I have a lot of trouble with this. How could that possibly be so ? As I understand Buddhism suggests that the body is brought about from consciousness. That kind of goes against everything I learnt at school that our brain is responsible for consciousness directly linked to DNA and the almost impossible amount of information a single cell of a neuron in our brain contains. Or evolution through very long time periods and generations of humans from neanderthal and other early humans. "This is our DNA; our cell’s Master Plan. DNA tells us how to build every single thing inside every single cell and keep it running smoothly day and night. It’s the most enormously long and complex list of instructions ever made! Without it, all our cells would stop working and quickly fall apart just like a restaurant with no recipes." Does every cell in our body contain DNA? | Centre of the Cell I find Buddhism really difficult as there are some concepts that you need a jump of belief of belief like the above. I have no direct experience that reincarnation exists, yet anyway and many of the precepts/noble truths seem to extend into that realm and if I believe that, belief fills the gap of truth, as there is not truth if you have to believe. Buddha said come and see. But I cannot see further than what I can know now, making some concepts difficult to accept and understand.
It makes more sense if you take it one step at a time. Picture a table. That sounds like one object, singular and solid. Yet a table is made up of parts: a top and some legs, at a minimum, some screws or nails, some glue. Yet, with our minds we imagine it to be a single object. This is how the mind "creates" objects. It is not that our mind creates matter out of nothing. It is that we create a concept of a single object out of multiple pieces. And of course each of those pieces is made up of multiple parts. All the way down to molecules and atoms of different materials. Yet we cling to the notion that these trillion or so atoms of various chemicals somehow "are" a single object. That notion is what is created by the mind. Similarly with the body. Every part of the body was constructed over time from nutrients absorbed initially by your mother, and, after birth, by yourself. Your DNA was synthesized in your cells from the bases adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Yet we call it a single molecule. That singularity is a product of the mind. And each of those bases is itself formed from multiple atoms, yet again its singularity is a product of the mind. Similarly, every object that you can think of is composed of parts that have been assembled in some manner. The idea that any object is a singular object is a mental construction. A useful one in day to day life, to be sure, but a mental construction nonetheless. This is how consciousness "creates" the body or other objects. It is not that the mind creates the physical reality, but it does create every aspect of the way we perceive or think of that physical reality.
Really nicely explained, thank you, now I see the perspective that relates to the words. And yes I clearly see that science tries to understand by breaking down everything to smaller divisible parts/objects. Which as you say is extremely useful in some important areas of life, like not dying from a disease that has a medicine to cure it. But only 1 view of reality nonetheless. You know another question is coming Whilst we rely on external input, air, water, food it does seem we have a natural survival instinct to stay alive, in fact it seems built in at much more fundamental than thought level of mind. At built in reaction level, flinch, jump, move, even counter attack, adrenaline etc. This tends to suggest we are a separate being from other beings, there would be serious pain when a stone hits my head and I bleed but the person standing next to me does not feel this, we all know this. Even in hunter gatherer stage of evolution in the worst conflict one being dies and another is injured yet survives on the physical plane. How to know unity in this ? Or is there a perception beyond the obvious one which we have evolved to understand. And why is it seemingly so hidden ? Or now I think about it maybe it was less hidden then, less hidden by thought and that there was more existing in the moment as the threats were such that you could die at any moment so awareness was higher, if a wild animal appears and attacks. I know this is words and intellectual understanding and you have to be it but we need to start to understand what it points to first, maybe anyway, maybe not, but maybe, depending on what happens in your life..
If all objects are mental constructs composed of individual pieces (ad infinitum) then it follows that you and I are also mental constructs composed of pieces. So how can you and I be separate "beings" when we are just mental constructs? We have the illusion of being individuals and of having solid bodies, but these are all just mental constructs. At this point, you will no doubt be tempted to argue and tell me why it is not so. But a more profitable use of mental energy would be to stop at this point and meditate on how all objects are mental constructs. In my day-to-day life, I don't spend time worrying about it. I accept the conventional explanations because they are convenient. But I have done this meditation, and I know that the Buddhist teachings on the subject are true, and that, in reality, all this is mental construction.
