

The quintessential rational mind: Buddha - sree_nair
http://www.hindu.com/mag/2010/05/23/stories/2010052350210600.htm

======
gjm11
The linked article gives no actual support for its claim that the Buddha's was
"the quintessential rational mind". It cites a few of his opinions and draws
tenuous connections with the findings of modern neuroscience.

It's pretty clear that the Buddha was a clever and insightful chap. It
wouldn't surprise me to find that some of the things he said about minds and
bodies and persons fit well with contemporary science. It would be interesting
to read something about this written by someone with no axe to grind. The
hyperbole of the linked article, though? A waste of space.

~~~
kunley
This is a take I found on modern Buddhism view on science
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhmaK4Q19RY>

Though it's only a few minute spot directed rather to non-tech people, it
scratches the surface.

~~~
acous
I think there's a lot to be learned from buddhism but I don't think the
statements in this video add up to much. Why does the notion of space as
information promote a more compassionate outlook? Is Rupert Sheldrake is the
best person to cite as a buddhist scientist? Is he even a buddhist? Just
playing devils advocate here ;)

------
michael_dorfman
The author may be a top-notch neuro-scientist (for all I know), but he's not
much of a Buddhist scholar. He's quoting texts that were written approximately
1000 years apart, and attributing them to the same author.

There's a lot of fascinating work being done in Buddhist Psychology; in fact,
I'm in the middle of a course on precisely that subject as part of an M.A. in
Buddhist Studies. Unfortunately, this article only hints at the subject.

~~~
ivenkys
"I'm in the middle of a course on precisely that subject as part of an M.A. in
Buddhist Studies" - Are there any books, articles that are more insightful
than the linked article that you would recommend ?

~~~
michael_dorfman
Well, it's a huge subject, but a couple of good starting points on the
neuroscience angle are the works of B. Alan Wallace ("Contemplative Science:
Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge", for example) or Mathieu Ricard
("The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and
Buddhism Meet", for example).

If, however, you are looking for a more general introduction to Buddhism (and
Buddhist psychology) from a rationalist perspective, I'd recommend Stephen
Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs."

------
joubert
"the day when he attained enlightenment at Gaya in India; and the day he
attained Nirvana (Unity with the Absolute) in 480 B.C."

Because attaining enlightenment and nirvana are rational, factual, non-
dogmatic "events" that can be dated.

------
nreece
The 'cleaner' copy of the same article:
<http://beta.thehindu.com/arts/magazine/article435036.ece>

~~~
ronnier
A small piece of my weekend project that I'm working on is extracting text
from articles. You can try it on this one:

[http://toadjaw.com/article?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hindu.com%2F...](http://toadjaw.com/article?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hindu.com%2Fmag%2F2010%2F05%2F23%2Fstories%2F2010052350210600.htm)

~~~
SMrF
Nice. Did you just recreate the Readability algorithm or are you trying your
own approach?

~~~
ronnier
In large part I ported over Readability. Although It's not exactly the same
since I'm doing some additional processing. I started it on Friday and had it
finished up yesterday so it's still pretty rough, but working pretty well.

You can try more here: <http://toadjaw.com/article>

~~~
zeynel1
This is great and very useful. Are there plans to add unicode support?
[http://toadjaw.com/article?url=http://www.tdkterim.gov.tr/bt...](http://toadjaw.com/article?url=http://www.tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/%3Fkategori%3Dverilst%26kelime%3Dpotansiyel%26ayn%3Dtam)

~~~
ronnier
That's horrible, I'll get that fixed. Shouldn't be a problem.

Edit: It's fixed now.

Edit: And maybe not, since my change broke other pages. I'll have to think
about this.

------
nazgulnarsil
rationality can only be evaluated in relation to goals. there is no "one
rationality to rule them all". how you evaluate a decision tree depends on
where you want to end up.

------
eduardoflores
It would be very interesting (at least for me) if some Eastern hackers here
can share their point of view over these subjects, mysticism and modern
science, yoga, etc.

------
Charuru
I'm tempted to point out that we evolved emotions for a reason. They're
basically sugar methods for typically socially beneficial reactions.

Too much rejection of emotions may at best lead one to be a Buddha, or perhaps
just dull, or maybe even worst, a sociopath.

~~~
ahoyhere
Just to be clear, Buddhism is not about the elimination of emotions. It's
about recognizing that feelings are not real _things_ , to believe and rely
on, or to be afraid of.

~~~
insane_loaf
Interesting. This sounds quite similar to transcendental idealism, then. Or
even Stoicism, or Vedanta. I think Plato would agree with this idea too,
seeing his cave metaphor: We are prisoners in a dark cave, facing the wall. A
fire burns behind us, casting off shadows from object passing between our
backs and the fire. The shadows aren't real (actually, they're the absence of
light), but to us, they _seem_ real. Same idea in The Matrix.

Nice.

~~~
jjs
Plato thought that true reality lay in universal abstractions called Forms, or
Ideas.

The Buddhist sutras take the position that "objects of mind" are just leaky
abstractions created by our limited minds, which struggle to make sense of the
world. The greatest fallacy, in this view, is conflating the "objects of mind"
with the real objects (+) they supposedly represent.

(+) Buddhist philosophers in India developed a concept of atomism, which leads
to existential riddles like, "If I look at this pile of atoms, and see a
chair, is the chair inside my mind, or outside?" (If you answer either way,
you're wrong! ;)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_atomism>

<http://deoxy.org/koan/76>

