[Buddha-l] Non-Arising

[JKirkpatrick]

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 
__________________________

The Buddhist texts that discuss the mind per se or in se tend to
be Mahayana texts that tend to essentialise the dharmas under
discussion. This tendency was avoided by the early teaching
record, such as it is known. Things finally around the 3d c BCE
got scholastic and the classification and debating games began
(Abhidharmas). The wikipedia article on this quotes reasonable
sources:

"... Also, the Pali version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly
Theravada collection, and has little in common with the
Abhidhamma works recognized by other Buddhist schools[11]. The
various Abhidhamma philosophies of the various early schools have
no agreement on doctrine[12] and belong to the period of 'Divided
Buddhism'[12] (as opposed to Undivided Buddhism)." (? another
useless classification?)

More importantly:  "In the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka, unlike
the Abhidharma Pitaka of the Sarvastivada school, ontological
theorizing is absent, and the question of ontological status of
dharmas remains a moot point. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidhamma_Pitaka

Joanna