"At this point, you will no doubt be tempted to argue and tell me why it is not so. But a more profitable use of mental energy would be to stop at this point and meditate on how all objects are mental constructs." I can do both. An element of when our minds 'make' objects is seemingly very closely related to our evolved sense perception (physical organs of perception), sight being the obvious one here. Our eyesight evolved to resolve the scale of the type of objects it can see. Light, colour (frequency), depth, sensitivity etc. and the brain is wired to recognize patterns like the shape of a human, animal, a tree, objects not vastly different in size from ourselves. We can barely see a cell at our limits and it is difficult to say what the largest objects we can see because distance becomes a factor. Evolved survival related perceptions of objects, seem natural. It is natural that we should create objects as our existence rather depends on it. Buddhism exists because humans exist, we could even say Buddhism relies on their being a body. You could purport Dharma wheel turns even in an empty void of nothingness. But that would have to include pink furry elephants that smell of cinnamon in spirit form. i.e. we can make anything we want up. Yet it does not equal truth. The breaking down as part of an explanation of all to smaller objects seems very convoluted and rather contrived in order to refute what is in front of the survival evolved eyes. Is it direct and natural or contrived ? And therefore possibly wrong. An intellectual theory rather than a actual perception in awareness of existence. I am not comfortable with a theory replacing what I perceive as reality. It must be fully justified that this is how I perceive reality. As this universe unfolds it is evident at this moment, now. I can be it. or rather I am it. When I meditate I can understand some things are 100pct mental constructs. I have not had an insight that my body is a mental construct yet. Cannot put belief in place of truth, where there is belief there is absence of truth. I look down and see with my eyes at this natural level of evolution.... hands, I can move hands and know hands, feel hands. With eyes, or my brain I cannot know subatomic particles I can only take others words and abstract theories and images they exist. Body is known, atoms are not, is my awareness. These are my troubles with Buddhism. Either I know it internally or belief starts to knock at the door and I won't open it.
Not every strand of Buddhism has the same conceptualisation. I assume you are referring to Yogachara, or modern schools incorporating and developing some of their ideas. But that is only one tradition. in general there are no definitive answers in metaphysics, if it was provable it would be science instead of religion. Solipsism related concepts are always popping up in philosophy and religion (though yogachara is not exactly that and a bit more complex) and they certainly are a possibility and not that difficult to understand, but it is also beyond being able to prove or disprove.
Solipsism, as I understand it, states that only the self exists and that the external world and other persons have no independent existence. The self is the sole existence. However in advaita vedanta the self has multiple existences as it is merely the absolute whole experiencing reality from an individual perspective, and that individual experience is not singular but encompasses all forms and manifestations of different selves. If the world was a construct of one self, that one self could create and destroy anything it wishes, this is not so. Buddhism holds that the mind, or self, cannot arise without external phenomena, nor can external phenomena arise without mind. In the example of the table, something exists and each individual mind might interpret it as a table, but each interpretation is unique and based on that person's past habits, senses, etc. The notion of a table, it's actual existence, arises when contacted by mind, but mind also arises due to contact with something that is interpreted.
When discussing DNA and the physical being vs. mental constructs, let's remember a few things... We are not alone. Our body contains not only cellular DNA with our instructions, but way more beneficial/parasitic or foreign invasive DNA from the countless viruses and bacteria that not only inhabit our bodies and reproduce every second, we cannot exist without most of them! So we are hosts of trillions of living and almost alive creatures. We are not alone. Certain of these bacteria are ready to recycle us into the soil as soon as our individual conscious leaves. There is cellular and bacterial life that lives on for awhile after death. So that's life after death, but not the complete consciousness that existed before we "de-parted." For more on that, the Tibetan book of the Dead delves into it. Science backs it up nicely. That's what I love about Western Buddhism, it's easy to accept science, which often confirms some of the beliefs, including some of the deepest mysteries. The real question is how much of our Consciousness is a artifact of our DNA. And I would then add, how much of our Consciousness is made up of these creatures DNA that inhabit us? Certain species of invasive bacteria and viruses can alter the behavior of their hosts so they do what the invaders want - zombie mind control. So how much of who we are, is a result of external DNA programming us? It's that damn MAGA virus again!!!
