For JCER: October 25, 2011, 7:51 PM
Buddhism and Dual-Aspect Monism
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Vision Research Institute, 428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720 USA
[email protected]
Abstract
Theist religions argue for the pre-existence of self/Atman/ruh based on
mentalistic idealism and/or interactive substance dualism frameworks;
whereas Buddhism denies this; instead, this atheist religion (i) proposes
Karmic theory (impression of karmas/action survives after death in some
storage area such as cosmic field) and entails rebirth. In addition,
Buddhism also entertains (ii) mentalistic idealism (matter from mind)
(Smetham, 2011), (iii) interactive substance dualism (Dalai Lama framework
in (Luisi, 2008) and see also in (Vimal, 2009e)), (iv) dual-aspect monism:
Wallace's framework in (Wallace, 2007) and (Vimal, 2009e), and (v)
skepticism (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008). I have provided my
shastrarth/discussion with (Smetham, 2011) and (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008).
Materialism also denies pre-existence of self, instead the self emerges in
self-related neural-network (NN) (emergent theory) or identical with self-
related-NN-state (identity theory). However, these views have problems
(Vimal, 2010b, 2011c). These problems are addressed by Dual-Aspect Monism
(Vimal, 2008) with dual-mode (Vimal, 2010a) and with varying degree of
dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities ((Vimal, 2012) and
(Vimal, 2011c)) (DAMv), where each entity has two inseparable aspects
(mental and physical). Buddhism is close to atheist version of DAMv (Vimal,
2011c, 2011e).
Key words: Mentalistic idealism, interactive substance dualism, skepticism,
materialism, eternalism, nihilism, dual-aspect monism, dual-mode, mind,
matter, Brahman, Atman, jiva, Vedas, Jainism, Lokāyata, Cārvāka, Buddhism,
theism, atheism.
1. Introduction
As per Buddhist biologist/neuroscientist/philosopher (Varela, 1995),
"Western tradition has avoided the idea of a selfless self, of a virtual
self. This egolessness, or selflessness, is truly the core of Buddhism.
Over the past two thousand years, the Buddhists have developed
philosophical, phenomenological, and epistemological sophistication, and
they have invoked this intuition in a very hands-on way. […] Buddhist ideas
are prevalent throughout our culture — in physics and biology, for example,
the basic ideas are Buddhism in disguise."[i]
As per (Watson, 2001), "Buddhism has always been concerned with feelings,
emotions, sensations, and cognition. The Buddha points both to cognitive
and emotional causes of suffering. The emotional cause is desire and its
negative opposite, aversion. The cognitive cause is ignorance of the way
things truly occur, or of three marks of existence: that all things are
unsatisfactory, impermanent, and without essential self."[ii]
Buddhism rejects Vedic Atman (self) with subtle body (where unfulfilled
desire and karmic traces are stored for re-birth) after death. Instead it
proposes existence of Karma (without Atman, Anatman) after death, which
entails rebirth.[iii] However, what is the mechanism of storage (where and
how) and recall of karma after death? These are interesting questions and
need to be addressed clearly and needs to be verified before Karmic theory
can be accepted.
One could raise a question: "Does the self exist? […] What is it that is
denied by the proponents of non-self theories [such as Buddhism]? And what
notion of self is at play if the existence of the self is affirmed?" (Cai,
2011).
"When [the Buddhist] understanding of karma is correlated to the Buddhist
doctrine of universal impermanence and No-Self, a serious problem arises as
to where this trace is stored and what the trace left is. The problem is
aggravated when the trace remains latent over a long period, perhaps over a
period of many existences. The crucial problem presented to all schools of
Buddhist philosophy was where the trace is stored and how it can remain in
the ever-changing stream of phenomena which build up the individual and
what the nature of this trace is"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism).
As per Buddhist scholar Alan Wallace (personal communication in June 2011),
"According to the Kalacakra Tantra, karmic imprints (vasana), memories, and
so on are carried from one life to the next by way of the jîva, a
continuum, or field, of prāṇa that accompanies the continuum of subtle
consciousness that carries on from lifetime to lifetime. However, there is
a real danger of reifying the manner in which such imprints are 'stored.'
Consider as an analogy how information is 'stored' in electromagnetic
fields transmitted from laptop to another. The fields themselves are
physical (i.e., they are physically measurable and have physical qualities)
but immaterial (i.e., they are not composed of particles of matter), while
the information that is 'stored' in those fields is neither physical nor
material. Likewise, the consciousness and information that is transmitted
from one body to the next is neither physical nor material, but the subtle
continuum of prāṇa that indivisibly accompanies that consciousness is
physical but not material. I have discussed this in greater detail in my
book (Wallace, 2009)." My understanding is that electromagnetic fields are
physical entities because they follow physics, i.e., fermions "are usually
associated with matter, whereas bosons are generally force carrier
particles; although in the current state of quantum physics the distinction
between the two concepts is unclear"[iv].
This (Kalacakra Tantra's hypothesis) sounds close to Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad (Swami Krishnananda, 1983), where jîva accompanies subtle body
that 'stores' traces for karma and unfulfilled intense desire for next
birth (see also (Roeser, 2005)). ["Yes, this is very close to, if not
identical with, the Kalacakra view, and it is one I embrace" (Wallace).]
One could argue for dual-aspect entity/field, where jîva/prāṇa is the
mental aspect and subtle body is the inseparable physical aspect to
minimize metaphysical problems (Vimal, 2011c, 2011e).
If such fields related to jîva/prāṇa are physically measurable and have
physical qualities but are not composed of fermions (and bosons), then one
could argue for dual-aspect fields with inseparable mental and physical
aspects. Perhaps, then karmic imprints (vasana), memories, and so on are
carried via the physical aspect.
As per (Vimal, 2009e), "According to Dalai Lama, (i) since a phenomenon can
arise from similar phenomenon and since consciousness is radically
different from non-experiential matter (mass-energy), "consciousness can
arise only from a continuum of phenomena similar to itself, in the same way
that formations of mass-energy give rise to formations of mass-energy";
(ii) Buddhist framework argues for beginningless continuum of consciousness
(or sentient beings) and presumably beginningless continuum of matter ("The
origin or substantial cause of the first matter in this universe was
preceding matter"); and (iii) "evolution of the physical universe as
intimately interdependent with the sentient beings who inhabit and
experience the external world" (Luisi, 2008). This argument is a form of
(substance) dualism and hence one has to address the problems of dualism
[(Vimal, 2009d)], even though it appears to bypass the explanatory gap of
Type-2. […] According to Buddhist centrist framework (Wallace, 1989), 'Our
thoughts, intentions, and emotional states maneuver our bodies and thereby
other physical objects; likewise, material things are constantly
influencing our mental states. […] Both subject and object exist in
interdependence, both are evident to experience, and the distinction
between them is conventional, not intrinsic. […] Physical and mental events
occur in mutual interaction and are therefore interdependent. Thus, neither
can be considered absolute in the sense of being independent; nor is one
more real than the other. […] We thereby accept a dualism of a conventional
sort, not of an absolute, Cartesian variety. […] Mental states arise from
previous mental states in an unbroken continuum, much as physical entities
arise from preceding physical entities. […] Indeed, it may be more
accurate to think of a single entity(the continuum(bearing physical and
mental attributes [this seems like a dual-aspect view]. It is at this level
that the duality of physical and mental events disappears. […] Modern
neuroscience regards human sensory and mental cognitions as being emergent
properties of the brain. Buddhist contemplative science, in contrast,
regards them as emergent properties of the very subtle energy/mind'.
Perhaps Buddhist centrist framework (Wallace, 1989) does not contradict our
dual-aspect PE-SE framework with 'property dualism and substance monism'
because consciousness can arise from the mental aspect of primal entities.
The difference is that matter is the carrier of PEs/SEs in the PE-SE
framework, as in hypotheses H1 and H2. Wallace (personal communication, 6-
Feb-2008) commented, "Mahayana Buddhism, especially in accordance with the
Madhyamaka view, rejects the substantial nature of all phenomena, so it
does not accept a substance dualism between body and mind along the lines
proposed by Descartes. As I have argued in my book (Wallace, 2007),
Buddhism as a whole asserts the existence of a 'form realm' (rupa-dhatu)
that exists prior to and at a more fundamental level than our human
conceptual constructs of 'mind' and 'matter'. On a deeper level, Vajrayana
Buddhism asserts the existence of 'absolute space of phenomena' (dharma-
dhatu), which transcends all conceptual categories, including those of mind
and matter. So that view, too, rejects any notion of substance dualism in
favor of aspect dualism similar to what you propose." Thus, Buddhist
centrist framework (Wallace, 1989) does not contradict the dual-aspect PE-
SE framework."
Buddhism rejects Vedic eternal jîva/Atman (eternalism) because it lacks
inherent existence as per Nāgārjuna's dependent co-origination (Vimal,
2009a). If this is correct then Buddhist's jîva is not eternal rather it is
transitory and changeable. ["It is indeed transitory and subject to change,
moment by moment" (Wallace).]
According to (Lepine, 2008), "In Buddhism the deeper-lying monistic entity
is the pure wisdom of the Supreme Unified Consciousness which can give rise
to matter and/or mind. In scientific terms it is the quantum geometry at
the tiniest level (Planck scale) of the universe, which is called the
unified quantum field."
As per (Whitehead, 1932), "In a certain sense, everything is everywhere at
all times. For every location involves an aspect of itself in every other
location. Thus, every spatio-temporal standpoint mirrors the world." On
other words, Whitehead rejects 'simple location', i.e., "locatedness in one
place, time or conceptual sphere, as opposed to some other place, time or
sphere where that entity is lacking" (Ziporyn, 2009).
As per (Ziporyn, 2009), "Certain forms of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism,
notably Huayan Buddhism and Tiantai Buddhism, share Whitehead's rejection
of the conception of simple location" […] Tiantai view of the relation of
conscious beings to the world they live in can be put like this: every
event, function or characteristic occurring in experience is the action of
the all sentient and insentient beings working together. Every instant of
experience is the whole of existential reality, manifesting in this
particular form, as this particular entity or experience. […] The Tiantai
theory rests on two intimately related foundations: the doctrine of the
Three Truths, and the doctrine of 'opening the provisional to reveal the
real.' The Three Truths are an expansion of the traditional Nagarjunian
idea of the Two Truths. The first is Conventional Truth, which includes
ordinary language (everyday descriptions of selves, causes, effects,
things, beginnings and ends, as well as traditional Buddhist statements
about value and practice, e.g., the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Noble
Path, the marks of suffering, impermanence and non-self). The second is
Ultimate Truth, which is in the first place Emptiness as the negation of
the absolute validity of any of the terms accepted as conventional truths.
[…]
Tiantai alters this picture decisively by speaking of not two but three
truths. These are Conventional Truth, Ultimate Truth, and the Center. This
reconfiguration has two direct consequences: first, the hierarchy between
conventional and ultimate truth is canceled. […] Second, the category of
'plain falsehood' which was implied by the Nagarjunian idea of Two Truths
is here eliminated entirely: all claims of whatever kind are equally
conventional truths, and thus, of equal value to and ultimately identical
to ultimate truth, or the conception of Emptiness, and its self-overcoming.
[…]
spiritual problem is not sin in the sense of, say, disobedience or even
alienation from some particular being or state, but rather existential
suffering. Suffering, per se, is a function of conditionality, which is to
say, finitude as such. Conditionality means dependence on more than just a
single cause (like a self or an essence); every event is one of many
effects arising from the convergence of more than one heterogeneous causes.
