B. Alan Wallace, Ph.D. on science, buddhism, skepticism and meditation | Part 1

[zencat]

Bravo, Dr. Wallace. You have opened the door to the core of Buddhist teaching.

[Brahmanfire]

So I guess what I'm saying is I'm right and ur wrong.... LOL Neener neener hahaha... Stop taking yourselves so seriously.

[squamish4244]

@Brahmanfire Define serious.

[squamish4244]

@Brahmanfire You went on a long rant about how your viewpoint is correct and then told everyone else to stop taking themselves so seriously. The irony.

[Brahmanfire]

I generally pay attention to the ones flexible enough in awareness that the desire to be 'correct' is non-existent as is it's counterpart in arrogantly telling others of their 'incorrectness'. People mature enough to carry themselves this way and be an example of human potential are awakened and aware of THAT aspect of themselves which is Infinite. Empathy, understanding, and acceptance of others perspectives then is natural and not artificially contrived, for Infinitude itself includes ALL.

[Brahmanfire]

The human mind being possessed of Infinite quality can choose to restrict it's knowledge by ignorantly amputating 1 aspect of a dualistic pair discarding it in judgment, it serves only to perpetuate it's own self-fulfilling prophecy that limitation is truth, and why wouldn't a mind do this when it is shrouding it's own Infinite nature from itself so that it may find temporal comfort in the pride or control of being "correct" or telling another they're "incorrect". Limitation fulfilled. Good job.

[Brahmanfire]

You are all correct. Or, you are all incorrect........ OR this game; Who is correct and Who is incorrect is inconsequential in that Realities Infinite capacity to uphold Infinite potential realities supports the polarity of contradiction... Logically of course. Paradoxical only to the mind attached to a limitation. Cmon Smartys, INFINITY coalesced into Form(intrinsically finite), thought limited to being a Form still it is imbued with and inseparable of it's Infinite status.

[XSilvenX]

Yet again, this new idea of "consciousness" once again tries to assert itself as the missing link between what we know about consciousness and what we don't know. Not as ridiculous as what the creationists say but similar nonetheless. This whole discussion is pretty much a very drawn out way of getting people to shut down their rational defenses and open up a hole in their brain that says "FEED ME METAPHYSICAL JUNK". Enjoy people. Good enough story/explanation and people will eat it right up.

[squamish4244]

@XSilvenX Yet again, fear kicks in and reacts against the mystery of consciousness with some words in caps telling us we are all idiots for listening to this guy and considering his opinion. Atheism has its own good story, that of comfortable limits to the world and a peaceful infinite rest after death.

[VPIP100]

Thumbs up if you're awesome and understand this!

[Clearlight76]

Thank you Professor Wallace! I want to believe that consciousness could exist independent of a brain too, however, where is the evidence for it? Personal experience is easily distorted and unreliable. Thank you for attacking the apparent authoritarian worldview of physical materialism, however this attack does not prove your point.

[theomorph]

... and although i haven't got a hold of his book yet, from the ways he uses the term "emergent qualities" he is obviously informed about the supervenience argument within physicalism which attends to problem of the relationship between higher level phenomena (like conciousness, economies or culture) and lower level phenomena (quanta, fields, mass-energy). there are many people who critique material monism without first understanding its more subtle arguments. alan isn't one of those people.

[theomorph]

i like alan wallace for the fact that when he argues his position, he does so not from a moderately informed but a deeply informed perspective of both madhyamaka ontology, on the one hand, and of the philosophy of science on the other (the majority of scientists aren't really informed with regard to this meta level of their own field). note alan's terminologically differentiated reference to "physicalism" as opposed to "materialism" or "mechanistic" as is often done when contrasting ontologies.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelt Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE

[MaBu888]

The solution to the hard problem of consciousness seems to be an INTEGRAL theory of consciousness, in which subjective and objective are balancing poles, that can be confused, differentiated and integrated in experience, as experience is nondual.

[bdg299]

Buddhas believe that reality is _only_ subjective. Be careful of integral (Ken Wilber) MaBu888 he is theistic.

He dosnt have the cognition of a Buddha he cant cognise that:

emptiness is matter, matter is emptiness.

if you we not refearing to Ken Wilbers integral movement, im sorry in advance.:)

[MaBu888]

I think you are mistaken about calling Ken Wilber theistic. He seems to be very good at cognising: matter is emptiness and emptiness is matter. His dualism is a nondual one, his 'theism' is a panENtheistic one. Notice: subjective is something HUMAN buddhists ascribe to matter. But 2 + 2 is sometimes still 4.

