[Buddha-l] Non-Arising

[Dee]

> Just as recent astrophysics provides more reliable information about the cosmos, its composition, layout, and history, than 2500 year old fairy tales that always sound like the India of the day in which they were written. If you want to know about the solar system, who will you read?

On the other hand, Indians have had a complex and subtle knowledge of the mind for thousands of years while western psychology is only one hundred years old.

You assume, perhaps, because I threw a few hard questions at Bernhard about "experiences" that something cynical or dismissive is at
play. The questions I asked come directly from Nagarjuna -- no questions are more Buddhistic  than those. And they are intended to be provocative and force one to question assumptions. Also nothing can be more Buddhistic
> than that.

I didn't make any such assumption. I didn't even notice that you asked any questions, difficult or otherwise. That old chestnut about the disnction between scholars and practitioners is as tiresome as it is unhelpful. People need to both study and practice if they hope to change their habirual patterns from aggressively combative and all the other kleshas to having the ability to communicate in a more affective way.


> The assumption that Buddhism solves the problem of subject
> and object -- a problem of distinctly Western invention, with its opposing > camps of materialists and idealists -- is not borne out by the
> evidence. 


And yet the Yogacarins talk about experiencer and experience quite a bit, which may not be a direct trasnaltion into subject and object, but we get the point.

> And don't accuse me of being anti-mystical 

Dan, I am not accusing you of anything. I was simply trying to have a discussion with you about a very interesting topic. 

On the other hand, for someone to categorically claim that only neuroscience has the authority to define mind is a form of cultural chauvenism. We are all interested to see what western science has to offer in understanding the mind, but Buddhist texts have been discussing the mind for a long time and have some very interesting things to say as well. To categorically dismiss them without further explanation is just plain, well, rude. In my post to you I was merely inviting you to share your own knowledge on some of the things Buddhism has said about the mind. It was a friendly and polite invitation. That it has warranted such an enthusiasitc rejection is quite dissapointing. 

Dee