Yes, i could have been a bit nicer. I hope you continue to participate in the forum.
Also the Sutta pitaka.
For issues and confusion regarding this look deeper in to philosophy of science.
So a mathematical model is empirical is it?
Is Science entirely devoid of any metaphysical commitments?
Don’t answer.
Even observation is theory-laden
Look in to a chap called Kurt Gödel.
You mean to attract more people. Personally i dont agree with that, scientific paradigms change, it could just lead to embarrassment.
Defending the Abhidhamma is not the perpose of this forum. If i understood the intentions of the creators, this is more of a shelter from such distractions.
The FAQ says it all. However, with something like this, we don’t take as much as an authoritarian approach to this. It is difficult to digest even for the most orthodox Theravādins. However, we try to go away from criticism of the abhidhamma and we do like to defend it. https://classicaltheravada.org/faq
There is no denying that the brain is a critical organ.
However, there is so much that science does not know.
As for Suttanta.. Lets be clear that 32 parts is not suttanta (except for khuddakapāṭhapāḷi). . It is 31. The brain is missing from the famous sutta lists. Be happy that there are sources with 32 although its purpose was different than you would like.
Ofcourse Bhante! Not just that, there is a profound interdependence of rūpi and arūpī dhammas in pañcavokārabhava (pañcavokārabhave nāmarūpaṃ aññamaññaṃ nissāya pavattati)
Its just the level of discourse is way deeper, we need not be puzzled that the functions of the brain are not discussed at the level of science — any more than the function of the pancreas is.
There is so much we don’t know about reality, yet there is a lot that we experience that is also based on large units of consciousness and abhidhamma does not cut it at that point. It is a model. But reality is much more complex. Our science shows how amazingly complex it is and beyond the reach of consciousness. Just look at cells and how the body works. 3 million red bloods cells are made in the body per second. ATP in the cells is renewed every day. An electron has mass but no known size. A photon has no mass. The charge of an electron is 1.60217663 × 10-19 coulombs. How many electrons does it take to run one nerve message? Our brain is made of 170 billion cells and half that is neurons. Now I am pretty sure these facts can create a different model, but I also know that buddhist monks and I was one do not look past conscious experience and these are vastly bigger than an electron. Our consciousness is very big by comparison to an atom or a molecule and is likely derived from a lot of cells and neurons firing. But in the end it is all impermanent, dukkha and not self. Very amazing to me. But I study both and live in awe of how complex the human mind and body are and how limited is our understanding and how dogmatic are answers that are based on clinging to a nice model that is just a tool to get us to realise our craving is based on illusion of self.
I forget to mention our brains generate about 15 to 20 watts of electricity all day and night. So that is alot of electrons. Now when your perception sees or hears etc…These functions of consciousness are not small particle like events but big pieces of processing of lots of small events. To all extents and purposes what we experience consciously is like a simulation. The perception of impermanence, dukkha or anatta are learned patterns. So it is unlikely to be taking place in your heart. Though even if you thought it was how would you cross check that perception? That the brain is overlooked in Buddhist texts is a sign of perceptive patterns that did not know real biology. Not to blame them they made a model out of the knowledge they possessed at the time. But could we make a new model now?
[quote=“gregk, post:26, topic:2090”]
How many electrons does it take to run one nerve message? Our brain is made of 170 billion cells and half that is neurons. Now I am pretty sure these facts can create a different model, but I also know that buddhist monks and I was one do not look past conscious experience and these are vastly bigger than an electron. [/quote]
Kalapas - the smallest unit of matter - are much tinier than cells. And matter arises and ceases so fast.
This upload has an excellent preface by Thein Nyun in the PTS translation, the book of Elements. Dhatukatha_Scan.PDF (668.8 KB)
B u d d h a ’s Perfect K n o w le d g e of th e M a ter ial W orld
It is abundantly clear from the expositions concerning matter
in the Abhidhamma and the Suttas that the Buddha had perfect
knowledge of the material world which, out of His boundless
compassion for all beings. He expounded for their welfare and prosperity.
In the Nana-Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma the Buddha revealed his profound knowledge of the nature of all kinds of elements. Here are a few extracts concerning inanimate things. When the Buddha saw a tree He could tell what predominant elements caused (1) the trunk to be white, black or uniform in colour ; (2) the bark to be thick or thin ; (3) the flowers to be red, yellow, brown or white
in colour and their scent to be good or bad; (4) the fruits to be small, big, long or round in shape; their interior good, fine or coarse ; their odour good or bad and their taste sweet, sour, hot or astringent; (5) the thorns to be sharp, blunt, straight or crooked and red, black, brown or white and so on in colour. The Pitakas
also speak of the Buddha’s perfect knowledge of matter.
