Is Paṭicca-samuppāda a "Scientific" Theory of Everything?

[No_Mind]

What do you guys think? Is Paṭicca-samuppāda a Theory of Everything? Or, an even broader question, is the Dhamma supposed to explain "everything" as some seem to hold or is it more a limited epistemological theory which remains about the field of one's experience.

This is exactly the kind of thread a cherry picking believer in Buddhism should refrain from participating in ... but

Is it not self evident that paticca samuppada or dhamma is not ToE?

How exactly does paticca samuppada throw any light on ToE (ToE of physics which should be able to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics and explain gravity, magnetism, weak interaction, strong interaction). How is paticca samuppada/dhamma/Buddhism related to gravity or magnetism or sub atomic particles?

Imagine a universe where there is no life .. only stars, planets, comets, black holes and so on .. ToE would still be applicable in that universe but paticca samuppada or dhamma will not because there are no intelligent life forms (I take it as given that paticca samuppada only works with intelligent life forms).

How can one even propose it? Is it not like stating "The Rain in Spain is a sign of dollar's imminent collapse" .. stringing together two disjoint phrases to form a sentence that is grammatically coherent but little else. I have trouble understanding how the question even arises.

[No_Mind]

Have to make amends (though not my fault completely). I am not one to back away from swallowing my pride.

What do you guys think? Is Paṭicca-samuppāda a Theory of Everything? Or, an even broader question, is the Dhamma supposed to explain "everything" as some seem to hold or is it more a limited epistemological theory which remains about the field of one's experience.

He wrote ToE but did not mean ToE of physics. I tripped up. No shame in accepting. Should not read and reply to DW threads using 6" screens but use a laptop (and should not read DW in middle of work).

In my defence I will say if someone writes "the horse has bolted" I will take word horse to mean the odd-toed ungulate mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae and the only animal (apart from humans) which takes part in Summer Olympics. If I later hear by horse he actually meant a Vespa scooter ... it is not entirely my fault. ToE means ToE in physics. I realise now that I should have read at least ten pages of the pdf before replying. I did not know it is about ToE of philosophy.

Anyone asked to read the above quote will come to reasonably same conclusion.

[tiltbillings]

Have to make amends (though not my fault completely). I am not one to back away from swallowing my pride.

What do you guys think? Is Paṭicca-samuppāda a Theory of Everything? Or, an even broader question, is the Dhamma supposed to explain "everything" as some seem to hold or is it more a limited epistemological theory which remains about the field of one's experience.

He wrote ToE but did not mean ToE of physics. I tripped up. No shame in accepting. Should not read and reply to DW threads using 6" screens but use a laptop (and should not read DW in middle of work).

In my defence I will say if someone writes "the horse has bolted" I will take word horse to mean the odd-toed ungulate mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae and the only animal (apart from humans) which takes part in Summer Olympics. If I later hear by horse he actually meant a Vespa scooter ... it is not entirely my fault. ToE means ToE in physics. I realise now that I should have read at least ten pages of the pdf before replying. I did not know it is about ToE of philosophy.

Anyone asked to read the above quote will come to reasonably same conclusion.

[davidbrainerd]

Its not the theory of everything that science is looking for. Saying that everything that arises arises on the basis of conditions may encompass everything phenominal but it has no real explanatory power in the scientific (as opposed to psychological) sense. Its actually a tautology. Whatever arises arises from conditions. Its a duh. Who would not know that? The power in the statement is not that it imparts new knowlege, but that he's emphasizing you should look into what those conditions are, specifically as it relates to mental phenomena, cutting off the taints, etc..

And remember also, there is the unarisen also. Udana 8.3:

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

And the unarisen, unborn, unconditioned, unmade, is precisely what so many people try to use conditioned ariding (dependent origination) to get rid of. But it will never work because its only saying that everything arisen did do on the basis of conditions; its not saying there is nothing unarisen. After all, where do the conditions come from in a situation where absolutely nothing exists? Without the unarisen existing, there would be no conditions and then no conditioned arising.

[chownah]

Whatever arises arises from conditions. Its a duh. Who would not know that?

Well there are a few people who might not know that......like the vast bulk of humanity for instance.
chownah

[davidbrainerd]

Whatever arises arises from conditions. Its a duh. Who would not know that?

Well there are a few people who might not know that......like the vast bulk of humanity for instance.
chownah

With respect to physical objects they know. With respect to mental they may have never thought about it. Basically I'm agreeing with:

Jayarava mentions how when seen in the proper way, what is being referred to in dependent origination, is the origination and cessation of the world of dukkha. He cites the Vajira sutta as support: 'Only disappointment is produced, disappointment persists, and ceases; Nothing other than disappointment is produced; nothing other than disappointment ceases.'

Right-view is not concerned with the rising and passing away of objects in the physical world, but to the arising and passing away of disappointment. This is not a statement about, let alone a denial of, an objective or physical world, merely a continued pre-occupation with disappointment completely in keeping with the Buddha‟s oft stated goals

This is a apparently a view which is also expoused by Eviatar Shulman, who writes: “There is no reason to believe that dependent-origination originally discussed anything but mental conditioning.”

The point of Buddha talking about conditioned arising is mental. There aren't people wondering around thinking that butter is going to arise from thin air. Everybody knows conditions must be met for physical things to arise. That provides nothing new to science.

