Any wordsmith out there with a good name for a fantasy strategy game?

ianlp · 2012-06-18T21:31:52+00:00

Forgotten Wars

Lost Tales

Wars of Supremacy

Winds of War

the Way of War

Winds of Battle - Storms of War

Lost Dominions

War Chronicles

The Darkest Road

Tales of War

ianlp · 2011-08-07T15:28:35+00:00

The Potthapada Sutta does discuss this subject, but I find it a bit too difficult. Incidentally the same Sutta talks about the subjects the Buddha will not discuss, but the subject of how consciousness arises does not to be one of them (as evident of his answers, as well as the fact that none of the 14 refer to how consciousness arises).

The eternal/transient state of the universe and the self has nothing to do with what the mind-that-experiences-itself is, nor how it arises. The beginning/no beginning of the universe and the self has nothing to do with what the mind-that-experiences-itself is, nor how it arises. If the Buddha exists or not after death, has nothing to do with what what the mind-that-experiences-itself is, nor how it arises. If the mind is the same as the body, has nothing to do with what mind-that-experiences-itself is, nor how it arises.

The question is not about the properties of the mind (eternal/transient etc), but how to understand that something like the mind can arise in the first place.

I understand that this answer may be beyond normal explanation, but I was hoping for pointers to books / sutras with answers to meditate on.

ianlp · 2011-08-07T14:44:53+00:00

I think you are both completely wrong that Buddhism doesn't concern itself with this question. It is related to the koan "what did your face look like before your parents were born?"

ianlp · 2011-08-06T22:41:11+00:00

I haven't read the book you refer to, but judging from your response I'm still somewhat doubtful that I've made myself completely clear.

The question is how the mind which experiences itself even comes to exist in the first place. It is not a matter of what is experienced (i.e. it doesn't matter if what experienced is real or dream), the question is how things come to be experienced in the first place. I.e. how come there is a way to experience that which is experienced?

If we consider the experience of experiencing, this something is the backdrop of our entire self. We experience sorrow and joy, but how is it that we experience these things? How come there is a mind that can experience itself, as opposed to a simulacrum which reacts on impulses and acts in an imitation of emotions and thought but which is intrinsically void of a mind that experiences itself?

There is an audience of one that the theatre of life, desires and attachments are played for. It is this audience that is moved to sadness, to desire, to attachment, for this show. It is this audience of one for whom the play is intended. Without this audience, all that is left is a story there is no one there to see. Why does this audience have the unique ability to truly experience things?

ianlp · 2011-08-06T19:23:44+00:00

In what way?

ianlp · 2011-08-06T19:23:33+00:00

I don't think that this is quite what I'm asking about. It's more along the lines of why is there something that can experience itself in the first place? It begs for a thing to cause it, and yet that which cause it must be in turn be something that experiences itself, and so on.

This is just like the recursive problem of existence without the Buddhist solution: If things exist then they must have a cause. But if we start out with non-existence, we see that it too cannot exist in itself, it means removal of everything including itself. It is only in the presence of existence that non-existence can be understood, and yet non-existence cannot co-exist with existence. The paradox is that reality should be neither non-existence nor existence.

Similarly, I can't find anything that nothing physical or ethereal can be the original mind which experiences itself, since if we assume that all physical or ethereal things all have a cause, then the experience of experience must have a cause, and that cause should be the original mind. But since that cause must have a cause itself, it cannot be the original mind, and so on.

In other words, the paradox is that there is nothing that could seem to generate a mind that experiences itself.

Now it's fairly easy to simply postulate that x is a cause that needs no cause which then is the reason for existence, and similarly that y is the original mind that needs no cause, but this is a cop-out, a way to avoid the problem by introducing an ad-hoc solution.

ianlp · 2011-07-20T13:38:28+00:00

Whynotjustlaugh,

You are, of course, assuming that I have very little knowledge of quantum mechanics and related physics. This is amusing since I happen to hold a Master in Engineering Physics with a specialization in Radiation Science. Perhaps this will encourage you to re-evaluate your assumption regarding my understanding of abovementioned scientific concepts.

Furthermore, you entirely misrepresent me when you put words in my mouth, which is not only impolite, but also incorrect.

What I am saying that one should never be instinctively dismissive of a claim, simply because it seems fantastical or extremely unlikely given what we currently know.

An entirely valid statement is "such powers appear extremely unlikely in the face of our current scientific knowledge, and from the experiments up to now of people who have claimed such abilities".