He gives an estimate of the brief time that materiality lasts:
The elements do not possess the characteristic functions of living beings. They arise and cease within an exceedingly short period of time. In the wink of an eye or a flash of lightning, which lasts for a microsecond (10^{-8} second), the mental elements arise and cease a trillion (10^{12}) times. This is just an estimate. The subcommentary takes the higher figure of 10^{15} Thus the mental elements arise and cease 10^{15} \times 10^{8} = 10^{23} times per second. Their extremely short duration is also mentioned in the Anguttara Nikāya. As regards the material elements, since they endure for 17 thought-moments, they arise 58,823,530,000,000,000,000,000) times per second.
Note that the texts compare with a flash of lighting or snap of the fingers, not seconds.
The Vibhanga atthakatha (commentary to the Vibhanga Abidhamma) says
that the size of a paramanu is 1/581,147,136th part of the width of
a finger. ( a paramanunu is one kalapa). It also notes that
therefore “a paramanu as a particle of space is..the
province of the divine eye[only]”.
Thus much smaller than what is perceived normally.
And the evidence for these opinions is simply an opinion in a book and falls far short of real verifiable science. The facts in our own experience support the idea that these theories are good on paper but not really of much value. Reality is likely far more amazing than we think and maybe not even knowable on this level by direct experience.
If kalapas are the smallest unit of matter are they atoms, sub atomic or what? No one has ever seen or known an atom. No one is craving for an atom. They have craving for sights, sounds, odours, tastes, touches, and dhammas in the mind. The Buddha’s 4 noble truths is not an explanation of physics or chemistry but an explanation of the ignorance that causes us to hold wrong views and craving. And craving and ignorance etc are not small packets of information but a whole very complex process at the level of self consciousness and formed from a learned reaction to feeling and proximate causes. It is not necessary to know beyond what is in our experience or think that the Buddha has to know it all. Obviously he keep things much more simple than abhidhamma. It is fun but it has flaws in its construction as an explanation.
In each kalapa there are the elements of hardness/softness; color etc. Which as you say can be taken as objects of desire or aversion.
Hardness and colour are so real, albeit so evanescent, this can be known.
We should remember that the model of matter that science has - atoms and so - while similar in respect to tininess is still believed to have a lastingness that kalapas do not possess.
And the Buddha explained this complexity in the Abhidhamma and suttas:
Milinda Panha
Suppose, O King, some man were to go out onto the great ocean in a boat, and taking up a handful of water in his palm, he were to taste it with his tongue. Would he be able to know: ‘This is the water of the Ganges, this is the water of the Yamunā, this is the water of the Aciravatī, this is the water of the Sarabhū, and this is the water of the Mahī’?"
"Certainly not, Bhante. That would be a very difficult thing to do."
"Well, O King, a more difficult thing than that has been performed by the Blessed One when he distinguished those formless mental states which exist in a single object of consciousness, saying: ‘This is contact (phassa), this is feeling (vedanā), this is perception (saññā), this is volition (cetanā), and this is consciousness (viññāṇa).’"
The abhidhamma is a model and explanation of what is said by the Buddha in the suttas. It has a lot of stories around it that lead to it being doubtful the Buddha taught it. That doesn’t mean it is not accurate and informative but it is more a commentary of the Suttas than a teaching in its own right. So stating that the Buddha explained it is not really a strong argument. Milinda Panha is also not the work of the Buddha. But the answer of Milinda is a sutta explanation and not abhidhamma. The sutta explanations are much better in my opinion because they explain sufficient for us to practice and they are complex enough. So 5 khandha, elements, paticcasamupada etc are the highest wisdom of anyone who ever lived without doubt. But there are multiple schools of abhidhamma so I doubt it was originally present, but each to his own. Trying to create modern science like comparisons though between the two is like trying to put a square peg in a round whole. They are not the same and not even designed for the same purpose. They are different fields and scopes and extremely useful and let me send you this message. So knowledge is a big set of fields they don’t have to be the same but wisdom lets us use them to live in ways that we chose to make us happier and healthier.