Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dr. Lal: “I think what you mean is: “Do kammically neutral actions involve javana citta?”“
Yes, when the mind makes a decision, many cittas are created and based on above discussion, no javana citta will be created for a kammically neutral action/intention.
These concepts are mind blowing. Why aren’t people all around the world studying this stuff? It is quite sad that we are in such a minority.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Please elaborate on that.
I think I worded it a little poorly but based on above discussion, I meant to say that there is indeed an energy from the mind that is sent to the brain by the gandhabba when an individual decides to perform an action. This involves the cittas generated by the hadaya vatthu which comes from the kammic energy that created the gandhabba (and currently sustains it) but if the action is kammically neutral, it does not further create any kammic energy that can ripen in the future.
Dr. Lal, you wrote above: “(i) New kammic energy is created (with javana citta) only when generating abhisankhara with raga, dosa, and/or moha.” Moral actions also create kammic energy and involve abhisankhara. Do they not involve the opposite of raga and dosa (and maybe moha depending on the action)? Also, does this mean kammically neutral actions don’t create any javana citta?
When we decide to perform an action, the gandhabba sends a signal to the mana indriya in the brain in the form of kirana (ray system). This causes an electrical activity in the brain which will then use the energy that came from food to send this signal to other parts of the body by converting them to suitable electrochemical energies. So conveniently, it should be fine to say there is a mental energy that comes from the gandhabba after deciding, which is then converted to other forms of energy. This is acceptable as long as we are mindful of the fact that this is not necessarily the kammic energy generated by javana citta that can create kamma vipaka in the future. But it is a mental energy that comes from hadaya vatthu (which is sustained by the kammic energy that caused the existence of gandhabba.)
P.S. Cittas arise and fade away. So it is understandable that there has to be some form of energy causing this. A gandhabba is sustained by the kammic energy that led to its existence. So when one decides to do something with vaci sankhara, several cittas are created by the hadaya vatthu. This energy comes from the kammic energy sustaining this bhava.
1 user thanked author for this post.
From their point of view, they are correct and have your best interests and heart. They likely think that you are misguided and want to point you in the right direction. Seeing things from other people’s perspectives can be challenging but goes a long way.
You may be right. But they did try to force their beliefs on to me. I consider that a harassment.
Thanks for your reply, Yash. I have always struggled with building compassion towards people who like to spew their insecurities out on others. I guess I need to work on myself there.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m sorry for asking too many questions. The reason I’m asking is because some of the views presented in this website are really unique compared to many other sources. But I am glad to see that you are really passionate about what you’re doing. I will see if my confidence also strengthens with time. I have learned a lot through this website but there’s still a lot more left. Honestly, I’m quite excited as it feels like a steak dinner waiting to be eaten.
The Abhidhamma is a highly intellectual theory of nature for sure. I have not seen any other theory/philosophy that explains the conscious experience to such a great depth. Bhikkhu Bodhi does acknowledge that Buddha’s dhamma is the foundation of Abhidhamma even though he doesn’t seem fully convinced that Buddha taught it to devas in tavatimsa realm and gave a summary of each discourse to Sariputta.
Dr. Lal, you wrote: “Detecting/experiencing a single citta or a suddhāṭṭhaka is possible only for a Buddha. Anyone else, including Arahants, cannot do that.” Why exactly are you so confident that no one other than Buddha, not even Arahants can discover those aspects of Nature? If Arahants recited the finalized Abhidhamma, should it not be explicitly mentioned that this is the work of Buddha? Interestingly, it also doesn’t seem mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka that “Abhidhamma is a later addition which was invented by bhikkhus” or something like that. If Arahants recited the completed Abhidhamma, they would have directly mentioned that it is not Buddha’s work if it wasn’t. It looks like they neither clearly mention Buddha taught it nor he didn’t.
I wish resolving this issue was easier. I’m just curious because I want to figure out the truth for myself. Maybe you could share your thought process a little more which I’m sure will be beneficial to me and others who read this.