No single entity, acting alone, can produce an effect. Suffering means 'a
disparity between what I want and what is the case.' It is defined in
relation to human desire. But this desire is not just for pleasure
conceived as some particular object, but rather for the constant
availability of pleasure, the power to get it when one wants it; the
getting is the pleasure, not the object got. It is this power to get what
one wants that one really wants behind all apparent objects of desire. But
'to have the power to get what one wants whenever one wants it,' means 'to
be the sole cause of what happens to one.' This would be to be
unconditional.[v] But this is what would be required if one were to be a
"self," i.e., the sole cause of one's own condition, and this underpins the
commonsensical attempts to end suffering: to become or assure oneself that
one is the sole cause of what one experiences at all times. […] Suffering
and non-suffering alternate (the pace and ratios, even the sequence, are
irrelevant here)."
As per (Sherlock, 2009), "Buddha re-discovered, as he put it, an ancient
way out of suffering that entails meditation, introspection and changes in
behavior. […] According to Buddhism, we are responsible for our volitional
actions and their effects and there is no possibility of atonement. […]
Buddhism maintains that there is no self in anyone or anything. The concept
of self, 'I', soul, or ego is illusory. […] there is no self, 'I', 'me', or
'soul' and when the causal conditions that give rise to us cease to exist,
we cease to exist. Nothing remains, nothing continues. There is nothing
that could reincarnate.
Everyone and everything is impermanent and in a state of flux: coming to be
and ceasing to be. The universe is as it is because of its inherent nature
without beginning and without end. Energy and matter are in ever-changing
interdependent cycles of coming to be and ceasing to be.
Western theories hold that the fundamental cause of emotional problems such
as depression, anxiety, anger and stress is genetic, psychological trauma
in childhood, unreasonable thinking, social conditions or abnormalities in
brain chemistry. Buddhism holds that the fundamental cause of such
conditions is delusion and consequent attachment to desire. Whatever the
physical, mental, and emotional conditions, past, present and future, we
can reject them or accept them when they manifest. Rejecting them we
suffer; accepting them we do not suffer. […] By letting go of thoughts and
thinking, a shift occurs: the seat of consciousness moves out of the head
and into the body; out of the realm of thinking and into the realm of
physical reality. […]
The Buddha realized that the cause of suffering is attachment to desire:
wanting and insisting on having our way. The Buddha's remedy is to let go:
not to insist and then complain or make a fuss when we cannot have what we
want. […] The Buddha's Teachings on this start with The Four Noble Truths:
suffering, the cause of suffering (attachments), the ceasing of suffering
(letting go of attachments) and the way that leads to the ceasing of
suffering: The Noble Eightfold Path."
(Nobuhara, 2009) presents the discussion between Buddhist Hisamatsu (SH)
and Vedic scholar Jung (CGJ) as: "SH: What we in Buddhism, and especially
in Zen, usually call the 'common self' corresponds exactly to what you call
the 'collective unconscious.' Only through liberation from the collective
unconscious, namely, the common self, can the authentic self emerge.
CGJ: This self of which you speak corresponds, for example, to the klesas
in the Yoga Sutra. My concept of self corresponds, however, to the notions
of atman or pursha. This personal atman corresponds to the self insofar as
it is at the same time the suprapersonal atman. In other words, 'my self'
is at the same time 'the self.' In my language, the self is the counterpart
to the 'I.' What you call the self is what I would call the 'I.' What I
call the self is the whole, the atman. […]
Takizawa reiterates his critique of Hisamatsu's view of awakening, to the
effect that when one says that that my awakening to the True Subject, who
is absolutely formless (i.e., 'the authentic self'), is the same as saying
that the True Subject works in me, taking the form of this I, one has to
pay attention to the fact that 'I am responsible for my decision as a
limited human person.' […] 'The collective unconscious seems to be not so
much something to be liberated from, but something to be acknowledged. It
always manifests itself in particular concrete images, social relations,
gender differentiation, and cosmology, which Buddhism often tends to
underestimate, erroneously appealing to the doctrine of Emptiness, Absolute
Nothingness or the Formless Self'."
As per (Long, 2009), "In Buddhism, the term 'Self' is avoided, but the
process is not fundamentally different—the deconstruction of the empirical
ego followed by the spontaneous arising of insight into the true nature of
reality and leading to nirvana, the state of freedom from suffering and
further rebirth.
In Hinduism, however, karma is simply a universal law. 'For every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction,' not only in the realm of physics,
but in the realm of morality as well. In Buddhism, karma is more of a
psychological reality. Instead of a self, it is karmic energy that is
reborn and that must be resolved for nirvana to occur. But in Jainism,
karma is actually a form of subtle matter, and the mechanism by which the
bondage of the soul occurs, as well as the path to its eventual liberation,
is the central concern of the tradition. According to Jainism, all jivas,
all souls, throughout their beginningless existence, have been bound to
karmic matter. How did this process begin? Like Buddhism, Sāṃkhya, and
Yoga, Jainism does not address this question. […] one need not postulate an
origin of how soul and matter (or, in the case of Buddhism, pure mind and
false consciousness) came to be enmeshed with one another in order to
discern the distinction between the two and initiate the process of their
separation. As with the idea of cosmic order, the karmic bondage of the
soul is simply presupposed.
According to the Jain account, karmic matter is attracted to the jiva by
the arising of passions within the jiva. Passions are of two fundamental
kinds: attraction (raga) and aversion (dvesha). […] At any given point in
the journey of the soul through samsara—the process of birth, death, and
rebirth in the material world—it contains karmic particles that it has
attracted through its passionate responses to prior stimuli. […]
It is not a deterministic system, however, because, like all systems that
involve the notion of karma, there is an element of free will in the
present moment in terms of how one is going to respond to one's current
experience. […] We are in control, ultimately, of how we respond to
stimuli. […] It is this element of freedom that makes a path of liberation
from karma possible; for this freedom opens up a space in which human
action is possible that can shape the future of one's relationship to the
karmic process. […]
The Theravada tradition of Buddhism interestingly uses the same language as
the Jains—of karmic 'influx' and 'outflow' and 'fruition.' This is
suggestive of the common milieu from which the two traditions emerged. But
for the Buddhist, this is quite clearly metaphorical language for what is
ultimately conceived as a psychological process. But for the Jain tradition
it is regarded as literally true. […] Ahimsa is nonviolence in thought,
word, and deed. […] Consciousness, from a Jain perspective, is wholly a
function of the soul, though conditioned and obscured by karmic matter.
[Karma is generally treated as an individual matter in Jainism…]"
From the perspective of our discussion[vi], Whitehead's Process and
Reality[vii] exploits interesting features, such as (1) its use of
topological and mereological notions, (2) its arguments in favour of a God
of sorts (although it is debatable whether Whitehead's God is the God of
revealed monotheism), (3) Whitehead's rejection of mind-body dualism
(similar to elements in oriental faith traditions such as Buddhism), (4)
the fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience, which
are "pulses" or "drops" of experience, while the "beings" disclosed in the
so-called normal state of consciousness are societies of such occasions. In
order to differentiate Whitehead's approach from panpsychism, David Ray
Griffin has coined the term "panexperientialism."[viii]
2. Shastrarth/discussion between the author, Ellis, and Smetham
The old eastern tradition of Shastrarth (discussion) is very useful in the
search of truth. There has been significant and useful Shastrarth between
Buddhist and Vedantins in past (Adi Sankaracharya, 1950). My email
discussion with Ellis and Smetham are presented below along with
commentaries on (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008) and (Smetham, 2011).
2.1. My (RLPV) commentary on (Ellis, 2008) and his response and some
discussion with Smetham
2.1.1. RLPV: My initial comments (Ellis, 2008) are as follows:
2.1.1.1. (Ellis, 2008)'s version of the Four Noble Truths seems to have
lower impact factor; it should be rephrased with clarity as in the
original:(1) Suffering does exist, which (2) arises from attachment to
desires and (3) ceases when attachment to desire ceases via (4) practicing
the Eightfold Path.[ix]
2.1.1.2. If the goal is to have stress-free suffering free life, which is a
sort of nirvana, enlightenment or mukti (release) from suffering,
appropriate karma depending on the context should be suffice to some
extent.
2.1.1.3. One could also rationally interpret karmic hypothesis based on
atheist version of DAMv (Vimal, 2011c) as follows: our karmas/actions (as
cause) must have effects in future in us, one way or other, before death;
after death our karmas may have effects in the life of others (such as the
life of our children, relatives, close friends, people who read our
articles and books, and so on). Therefore, we must be very careful with our
karmas on daily basis and we try our best. The term 'soul' or 'karma' can
also be interpreted in terms of information we produce, such as information
in our publications.
2.1.1.4. One could also argue that pratityasamutpada or dependent co-
origination is basically organism-environment interaction for co-evolution
and co-development for entities such as mind and brain, which is an
important principle in science/neuroscience; further details are given in
(Vimal, 2009a).
2.1.1.5. There are 3 kinds of Realities: (1) our daily conventional mind-
dependent Reality (CMDR), which is constructed by our subjective
experiences, (2) ultimate MDR (UMDR) at samadhi state where subject and
objects unify, but it is still mind dependent Reality; and (3) mind
independent Reality (MIR), which is unknown (as per Kant) or partly known
via CMDR and/or UMDR (as per neo-Kantian view) because mind is also a
product of Nature. One could argue that CMDR and also UMDR are maya
(illusion/delusion) with respect to MIR; details are given in (Vimal,
2009a). Perhaps, (Ellis, 2008)'s 'reality' is close to CMDR and 'Reality'
is close to MIR.
2.1.1.6. What remains after Ellis' critique: (Ellis, 2008) writes, "Not
just the Middle Way, but the Noble Eightfold Path and many of the further
formulae which develop limbs of that path, such as the Four Right Efforts.
The interlocking Threefold Path of morality, meditation and wisdom is left,
with a rich fund of meditation practices, wisdom reflections, and inspiring
stories. A great deal of Buddhism, fortunately, is completely practical."
This is interesting; it can be elaborated further, which may become the
core of Buddhism using the Middle Way (i.e., the middle of substance
dualism/idealism and materialism), such as DAMv framework (Dual-Aspect
Monism (Vimal, 2008) with dual-mode (Vimal, 2010a) and varying degree of
dominance of the aspects depending on the level of entities ((Vimal, 2012)
and (Vimal, 2011c)). The DAMv has the least number of problems (Vimal,
2010a).
(Ellis, 2008) discuses the following:
The First Noble Principle: 'The Middle Way is the Principle of
investigation, which allows us to get closer to truth [about stress-free
satisfactory living] through experience': Middle Way is suffering-free
living through experience.
The Second Noble Principle: 'If we are to improve the problematic and
unsatisfactory aspects of our experience, we must first recognise that they
are problematic and unsatisfactory.' This implies that suffering does
exist.
The Third Noble Principle: 'Aspects of our experience are often made
problematic and unsatisfactory by greed of a type [with negative energy]
that can be transformed and rechanneled'. This implies the process of
sublimation of negative ego for reducing suffering.
The Fourth Noble Principle: 'Investigating our experience usually shows
that progress is possible.'
2.1.1.7. Good karma: These are interesting; further research is needed to
make them more effective compared to Buddha's 4 Noble Truths via DAMv
framework. For example, in DAMv framework, suffering can be further reduced
as follows: If good karmas is based on CMDR, then it is limited to a
specific ethnic group and is not universal. In other words, suffering will
be reduced as long as the subject resides in that specific ethnic group and
follows its social rules along with individual desire in a compromised
manner. Once the subject is out to the world of multiple ethnic groups,
then that subject may need to restart all over again because that previous
suffering-reducing 'good karmas' may not work.
Here, DAMv can help us: The mental aspect of the state of multiple ethnic
groups to whole world (the physical aspect) will play important role. For
example, there should be many kinds of laws because of many interacting
brains: (i) there should be general universal laws (such as laws of world);
then (ii) legal and ethical laws of a specific country; (iii) laws of
state/province; (iv) laws of town in which the subject is residing; (v)
laws of specific ethnic group; (vi) laws/rules within a family members; and
(vii) views/desires/goals of individual subject.