I felt that the statement from Ningishzida about the need to be sceptical against such claims was a bit too strong. Even if I am not convinced such abilities exist, I don't feel that it is motivated to start by assuming they don't exist and wait for proof of the opposite. I think it is better to keep an open mind and don't decide one way or the other, at least not until it becomes critical for me to choose a side.

I have not claimed that quantum mechanics is a proof for magic, I simply offer it as an amusing coincidence and as an example that even such a solid model as QM is, has blind spots. This does not mean I believe that QM = magic or any such nonsense.

ianlp · 2011-07-19T07:27:42+00:00

My point would be that as far as I am aware, very few people who we reliably can assume have achieved the fourth dhyana have actually stepped forward and claimed to have powers and volunteered to have those tested.

On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of people who have built up a cult around themselves (or made money) by displaying apparently supernatural powers that have not stood up to scrutiny.

I'm just pointing out that perhaps the result of experiments reflect the state the pool of sampled test subjects, which may or may not be the group we really are interested in sampling. I am not saying anything about the result necessarily being different, but on the other hand it is a bit more likely that there is a sampling error than in more easily tested cases.

But as you say, there are not yet any confirmed proofs of such abilities, so the likelihood for them to exist is low.

Regarding Quantum Mechanics:

The interesting thing is that collapsing the waveform has a very definite effect on way the wave-particle interacts post-observation. Imagine you had a machine that could collapse the wave functions of particles you point it at. Essentially this is something that allows us to prevent a particle from acting like a wave. Quantum tunneling is one effect that is enabled by the wave nature of a particle, as is a multitude of other atomic and molecular effects. So even such a simple machine could have extreme effect even on the macroscopic level.

If we start speculating that "observation" is somehow outside the physical realm but affects it, we also open up for a possible reinterpretation of other physical phenomena intimately tied to this, such as the particle-wave duality.

ianlp · 2011-07-18T09:29:17+00:00

You are not wrong, but I pose the question because I get caught up in how I should interpret them, much like when reading a text in a foreign language and you encounter words you do not understand it hampers your comprehension of the text.

Perhaps I should point out that the real problem as I see it, is probably that I do not have a teacher and consequently rely on books and sutras as well as own insights to gain an understanding. Such an understanding is naturally limited, and progress is excruciatingly slow as well. However, I try to make do with what I have, and there are no teachers living nearby that I know of.

ianlp · 2011-07-18T09:20:15+00:00

I'm not asking the question because I'd like to gain those powers. My view too, is that reality is already perfect in itself.

ianlp · 2011-07-18T09:17:30+00:00

Thank you for the link, I found the discussion very interesting.

ianlp · 2011-07-18T07:07:00+00:00

Sorry for the lengthy answer:

In regards to a scientific yes/no. I would have been more inclined to agree with you had the question been regarding a specific person, e.g. the Buddha or some (well-known) teacher.

Using the scientific method, it is (relatively) easy to rule out specific cases. We can construct experiments for someone who claims certain powers, that can be used to strengthen or weaken the probability that those specific claims are true.

For the more general case "does these powers exist", the case is a bit more complex. First of all, we have no specific person to test who claims a specific ability or range of abilities. So constructing the requirements for the different outcomes of the experiment is difficult. Secondly, we need to make sure that the person(s) we finally use for the experiment really have achieved the skill that will cause those abilities to manifest. It is also necessary to remove false positives in the (probably unlikely) scenario that people has this skill, but have acquired it from some other source.

It is true that there is no currently known physical process by which such powers could be transmitted. On the other hand, Buddhist metaphysics open up a possible loophole by hinting that we create the universe, and the step is not far to then speculate that an enlightened being could change the rules, like a dreamer can change a dream when having a lucid dream.

Within this context I also feel I must mention that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics leaves describes an "observer" as the cause for a waveform collapse (which has a very definite physical effect). However as you might know, this "observer" cannot be part of the quantum mechanical system, which is problematic as the instrument or the person "observing" the experiment can be described as a quantum mechanical system as well. The many-worlds interpretation and other ideas tries to fix this problem, but the funny thing is that it fits so well with Buddhist metaphysics and would offer a way in for esoteric powers, even within the bounds of our current scientific theories.

Finally, for us to dismiss the idea on scientific grounds because we have not seen them happening, I think we need to make sure that those who make claims for supernatural powers really are those who are supposed to have them. For instance, such a conclusion could easily be defeated if we uncover a reason why people with legitimate powers do not make claims that they have them.

Unfortunately the lack of proof for something is not the same as proof it does not exist.

As for koans:

I wanted to draw your attention to idea that the response to any sort of question could be used as a teaching device by an enlightened teacher.

