva realms), as long as one HAS CRAVINGS for normal sense pleasure.
But normally one does not start disliking or developing adverse reactions to eating especially. Remember that the Buddha was offered most delicious foods by Kings. It is just that he never had a craving for such foods.
For example, sugar or cakes taste sweet or lemon will taste sour for an Arahant too. These are called kama guna, and anyone in a given bhava will SENSE THEM the same. Another opposing example is that pigs taste feces, rotting foods, etc and that is a kama guna for pigs. See, “Kāma Guna, Kāma, Kāma Rāga, Kāmaccanda“.
However, there could be some experiences like what Donna (inflib) is experiencing. While I have not developed any dislikes for foods like cakes or anything else, I see a big change in tasting alcoholic drinks. I now simply cannot drink any strong alcohol like whiskey. I used to love to drink beer and have no apatite now. I may be able to drink a beer, but I have not even tried recently. And I cannot stand loud music and have not watched a movie for over probably two years; it seems just a waste of time. I guess I could do some of that if I really wanted to, but the desire is not there.
I am saying all this just to clarify the point that not many will experience the aversions that Donna is experiencing. This is why each person’s experience is unique, even though there are common general trends.
Embodied said: “I’m attracted to Pâli even more than to sanskrit but do i have to use the key words each time i post something ?”
I am not sure what you mean.
We use words to express ourselves. Which words one uses does not matter much, as long as one can convey what one means.However, I find that it is not possible to convey what is meant by key words like anicca or dukkha by one English word or even many English words. For example, some people use “impermanence” to replace anicca, but that is not even close to the true meaning of anicca.
If you can give an example of what you mean, that would be helpful.
@y not: Yes. I knew that you probably had the idea. But I just want to make sure important points like this are not to be missed. My comments are always intended to be general (for all reading these comments).
Yes. I do understand the frustration of Embodied and many others. But as y not says, we all have been born all over the world many, many times. We all have been exposed to Pali in the past, and one can “pick it up” with time. Of course, it will come a bit easier to those who have been exposed in more recent births.
Also, if you have not already see this: “Why is it Necessary to Learn Key Pali Words?“.
Yes, Johnny. That is correct.
Punnabhisankhara (morally good deeds yielding good vipaka) or apunnabhisankhara (morally bad deeds yielding bad vipaka) are done only with javana citta.
Johnny said: “do arahants dream since their minds are always mindful and bright..:
I have no idea whether Arahants dream or not. And it does not matter much anyway. When dreaming, one never generates javana citta (i.e., conscious thinking is not involved). In Abhidhamma language, those citta vithi involved are parittarammana and atiparittarammana citta vithi which do not have javana citta.
– So, dreaming is a “passive state”: one just experiences what is shown in the dream. For example, in bad dream one may see an animal chasing to kill oneself, but one is even unable to run or try to hide.
– However, as one’s gets purified, one will stop seeing such “bad dreams”. That I know by experience. However, whether all dreams stop for an Arahant, I don’t know.
Y not said: “..dreaming in the waking state, fantasizing..”
Fantasizing is not dreaming. This is VERY important to understand. One must stop fantasizing as soon as one becomes aware of it; that is part of Satipatthana.
– When one fantasizes one is consciously thinking about a previous sensual experience or an anticipated future sensual experience. These are part of vaci sankhara that lead to “bad vinnana“, i.e., they are done with javana citta: “Correct Meaning of Vacī Sankhāra“.