These laws/views/desires/goals are the mental aspect of single or multiple
interacting brain-states that has many NNs and their activities as physical
aspect; the interaction includes brain, body, and environment. If all the
laws (which can be dynamic) are followed, karma will be considered as good
karma and then suffering may be reduced to some extent, but can never be
eliminated. This is because there will always be some conflict of interests
between the desires/views/goals of each individual and the laws/rules of
'others' (family/society/town/state/country/world) in life, which is not
easy to eliminate. One can practice meditation, autosuggestion,
compromises, better understanding the dynamics of events in life to
minimize suffering/un-satisfaction of life, but it will never be
eliminated. Happiness, suffering, war and peace are essential for evolution
as they generate variations; perhaps the best way is the optimum/middle way
(with minimum suffering and war) in life.
One could argue for Cosmic Justice to motivate people for good karma. In
DAMv framework, this needs re-interpretation. Theist version of DAMv may be
similar to that of Kant and theist religions. Atheist version of DAMv may
be similar to secular systems and that of atheist religions such as
Buddhism. In other words, we can follow accordingly to reduce suffering
further by noting that atheist-theist phenomenon is genetic and/or
acquired. Briefly, I have two versions of DAMv: theist and atheist. This is
because theist-atheist phenomenon is genetic (such as God gene: see (Hamer,
2005)) and/or acquired (such as accidents, how one is raised, and so on).
Thus, truth and worldly-local-cosmic-global justice should be independent
of theist-atheist phenomenon, metaphysics, and realities. Further details
are given in (Vimal, 2011c, 2011e).
To sum up, suffering can be minimized better using DAMv framework (the
middle path) by dynamically optimizing the self-interests (desires) with
respect to the interests of others along with the understanding that the
mental and physical aspects are inseparable so affecting one aspect will
affect other aspect related to individual (self), 'others', and their
interactions, and optimized (good) karma will result optimized suffering.
2.1.2. RE (Robert Ellis)'s response: I can't agree with any of the
metaphysical claims you make in your comments. I begin with scepticism
about all metaphysical claims. The 'Reality' I am sceptically discussing
can also not be reduced to neuroscientific accounts of different
representations in the brain (representations in the brain are not
'Realities'), as I am commenting philosophically on people's beliefs, and
the unhelpfulness of metaphysical or ontological beliefs. You can find more
of my arguments about this in the first chapter of 'Truth on the Edge',
which is included on my website
(http://www.moralobjectivity.net/Truth_on_the_Edge.html).
2.1.3. RLPV: You have not given me reasons for rejecting my DAMv (Dual-
aspect monism) framework. What is your definition of the term 'metaphysics'
and what is your metaphysical framework? My definition of the term
'metaphysics' is foundation on which everything depends; this means
metaphysics includes underlying principles for both physics and beyond
physics. For example, Dalai Lama's metaphysical framework is substance
dualism; Wallace agrees with my DAMv. In general, Graham also agrees with
DAMv with some reservations, such as he thinks that the fundamental quantum
reality is mind-like (as (Stapp, 2009)), whereas DAMv suggests fundamental
quantum reality has dominant mental-aspect and latent physical aspect. Dual-
aspect monism (DAM) is now acceptable to many neuroscientists. We are in
the process publish an edited book that includes DAM (Vimal, 2012). It
should be noted that dominant metaphysics of science is still materialism.
This means, representations in brain is also based on materialism, which
seems to be your metaphysical framework if you still maintain brain-
representation theory.
2.1.4. GS (Graham Smetham): In general, I agree with DAM (Vimal, 2008,
2010a, 2011c, 2012), but have certain reservations, as we have discussed,
about some of the detail of your presentation.
2.1.5. RE: I think you [GS & RLPV: for the comments of GS see (Smetham,
2011)] have probably taken the section on quantum physics in my book
(Ellis, 2008) out of context, and certainly not understood the wider
argument about Buddhism of which it is a small part. I don't have a
metaphysical framework. My whole approach is based on the greater
objectivity of avoiding metaphysical claims altogether. Physicists can have
provisional theories with varying degrees of supporting evidence, which is
fine, but any claims that quantum physics supports a metaphysical framework
of any description does not stand up to basic sceptical arguments (See
'Truth on the Edge' chapter 1) - and I take sceptical arguments seriously.
I think you have misunderstood the practical insights of the Buddha's
rejection of metaphysics (avyakrta), if you take it as a basis to support a
new metaphysical position, including monistic positions or even the denial
of positive metaphysical claims. Only strict agnosticism will do, because
only strict agnosticism withdraws us from useless debates based on
speculation that lie beyond all experience [it seems that Ellis'
metaphysics implies beyond all experiences including physics, which is a
product of human mind!]. I think it is a mistake for Buddhists to think
that Quantum physics supports their position, because it has no effect on
beliefs that make a practical difference, apart from the attachment that
may arise from speculation on the subject. I will happily agree with Graham
both that he has vastly superior knowledge of quantum physics to myself and
that my treatment of it was brief. […]
It does seem that Graham's detailed study of quantum physics in relation to
Buddhism has been based on two philosophical assumptions that I do not
share with him. Firstly, I do not agree that any sense experience can show
us that substance does not exist any more than it can show it to exist. As
I said above, my basic approach is sceptical and agnostic for practical
reasons. Secondly, I do not agree that spiritual progress is dependent on
insight into 'Reality' by an enlightened being. Rather it depends on our
incremental experience of spiritual progress. My arguments about this are
in Chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 6 of the Trouble with Buddhism.
The idea that spiritual progression depends on beliefs about Reality or
Unreality leads to immediate contradictions with our experience if you
follow it through. Presumably, it would mean that those who believe in
Unreality could make spiritual progress, whilst those who believe in
Reality can make none. However, this clearly does not relate to our mixed
experience, of people who both believe in Reality and those who believe in
Unreality each making partial and limited spiritual progress. Our
experience suggests that the particular kind of metaphysics you subscribe
to makes no practical difference - it's just attachment to metaphysical
beliefs in general which hinders our progress.
This is the kind of evidence I am interested in as regards the spiritual
life. Not the irrelevance of speculation over metaphysical views about
'Reality' or 'Unreality', but evidence about beliefs and their relationship
to our experience. If you can give me any more evidence about this, which
doesn't just appeal to the authority of the Buddhist tradition but is
adequate to what we experience today in the modern world, I will happily
consider it closely. However, I'm afraid I'm not at all interested in
reading about metaphysical theories related to quantum physics.
2.1.5. RLPV: Thanks for elaborating further.
2.1.5.1. Metaphysical framework: Metaphysics, in my view, is the ROOT of
our mind including thinking process. We have different definition of
metaphysics; my definition includes everything both physics and beyond
physics and yours only beyond physics. Whether an investigator explicitly
says or do not say what his/her metaphysics is, there is always an implicit
metaphysics (as per my definition). I think, from your writing, your
metaphysical framework seems close to be materialism and Popper's skeptic
view of falsification[x], but you try to write as if your view is
independent of any metaphysics because your pragmatic approach is simply
how to reduce suffering via Buddhism with no-self. Buddhism has multiple
metaphysics (such as substance dualism (Dalai Lama), idealism, dual-aspect
monism, materialism) depending on an investigator as I discussed before.
Varela's (well-known Buddhist biologist/neuroscientist) framework is
materialism. Graham's seems to be idealism, but he is sympathetic to dual-
aspect monism with certain reservation. In my view, all have problems, but
DAMv has the least number of problems (my framework, initially I was
materialist but because of its unresolvable problems I have selected the
middle path: DAMv). In my view, if taken seriously, metaphysics makes
significant difference: For example, if the metaphysics is materialism,
then we try to reduce suffering using materialistic neuroscience: such as
(Damasio, 2010)'s protoself, core self, autobiographical self and so on. If
it is DAMv, procedure will be different (see (Vimal, 2009b); if it is
substance dualism then it could be Advaita's Brahman, Christian-trinity etc
based reduction of suffering.
2.1.5.2. In my view, quantum physics can be used for the superposition of
multiple states, potential experiences etc as done in (Vimal, 2008, 2010a).
I had long discussion with Stapp in (Vimal, 2011a). At quantum level, as
per (Stapp, 2009), all entities behave as mindlike (so close to mentalistic
idealism), which in DAMv means the mental aspect is dominant and physical
aspect is latent. Classically, inert entity is matter (fermion) or force
carrier (boson), which in DAMv means physical aspect is dominant and mental
is latent. In normal awake active human subject, both aspects are equally
dominant. It should be noted that both aspects are inseparable in each
entity in DAMv; so our neural-net (NN) state has two inseparable aspects:
mental (e.g., redness, 1st person) and physical (related NN and its
activities, 3rd person).
2.1.5.3. Reality: It is good idea to define the term before using them to
avoid confusion for readers. Which reality you have in mind: CMDR, (our
daily conventional mind dependent reality), UMDR (samadhi state ultimate
MDR where subject and object unify), or MIR (mind independent reality which
is unknown or partly known via CMDR and UMDR because mind is also a product
of Nature) (see (Vimal, 2009a))? Default is usually CMDR, but it all
depends on a reader unless writer clearly mentions it; and thus every
reader will have his/her own definition. I assume your tem 'Reality' = MIR
and 'unreality' (illusion, maya) or 'reality' corresponds to CMDR.
2.1.6. RE: Here are some responses to your comments.
2.1.6.1. Metaphysical framework: Metaphysics […] implicit metaphysics.
This sounds like a dogmatic and unfalsifiable position, incompatible with a
scientific approach, let alone the Buddha's insights. I deny that I have
metaphysical beliefs, so you assert that I have them anyway, whether I like
it or not. I think this kind of forced inclusivity is just as intolerant as
asserting that someone is outside a position they claim to be in. E.g.
Hindus claiming that Buddhists are really Hindus even when Buddhists insist
that Buddhists are not Hindus.
As regards our root position, I think you are confusing metaphysics with
Kantian a priori frameworks. I agree that we have Kantian a priori
frameworks (we all experience things in time and space, for example), but
these do not have to be absolute (maybe there are aliens who do not
experience things in time and space). The prior conditions for our
experience can be recognised without metaphysical claims.
I think … with no-self.
My view is not materialist. I am just as critical of materialism as I am of
other types of metaphysics, as you would see if you read chapter 4 of my
thesis, A Theory of Moral Objectivity, which gives extensive criticism of
such views. I attempt to maintain a balance between positive and negative
metaphysical assumptions and accept neither. It is common for people to
assume I am on 'the other side' when they have only seen me criticising one
side and don't have the whole picture.
Buddhism … reduction of suffering.
My argument is that not just suffering, but all conditions, are best
addressed by avoiding metaphysical assumptions of all kinds, which
interfere in our objectivity of experience.
2.1.6.2. Quantum Mechanics: In my view, quantum physics … 3rd person).
I'm afraid this falls outside my field of interest, and certainly far
beyond my field of competence.
2.1.6.3. Reality: It is good idea … CMDR.
I have made a distinction between 'reality' in everyday speech and
'Reality' in metaphysical claims. I do not accept that samadhi gives access
to any type of 'Reality', integrating and spiritually helpful though it may
be. Metaphysical 'Reality' would be realist/materialist and its denial
idealist, yes. Since there are already philosophical terms for these
positions I don't see why you have to make up a new jargon for them.
In my view our experience does not need to assume a metaphysical Reality,
although we talk conventionally about 'reality' meaning the view we have
constructed, this view can be held provisionally without metaphysical
assumptions. The degree of provisionality corresponds to the degree of
objectivity or integration of the psychological state with which we hold a
belief. Metaphysical beliefs, however, are unfalsifiable and outside
justification from experience, so they merely function as egoistic rallying
points, interfering in our unprejudiced assessment of evidence.
2.1.7. RLPV: Thanks for commenting further. I think that we have slightly
different meanings of the terms 'metaphysics' and 'reality' and have a
little different way of describing them.
