For JCER: May 31, 2018, 2:07 PM

Buddhism and Dual-Aspect Monism

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Vision Research Institute, 428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720 USA
rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in

Abstract
Theist religions argue for the pre-existence of self/Atman/ruh based on
mentalistic idealism and/or interactive substance dualism frameworks;
whereas Buddhism denies this; instead, this atheist religion (i) proposes
Karmic theory (impression of karmas/action survives after death in some
storage area such as cosmic field) and entails rebirth. In addition, Buddhism
also entertains (ii) mentalistic idealism (matter from mind) (Smetham, 2011),
(iii) interactive substance dualism (Dalai Lama framework in (Luisi, 2008) and
see also in (Vimal, 2009e)), (iv) dual-aspect monism: Wallace’s framework in
(Wallace, 2007) and (Vimal, 2009e), and (v) skepticism (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008).
I have provided my shastrarth/discussion with (Smetham, 2011) and (Ellis,
2011; Ellis, 2008). Materialism also denies pre-existence of self, instead the self
emerges in self-related neural-network (NN) (emergent theory) or identical with
self-related-NN-state (identity theory). However, these views have problems
(Vimal, 2010b, 2011c). These problems are addressed by Dual-Aspect Monism
(Vimal, 2008) with dual-mode (Vimal, 2010a) and with varying degree of
dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities ((Vimal, 2012) and
(Vimal, 2011c)) (DAMv), where each entity has two inseparable aspects (mental
and physical). Buddhism is close to atheist version of DAMv (Vimal, 2011c,
2011e).

Key words: Mentalistic idealism, interactive substance dualism, skepticism,

materialism, eternalism, nihilism, dual-aspect monism, dual-mode, mind,
matter, Brahman, Atman, jiva, Vedas, Jainism, Lokāyata, Cārvāka, Buddhism,
theism, atheism.

1
1. Introduction
As per Buddhist biologist/neuroscientist/philosopher (Varela, 1995), “Western
tradition has avoided the idea of a selfless self, of a virtual self. This
egolessness, or selflessness, is truly the core of Buddhism. Over the past two
thousand years, the Buddhists have developed philosophical,
phenomenological, and epistemological sophistication, and they have invoked
this intuition in a very hands-on way. […] Buddhist ideas are prevalent
throughout our culture — in physics and biology, for example, the basic ideas
are Buddhism in disguise.”1

As per (Watson, 2001), “Buddhism has always been concerned with feelings,
emotions, sensations, and cognition. The Buddha points both to cognitive and
emotional causes of suffering. The emotional cause is desire and its negative
opposite, aversion. The cognitive cause is ignorance of the way things truly
occur, or of three marks of existence: that all things are unsatisfactory,
impermanent, and without essential self.” 2

Buddhism rejects Vedic Atman (self) with subtle body (where unfulfilled desire
and karmic traces are stored for re-birth) after death. Instead it proposes
existence of Karma (without Atman, Anatman) after death, which entails
rebirth.3 However, what is the mechanism of storage (where and how) and
recall of karma after death? These are interesting questions and need to be
addressed clearly and needs to be verified before Karmic theory can be
accepted.

One could raise a question: “Does the self exist? […] What is it that is denied by
the proponents of non-self theories [such as Buddhism]? And what notion of
self is at play if the existence of the self is affirmed?” (Cai, 2011).

“When [the Buddhist] understanding of karma is correlated to the Buddhist

doctrine of universal impermanence and No-Self, a serious problem arises as to
where this trace is stored and what the trace left is. The problem is aggravated
when the trace remains latent over a long period, perhaps over a period of
many existences. The crucial problem presented to all schools of Buddhist
philosophy was where the trace is stored and how it can remain in the ever-
changing stream of phenomena which build up the individual and what the
nature of this trace is” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism).