[bdg299]

This isnt true he believes emptiness is god. His way is just another form advaita vedanta just westernised. He cant cognize Emptiness (beyond the 4 extremes of not being, not not being, niether either). Anyways this is of topic and minght be disrespecting Mr.Wallace. i just thought i should tell you, hope it was ok.

[MaBu888]

He doesn't believe emptiness is god. He believes god can be equated with the nondual, but not the dogma-based christian god, but instead god the unqualifiable witness that is also the witnessed. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness - nondual. All things are empty of inherent existence - emptiness. Though I don't think he at all times is perfect when it comes to spirituality. The discussion here is slightly off topic,but Wallace himself is not bothered by it, because he didn't post this video.

[MaBu888]

Even Buddha is imperfect. All form is dependently originated as all emptiness.

[MaBu888]

You should become more familiar with panentheism and pantheism. In some ways Wilber could be called atheistic as well, because of the nature of pantheism and panentheism. pan - all - en - theos - all - in - god, but not the god we think we know. Wilber doesn't even identify with any religion he practices the techniques and philosophies of. I see advaita vedanta as a very potent spiritual path, and Sri Ramana Maharshi as a great teacher, though we prefer Sri Aurobindo's teachings as well.

[MaBu888]

I was referring to Wilber. I am critical about the movement, though. Subjective and objective mean in his senses of the words: quantifiable and qualifiable. There are other integral theories that even Wilber doesn't think people understand, but I do. :) For example if you search Google: Peter Collins holistic mathematics, you should find such.

An integral theory of consciousness still is a welcome change to usual consciousness studies. Simultracking and the 3 strands of good science - integral.

[bdg299]

Its a bit better, but the problem is that these beings when they die will call out to a being they they and belive they are one? with, anything could happen to them. The integral movement from this perspective is very dangerous as they dont fully understand Interdependent Origination.

[MaBu888]

You are not right about them calling out for beings that they are one with upon their death. You are not right about what kind of meditative practices they do. BTW centering prayer (from contemplative christianity) is not just devotional. They use very solid buddhist practices. I know them quite through and through, and I know what mistakes they do. Believing dogmatically in separate beings like God is not one of them. Their spirituality takes into account developmental levels.

[MaBu888]

You should become more familiar with panentheism and pantheism. In some ways Wilber could be called atheistic as well, because of the nature of pantheism and panentheism. pan - all - en - theos - all - in - god, but not the god we think we know. Wilber doesn't even identify with any religion he practices the techniques and philosophies of. I see advaita vedanta as a very potent spiritual path, and Sri Ramana Maharshi as a great teacher, though we prefer Sri Aurobindo's teachings as well.

[MaBu888]

Therefore he doesn't believe, nor equate emptiness with god. It is more complicated than that. I mostly share his views on many things, but I find him blatantly imperfect as well, at times. I don't identify with any philosophy. However, Alan Wallace has been acquainted with Wilber and from what I know their ideas, goals and world views are similar and compatible enough for cooperation - to achieve actual studies of consciousness. Wilber has a better theoretical grasp, Wallace is very practical.

[MaBu888]

About subjectivity and objectivity in buddhism - OBJECTS arise. The perspective with which one sees objects is subjective. Objects are not separate from subjects. Absolute consciousness as such is beyond the dichotomy between subjective and objective. An integral philosophy is an attempt to take each view as each view it is. Whenever an integral philosophy fails at it, it is not an integral philosophy at the moment of the making of its error, isn't it? Therefore all beings are imperfect.

[MaBu888]

"Buddhas believe that reality is _only_ subjective. "

Do they now? Do they believe?

[bdg299]

Yes all Buddhas do is manifest.

There for there is only subjectiverty.

[MaBu888]

Define subjectivity, therefore, please.

[krittmasta]

@bdg299, your face is subjective .... LMAO.

[MaBu888]

Eloquent and clear as always.

[bdg299]

Physicalists are very frustrating, they claim there is only matter yet they want to get cudled by there mummy for a scientific breakthrough. If there is only matter then they are _only_ matter.

[MaBu888]

And by definition, matter doesn't matter. :)