This is complex to reply to. All I can say for now, bearing in mind we are using words to describe the almost impossible to describe. I consider - everything being unified - to be a mental construct in the same way that - there are separate objects - can be a mental construct. However, I can touch the unified energy field as an existential meditatively aware state for some time, once the ego has been temporarily banished by cessation of feeding it/the ordinary mind thought. I don't know what Yogachadra or modern schools are. These are my own considerations as someone who meditates regularly at length but cannot replace unknowns with belief. I meditated on - everything is a mental construct . As far as I could hold it, it becomes more contemplative than meditative as it seems to involve a degree of thinking, the opposite of what meditation usually encourages. It was problematic as I have never been given a technique of meditation for meditating on a concept. I usually sit, eyes closed, breath watch in/out through nose/mouth, then nose only, then let go of that and reside in the sensory field of thoughtless awareness for some non fixed amount of time until it becomes uncomfortable due to a little eye ache. Typically 1 hour - 1:30mins every day and I let it end when the eyes ache a bit. The problem was it provokes thinking, I did my best to sit with the thought or sense that all is a mental construct (hard to put into words) and this is what happened.... Day 1 - a sense of expansion, not uncommon on most days meditating, I considered trees and nature earth and the garden and of note after maybe 25mins in absorption had a 0.25 second flash of what can only be described as an incredibly intense bliss, orgasmic level intensity that went through entire body and mind, visual field. Beyond any drug experience, but it was incredibly short duration, a little blip. It was preceded by a kind of zooming outwards beyond my internal visual field of emptiness. It is difficult to believe anyone could sustain that level of bliss for any sustained time without I don't know what happening. I reflect and wonder if it was merely a sexual urge manifesting at a wider level of being than normal. I was it, it was not happening to me. Or it was a state of true bliss being shown for an incredibly short time. This created a problem as of course I chased it and of course it never came back on that day or the next. I know enough to let go of such experiences in the longer term (and short term) and shall seek it no more. Day 2 - expansion came, but no flashes, it felt rather like other days in body in mind, open expansive and relaxed physically. It caused me trouble and provoked various throughts to try and pry open the truth of mental constructs. I let them go through training to be able to. Ok it was only 2 days but seemed to work against resting in thoughtless, open awareness and letting the thoughtless mind/consciousness be, letting go. Having a thought in mind is a concept in mind, a mental construct, no ? Difficult this isn't it ? I am not sure there was any value in it at all. Other than a flash of bliss which also is seen as quite low level experience for Buddhists. What I recall of "Tibetan book of the Dead delves into it. Science backs it up nicely." is lots of stories of illusory experiences, fantasies and horrors and temptation moving through various bardo states post death, mirrored in similar karmic experiences life. Other than dreams etc. I don't "know" these things, they appear like somewhat scary stories. There was also some nasty things about black people that I really did not like, whether intentionally racist or not. I found it all rather above and beyond anything I could relate to. I read it about 18 years ago gave up 2/3 the way through. It was too abstract. How does science back any of that up ? Science would likely suggest this cannot exist when there is no consciousness. Not that science know all, far from it. I ask such questions as it seems some people are very certain of reincarnation/karma and/or everything being a mental construct, even objects. I am fine with thoughts being mental constructs they are. Not even voluntary much of the time, unwanted interjections from the ego side of our mind. This I have experienced for myself in reality meditating, there is no belief required, it's known. How to know truth of other significant Buddhist concepts such as reincarnation and - objects are a mental construct ? And how is 'everything is one' not a mental construct even if it is truth? I am thankful of the replies thus far.