As per Buddhist scholar Alan Wallace (personal communication in June 2011),

“According to the Kalacakra Tantra, karmic imprints (vasana), memories, and
so on are carried from one life to the next by way of the jîva, a continuum, or
field, of prāṇa that accompanies the continuum of subtle consciousness that

2
carries on from lifetime to lifetime. However, there is a real danger of reifying
the manner in which such imprints are ‘stored.’ Consider as an analogy how
information is ‘stored’ in electromagnetic fields transmitted from laptop to
another. The fields themselves are physical (i.e., they are physically measurable
and have physical qualities) but immaterial (i.e., they are not composed of
particles of matter), while the information that is ‘stored’ in those fields is
neither physical nor material. Likewise, the consciousness and information
that is transmitted from one body to the next is neither physical nor material,
but the subtle continuum of prāṇa that indivisibly accompanies that
consciousness is physical but not material. I have discussed this in greater
detail in my book (Wallace, 2009).” My understanding is that electromagnetic
fields are physical entities because they follow physics, i.e., fermions “are
usually associated with matter, whereas bosons are generally force carrier
particles; although in the current state of quantum physics the distinction
between the two concepts is unclear”4.

This (Kalacakra Tantra’s hypothesis) sounds close to Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad (Swami Krishnananda, 1983), where jîva accompanies subtle body
that ‘stores’ traces for karma and unfulfilled intense desire for next birth (see
also (Roeser, 2005)). [“Yes, this is very close to, if not identical with, the
Kalacakra view, and it is one I embrace” (Wallace).] One could argue for dual-
aspect entity/field, where jîva/prāṇa is the mental aspect and subtle body is
the inseparable physical aspect to minimize metaphysical problems (Vimal,
2011c, 2011e).

If such fields related to jîva/prāṇa are physically measurable and have physical
qualities but are not composed of fermions (and bosons), then one could argue
for dual-aspect fields with inseparable mental and physical aspects. Perhaps,
then karmic imprints (vasana), memories, and so on are carried via the
physical aspect.

As per (Vimal, 2009e), “According to Dalai Lama, (i) since a phenomenon can
arise from similar phenomenon and since consciousness is radically different
from non-experiential matter (mass-energy), “consciousness can arise only
from a continuum of phenomena similar to itself, in the same way that
formations of mass-energy give rise to formations of mass-energy”; (ii) Buddhist
framework argues for beginningless continuum of consciousness (or sentient
beings) and presumably beginningless continuum of matter (“The origin or
substantial cause of the first matter in this universe was preceding matter”);
and (iii) “evolution of the physical universe as intimately interdependent with
the sentient beings who inhabit and experience the external world” (Luisi,

3
2008). This argument is a form of (substance) dualism and hence one has to
address the problems of dualism [(Vimal, 2009d)], even though it appears to
bypass the explanatory gap of Type-2. […] According to Buddhist centrist
framework (Wallace, 1989), ‘Our thoughts, intentions, and emotional states
maneuver our bodies and thereby other physical objects; likewise, material
things are constantly influencing our mental states. […] Both subject and
object exist in interdependence, both are evident to experience, and the
distinction between them is conventional, not intrinsic. […] Physical and
mental events occur in mutual interaction and are therefore interdependent.
Thus, neither can be considered absolute in the sense of being independent;
nor is one more real than the other. […] We thereby accept a dualism of a
conventional sort, not of an absolute, Cartesian variety. […] Mental states
arise from previous mental states in an unbroken continuum, much as
physical entities arise from preceding physical entities. […] Indeed, it may be
more accurate to think of a single entity-the continuum-bearing physical and
mental attributes [this seems like a dual-aspect view]. It is at this level that the
duality of physical and mental events disappears. […] Modern neuroscience
regards human sensory and mental cognitions as being emergent properties of
the brain. Buddhist contemplative science, in contrast, regards them as
emergent properties of the very subtle energy/mind’. Perhaps Buddhist centrist
framework (Wallace, 1989) does not contradict our dual-aspect PE-SE
framework with ‘property dualism and substance monism’ because
consciousness can arise from the mental aspect of primal entities. The
difference is that matter is the carrier of PEs/SEs in the PE-SE framework, as
in hypotheses H1 and H2. Wallace (personal communication, 6-Feb-2008)
commented, “Mahayana Buddhism, especially in accordance with the
Madhyamaka view, rejects the substantial nature of all phenomena, so it does
not accept a substance dualism between body and mind along the lines
proposed by Descartes. As I have argued in my book (Wallace, 2007),
Buddhism as a whole asserts the existence of a ‘form realm’ (rupa-dhatu) that
exists prior to and at a more fundamental level than our human conceptual
constructs of ‘mind’ and ‘matter’. On a deeper level, Vajrayana Buddhism
asserts the existence of ‘absolute space of phenomena’ (dharma-dhatu), which
transcends all conceptual categories, including those of mind and matter. So
that view, too, rejects any notion of substance dualism in favor of aspect
dualism similar to what you propose.” Thus, Buddhist centrist framework
(Wallace, 1989) does not contradict the dual-aspect PE-SE framework.”