Some people say Abhidhamma is a “later addition.” That is the approach taken by those incapable of comprehending the deep Abhidhamma. Only a Buddha can provide such a detailed and self-consistent analysis of how the mind works.
You seem to be mostly right. When I was researching this issue online, I did see some Dhamma teachers that seem terrified of Abhidhamma and they say it is better to not spend much time in it by claiming “Buddha didn’t teach it.” This monk is an example: Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha
Interestingly though, someone like Bhikkhu Bodhi who wrote a book on Abhidhamma also said he agrees with that assessment: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi (Class #1, 5 Mar 2018)
- Bhikkhu Bodhi argues that there is no mentioning of Buddha teaching Abhidhamma to the monks in the Suttas. Rather, it occurs when monks are having discussions with each other. (Start watching from 6:24)
- In the page Abhidamma – Introduction, you provide clear evidence from different parts of the Tipitaka that all 3 Pitakas were recited at the first Buddhist council, Buddha did spend time in Tavatisma realm, and in one story, it is even directly mentioned that Buddha taught Abhidamma to the devas in Tavatimsa.
- Above combined with the fact that Abhidhamma seems fully consistent with the Suttas do suggest that Buddha did teach Abhidhamma.
- But you also state in the above referenced page: “The minute details on the structure of a citta vithi (a series of citta) of 17 thought moments, with each citta lasting sub-billionth of a second, can be seen only by a Buddha.” If you don’t mind me asking, how did you come to this conclusion? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka that such intricate details can only be discovered by Buddha? Is it not possible for Arahants too?
Amazing! Buddha dhamma seems analogous to a huge circle. In a circle, if you start from a point in the circumference and follow all the connected points, you will eventually end up in the same point you started with. In the same way, when you start studying Dhamma with a concept and continue following the connected relevant concepts, it seems like this will eventually lead to the same concept which will clarify the bigger picture. It is crazy how self-consistent this is.
This is why I say that the Buddha was the greatest scientist who ever lived! Nowadays, people are fascinated with quantum mechanics, but the Buddha described the most fundamental quantum system (the mind) 2600 years ago.
This is utterly fascinating. I love Science but I have noticed that its biggest limitation is dealing with subjective experiences. Mental Phenomena are arguably the most complex things in the universe and while Science is still at an elementary stage, Buddha provided different layers of deep explanations regarding how the conscious experience arises. And to think that he had all this knowledge while sitting at the base of a fig tree 2600 years ago is insane. Damn what a chad Buddha was.
Thanks a lot, Dr. Lal. I hope this will be my last post on this thread. I will try to summarize my understanding. Please feel free to correct me wherever I say something incorrect.
So Buddha rejected both no-self and self:
Why he rejected no-self:
A sentient being (or a ‘person’) has a perception of ‘me’ and is made up of 5 aggregates which came into existence via Paticca Samuppada process i.e. past causes and prevailing conditions. It would be incorrect say that they don’t exist when they obviously do. I exist as a human because of the past kamma that ripened and led to this existence. This existence, along with the associated suffering, is very real and unless I implement Buddha’s teachings, the future suffering (in the apayas) will be even more intense. So the uplifting part is that, as humans we have the ability to change our destiny.
Why he rejected self:
There is no unchanging entity that defines the essence of an individual. Both our physical and mental bodies are dynamic in nature as they change from moment to moment. Furthermore, we can’t choose what future existence we shall have as after the kammic energy of this existence is over, next existence is not determined according to our desire but via Paticca Samuppada process. Since most existence occur in the apayas, the 5 aggregates lead to suffering in the long run. So it would not be fruitful to say something is our self when it can’t be maintained to our satisfaction and lead to suffering in the long run. Hence, each lifestream does have uniqueness or individuality but it is not some immortal trait that can be relied upon.