Its more about getting to the root conditions that cause different emotional states to arise.

[chownah]

Whatever arises arises from conditions. Its a duh. Who would not know that?

Well there are a few people who might not know that......like the vast bulk of humanity for instance.
chownah

With respect to physical objects they know. With respect to mental they may have never thought about it.

You might be right about physical objects but then again a diamond is forever and when I die I will go be with god in heaven forever and the stars in the heavens are eternal.

I gather from your views on this that you do not spend much time with adults who have a sixth grade education or less......do you even associate with any adults that have less than a sixth grade education?....do you even associate with many adults that have less than a high school education?...probably not....but there are a heck of alot of them out here in the real world.
chownah

[charith]

Please forgive my English.

As I can understand Paticca Samuppada applies where there's Vigngnana. So the people, animals, creatures in hell, all kind of gods have Vigngnana.
But inanimate objects don't have Vigngnana. So Paticca Samuppada doesn't apply there.
However everything and everyone one has common behavior. Everything and everyone starts/born, exists and destroys.

[Spiny Norman]

What do you guys think? Is Paṭicca-samuppāda a Theory of Everything? Or, an even broader question, is the Dhamma supposed to explain "everything" as some seem to hold or is it more a limited epistemological theory which remains about the field of one's experience.

This is exactly the kind of thread a cherry picking believer in Buddhism should refrain from participating in ... but

Is it not self evident that paticca samuppada or dhamma is not ToE?

How exactly does paticca samuppada throw any light on ToE (ToE of physics which should be able to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics and explain gravity, magnetism, weak interaction, strong interaction). How is paticca samuppada/dhamma/Buddhism related to gravity or magnetism or sub atomic particles?

Imagine a universe where there is no life .. only stars, planets, comets, black holes and so on .. ToE would still be applicable in that universe but paticca samuppada or dhamma will not because there are no intelligent life forms (I take it as given that paticca samuppada only works with intelligent life forms).

How can one even propose it? Is it not like stating "The Rain in Spain is a sign of dollar's imminent collapse" .. stringing together two disjoint phrases to form a sentence that is grammatically coherent but little else. I have trouble understanding how the question even arises.

The nidanas have a very specific application, in that they describe the dependent origination of dukkha for sentient beings.

The principle of conditionality underlying paticca samuppada can be applied in other areas of course.

[Javi]

The nidanas have a very specific application, in that they describe the dependent origination of dukkha for sentient beings.

The principle of conditionality underlying paticca samuppada can be applied in other areas of course.

Perhaps, but those 'other areas' are 'beyond range' of the Buddha's teaching and not necessary for awakening.

[No_Mind]

The principle of conditionality underlying paticca samuppada can be applied in other areas of course.

Let me ask a rude question -- do Buddhists own some type of intellectual property right over conditionality?

Just because Buddha used it no one else can ever use it without being told "principle of conditionality underlying paticca samuppada can be applied in other areas of course"?

A geometry theorem/rider uses conditionality in every line; any software program uses conditionality in every line .. it all came from paticca samuppada? If Buddha did not put forward paticca samuppada we would not be able to solve geometry riders or be able to use a smart phone?

Poor Pythagoras .. a man of no worth at all ... little did he know he put forth the most famous proof based on what someone would posit a century later.

David put it well

Its not the theory of everything that science is looking for. Saying that everything that arises arises on the basis of conditions may encompass everything phenominal but it has no real explanatory power in the scientific (as opposed to psychological) sense. Its actually a tautology. Whatever arises arises from conditions. Its a duh. Who would not know that? The power in the statement is not that it imparts new knowlege, but that he's emphasizing you should look into what those conditions are, specifically as it relates to mental phenomena, cutting off the taints, etc..

Note -- I am suffering from prolonged viral fever of unknown origin. Hopefully I read and understood what Spiny and David wrote correctly unlike misunderstanding Javi's post last Wednesday. If not I apologise in advance.

[Coëmgenu]

The 3 marks of existence, and the conditionedness of things, are good measures to judge things by in general. The most fundamental problem that sometimes arises between Buddhist discourse and scientific inquiry is when scientists posit models of the universe that are annihilistic, where entropy sets in and the universe simply cools until matter is too unstable to form. Many scientists think that the universe will never recover from cooling. Utter annihilation. Maybe some other dimension exists for sentient beings to get reborn in, after this one is annihilated, presuming the annihilationist scientists are correct, but I would not want to be the judge of that.

[chownah]

For DO to be any kind of scientific theory at all it needs to be able to be tested. You need to be able to come up with an experiment which could possibly give results falsifying DO. I can't imagine how that would be done. Until someone devises a way to do that then DO does not qualify as a scientific theory.

Carry on,
chownah

[Spiny Norman]

The principle of conditionality underlying paticca samuppada can be applied in other areas of course.

Let me ask a rude question -- do Buddhists own some type of intellectual property right over conditionality?

Obviously not. I meant that the principle of conditionality has general application.

[Spiny Norman]

The nidanas have a very specific application, in that they describe the dependent origination of dukkha for sentient beings.

The principle of conditionality underlying paticca samuppada can be applied in other areas of course.

Perhaps, but those 'other areas' are 'beyond range' of the Buddha's teaching and not necessary for awakening.

You're right, though I do find it interesting to observe how conditionality seems to be a general principle.