Buddhism rejects Vedic eternal jîva/Atman (eternalism) because it lacks

inherent existence as per Nāgārjuna’s dependent co-origination (Vimal, 2009a).
If this is correct then Buddhist’s jîva is not eternal rather it is transitory and

4
changeable. [“It is indeed transitory and subject to change, moment by
moment” (Wallace).]

According to (Lepine, 2008), “In Buddhism the deeper-lying monistic entity is

the pure wisdom of the Supreme Unified Consciousness which can give rise to
matter and/or mind. In scientific terms it is the quantum geometry at the
tiniest level (Planck scale) of the universe, which is called the unified quantum
field.”

As per (Whitehead, 1932), “In a certain sense, everything is everywhere at all

times. For every location involves an aspect of itself in every other location.
Thus, every spatio-temporal standpoint mirrors the world.” On other words,
Whitehead rejects ‘simple location’, i.e., “locatedness in one place, time or
conceptual sphere, as opposed to some other place, time or sphere where that
entity is lacking” (Ziporyn, 2009).

As per (Ziporyn, 2009), “Certain forms of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism,

notably Huayan Buddhism and Tiantai Buddhism, share Whitehead’s rejection
of the conception of simple location” […] Tiantai view of the relation of
conscious beings to the world they live in can be put like this: every event,
function or characteristic occurring in experience is the action of the all
sentient and insentient beings working together. Every instant of experience is
the whole of existential reality, manifesting in this particular form, as this
particular entity or experience. […] The Tiantai theory rests on two intimately
related foundations: the doctrine of the Three Truths, and the doctrine of
‘opening the provisional to reveal the real.’ The Three Truths are an expansion
of the traditional Nagarjunian idea of the Two Truths. The first is Conventional
Truth, which includes ordinary language (everyday descriptions of selves,
causes, effects, things, beginnings and ends, as well as traditional Buddhist
statements about value and practice, e.g., the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold
Noble Path, the marks of suffering, impermanence and non-self). The second is
Ultimate Truth, which is in the first place Emptiness as the negation of the
absolute validity of any of the terms accepted as conventional truths. […]

Tiantai alters this picture decisively by speaking of not two but three truths.
These are Conventional Truth, Ultimate Truth, and the Center. This
reconfiguration has two direct consequences: first, the hierarchy between
conventional and ultimate truth is canceled. […] Second, the category of ‘plain
falsehood’ which was implied by the Nagarjunian idea of Two Truths is here
eliminated entirely: all claims of whatever kind are equally conventional truths,