What an arahant realizes:
After enlightenment, the arahant continues to exist, experiencing the world with the 5 aggregates (that came into existence due to past kamma) but they won’t cling to them. They know that these aggregates can’t be relied upon for their satisfaction in the rebirth process. Slightly different way of describing this is that due to Paticca Samuppada, past causes and prevailing conditions led to the existence of their physical & mental bodies which will continue to exist till they die. Past Kamma also led to a built-in distorted perception and while an average human would easily be deceived by it, an arahant won’t be. This is why an arahant’s mind won’t attach to any sensory input. They have self attributes like anyone else but having understood the Tilakkhana with wisdom, they are willing to give up the 5 aggregates and embrace Nibbana.
What happens after an arahant’s death:
The 5 aggregates cease to exist and their mind is merged with Nibbana which exists but not in this world. In Abhidhamma language, the conditioned elements i.e. citta, cetasika and rupa are replaced with the unconditioned element called Nibbana. Since the mind can’t grasp another existence, the lifestream now ceases to exist anywhere in the 31 realms. It is easy to misunderstand this by thinking it is some form of annihilation but since Nibbana exists and the 5 aggregates don’t define a “real person” anyway, it is actually the ultimate liberation.
This is one of the craziest concepts I have ever attempted to learn. It doesn’t surprise me that it is arguably the most misunderstood aspect of Gautam Buddha’s teachings. I still think this is not a 100% clear to me but I feel like I am getting closer. I will continue to read the different pages and discussions pertaining to this topic on the website. Thanks again, Dr. Lal.
Dr. Lal, thank you for the response. I went through your explanations in this thread and read a few other pages pertaining to this topic. Based on my understanding, I will try to summarize my response in the same format below:
- So according to the law of Paticca Samuppada, it is not correct to say that ‘I’ don’t exist because I do. But I should also understand that what I perceive to be me/mine are the 5 aggregates which are not under my complete control. These evolve according to natural causes and not according to my desires. Of course, I don’t want to be born as a wild animal and get eaten alive. But if I have the appropriate character or gati, it can happen. The fact that majority of the discovered sentient beings are in the wild gives a clear sign that many of them have the existence they didn’t desire. So it is not fruitful to say that the 5 aggregates are “mine”. This almost appears paradoxical because how can I say that ‘I’ exist if the 5 aggregates aren’t mine?
- Since the law of paticca samuppada causes a person to exist, a human does have free will?
- Yash RS clarified what I meant. So each human has a built in distorted perception. What makes an arahant unique is that their perception won’t be defiled since they won’t attach to any sensory input. The 3 marks of existence (anicca, anatta, and dukkha) are crystal clear to an arahant’s mind which is why they naturally (or automatically) avoid generating mental defilements. This means that they do not take the 5 aggregates to belong to them or their “self” but till they die, they do have personality attributes.
- I should have been more clear on this. An arahant obviously has a heightened awareness, right? What we can perceive with our senses is pretty limited, considering the complexity of the universe. For instance, the visible range is tiny compared to the wide electromagnetic spectrum. Even an unenlightened individual can use anariya jhana to increase their awareness. An arahant has perfected insight to the true nature of this world. So they should likely know, precisely, what Nibbana is. By that, would an arahant’s mind be discernible to us?
- This is really interesting. People that do “astral travel” say that when they have an out of body experience (OBE), they are still connected to their physical bodies via a “silver cord” and as soon as they think about their bodies they are pulled inside. I wonder how “different” are the cases of Near Death Experience (NDE). Dr. Sam Parnia described that death is more of an ongoing process rather than an instantaneous event. When an NDE experiencer is temporarily out of their body, I wonder if they are still connected to their bodies like in the case of meditation induced OBEs and if so, at what point they become disconnected.
I agree that Buddha’s teachings are really deep and difficult to understand. As a 22 year old software engineer, I thrive with logic and reasoning but I also have many personal issues. I apologize for my confusions but most discussions of Enlightenment I find online are just philosphical arguments that only perpetuate my confusion. Hopefully, my understanding grows with time.