For me, all entities can be categorized in two categories: mental entities
and physical entities. Major possible metaphysics can be:
(i) Mind from matter: Materialism
(ii) Matter from mind: Idealism
(iii) Mind and matter on equal footing (each can exist independent of
other) but they can interact: substance dualism
(iv) Each entity has two inseparable aspects: mental and physical; this is
dual-aspect monism.
There are 3 kinds of realities: CMDR, UMDR, and MIR (first two are adapted
from Nāgārjuna, and MIR is adapted from Kant): (Vimal, 2009a).
In other words, all four kinds of metaphysics are in MDR as they are
products of human mind. MIR is unknown or partly known via CMDR and UMDR
because mind is also part of MIR as per neo-Kantian view.
You have written in a little different way and mixed up 'metaphysics' and
'realities' (using my terms); thus, I do not see much contradiction, except
I wonder that your framework has no 'metaphysics' (as per my definition) as
I have elaborated: is this really true?
2.1.8. RE: My approach is epistemological and moral rather than
metaphysical. From an epistemological perspective there is no distinction
between 'Reality' and 'metaphysics' [this means Ellis' 'Reality' = Ellis'
'metaphysics' = RLPV's 'MIR' (Ellis, 2011)], given that neither is
accessible to experience and no claims about either can be demonstrated
empirically. I do not accept that experience should be understood as
'Reality' [RLPV agrees because MIR is unknown], because our experience is
capable of different degrees of provisionality. The 'reality' that we
construct (small r) is incrementally variable in its justification, whereas
metaphysical claims can only be absolutely accepted (on revelatory grounds,
or with what I would argue is dubious a priori reasoning) or rejected. The
problem of induction makes it impossible to justify metaphysical claims
through empirical methods.
2.1.9. RLPV: I guess, your term 'reality' = my term 'CMDR' where we
construct objects via subjective experiences as the appearance of objects
and your Reality = my MIR: is this correct?
2.1.10. RE: Yes (as far as I can tell from this account), except that I do
not think experience is "subjective" as opposed to objective. Objectivity
is incremental and hence so is subjectivity.
2.1.11. RLPV: Your term 'metaphysics' (beyond physics and beyond
mind/experiences) = your 'Reality' = my MIR, but NOT equal to my
'metaphysics' (that includes everything, i.e., physics, mind, experiences,
and beyond physics): is this correct? But this is unclear to me why you do
so, when the rest of world defines metaphysics as I do. It is indeed
confusing to readers. What do you mean by 'objective experience'?
2.1.12. RE: I don't know enough of your work to comment on whether the rest
of the world defines metaphysics as you do. My use of the word has a lot of
continuity with its use by, for example, Karl Popper or A. J. Ayer (much as
I would not want to be associated with Ayer in many other ways!). For me,
metaphysics is a set of claims about Reality or its denial, yes. It is not
always easy to distinguish in practice where such claims are being made or
not.
2.1.13. RLPV: Furthermore, in my view, without metaphysics (the ROOT), it
is like building a strong caste without concrete foundation. DAMv is a
strong foundation for building a castle related to the reduction of
suffering/unsatisfaction in life.
2.1.14. RE: I'm afraid that your belief in such foundations cannot itself
be well-founded. See www.moralobjectivity.net/thesis3ab.html (section
3.b.i) if you're interested in my view of foundationalism.
2.1.15. RLPV: I do not see much contradiction; it appears contradiction
because we attribute different meanings to same terms. To sum up: your
Reality = your metaphysics (beyond physics and beyond mind/experiences) =
my MIR; your reality = my CMDR; my metaphysics = the ROOT/foundation of
everything including MIR, CMDR, UMDR, physics, mind, experiences, beyond
physics and so on. For example, DAMv metaphysical framework can address
everything without making category mistakes.
2.1.16. RE: Let me ask you some questions. How do you (generally and
briefly, without jargon please) justify your theory?
2.1.17. RLPV: Justification: When we are awake, normal and active, we have
two aspects of the same neural-network (NN)-state: (i) mental: first person
perspective or subjective experiences (SEs) such as SE redness and (ii)
physical or third person perspective such as V4/V8/VO-NN for color and its
activities which we can measure experimentally such as fMRI. This is our
empirical solid observation. So, I do not think anybody will object on
this. I have extended this dual-aspect observation in all entities. For
example, in inert entities such as rock, physical aspect is dominant and
mental is latent. At quantum level, mental is dominant and physical is
latent.
2.1.18. RE: I certainly do! This sounds like Locke's primary and secondary
qualities all over again. Is it? Berkeley had a good argument against this,
when he pointed out that all primary qualities can only be perceived
through secondary ones. There are also all sorts of sceptical arguments
that undermine this 'solid' observation. Neither the experiences
themselves, nor the language we use to describe these two kinds of
experience can be wholly distinct. I will attach a summary of sceptical
arguments from the book I am currently writing. This [extension dual-aspect
observation to all entities] sounds pretty speculative to me.
2.1.19. RLPV: Well, you have misconstrued DAMv. The doctrine of
inseparability of mental and physics aspects of an entity such as a NN-
state does not require primary and secondary qualities hypothesis. Because
of space limitation, I would strongly suggest to study DAMv detailed in
(Vimal, 2008, 2010a, 2011c, 2012). My speculations are: (i) In atheist 'no-
self' religions such as Buddhism, after death karma may be imprinted in
some dual-aspect quantum entity. (ii) In theist religions, karma may be
imprinted in the physical aspect of a dual-aspect quantum entity (say,
subtle body, tachyon) that has soul/Atman/ruh as mental aspect.
God/Brahman/Allah is a dual-aspect primal entity from which other entities
arise via co-evolution and co-development of both aspects. (iii) In
science, no life after death, no God, no Soul; our dead body disintegrates
in to many dual-aspect entities from which it was originally formed during
birth via reproductive process.
2.1.20. RE: As you say, these are indeed speculations. Why should anyone
believe them?
2.1.21. RLPV: Why shouldn't they? What is justification of not believing
them?
***************
2.1.22. RE: Is your justification empirical or a priori, or appealing to
religious revelations?
2.1.23. RLPV: Empirical in the start, then extrapolation to religions.
2.1.24. RE: But it sounds to me as though your empirical interpretation
depends on a hugely questionable distinction between two types of
experience: one that could only be justified a priori, if at all.
2.1.25. RLPV: By the term 'empirical', I mean daily observation, such our
daily psychophysical observation and/or scientific measurements.
2.1.26. RE: How do you respond to sceptical arguments about these
approaches?
2.1.27. RLPV: Skeptical arguments are valid when there is no scientific
proof. Since I have proof of dual-aspect during wakefulness, therefore, it
is scientific. However, my extrapolation of DAMv to religions is
speculative and my response is given above.
2.1.28. RE: This assumes that there is such a thing as scientific 'proof'.
I would disagree. There are scientific theories with greater or lesser
degrees of justification, that's all. Why should your scientific
conclusions be immune from sceptical arguments? The great virtue of
sceptical argument is that it removes the possibility of 'proof' but not
that of justification. Presumably you are aware of all the "proven"
scientific paradigms of the past that have been shown to be not quite so
certain by later developments?!
2.1.29. RLPV: Do you doubt our daily subjective experience (our daily
wakeful life and also experimental psychophysical observations) and related
brain activities (such as fMRI) in related brain-NN? These are empirical
data that have been interpreted by almost all views. However, DAMv has
least number of problems compared to other views, and hence it optimal
framework. Skeptics must try their best to reject DAMv until then it should
be taken as the most optimal framework.
***************
2.1.30. RE: And what is the relationship of your theory to ethics and to
the spiritual life?
2.1.31. RLPV: DAMv is fully compatible with ethics and moral life, and with
Buddhism and perhaps also your framework. We need to do good karma;
otherwise, we will suffer individually and/or collectively. The DAMv view
on good karma is given in Section 2.1.1.7.
2.1.32. RE: This is certainly not compatible with my framework! See Trouble
with Buddhism chapter 4 on belief in karma, which I do not think supports
ethics at all.
***************
2.1.33. RLPV: We need to be responsible of our action because Free Will is
neither deterministic nor random; it is somewhat in between variable semi-
Free Will as non-conscious processes depend on previous conscious processes
(see further detail, (Vimal, 2010c) and (Damasio, 2010).
2.1.34. RE: If you mean 'freewill' as used in philosophy, it is a
metaphysical absolute and therefore cannot be either variable or semi. I
think you're going down a track which will not help you to justify ethics,
just because metaphysical [i.e., MIR] claims cannot justify ethics that
relates to experience. If it's perfect, it's beyond our experience, or if
it's imperfect, it has no metaphysical justification.
Or do you mean our experience of making choices freely? If so, I would
agree that this relates to ethics in experience. However, I don't see how
this could be reconciled with the metaphysical claims you are making
otherwise (e.g. karma, 'proof', empirical foundationalism).
2.1.35. RLPV: I think that main problem is our different meanings
attributed to the same term, otherwise we more or less agree.
***************
2.1.36. RE: How does it address the problem of absolutism and relativism?
2.1.37. RLPV: Absolutism: There is a dual-aspect primal fundamental entity
(such as physics' dual-aspect vacuum field/dual-aspect quantum field or
Brahman in religion) from which other dual-aspect entities arise via co-
evolution and co-development of both aspects. This is a brute fact (that is
the way it is!) assumption. As long as there is no solid contradiction with
evidence, this brute fact assumption cannot be rejected.
2.1.38. RE: Just by way of comparison: I believe in the Flying Spaghetti
Monster who lives on the planet Zarg. This is a brute fact assumption. It's
just the way it is. As long as there is no solid contradiction with
evidence (and I'm quite sure you won't be able to come up with any), this
brute fact assumption cannot be rejected.
2.1.39. RLPV: This is an incorrect analogy because DAMv involves empirical
observation such as our daily subjective experience and related 'NN and its
activities'. Flying Spaghetti Monster and the planet Zarg are not
empirically observed.
2.1.40. RLPV: Relativism: The dominance of the aspects varies depending on
the levels of entities. In that sense, entities are relative to each other.
2.1.41. RE: What I meant by the problem of absolutism and relativism is how
you reconcile the two, i.e. how you justify ethical or scientific (or
aesthetic) claims without just appealing to dogma. I can't see any sign
that you have a way of doing so here.
2.1.42. RLPV: Let me answer by taking an example: let scientific claim is
'color experience is related V4/V8/VO-NN activities'; this claim is
justified/reconciled by performing psychophysical and fMRI measurements
simultaneously without any dogma. Various metaphysics such as materialism,
mentalistic idealism, interactive substance dualism, and DAMv have their
own way of interpreting the above observation, but DAMv has the least
number of problems; therefore, DAMv is optimal and hence favorable
metaphysical framework.
***************
2.1.43. RE: How do you think it actually helps people?
2.1.44. RLPV: DAMv is actually help people because it has the least number
of problems compared to other views. Suffering or un-satisfaction of life
may not be completely eliminated but it will certainly be minimized if
appropriate methods are followed in DAMv framework. Details are given in
(Vimal, 2009b) and in Section 2.1.1.7.
2.1.45. RE: I have been following some of your links, but they are so
wrapped in impenetrable jargon that I don't even understand the abstract.
From what I can gather here, you see sublimation as the main key to
improving people's lives. I'd agree that it has a helpful role to play.
However, sublimation is an experience: it has no necessary relationship
with metaphysics, and particularly not with the various Hindu concepts you
try to relate to it. I also understand sublimation as an aesthetic state,
which may have a positive effect on moral states in the short-term, but has
no direct or necessary moral implications. For that, I think, you need the
more wide-ranging and flexible psychological concept of integration rather
than sublimation.