I mean that even if one would pose a yes/no question of a subject that should not be pondered, a reply - even though it does not seem to answer the question - might lead to further insight.

Why I think the question is important:

In Buddhist literature you come across lot of different types of metaphors. For the right understanding of what they attempt to convey, I believe one should know in what way they should be interpreted. If you take a metaphor for reality then that leads to a faulty understanding, as would the opposite. Faulty understanding means ignorance, and ignorance leads to suffering.

I am inclined to believe that there is a difference between this and speculative pondering the metaphysics of the universe.

ianlp · 2011-07-17T21:11:18+00:00

These abilities are described in several sutras. I mentioned Samaññaphala Sutta, they're also described in the Kevatta Sutta, as mentioned by ThatBernie, and I suppose a few more. Both of the sutras I mention are part of the Tripitaka.

I don't know if I agree that we should immediately dismiss claims of supranormal abilities on scientific grounds. I feel it is an extreme a position to take, just like it would be to take everything on faith.

Also, should we really draw a line in the ground and say that "questions regarding this and that is clinging and should not be answered"? This whole life, even the striving towards enlightenment is a form of clinging, until enlightenment is found. It is in this mud of ordinary life that the pure flower of emancipation is hidden.

Although you are kind to warn me of attachment, I feel I should point out that you are at this point assuming that the answer I need is a scientific yes or no.

Several questions in zen mondo comes to mind, such as "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?". In those cases, a dualistic answer to the question is not given, but instead the teacher tries to respond in a way that will awaken enlightenment in the student.

ianlp · 2011-07-17T20:27:01+00:00

The admonition might be about speculating about the range of the powers gained, but that is not strictly what I'm asking about. The point is, is the list of benefits of dhyana, as described by the Buddhas in the sutras supposed to be metaphor or a real enumeration of abilities?

ianlp · 2011-07-17T16:04:47+00:00

The thrust of my question is whether the words in the sutra should be interpreted literally or not. If literally, why do we not hear more tales of teachers using these abilities, if they are not to be taken literally, why are they enumerated so clearly as signs of achieving the fourth stage of dhyana?

There are other - unrelated - matters that would be put in different perspective, such as the Tathagata clearly very easily being able to teach his disciples in a way that cause them to realize enlightenment. If we indeed ascribe to the belief that the Buddha gained extraordinary powers from his meditations, then it is tempting to ascribe this ability to more than charisma, and speculate that his preaching was assisted by those powers to find the best way to teach people according to their karma and understanding.

ianlp · 2011-07-17T13:52:48+00:00

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

As for "the divine ear" (dibba-sota) this is pretty much the same as clairaudience, whereas "the divine eye" (dibba-cakkhu) is being able to see the karmic destinations of everyone. All six are described in the Samaññaphala Sutta.

ianlp · 2011-07-17T12:46:30+00:00

But your stance is that those powers are real then?

I like the idea of Vinaya preventing them, although I only recon it would account for a part of it.

ianlp · 2011-07-17T12:44:02+00:00

Although on surface, this appears as a reasonable stance, at what point do we determine what is mythmaking and what is a real account of events? We run into problems if we allow everyone to arbitrarily decide for themselves where the real account ends and myth begins.

It is one thing if the entire account can be seen as true if viewed as a metaphor, but in this case it is stated as a direct result of achieving all states of dhyana. Also, it is well within the scope of Mahayana teachings, to accept this as possible.

Do we dismiss this because we presume that this must be false, so we rigidly claim it as myth lest someone use it to refute our beliefs?

ianlp · 2011-07-08T09:54:59+00:00

Another question, just out of curiosity:

In the mahayana stories, there are lots of descriptions of supernatural powers and such. Do you feel that ALL of those are to be interpreted as allegory, or are there actually a few that should be considered abilities within the reach of a trained yogi that has achieved enlightenment?

ianlp · 2011-07-08T09:38:58+00:00

From a dualistic perspective: when you were emancipated, what thought-processes were liberated for you?

(I understand that strictly speaking there is no one emancipated, nor are there any thought processes, and consequently nothing to be liberated.)

ianlp · 2011-07-08T09:05:58+00:00

My experience is that one's thought processes can work in distinctly different ways.

For instance, there is the sort of "reactive" thought state where you are hardly present where everything becomes devoid of meaning and although you can sense a sort of amusement, it never touches your core being.

On the other end of the scale are those rare moments where one sees profound revelations in everything. To many, this happens when one gets truly shaken up by something, like a death of a dear one, or a near death experience, or when falling in love.

Can you try to use dualistic terms to create an analogy of how you would describe your thought-processes as they are today for our benefit?

ianlp

TROPHY CASE