5
and thus, of equal value to and ultimately identical to ultimate truth, or the
conception of Emptiness, and its self-overcoming. […]

spiritual problem is not sin in the sense of, say, disobedience or even alienation
from some particular being or state, but rather existential suffering. Suffering,
per se, is a function of conditionality, which is to say, finitude as such.
Conditionality means dependence on more than just a single cause (like a self
or an essence); every event is one of many effects arising from the convergence
of more than one heterogeneous causes. No single entity, acting alone, can
produce an effect. Suffering means ‘a disparity between what I want and what
is the case.’ It is defined in relation to human desire. But this desire is not just
for pleasure conceived as some particular object, but rather for the constant
availability of pleasure, the power to get it when one wants it; the getting is the
pleasure, not the object got. It is this power to get what one wants that one
really wants behind all apparent objects of desire. But ‘to have the power to get
what one wants whenever one wants it,’ means ‘to be the sole cause of what
happens to one.’ This would be to be unconditional. 5 But this is what would be
required if one were to be a “self,” i.e., the sole cause of one’s own condition,
and this underpins the commonsensical attempts to end suffering: to become
or assure oneself that one is the sole cause of what one experiences at all
times. […] Suffering and non-suffering alternate (the pace and ratios, even the
sequence, are irrelevant here).”

As per (Sherlock, 2009), “Buddha re-discovered, as he put it, an ancient way

out of suffering that entails meditation, introspection and changes in behavior.
[…] According to Buddhism, we are responsible for our volitional actions and
their effects and there is no possibility of atonement. […] Buddhism maintains
that there is no self in anyone or anything. The concept of self, ‘I’, soul, or ego
is illusory. […] there is no self, ‘I’, ‘me’, or ‘soul’ and when the causal conditions
that give rise to us cease to exist, we cease to exist. Nothing remains, nothing
continues. There is nothing that could reincarnate.

Everyone and everything is impermanent and in a state of flux: coming to be

and ceasing to be. The universe is as it is because of its inherent nature
without beginning and without end. Energy and matter are in ever-changing
interdependent cycles of coming to be and ceasing to be.

Western theories hold that the fundamental cause of emotional problems such
as depression, anxiety, anger and stress is genetic, psychological trauma in
childhood, unreasonable thinking, social conditions or abnormalities in brain
chemistry. Buddhism holds that the fundamental cause of such conditions is

6
delusion and consequent attachment to desire. Whatever the physical, mental,
and emotional conditions, past, present and future, we can reject them or
accept them when they manifest. Rejecting them we suffer; accepting them we
do not suffer. […] By letting go of thoughts and thinking, a shift occurs: the
seat of consciousness moves out of the head and into the body; out of the
realm of thinking and into the realm of physical reality. […]

The Buddha realized that the cause of suffering is attachment to desire:

wanting and insisting on having our way. The Buddha’s remedy is to let go: not
to insist and then complain or make a fuss when we cannot have what we
want. […] The Buddha’s Teachings on this start with The Four Noble Truths:
suffering, the cause of suffering (attachments), the ceasing of suffering (letting
go of attachments) and the way that leads to the ceasing of suffering: The Noble
Eightfold Path.”

(Nobuhara, 2009) presents the discussion between Buddhist Hisamatsu (SH)

and Vedic scholar Jung (CGJ) as: “SH: What we in Buddhism, and especially in
Zen, usually call the ‘common self’ corresponds exactly to what you call the
‘collective unconscious.’ Only through liberation from the collective
unconscious, namely, the common self, can the authentic self emerge.

CGJ: This self of which you speak corresponds, for example, to the klesas in
the Yoga Sutra. My concept of self corresponds, however, to the notions of
atman or pursha. This personal atman corresponds to the self insofar as it is at
the same time the suprapersonal atman. In other words, ‘my self’ is at the same
time ‘the self.’ In my language, the self is the counterpart to the ‘I.’ What you
call the self is what I would call the ‘I.’ What I call the self is the whole, the
atman. […]

Takizawa reiterates his critique of Hisamatsu’s view of awakening, to the effect

that when one says that that my awakening to the True Subject, who is
absolutely formless (i.e., ‘the authentic self’), is the same as saying that the
True Subject works in me, taking the form of this I, one has to pay attention to
the fact that ‘I am responsible for my decision as a limited human person.’ […]
‘The collective unconscious seems to be not so much something to be liberated
from, but something to be acknowledged. It always manifests itself in
particular concrete images, social relations, gender differentiation, and
cosmology, which Buddhism often tends to underestimate, erroneously
appealing to the doctrine of Emptiness, Absolute Nothingness or the Formless
Self’.”