2.1.46. RLPV: Abstracts should be re-read after reading the whole articles;
in addition, you need background of many sciences. The jargons (your term)
are the terms used in various sciences and I have pre-defined them if you
read articles in order: For DAMv, read (1) (Vimal, 2008) for Dual-Aspect
Monism, (2) (Vimal, 2010a) for the introduction of dual-mode and concept
of matching selection, (3) (Vimal, 2012) and (Vimal, 2011c) for the
elaboration of varying degree of dominance of aspects depending on the
levels of entities, and also in parallel read (4) (Vimal, 2009c) for the
multiple meanings attributed to the term 'consciousness' and (5) (Vimal,
2010b) for the definition of consciousness.
***************
2.1.47. RE: These are the sorts of questions (such as suffering, un-
satisfaction of life, process of sublimation, and so on) and that I started
off by asking myself as I developed my theories. My concerns are practical,
in a broad sense of 'practical'. If you don't consider these questions
relevant (just as I don't consider metaphysical questions relevant - except
in being worth avoiding), then this will explain our difference in
approaches.
2.1.48. RLPV: Good. I consider that both your practical questions and
others' metaphysical (my term that includes practicality as well) questions
of life are very important to address. There is no silly question; all
types of questions need to be addressed to the satisfaction of questioners.
2.1.49. RE: I agree that there are no 'silly' questions, if by that you
mean meaningless or insignificant ones. However, there are questions, which
are formulated in such a way as to admit only of dogmatic answers, as noted
by the Buddha in his avyakrta.
***************
2.1.50. RLPV: In my view, all questions in all kinds of formulations need
to be addressed. It is interesting discussion between both of you (RE and
GS). I am not sure that Buddha rejected metaphysics as I defined the term
'metaphysics' based on categorization of entities in two categories: mind
and matter. In this sense, Buddha had strong metaphysics: (i) An atheist
version of Sāṃkhya interactive substance dualism of Purusha and Prakriti,
which is still used by Dalai Lama, (theist version of Sāṃkhya is in Gita),
(2) Materialism (from Charwalk/Lokāyata), and/or (3) Dual-Aspect Monism
close to atheist version of Trika Kashmir Shaivism (Shiva/mental and
Shakti/physical are two aspects of the same state or process). Buddha may
not have said these explicitly, but it is certainly there implicitly. As
per (Vimal, 2011c) the time line is, "Vedas (Rig-Vedic period: 4000–2000
BC[xi], Geeta (3000 BCE?, Vyas)[xii], Sāṃkhya (1000–600 BCE?, Kapila:550
BCE?)[xiii], Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (Yajnavalkya, Mid-first millennium
BCE)[xiv], Jainism (Rishabh Dev, 900-600 BCE,[xv]
Lokāyata/nastika/materialist/atheist (Cārvāka, 800-500 BCE; Chānakya, c.
350–283 BCE)[xvi], Buddhism (Buddha, birth:c.563 or 623 BCE, death c.483
or 543 BCE),[xvii] mind–body holism of pre-Qin (pre-221 BCE) China
(Slingerland & Chudek, 2011), Judaism (Tanakh: 450 BCE – 70 CE),[xviii]
Christianity (Jesus Christ, c. 5 BCE–c. 30 CE),[xix] Islam (Muhammad:
610–632),[xx] Advaita (non-dualism, Adi Shankara: 788-820)[xxi], Kashmir
Shaivism (Vasugupta, 860–925)[xxii], Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-
dualism, Ramanujacharya: 1017–1137)[xxiii], Dvaitadvaita (Nimbārkāchārya:
1130-1200)[xxiv], Dvaita (dualism, Madhvacharya: 1238–1317)[xxv],
Shuddhādvaita (pure non-dualism, Vallabhacharya: 1479-1531)[xxvi], and
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, 1486-1534)[xxvii]."
2.1.51. GS: Yes I agree with you [RLPV] about this - the Buddha rejected
certain metaphysical questions as being inappropriate but he did not reject
all metaphysics, his view tended to depend upon who he was addressing - it
is a subtle point but the Buddha did have a very subtle metaphysical
perspective - emptiness, this is not to say that emptiness is to be reified
though. For instance he clearly indicated the insubstantiality of the
'material' world when he declared that matter was like foam floating on a
river.
2.1.52. RLPV: Buddha's and Nāgārjuna's 'sunyata' or emptiness is similar to
physics' vacuum or quantum potential field, which is really NOT 'nothing'.
For me, it is a dual-aspect primal entity from which everything arose; in
theist's term it is Brahman. Foam example, can be interpreted in terms of
DAMv framework as dominant mental aspect and latent physical aspect,
whereas just mindlike entity in mentalistic idealism makes category mistake
and has explanatory gap problem (how matter can arise from mind because
mind and matter are of different category).
Please note that theist-atheist phenomenon is genetic and/or acquired as
elaborated in one of my previous emails; therefore, Truth should be
independent of theism and atheism; terminology should not matter in search
of truth: do you agree?
I guess, the term 'enlightenment' means samadhi state experience: is this
correct? It is subjective though; whatever directly experienced varies with
person to person. All theist rishis also attained this state and
experienced different from Buddha. So it is hard to say who was right. I
guess, Buddha's reduction of suffering is important and useful in our
lives. Subtle body or physical aspect of an entity contains traces of
karma; this view is in Vedas as well. Stapp's idea-like means mental
aspect dominant in DAMv.
2.1.53. RE: I'm afraid I don't understand how your response here relates
either to my page on Nagarjuna or the section on Kant. You are going to
need to explain the context of these thoughts a bit more. As I understand
the traditional Buddhist account of karma, it is a form of moral
conditioning which ensures effects absolutely morally equivalent to the
causes. So I don't understand how any question arises as to how it could be
unconditioned. Also, if you want to reduce karma to some kind of account of
non-absolute conditioning, why call it karma rather than just conditioning?
See chapter 4 of Trouble with Buddhism for my arguments on how Buddhists
use the term 'karma' as well as arguments for the rejection of the
metaphysical assumptions it involves.
2.1.54. RLPV: It will be clear if you read my articles in order because we
use different meanings to the same terms and you need background. In my
view, Quantum physics is useful in consciousness related development as
follows:
(1) Quantum superposition of multiple potential experiences that can
be realized during quantum conjugate matching (see Section 2 of (Vimal,
2010a)).
(2) Stapp's idea/mind-like entities at quantum level: in my DAMv
framework, these entities have dominant mental aspect and latent physical
aspect. See 4 types of cuts: mental-mental, physical-physical that does not
make category mistake, where physical-mental (Heisenberg cut) or mental-
physical make this mistake. See my discussion with Stapp in Sections 1.2,
1.3, and 2.2 (especially pp 33-40) (Vimal, 2011a).
2.2. My commentary on (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008) and (Smetham, 2011) is as
follows
2.2.1. The radical agnostic skepticism required by (Ellis, 2008) based on
arguments summarized in (Smetham, 2011) is useful to sharpen our thinking
process in the search of truth and should be seriously addressed.
2.2.2. Mind is always involved in both our conventional daily life (CMDR:
conventional mind dependent reality) and in altered state such as samadhi-
state (UMDR: ultimate mind dependent reality); mind-independent reality
(MIR) is unknown and/or partly known via CMDR and/or UMDR as one could
argue that mind is also a product of Nature. For example, Ellis' statement,
"the physical world is beyond our experience" is related to MIR.
2.2.3. In my view, a metaphysical (my use of term, not Ellis' metaphysics)
framework is the foundation on which a building of the search of truth is
built; if foundation is not strong, building will be week. Therefore,
Ellis' rejection of (my use of the term) 'metaphysics' needs to be
reconsidered because his meaning attributed to the term 'metaphysics' as
'the study of things beyond our experience' in not the only meaning. For
example, my meaning attributed to the term 'metaphysics' includes both
within and beyond our experience', i.e., it includes all 3 realities: CMDR,
UMDR, and MIR. It should be noted that the term 'consciousness' in
consciousness research has been used with multiple meanings; for example,
over 40 different but overlapping meanings have been attributed to the term
'consciousness' (Vimal, 2009c), which has been categorized in two
categories, namely functions and experiences; see also (Vimal, 2010b). As
(Smetham, 2011) critically analyzes, (Ellis, 2008) implicitly uses Ellis'
definition of metaphysics, consistent with my argument (all views have some
kind of metaphysics, implicitly or explicitly) that Ellis rejects (personal
email communication) because of misunderstanding as we attribute different
meanings to the same term 'metaphysics'; otherwise, more or less, we are
not contradicting each other.
2.2.4. The search of truth involves the trial-and-error method to the best
of investigator's ability; therefore, Ellis' term 'Buddhist betrayal of its
own insights' is too strong and needs reconsideration.
2.2.5. I prefer 'Middle Way' and avoid extremes to minimize the problems
and optimize the framework. My DAMv framework is a middle path between the
opposite poles mentalistic-idealism/dualism/eternalism[xxviii], and hence
has the least number of problems compared to extreme views.
2.2.6. Quantum physics is useful in consciousness research to some extent,
for example, the superposition of potential subjective experiences in the
mental aspect of each entity, and the realization/actualization of
potentiality via say quantum collapse.
2.2.7. As per (Smetham, 2011), "In this case one might claim as Buddhists
do that because experience is part of 'Reality' itself, there is a way of
experiencing which gives direct and unmediated access to reality
('enlightenment'). If we take 'Reality' to be a concept which embraces all
aspects of experience and anything, if anything, that lies beyond, then
sentient beings, including 'physical' senses and the experiences generated
by the senses, are clearly part of 'Reality', so the possibility of direct
'non-conceptual' (as Buddhists refer to this immediate experience)
knowledge cannot be ruled out a-priori."
This is interesting in a sense that the enlightenment (whatever that
means—samadhi-state experiences!) based 'non-conceptual' experience may be
related to phenomenal consciousness (Block, 2005) where cognitive feedback
signals do not interact and hence reportable/access consciousness has not
yet arisen, i.e., we have only stimulus-dependent feed forward
representation in cortical areas such as V4/V8/VO for color, as in 15-50
msec duration stimulus presentation; see also (Sperling, 1960) and (Vimal,
2011d). However, this is still UMDR, not MIR.
2.2.8. It seems that the relationship between entities in CMDR and MIR is
invariant even though we do not know if appearance of entities in CMDR
entails the thing-in-itself or attributes of MIR. In neo-Kantian framework,
one could argue that since mind, consciousness (experiences and functions),
and brain themselves are products of Nature or MIR, CMDR and UMDR might be
at the least revealing partly MIR. Perhaps, (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008)'s
'reality' is equivalent to or close to CMDR/UMDR and 'Reality' is
equivalent to or close to MIR.
2.2.9. Buddhism entertains the following metaphysical framework depending
on the investigators: (1) atheism because of no-self (Anatman), i.e., there
is no eternal self/atman/God, but belief in karmic theory and rebirth based
on karma, perhaps also close to materialism (mind from matter) in this
sense of no-self after death, (2) mentalistic idealism (matter from mind)
(Smetham, 2011), (3) interactive substance dualism (Dalai Lama framework in
(Luisi, 2008) and see also in (Vimal, 2009e)), (4) dual-aspect monism
(Wallace's framework: in (Wallace, 2007) and in (Vimal, 2009e)) and (Vimal,
2008, 2010a), and (5) skepticism (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008). Skepticism is
useful as long as investigators do not cross limit; otherwise, progress in
consciousness research is hampered because there are many unknown
parameters; we have to start somewhere and if we keep on endlessly arguing
against then we will not move ahead much. We can always come back and re-
evaluate using hard skepticism, once we are try to do quality control. For
example, DAMv is best framework so far; this needs hard skepticism to
sharpen our thinking process. So far, I do not think that Ellis' framework
rejects DAMv. However, Ellis is most welcome to study thoroughly all
relevant articles for DAMv and then provide string critique; I will be
happy to address all his comments.
