From: v-nguyen@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (Viet-Anh V Nguyen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: Re: [SCI & REL] Khoa-Ho.c & To^n-Gia'o
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:51:03 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science

From: tran@neep.engr.wisc.edu

Here's my closing remark on the subject; perhaps you'd like to have the
final (long) word.


On Western Science and Eastern Mysticism
----------------------------------------
>
>Here is a quote from: Ken Wilber, "Physics and Mysticism", pages 164-165,
>
>Think of the six levels of consciousness (1.Physical-nonliving matter/energy;
>2.Biological-living, pranic, sentient matter/energy; 3.Mental-ego,logic,
>thinking; 4.Subtle-archetypal, trans-individual, intuitive; 5.Causal-formless
>radiance, perfect transcendence; 6.Ultimate-consciousness as such, the source
>and nature of all other levels.
>
>  The physicist, with his one-dimentional interpenetration, tells us that all
>sorts of atomic events are interwoven one with the other- which is itself a
>significant discovery.  But he tells us, and can tells us, NOTHING WHATSOEVER
>about the interaction of nonliving matter with the biological level, and of
>that level's interaction with the mental field-what relationship does ionic
>plasma have with, say, egoic goals and drives?  And beyond that, what of the
>interaction of the mental field with the subtle, and of the subtle with the
>causal, and the reverse interaction and interpenetration all the way back down
>through the lower levels?  What can the new physics tell us of that?


Nothing yet. But physicist Roger Penrose did suggest that an explanation of
quantum gravity may provide the clue to consciousness [1]. However, biologists
disagree and argue that "biology will provide the key to understanding the
brain and ultimately the mind" [2]. I guess my point is that contemporary
scientists and philosophers do not believe that appeals to nonphysical mental
stuff are needed to understand the phenomenon of our mental lives. Maybe,
those are just bum ideas and they will fail, but scientists would rather try
and fail than not try at all. 


>  I suggest that the new physics has simply discovered the one-dimentional
>interpenetration on its own level (lowest).  While this is an important
>discovery, it cannot be equated with the EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON OF
>MULTIDIMENTIONAL INTERPENETRATION described by the mystics...To put it crudely
>the study of physics is on the first floor, describing the interactions of its
>elements; the mystics are on the sixth floor describing the interaction of all
>six floors.


As I pointed out above, the tenants on the first and second floor are getting
restless and want to climb up to the third floor and perhaps higher. Hoping 
that, as Einstein once said, the Eastern mystical view would help "cope with
modern scientific needs" rather impede its progress. I'd like to add here a
passage by David Hubel, who received a Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology
for his work in vision [3]:


    "If mind and soul are to neurobiology what sky and heaven are to astronomy
     and The Creation is to biology, then a third revolution in thought may be
     in the offing. We should not, however, smugly regard these as struggles
     between scientific wisdom and religious ignorance. If humans tend to
     cherish certain beliefs, it is only reasonable to suppose that our brains
     have evolved so as to favor that tendency - for reasons concerned with
     survival. To dismantle old beliefs or myths and replace them with scienti-
     fic modes of thought should not and probably cannot be done hastily or by
     decree. But it seems to me that we will, in the end, have to modify our
     beliefs to make room for facts that our brains have enabled us to esta-
     blish by experiment and deduction: the world is round; it goes around the
     sun; living things evolve; life can be explained in terms of fantastically
     complex molecules; and thought may some day be explained in terms of fan-
     tastically complex sets of neural connections."



>   Thus, as a blanket conclusion, even as an approximation, the statement that
>"The world views of physics and mysticism are similar" is a wild over-
>generalization and is based, as one physicist recently put it, "on the use of
>accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of
>deeply rooted connections."


If you truly believe so, then consider the following "nonsense" by Arnold and
Baptist that you quoted in an earlier post:


>2. BUDDHISM AND MODERN SCIENCE
>
>   "I have often said, and I shall say again and again, that between Buddhism
>and modern science there exists a close intellectual bond."
>
>                                     (Sir Edwin Arnold)


Does "a close intellectual bond" imply a certain connection between the two?
But how can that be if all the parallels are just "accidental similarities
of language"?


>4. BUDDHISM IS A COMBINATION OF SPECULATIVE AND SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY
>
> ...
>
>6. BUDDHA'S VIEWS CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE
>
>   Indeed, the Buddha's views on phenomena are thus confirmed today by Western
>science...
>                          (Egerton C. Baptist,"Supreme Science of the Buddha")


How can that be if the world views of mysticism and modern science are not
similar in some aspects?


>7. BUDDHISM BEGINS WHERE SCIENCE ENDS
>
> Science can give no assurance herein.  But Buddhism can meet Atomic Challenge
>because the supramundane knowledge of Buddhism begins where science leaves off.
>And this is clear enough to anyone who has made a study of Buddhism.  For,
>through Buddhist Meditation, the atomic constituents making up matter have
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>been seen and felt, and the sorrow, or unsatisfactoriness (or,Dukkha), of
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ...
>                                          (Ibid.)


What nonsense is Baptist talking about here - perhaps he wants to replace an
accelerator with a Zen temple?


>
>8. TRANSIENCY OF ELECTRO-MAGNETISM
>
>  Here, then, is a beautiful explanation of the puzzling harmony of the Cosmos
>without recourse to a mysterious unknown -God.  The Buddha encompasses both
>gravitational and electro-magnetism in His Doctrine of Anicca -Transiency.
>
>                                          (Ibid.)


So, I'd like to ask you the same question you asked me: "Those who believe in
what he said do nothing but repeat nonsense. Why?" Ho?i nhu+ va^.y tu+'c la`
-da~ tra? lo+`i.



On Catholics and Bad Rap
------------------------
>
>Now, how do you know that what I and other netters such as Longan and KB have
>posted are biased and unchecked info? Do you have any proof to refute all
>the "facts" in those posts?


I know some of what you posted are biased and unchecked info. Do you have any
proof to support all the "facts" in those posts? One is presumed to be innocent
until proven guilty, not the other way around.


>And because they couldn't deny it, the papal
>teaching emphasized on forbidding their followers to read those anti-catholic
>"trashes" with a scary tactic, those who read those literature are "ipso facto"
>uncatholic and will automatically go to hell.  That's why "good" catholics 
>never read those books.  They play safe: why take the risk of going to hell,
>who knows? better not read them.


I do share your concern and I don't intend to defend the Catholics - they seem
quite capable of doing that themselves. I just want to point out things in your
posts that I perceive as manifestations of a one-sided and prejudiced view.


>But, as a human being, I have 
>the duty to work for the better of humanity.  


Sure, but what's more important is HOW one carries out such a duty.


>CTN


Vietanh Nguyen


Notes:
------
[1] Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind.

[2] See, for example, Gerald Edelman's Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: A Nobel
    Laureate's Revolutionary Vision of How the Mind Originates in the Brain.

[3] David Hubel, Eye, Brain, and Vision, pp. 222-223.