I’m not a scientist who believes “science can never be wrong” but one who has many questions about the world which is why I want to study Buddha’s teachings. I appreciate your elaborate response and will look into the pages you referenced.
I am curious to know how you come up with the information you present in this website. It seems different from other (western) sources of Buddha dhamma. For instance, where can I find the description of 4th Jhāna (or OBE) in the Tipitaka? Also, why is it that you claim Abhidhamma can only be discovered by a Buddha but western scholars like Bhikkhu Bodhi say it was likely a later addition?
I used Dr. Tour’s video because he mentioned some key aspects. Most of your comments are bashing his ideas. I did emphasize that I don’t agree with all of his views. I just wanted to show the views of other scientists who agree that scientists are nowhere close to making a cell in a laboratory. He is a reputable scientist.
Just bashing his ideas? I feel like you read my post but didn’t actually think about the points that I made. The guy is clearly lying and distorting scientific information. My issue is not with you showing a view different from other scientists but claiming that James Tour “proves” that Abiogenesis is wrong. He may be a reputable scientist in the realm of Chemistry but what reputation does he have in the context of Origin of Life research, which is an interdisciplinary field? When someone is manipulative enough to claim that “Nothing has happened in Origin of Life research since Miller – Urey experiment”, they have lost all credibility from the scientists that study this stuff.
How exactly did I misrepresent the scientific work done up to now? Science has not been able to make a living cell, and they are nowhere close to that.
And again, I feel like you didn’t carefully read my post above. I never said you are misrepresenting the scientific work for simply claiming that scientists have not been able to artificially make a living cell. My issue is with the erroneous implication that if it can’t be done in a human lab, it couldn’t have happened due to natural process. We don’t have the technology to compress something down to its schwarzschild radius either, does that mean black holes can’t come into existence due to natural process?
Even if they can create a cell, creating a “conscious life” is an impossibility. How can inert matter give rise to feelings of joy or sadness, perceptions, etc.?
This one may be right. Many intriguing research done by scientists in UVA, Division of Perceptual Studies and in other institutions have raised compelling questions about the nature of the conscious experience. If scientific tools gets advanced enough to demonstrate that mind isn’t produced by the brain, it will cause an implication to the origin of life research where the mind will be central. This is fully consistent with Buddha dhamma, but will take a paradigm change in the mainstream Science perspective. I feel like one of the reasons why many Scientists have been stubborn with their materialistic views is because religious people say a lot of unsubstantiated things about the world, and acknowledging that consciousness isn’t created by the brain could come off as validating those claims that don’t have basis in fact. Just when you are done with the issue of materialism, you will encounter the issue of creationism. What a messed up world this is, lmao
Dr. Lal, I have read several posts on the site and most of them have been great. But there is one specific page titled “Origin Of Life – There is No Traceable Origin” that I have some issues with. While critiquing the theory that living cells (life) have origins in inert matter, you make the following assertion about a cell:
“If it cannot be created in a laboratory under controlled conditions, it WILL NOT be possible for life to arise in a natural process starting with inert matter.”
It looks like there is a big flaw in your reasoning. The inability to create a living cell in a laboratory under current controlled conditions does not necessarily mean that life could not have arisen through natural processes. This statement overlooks several important distinctions:
- Life is incredibly complex, with intricate cellular structures and processes that we are only beginning to understand. Recreating this level of complexity in a laboratory is a monumental challenge and is not achievable with current technology and knowledge. However, the absence of laboratory synthesis does not preclude the possibility of natural processes leading to the emergence of life over billions of years under different conditions on early Earth.
- The conditions present on early Earth billions of years ago were vastly different from those in a modern laboratory. Natural processes operate on much larger scales and over much longer periods of time than laboratory experiments. Abiogenesis Theory suggests that life may have arisen through gradual, incremental changes over millions of years, a process that is difficult to replicate in a laboratory setting.