2.2.10. The existence of 'substance' at the ground level of reality is
ruled out based on quantum physics because entities are fundamentally
mindlike nondual at deep ontological level as per (Stapp, 2009)'s 'nondual-
dualism';[xxix] this is an interesting hypothesis. However, one could argue
that it leads to an incomplete story if properly not interpreted because it
entails mind/consciousness/experiences as fundamental entity leading to
mentalistic idealism (the opposite extreme of materialism), which has
explanatory gap problem: how matter can arise from mind. In addition, there
is category mistake because mind and matter are of two different
categories. The hypothesis that quantum physics entails 'matter' as
illusion via mentalistic idealism and classical physical 'mind' as illusion
via materialism, is misleading because both make category mistake and have
explanatory gap problems. Both are extreme views. These problems are
addressed by DAMv based on middle path between two extremes, namely,
materialism and mentalistic-idealism. For example, one can hypothesize that
each entity has two inseparable aspects, namely mental and physical
aspects; the mental aspect is dominant and physical aspect is latent at
ground quantum level; the latter (physical aspect) becomes dominant and
mental aspect becomes latent at classical level for inert systems; whereas
in awake active conscious beings such as us both aspects becomes dominant:
first person perspective (subjective experiences) reveals the mental aspect
of the brain-state and third person perspective reveals its physical
aspect. This hypothesis leads to DAMv. Interaction of consciousness for
collapse for the actualization of potentiality is an interesting topic;
this is elaborated in my discussion with Stapp in (Vimal, 2011a). DAMv
implies that the fundamental coherency is the dual-aspect unified quantum
field. As per (Vimal, 2010a), "Bohm's implicate/explicate order or
enfolded/unfolded framework (Bohm, 1980, 1990; Bohm & Hiley, 1993) is
consistent with a dual-aspect view and DAMv; he is explicitly a double-
aspect theorist. Hameroff and Powell (Hameroff & Powell, 2009) defend
neutral monism (a branch of dual-aspect view), where matter and mind arise
from or reduce to a neutral third entity 'quantum spacetime geometry (fine-
grained structure of the universe.)', and Penrose OR (objective
reduction)[xxx] is the psycho-physical bridge: 'Orch OR provides a possible
connection between quantum spacetime geometry—a possible repository of
proto-conscious experience—and brain processes regulating consciousness'."
2.2.11. The violation of Bell's inequality in favor of quantum physics with
experimental verification leads to non-locality ('telepathy') in quantum
entities. This has been interpreted as fundamental reality is mind-like,
which is close to mentalistic idealism that (1) has explanatory gap
problem: how matter can emerge from mind) and (2) makes category mistake
(mind and matter are two different categories). In other words, it has
problems reverse of materialism. These are two extreme views and are
untenable. These problems can be easily address if we assume that
fundamental reality (CMDR/UMDR, perhaps the unknown MIR as well) is dual-
aspect monism; for example, (1) dual-aspect Brahman (as in theist version
of DAMv) or (2) dual-aspect unified quantum field or dual-aspect Implicate
Order (as in atheist version of DAMv). It should be noted that
theist/atheist phenomenon is genetic (God gene) and/or acquired; therefore,
the fundamental Truth should independent of this phenomenon. This is
further elaborated in (Vimal, 2011c, 2011e).
2.3. Shastrarth/Discussion with Smetham
2.3.1. GS: You call my perspective 'mentalistic idealism' and seem to think
it is different to that of Alan Wallace. However I consider my perspective,
to all intents and purposes, to be the same as Wallace's, and the phrase
'mentalistic idealism' does not really apply. In Buddhist parlance I am an
exponent of Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka. The problem is that Tibetan
Buddhist metaphysical frameworks are more subtle than those offered by
Western philosophy. If a label is to be applied something like Dual Aspect
Mindnature Monism is far more appropriate as I use the term Mindnature
primarily in my writings in JCER.
2.3.2. RV: Good. Then I make correction that your framework is more or less
same as Wallace's, which is more or less dual-aspect monism (DAM). Please
clarify why you want to qualify with Mindnature. DAM has been for a long
time; if we research it, it might be in RigVedic period (~4000BC) also in
different form. In west also; please its history in (Vimal, 2010a). I
started DAM (Vimal, 2008) added dual-mode in it (Vimal, 2010a), and later
added varying degree of dominance of aspect depending on the levels of
entities ((Vimal, 2011c, 2012). I call my version of DAM as DAMv. If you
justify qualifying DAM with the term 'Mindnature', then it might be useful
to add further: DAM with Mindnature. You explicitly also made clear in
Sections 2.1.18 and 2.1.20 of (Vimal, 2011b) that your framework is the
Dual-Aspect Monism with quantum mindnature (DAMqm) framework, which is
another version of dual-aspect view
2.3.3. GS: I feel the need to address ER (Robert Ellis)'s claim that
metaphysics is an impossibility in. For surely what ER, crudely speaking,
is asserting is that Monism, Dual Aspect Monism. Materialism as
metaphysical positions is nonsense. He is asserting the invalidity of any
metaphysical claim and I feel that this claim has to be discussed before we
can move on to put forward any particular metaphysical views. What do you
think?
2.3.4. RLPV: I guess, his use of the term metaphysics is different from
what we use. His metaphysics = beyond physics/experiences/mind = his
Reality = our MIR. Our use of the term 'metaphysics' is the foundation of
everything, which includes CMDR, UMDR, and MIR; it is within
physics/experiences/mind and beyond. He is using literal meaning of meta-
physics: meta=beyond, we have extended it from its literal meaning.
2.3.5. GS: One other issue has come to mind - Buddhists who are informed
about their own philosophy (I say this because there are some 'Buddhists'
who clearly do not comprehend their own tradition) do not use the term 're-
incarnation' because this implies that there is a 'soul' whereas a
fundamental tenet of Buddhism is no fixed and enduring soul. There is a
mental continuum which conditions future rebirths. All knowledgeable
Buddhists will use the term 'rebirth' only.
2.3.6. RLPV: Wallace uses Kalachakra principle for rebirth/re-incarnation,
which in Buddhist no-self or no eternal self (contrary to Vedanta), needs
to be reinterpreted. Fundamental Truth must be independent of theist
(eternal self) and atheist (no eternal self) because theist/atheist
phenomenon is genetic (Hamer's God gene) and/or acquired (such as lack of
inhibition from temporal lobe to frontal lobe in theists). We really do not
what happens after death; it is all speculation. So as far science is
concerned we do not have proof one way or other. Because of this'don't
know' status, I have theist and atheist versions of DAMv (Vimal, 2011c,
2011e). In atheist version, either (1) karma (including unfulfilled intense
desire) traces are stored in quantum cosmic memory field, which are picked
up via tuning process (tuning similar to our radio-TV system) during
conception when sperm and egg meet and reproduction process starts; or (2)
no such transmission of karma as materialism predict, just interaction
between sperm and egg with possible mutation. In theist version of DAMv,
soul is a dual-aspect quantum entity whose mental aspect (M) is dominant
and physical aspect is latent; karma-traces are stored in this hidden
physical aspect (P) (it is also called 'subtle body'); there are M-M and/or
P-P interactions between soul, egg, and sperm (no cross interaction M-P is
allowed because of category mistake in both versions). Please note that
each entity (including sperm, egg, and soul) has inseparable mental and
physical aspects. M-M, P-P, M-P, and P-M interactions were discussed with
Stapp in different context in (Vimal, 2011a).
2.3.7. GS: I have two articles in JCER Vol 2, No 1 (2011) which fully
explore the concept of Mindnature.
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/124
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/125.
'Mindnature' is a term borrowed from the Buddhist Dzogchen tradition. In
this context it refers to an infinite energetic field of quantum
potentiality which contains within in an innate function of cognition. It
is the function of cognition which unfolds the potentialities into apparent
actualities which are experienced by sentient beings.
2.3.8. RLPV: It sounds like Bohm's Implicate/Explicate Order; Bohm's
framework is clearly dual-aspect monism. If this is the case, then one
could argue that Mindnature or fundamental infinite energetic field of
quantum potentiality has inseparable dual-aspect. You could elaborate
further your version of DAM and compare with DAMv.
2.3.9. GS: He is using the term metaphysics and 'Reality' as synonymous and
he claims that both are necessarily beyond experience. He therefore claims
that our experiences can tell us nothing about 'metaphysics' or 'Reality'.
2.3.10. RLPV: Yes. It would be better and less confusing if he (ER) drops
'metaphysics' and just use the term "Reality', which seems to be Kant's
mind-independent reality (MIR). In that case, strictly speaking, MIR is
unknown. However, neo-Kantian movement claims that since mind is also a
product of Nature, CMDR and UMDR must be telling us something about MIR
partly and indirectly. I think, the relationship between entities should
more or less remain invariant over these three kinds of realities. For
example, the distance between two objects (such as trees) should more or
less is remain invariant, even though how objects (such as trees) appear
and what they really are (thing-in-itself) in MIR may differ.
2.3.11. GS: If you could add an introductory bit about why you think that
Ellis's use of terminology - metaphysics and 'Reality' is incorrect that
would be great. And yes - Mindnature closely corresponds to the implicate
order.
2.3.12. RLPV: I am not sure that he is incorrect because any investigator
is allowed to attribute a meaning to relevant term with justification. For
example, there are over 40 meanings attributed to the term 'consciousness'
(Vimal, 2009). So if he is using the term metaphysics on the basis of
literal meaning, 'meta = beyond', then the meaning attributed the term
'metaphysics' should be 'beyond physics'. However, I am not sure why he is
attributing a meaning 'beyond mind and experience' to metaphysics; this may
not be appropriate unless he is materialist (which he says, he is not)
because materialism assumes that mind/experiences are part of physics (they
emerge/arise from matter/brain or identical with NN-state). I my view, he
should define the terms before using. Otherwise it is confusing to readers.
Same goes with the term 'Reality'.
If Mindnature corresponds to Implicate Order, then you can say Mindnature
has two inseparable aspects (mental and physical) and then your framework
is consistent with DAM and hence does not have problems of mentalistic
idealism or interactive substance dualism.
2.3.14. GS: If everyone gave their own meaning to words communication would
be impossible. The way that 'metaphysics' is generally taken is as
indicating the 'ultimate nature of 'Reality'. Now Ellis is saying that we
cannot know anything about the ultimate nature of reality, in fact if I
have read him correctly - I have only briefly read his paper so far - he
actually accepts the possibility that Noddy and Bigears might be a
metaphysical explanation of the universe. Would you agree with such a view?
2.3.15. RLPV: If his meaning of 'Reality' is mind-independent reality
(MIR), which is, strictly speaking, unknown as per Kant. In this sense
(metaphysics = Reality = MIR), Ellis is correct, by definition; but then he
is not saying anything new; this is already said by Kant long time back. To
the best of our abilities, we can know only CMDR; and if we are able to
attain the extremely difficult 'samadhi state' then we will know UMDR,
where subject and objects merge/unify; even if there is enemy in front of
meditator, enemy will be felt as a great friend; this is very risky if lion
happens to be in front of meditator! For materialist, the ultimate nature
of CMDR is matter; for mentalistic idealist, it is mind; for substance
dualist, it is both matter and mind but independent and interacting; for
dual-aspect monist, it is dual-aspect: each entity has inseparable dual
aspects (physical and mental aspects). However, for all, the ultimate
nature of MIR = Ellis' Reality is unknown.
2.3.16. GS: Quantum physics (Bell's theorem etc.) shows us that there is no
MIR! As Henry Stapp and many others now conclude there is only a pool of
potential experience represented by the quantum wave function and the
actualized experiences which are the result of interactions which
individual consciousness. We do know that there is no possibility of
Newtonian/Cartesian matter - it's just not there! However, that is what
I argue in my paper, if you agree with Ellis then I guess we just
leave the matter there. I happen to agree with Stapp, Zurek, Zeh, Joos
... we do know that the ultimate nature of 'reality' is of the nature of
mind.
2.3.17. RLPV: Quantum physics (including Bell's theorem) itself is a
product of human mind as is classical physics. Classical physics is not
that bad for macro objects. Newton's laws work for large objects to some
extent with its limitation for low speed compared to the speed of light.