- There is a BIG difference between the way humans build things and nature builds things. Nature often achieves outcomes that are far beyond human capabilities or understanding. Just because we cannot replicate certain natural phenomena in a laboratory does not mean they are impossible or do not occur in the natural world. As a prime example, we cannot create black holes in a laboratory either, but that does not mean that they can’t be formed due to natural processes as they are usual occurrence in the universe. Things happen in nature when suitable conditions are there.
I also took some time to go through the video you referenced by a chemist named James Tour and while it seems to bring up some fair points, I feel like it has several issues. It seems obvious to me that this guy’s critique of Abiogenesis is heavily influenced by his religious views. I am not going through all of his talking points as I’m not interested in annoying myself to that extent, but I will address some of the major points he makes:
The first thing he talks about is how “molecules don’t know how to move towards life”. He even mentions that they don’t have a “brain”, which is such an absurd thing for a chemist to say in my opinion. But regardless, this claim misunderstands the process of abiogenesis and evolution. Molecules themselves don’t possess consciousness or intentionality, so they don’t “know” how to evolve or form complex cells in the way that living organisms do. Instead, the theory of emergence of life from non-living matter proposes that it is a result of natural chemical and physical processes that operate according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Molecules interact with each other through chemical reactions, driven by factors such as energy availability, temperature, and chemical composition of the environment. Over time, these reactions can lead to the formation of more complex molecules from simpler ones. Once self-replicating molecules, such as RNA, emerged through these chemical processes, natural selection could act upon them. Variations in the molecular structures that conferred advantages in replication or stability would be more likely to persist and proliferate, while less favorable variations would diminish. This process could gradually lead to the emergence of more complex molecular structures capable of performing functions necessary for life. Complex cellular structures and processes can emerge from simpler components through the process of emergence, where the interactions between individual components give rise to collective properties and behaviors that are not present in the individual parts alone. This is a fundamental concept in systems theory and is observed in various fields, including physics, chemistry, and biology. Thus, the evolution of life from non-living matter is a consequence of natural processes operating over vast spans of time, rather than a result of molecules consciously striving towards a specific outcome.
Tour’s presentation of how Origin of Life research is done in the context of chemical synthesis experiments is also utterly misleading. Abiogenesis research involves laboratory experiments synthesizing organic molecules which is a multifaceted and rigorous scientific endeavor that extends far beyond simple chemical mixtures. While it’s true that many experiments in abiogenesis research involve synthesizing basic organic molecules in laboratory settings, these experiments represent just one aspect of a much broader and more nuanced field of study. Abiogenesis research encompasses a wide range of interdisciplinary approaches, including experimental chemistry, theoretical modeling, astrobiology, and field studies of extreme environments.
Tour also mentions that “Nothing has happened in OOL research since Miller – Urey experiment”. This is total nonsense. Abiogenesis research is a dynamic field and has made significant strides since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953. While early experiments focused on synthesizing simple organic molecules, subsequent research has explored more complex chemical pathways, investigated alternative environments for the origin of life (such as hydrothermal vents or outer space), and developed sophisticated analytical techniques to study prebiotic chemistry. Each new discovery builds upon previous knowledge, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the conditions and mechanisms involved in abiogenesis.
Also, contrary to the implication in his argument, abiogenesis research is conducted with scientific rigor and adheres to rigorous experimental protocols and peer-reviewed publication standards. Scientists carefully design experiments to test specific hypotheses, control for variables, and replicate results. While there may be sensationalized media coverage of certain findings, the scientific community evaluates research based on its merits and evidence. Tour’s argument implies that scientists claim to fully understand how life formed based on simplistic laboratory experiments. In reality, scientists acknowledge the complexity and uncertainties inherent in abiogenesis research. While progress has been made in elucidating some aspects of the origin of life, many questions remain unanswered, and ongoing research continues to explore new avenues of investigation. So, the blame of sensationalized media should go to the press who exaggerate for clicks.