Bell's theorem can be written without quantum physics: is this correct?
Quantum physics is for micro and smaller objects, but still mind-dependent.
Therefore, its conclusion that it is all mind-like (as per Stapp) is CMDR;
it is not MIR. Multiple potential experiences are in superposed state
before collapse; after collapse, they are actualized to one specific
subjective experience (such as say redness). However, both potential and
actualized experiences are in CMDR; MIR is totally unknown as per Kant;
however, neo-Kantian investigators argue that MIR is partly known via CMDR
and UMDR as mind is also a part of Nature so mind must be revealing the
fundamental Truth about MIR to some extent. In my view, all of us (Bell,
Stapp, Zurek, Zeh, Joos, Ellis, you, me, and like) are not contradicting
each other in this sense; it appears contradiction because we attribute
different meanings to the same terms. That is why, it is strongly
recommended to define the terms before using them to avoid apparent
contradiction. Problem with Ellis is that, in my view, he uses the terms
but does not define them clearly (one has to 'dig' them) and hence readers
get confused. As I commented in (Ellis, 2011) the Ellis' metaphysics may be
called e-metaphysics ( = his term 'Realty' = my term MIR) and our
metaphysics as sv-metaphysics (which includes everything including e-
metaphysics, CMDR, UMDR, MIR, physics, experiences, mind, and beyond) to
minimize confusion in readers. Furthermore, to know about MIR is the dream
of some investigators; we can imagine what it might be: just imagine that
we are in the sea of EMR (electromagnetic radiation) and it is we who
assign color SE to long wavelength light as redness (see also (Metzinger,
2009)).
2.3.18. GS: Stapp laid into me saying that my notion that the Buddhist
concept of the ground consciousness and the quantum wave function were
related was
mistaken. I wrote a paper refuting him.
2.3.19. RLPV: As per (Stapp, 2009), "quantum mechanics conforms at the
pragmatic/operational level to the precepts of Cartesian duality, but
reduces at a deep ontological level to a fundamentally mindlike nondual
monism." This seems to be close to mentalistic idealism, which has
explanatory gap (how matter can arise from mind) and makes category mistake
(mind and matter are two different categories). However, if we assume at
deep ontological quantum level, entities have dominant mental aspect and
latent physical aspect as per DAMv, then these problems are addressed and
still consistent with quantum physics. I discussed this with Stapp in
(Vimal, 2011a). In my view, if Buddhist concept of the ground consciousness
is the same as Bohm's Implicate order, which is clearly consistent with
dual-aspect monism, then all are consistent with DAMv. How did you refute
him?
2.3.20. GS: You ask Ellis to define his term 'metaphysics' but I think his
use of the term is quite clear. For him metaphysics is to assert that we
can say anything certain about the ultimate and final nature of reality.
2.3.21. RLPV: Yes, but which reality: CMDR, UMDR, or MIR? I think, his
metaphysics = beyond experience/mind = his Reality = my MIR (so I called e-
metaphysics). He rejects e-metaphysics because it is beyond our mind and
hence unknowable as Kant said. So it is not very useful to investigate
something that cannot be known. There is better and more interesting topics
to investigate in 'reality' (= CMDR), I tend to agree with him in this
sense.
My/our definition of metaphysics includes CMDR, UMDR, MIR, within and
beyond mind/experiences (so I call it sv-metaphysics) and we do not reject
sv-metaphysics and I/we think it is the root/foundation of everything and
should be taken seriously.
Thus, if we define our terms clearly, then confusion and disagreements will
be minimized.
One could argue, "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with
explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world, although the term
is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two
basic questions in the broadest possible terms: 1. "What is there?" 2.
"What is it like?" […] [Metaphysics was meant as] "the books that come
after the [books on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who
thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical". […] The
metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people
understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space
and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of
metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of
being and how they relate to each other […] the skeptics' How do you know?
led to a new branch of philosophy called epistemology (how we know) to fill-
out the metaphysics (what we know) and this led to science (Latin to know)
and to the scientific method (the precision of which is still being
debated)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics). This term
'metaphysics' has several meanings and needs to be clearly by investigators
to minimize confusion and apparent disagreements.
2.3.22. GS: In both Western and to some degree Buddhist philosophy one
fundamental issue regarding the ultimate nature is the question of whether
it is mind-like or whether it is matter-like, to use the terminology of
Stapp. Now Ellis is saying that no matter what evidence can have we can
never come to any certain conclusion, whereas physicists like Stapp, Zurek,
Penrose, and many others now say that the ultimate nature cannot be
Cartesian-Newtonian type matter – we know this for sure. Ellis is saying
that this is incorrect.
2.3.23. RLPV: He is correct in his e-metaphysics = his 'Reality' = our MIR
because mind-like metaphysics is in CMDR; it is NOT MIR; but he is not
saying (can cannot say) anything in sv-metaphysics (as I read it). It is
necessary to understand his framework, otherwise you will never agree with
him.
2.3.24. GS: His title 'Taking the meta out of Physics' is just an attempted
clever piece of word play indicating that he thinks that physics tells us
absolutely nothing about ultimate reality. He is using the term
'metaphysics' in the usual sense of 'certain knowledge about the ultimate
nature and structure of reality'. And that is the way that I am also using
the term – so you are incorrect to use the distinction 'e-metaphysics' and
'sv-metaphysics', my use of the term is the same as his. The issue is
whether or not 'Reality' is entirely beyond experience of not, is 'Reality'
manifested within experience, and whether we can know the ultimate nature
of 'Reality' on the basis of experience and whether it can be can it be
fully and absolutely comprehended within experience. Ellis says no to all
of these questions.
2.3.25. RLPV: In my view, terms should be defined clearly. For eample, my
interpretation of his title is that he is trying to say that quantum
physics or any science will never reveal MIR because MIR is simply unknown;
once we say we know, this clearly implies that we involve our minds, and
hence our knowledge cannot be mind-independent. That is why, I guess, he
says 'no' to all those questions. I tend to agree somewhat in the sense of
his meaning attributed to the term 'metaphysics' as MIR. It is neo-Kantians
like us hypothesize that mind/experience can tell us at least partly about
MIR because mind/experience is also a product of Nature/MIR. Ellis rejects
neo-Kantians' view because he thinks that this view is incorrect. In this
sense, he seems to follow Kant strictly. In my view, distinction is
necessary if we want to avoid unnecessary confusion and disagreements.
2.3.26. GS: You seem to me to make requests for definitions where they are
surely not necessary. For instance you say: It seems that quantum
physicists have become gods [define it], if they really claim to be able to
support [e-] metaphysical beliefs from finite scientific observation and
experiment: and none of the evidence Smetham offers gives any justification
for such extraordinary claims, as I shall explain.
But there is no need for definition of the term 'gods'. Ellis is simply
being provocative here – he is saying that we take the assertions of
quantum physicists too seriously, there is nothing more to this assertion.
2.3.27. RLPV: Okay, I agree with you on this point. I just wanted to make
sure that this is what it means. My understanding of the term 'gods' is
that physicists are acting as if they know MIR as 'gods' (some supernatural
unknown entity) might know who have super-minds/beyond-our-minds.
Obviously, physicists have human minds; so Ellis is correct in the sense
that physicists cannot tell us about MIR as per Kant; he is partly wrong as
per neo-Kantians.
2.3.28. GS: Also arguments about the status of quantum theories: that is,
questions of language [elaborate], psychology and ethics. This will offer
the basis of a further secondary argument against accepting metaphysical
beliefs, on the grounds of the practical effects of doing so.
But Ellis does elaborate in his paper. Here Ellis is simply saying that he
knows, on the basis of his analysis of the functioning of language, in a
kind of Wittgensteinian type of style, that the philosophy of language
undermines metaphysical claims. He does 'elaborate' on this issue in the
rest of his paper. I am a bit puzzled because, although I disagree
vehemently with his assertions, I do not find that his claims are not
clearly articulated as you seem to find.
2.3.29. RLPV: It is unclear to me how 'the philosophy of language
undermines metaphysical claims'. This should be concisely elaborated. For
example, (1) Wittgensteinian's view is discussed in
; (2) "the philosophy of
language for analytic philosophers is concerned with four central problems:
the nature of meaning, language use, language cognition, and the
relationship between language and reality. […] First, philosophers of
language inquire into the nature of meaning, and seek to explain what it
means to "mean" something. […] Second, they would like to understand what
speakers and listeners do with language in communication, and how it is
used socially. […] Third, they would like to know how language relates to
the minds of both the speaker and the interpreter. […] Finally, they
investigate how language and meaning relate to truth and the world"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language ).
2.3.30. GS: I agree with what you say metaphysically in broad outline and
have always agreed with Stapp on this issue – although he currently seems
to want to have no more intellectual dealings with me. But it is no good
saying stuff like this to Ellis because his claim is that this is nonsense
because HIS philosophical analysis indicates that we cannot say anything
like this with certainty. THIS is the issue which needs to be addressed –
what is wrong with Ellis's claim that metaphysics is not possible?
2.3.31. RLPV: I am not sure that he (ER) means that. In my view, he seems
to mean that it is 'nonsense' in terms of MIR because MIR is unknown and
physicists, in his view, continuously keep on claiming
(unknowingly/implicitly) that 'reality'/CMDR = 'Reality'/MIR.
3. Conclusions
(1) Buddhism has multiple frameworks depending on investigators. For
example: (i) Atheism because of no-self (Anatman), i.e., there is no
eternal self/atman/God, but the belief in karmic theory and rebirth is
based on karma, perhaps also close to materialism (mind from matter) in
this sense of no-self after death; (ii) mentalistic idealism (matter from
mind) (Smetham, 2011); (iii) interactive substance dualism (Dalai Lama
framework in (Luisi, 2008) and see also in (Vimal, 2009e)); (iv) dual-
aspect monism: Wallace's framework in (Wallace, 2007) and (Vimal, 2009e)
and DAMv framework in (Vimal, 2008, 2010a); and (v) skepticism (Ellis,
2011; Ellis, 2008).
(2) DAMv framework: Dual-Aspect Monism (Vimal, 2008) with dual-mode (Vimal,
2010a) and varying degree of dominance of the aspects depending on the
level of entities ((Vimal, 2012) and (Vimal, 2011c)). Buddhism is close to
atheist version of DAMv (Vimal, 2011c, 2011e). DAMv has the least number of
problems compared to other views and hence it is optimal framework. Strong
skepticism is needed to test its viability further.
Acknowledgments
The work was partly supported by VP-Research Foundation Trust and Vision
Research Institute research Fund. I would like to thank Robert Ellis and
Graham Smetham for long discussions. In addition, I would like to thank
colleagues/critiques, anonymous reviewers, Manju-Uma C. Pandey-Vimal,
Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Shalini Pandey Vimal, and Love (Shyam) Pandey
Vimal for their critical comments, suggestions, and grammatical
corrections.
Competing interests statement
The author declares that he has no competing financial interests.
References
Adi Sankaracharya. (1950). The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
(S. Madhavananda, Trans. 3rd ed.). Mayavati, Almora, Himalayas (India):
Swami Yogeshwarananda, Advaita Ashrama. Third Edition (Trans. Swami
Madhavananda).
Block, N. (2005). Two neural correlates of consciousness. TRENDS in
Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 47-52.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Boston: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Bohm, D. (1990). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter.
Philosophical Psychology, 3(2), 271-286.
Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). The Undivided Universe. London: Routledge.
Cai, W. (2011). Book Review: Between the sense of self and the reality of
self: Self, No Self? perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and
Indian traditions. Phenom Cogn Sci , Online First, 17
October 2011;
.
Damasio, A. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain
(Kindle ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Eccles, J. C., & Popper, K. (1984). The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for
Interactionism. New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2011). Taking the 'Meta-' out of Physics: A response to Graham
Smetham's 'The Matter of Mindnature'. Journal of Consciousness
Exploration & Research.