Afterwards in the video, Tour talks about the challenges associated with the “synthesis” and “assembly” problems. While I think he is not fully inaccurate in depicting some of the challenges associated with understanding the origin of life through chemical synthesis, he is pretending as if they are unsolvable issues. The following are important points to consider:
- It’s true that living systems exhibit homochirality, but there are proposed mechanisms for how this could have emerged from initially racemic mixtures. For instance, asymmetric catalysis or chiral amplification processes could have played a role in selecting one chirality over the other. Some of the possible routes towards Homochirality includes Heterogeneous catalysis in tidal pools and Enantiomeric resolution. Also, not all biomolecules had to start out chiral like the racemic lipids, for example which might have developed this feature much later.
- While it’s challenging to reverse synthetic reactions once they’ve occurred, this doesn’t necessarily preclude the formation of complex molecules. Prebiotic environments were likely dynamic and could have provided opportunities for molecules to undergo multiple pathways and reactions, leading to diverse products.
- Prebiotic chemistry might not have had a “goal” in the human sense, but it’s plausible that certain environmental conditions or energy gradients could have driven chemical reactions towards increased complexity and organization.
- While time can lead to degradation or unwanted reactions, it also provides opportunities for more favorable reactions. Also, prebiotic environments could have contained catalysts or compartments that helped stabilize and protect molecules from degradation. It should also be mentioned that molecules aren’t just made on time. The process of polymerization, for example, could have been repeatedly occurring while the degradation was also happening. Degradation is irrelevant if the process is perpetually ongoing and even more irrelevant if we are dealing with self-replicating molecules.
- It’s true that controlling reaction conditions is important for selective synthesis, but natural environments might have provided localized conditions conducive to certain reactions. For example, mineral surfaces or hydrothermal vents could have acted as templates or catalysts for specific chemical transformations.
- Characterizing reactions and products is challenging in prebiotic systems, but advances in analytical techniques have allowed scientists to infer potential pathways and products based on experimental data and theoretical models.
- While nature doesn’t keep a laboratory notebook, it also doesn’t face the same resource limitations as a laboratory setting. Prebiotic environments were rich in diverse chemical compounds, and iterative processes over time could have led to the accumulation of complex molecules.
To summarize, the broad stages of the current state of Abiogenesis research are the following:
- Generation of Small Biomolecules: This stage involves the formation of simple organic molecules such as amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids. Various experiments and theoretical models have explored how these molecules could have arisen from simple precursor molecules in prebiotic conditions, such as the primordial soup hypothesis or reactions in hydrothermal vents.
- Polymerization to get Biopolymers: Once small biomolecules are present, the next step is their polymerization into larger macromolecules like proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides, and lipids. Polymerization could have occurred through various mechanisms, including condensation reactions on mineral surfaces, template-directed synthesis, or catalysis by metal ions or organic molecules.
- Assembly into Organized Structures: In this stage, the macromolecules formed in the previous step start to organize into more complex structures. This could involve the self-assembly of lipids into membranes, the formation of RNA or protein complexes, or the encapsulation of biomolecules within vesicles or other compartments.
- Formation of Protobionts: Protobionts are hypothetical precursors to living cells, consisting of organized structures with some properties of life, such as metabolism, growth, and replication. Various models propose different scenarios for how protobionts could have emerged, including lipid vesicles with simple metabolic pathways, RNA-based replicators, or combinations of both. Jeewanu protocells, for example, have been synthesized since the 1960s.
I am going to stop it here but am willing to discuss more if you would like. I would like to make it clear that I am not asserting that the hypothesis “life has origins in inert matter” is certainly true. I do not deny the possibility of the Buddha’s description in the Aggañña sutta. It is certainly a lot more logical than the creationist model. But I also think that it is unfair to misrepresent the scientific work that has been done in this field. So, I think you should make some corrections and stop mentioning that some evangelical liar “proves” that Abiogenesis is wrong when he clearly does not.