Ellis, R. M. (2008). The Trouble with Buddhism: How the Buddhist tradition
has betrayed its own insights. UK: Robert M. Ellis; Lulu.com;
http://www.moralobjectivity.net/Trouble_with_Buddhism.html.
Hamer, D. (2005). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes. New
York: Anchor Books
Genes/dp/0385720319 >. See also Hamer, Dean H. 2004. The God gene how
faith is hardwired into our genes. New York: Doubleday. Pages 211-12.
Hameroff, S., & Powell, J. (2009). The Conscious Connection: A Psycho-
physical Bridge between Brain and Pan-experiential Quantum Geometry
(Chapter 5). In D. Skrbina (Ed.), Mind That Abides: Panpsychism in the
New Millennium (pp. 109– 127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Lepine, F. (2008). Quantum Buddhism: F.Lepine Publishing; www.Flepine.com;
Quantum Buddhism Association; www.QuantumBuddhism.org.
Long, J. D. (2009). The Paradoxes of Radical Asceticism: Jainism as a
Therapeutic Paradigm. In G. Derfer & Z. Wang & M. Weber (Eds.), The Roar
of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western Psychotherapies and
Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies, pp. 71-
84). Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Luisi, P. L. (2008). The Two Pillars of Buddhism — Consciousness and
Ethics. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(1), 84–107.
Mádhava Áchárya. (1996 [1882]). The Sarva-darsana-samgraha: or Review of
the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy (E. B. Cowell & A. E. Gough,
Trans.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass [Cārvāka, the first Chapter of The
Sarva-darsana-sangraha of Madhavacharya:
].
Metzinger, T. (2009). The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth
of the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Nobuhara, T. (2009). Jung and Hisamatsu Re-envisioning Religiosity: Jungian
Psychotherapy and the Kyoto School. In G. Derfer & Z. Wang & M. Weber
(Eds.), The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western
Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead Psychology
Nexus Studies, pp. 157-166). Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Roeser, R. W. (2005). An introduction to Hindu India's contemplative
psychological perspectives on motivation, self, and development. In M. L.
Maehr & S. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement
(Vol. 14: Religion and Motivation, pp. 297-345). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sharma, R. M. G. (1968). The system of Suddhadvaita vedanta of Sri
Vallabhacharya:Brahmavada. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Baroda, Gujrat, India.
Sherlock, C. (2009). On Zen Buddhism. In G. Derfer & Z. Wang & M. Weber
(Eds.), The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western
Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead Psychology
Nexus Studies, pp. 233-244). Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Smetham, G. P. (2011). The Matter of Mindnature Bell's Theorem Tolls for
Dogmatic 'Middle Way' Scepticism and establishes through 'Experimental
Metaphysics' the 'Reality' of Quantum Mindnature. Journal of
Consciousness Exploration & Research.
Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual
presentations. Psychological Monographs, 74(11), 1-29.
Stapp, H. P. (2009). Nondual quantum duality. Available from http://www-
physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html.
Swami Krishnananda. (1983). The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
krishnananda.org/brdup/Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad.pdf >. Rishikesh,
Himalayas, India: The Divine Life Society.
Varela, F. J. (1995). The emergent self. In J. Brockman (Ed.), The third
culture: Beyond the scientific revolution (pp. 209-222). New York: Simon
& Schuster .
Vimal, R. L. P. (2008). Proto-experiences and Subjective Experiences:
Classical and Quantum Concepts. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience.
[Available at
SE-classical-quantum-JIN-0701-P49.pdf >], 7(1), 49-73.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009a). Dependent Co-origination and Inherent Existence:
Dual-Aspect Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and
Consciousness Research [Available:
2-7.pdf >], 2(7), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009b). Dual Aspect Framework for Consciousness and Its
Implications: West meets East for Sublimation Process.[Longer and
corrected version is available:
its-implications-recent-version-LVCR-2-11.pdf >]. In G. Derfer & Z. Wang
& M. Weber (Eds.), The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between
Western Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead
Psychology Nexus Studies, pp. 39-70). Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos
Verlag.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009c). Meanings attributed to the term 'consciousness':
an overview. Journal of Consciousness Studies [Available:
10.pdf >], 16(5), 9-27.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009d). Quest for the Definition of Consciousness, Qualia,
Mind, and Awareness. In review, available at
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/DefineC-Vimal-LVCR-2009-V.pdf.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009e). Subjective Experience Aspect of Consciousness Part
II: Integration of Classical and Quantum Concepts for Emergence
Hypothesis. NeuroQuantology [Available:
LVCR-2-9.pdf >], 7(3), 411-434.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010a). Matching and selection of a specific subjective
experience: conjugate matching and subjective experience. Journal of
Integrative Neuroscience [Longer version is available at
LVCR-3-1.pdf >], 9(2), 193-251.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010b). On the Quest of Defining Consciousness. Mind and
Matter [Available:
DefineC-LVCR-3-2.pdf >], 8(1), 93-121.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010c). Variable Concept of Free Will: Semi-Free Will in
Dual-aspect Dual-mode Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision
and Consciousness Research [Available:
10.pdf >], 3(10), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011a). Bridging Materialism and Anti-materialism via Dual-
Aspect Monism. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness
Research [Available:
Vimal-Bridging-Materialism-and-antiMaterialism-LVCR-4-2.pdf >], 4(2), 1-
100.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011b). Dual-Aspect Monism versus Mentalistic Idealism:
Discussion with Smetham on Mind-Independent Reality. Journal of
Consciousness Exploration & Research [Available:
16.doc >].
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011c). Introducing Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Paksa Advaita,
द्विपक्षाद्वैत) in Hinduism. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and
Consciousness Research [Available:
Visistadvaita-DAM-4-9.pdf>], 4(9), 1-93.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011d). Necessary Ingredients of Consciousness:
Integration of Psychophysical, Neurophysiological, and Consciousness
Research for the Red-Green Channel. Vision Research Institute: Living
Vision and Consciousness Research [Available at
Ingredients-Conciousness-LVCR-2-1.pdf >], 2(1), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011e). Problems of Interactive Substance Dualism and
Religions: Resolved by Dual-Aspect Monism. Vision Research Institute:
Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
Religions-DAM-4-8.pdf>]. In preparation, 4(8), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2012). Partly Unpacking the Mysterious Emergence: Matching
and Selection Mechanisms of Dual-Aspect Monism. In A. Pereira Jr. & D.
Lehmann (Eds.), The Unity of Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives
on a Science of Consciousness (Vol.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. In preparation [Available for comments:
14.doc >].
Vimal, R. L. P., & Pandey-Vimal, M.-U. C. (2007). Ancient Historical
Scripture and Color Vision. Color Research and Application, 32(4), 332-
333. [Pre-print is available:
AncientHistScriptColVis-CRA.pdf >.
Wallace, B. A. (1989). Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the
Mind. Chapter 23: A Contemplative View of the Mind. Ithaca, NY: Snow
Lion. Available: http://www.alanwallace.org/ChoosingReality23.pdf.
Wallace, B. A. (2007). Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and
Consciousness. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wallace, B. A. (2009). Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science,
Buddhism, and Christianity. New York, USA: Columbia University Press.
Watson, G. (2001). Buddhism Meets Western Science. Religion and the Brain,
19,
Watson_2001_2058-2000>; Watson, Gay. "Perspective: Buddhism Meets Western
Science," The Park Ridge Center Bulletin 2019 (January 2001). Online.
Available http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page2483.html.
Whitehead, A. N. (1932). Science and the Modern World (revised ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziporyn, B. (2009). Ineradicable Frustration and Liberation in Tiantai
Buddhism. In G. Derfer & Z. Wang & M. Weber (Eds.), The Roar of
Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western Psychotherapies and
Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies, pp. 117-
134). Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Endnotes
-----------------------
[i] As per Dennett, "Varela is a very smart man who, out of a certain
generosity of spirit, thinks he gets his ideas from Buddhism. I'd like him
to delete the references to Buddhist epistemology in his writings. His
scientific work is very important, and so are the conclusions we can draw
from the work. Buddhist thinking has nothing to do with it, and bringing it
in only clouds the real issues." Dennett's comments in (Varela, 1995).
[ii] As per , "by
altering one's distorted worldview, bringing out 'tranquil perception' in
the place of 'perception polluted', one is able to ease suffering. Watson
[(Watson, 2001)] points this out from a psychological standpoint: 'Research
has shown that repeated action, learning, and memory can actually change
the nervous system physically, altering both synaptic strength and
connections. Such changes may be brought about by cultivated change in
emotion and action; they will, in turn, change subsequent experience'."
[iii] The term 'reincarnation' is misleading in Buddhism as per Smetham
(personal communication) because it gives an impression of eternal self
which reincarnates, i.e., it implies that there is a 'soul' whereas a
fundamental tenet of Buddhism is no fixed and enduring soul (see Section
2.3). Therefore, term 'rebirth' is used for atheist religion such as
Buddhism and the term 'reincarnation' is used in theist related frameworks
such as Vedanta.
[iv] Adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion.
[v] "What humans desire can be described as increasing degrees of control,
freedom, unconditionality or, in Nietzsche's word, power. […] The power to
attain the object whenever I want it, not the object, is what is wanted,
even if it is 'power' that is objectified as the desideratum (and also to
get rid of it when I don't want it".
[vi] Some of the information is extracted or adapted (shown in italics)
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy.
[vii] Weber, 2004; Whitehead, 1926; Whitehead, 1933; Whitehead, 1978.
[viii] Cobb & Griffin, 1977;
http://www2.citytel.net/~gmnixon/pubs/deQuincey.html
[ix] Four Noble Truths in classical Buddhism are as follows:
1.Suffering does exist
2.Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3.Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4.Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path
1.The Nature of Suffering (or Dukkha):
This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is
suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is
suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what
one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging
are suffering.
2.Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):
This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving
which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking
delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for
existence, craving for extermination.
3.Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the
remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up
and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it.
4.The Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini
Patipada Magga)
This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering:
it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right
speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and
right concentration."
[x] See (Smetham, 2011) and (Eccles & Popper, 1984).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper's_experiment;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper.
[xi] See (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2007) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
[xii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyasa
[xiii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Eastern_philosophers,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/311732/Kapila
[xiv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad: Author:
Yajnavalkya, Date of composition: Mid-first millennium BCE, Place of
composition (ancient name): Videha, Mithila (Southern Nepal).
[xv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabha_(Jain_tirthankar)
[xvi] See (Mádhava Áchárya, 1996 [1882]),
http://www.humanistictexts.org/Carvaka.htm,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokayata,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barhaspatya_sutras, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kautilya
[xvii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha
[xviii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh
[xix] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ
[xx] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
[xxi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara
[xxii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasugupta
[xxiii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujacharya
[xxiv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaitadvaita,
[xxv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Madhvacharya
[xxvi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuddhadvaita and (Sharma, 1968).
[xxvii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_Mahaprabhu
[xxviii] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
[xxix] According to (Stapp, 2009), "Von Neumann (orthodox) quantum
mechanics is thus dualistic in the pragmatic and operational sense that it
involves aspects of nature that are described in physical terms and also
aspects of nature that are described in psychological terms, and these two
parts interact in human brains in accordance with laws specified by the
theory. This is all in close accord with classic Cartesian dualism. On the
other hand, and in contrast to the application to classical mechanics, in
which the physically described aspect is ontologically matterlike, not
mindlike, in quantum mechanics the physically described part is mindlike!
So both parts of the quantum Cartesian duality are fundamentally mindlike.
Thus quantum mechanics conforms at the pragmatic/operational level to the
precepts of Cartesian duality, but reduces at a deep ontological level to a
fundamentally mindlike nondual monism." See also my discussion with Stapp
in (Vimal, 2011a).
[xxx] In OR, the quantum system is reduced from a superposition of multiple
possible states to a single definite state.