7
As per (Long, 2009), “In Buddhism, the term ‘Self’ is avoided, but the process is
not fundamentally different—the deconstruction of the empirical ego followed
by the spontaneous arising of insight into the true nature of reality and leading
to nirvana, the state of freedom from suffering and further rebirth.

In Hinduism, however, karma is simply a universal law. ‘For every action there
is an equal and opposite reaction,’ not only in the realm of physics, but in the
realm of morality as well. In Buddhism, karma is more of a psychological
reality. Instead of a self, it is karmic energy that is reborn and that must be
resolved for nirvana to occur. But in Jainism, karma is actually a form of
subtle matter, and the mechanism by which the bondage of the soul occurs, as
well as the path to its eventual liberation, is the central concern of the
tradition. According to Jainism, all jivas, all souls, throughout their
beginningless existence, have been bound to karmic matter. How did this
process begin? Like Buddhism, Sāṃkhya, and Yoga, Jainism does not address
this question. […] one need not postulate an origin of how soul and matter (or,
in the case of Buddhism, pure mind and false consciousness) came to be
enmeshed with one another in order to discern the distinction between the two
and initiate the process of their separation. As with the idea of cosmic order,
the karmic bondage of the soul is simply presupposed.

According to the Jain account, karmic matter is attracted to the jiva by the
arising of passions within the jiva. Passions are of two fundamental kinds:
attraction (raga) and aversion (dvesha). […] At any given point in the journey
of the soul through samsara—the process of birth, death, and rebirth in the
material world—it contains karmic particles that it has attracted through its
passionate responses to prior stimuli. […]

It is not a deterministic system, however, because, like all systems that involve
the notion of karma, there is an element of free will in the present moment in
terms of how one is going to respond to one’s current experience. […] We are in
control, ultimately, of how we respond to stimuli. […] It is this element of
freedom that makes a path of liberation from karma possible; for this freedom
opens up a space in which human action is possible that can shape the future
of one’s relationship to the karmic process. […]

The Theravada tradition of Buddhism interestingly uses the same language as

the Jains—of karmic ‘influx’ and ‘outflow’ and ‘fruition.’ This is suggestive of
the common milieu from which the two traditions emerged. But for the
Buddhist, this is quite clearly metaphorical language for what is ultimately
conceived as a psychological process. But for the Jain tradition it is regarded
as literally true. […] Ahimsa is nonviolence in thought, word, and deed. […]
Consciousness, from a Jain perspective, is wholly a function of the soul,

8
though conditioned and obscured by karmic matter. [Karma is generally
treated as an individual matter in Jainism…]”

From the perspective of our discussion 6, Whitehead’s Process and Reality7

exploits interesting features, such as (1) its use of topological and mereological
notions, (2) its arguments in favour of a God of sorts (although it is debatable
whether Whitehead's God is the God of revealed monotheism), (3) Whitehead's
rejection of mind-body dualism (similar to elements in oriental faith traditions
such as Buddhism), (4) the fundamental elements of the universe are occasions
of experience, which are “pulses” or “drops” of experience, while the “beings”
disclosed in the so-called normal state of consciousness are societies of such
occasions. In order to differentiate Whitehead's approach from panpsychism,
David Ray Griffin has coined the term “panexperientialism.” 8

2. Shastrarth/discussion between the author, Ellis, and

Smetham
The old eastern tradition of Shastrarth (discussion) is very useful in the search
of truth. There has been significant and useful Shastrarth between Buddhist
and Vedantins in past (Adi Sankaracharya, 1950). My email discussion with
Ellis and Smetham are presented below along with commentaries on (Ellis,
2011; Ellis, 2008) and (Smetham, 2011).

2.1. My (RLPV) commentary on (Ellis, 2008) and his response and some
discussion with Smetham

2.1.1. RLPV: My initial comments (Ellis, 2008) are as follows:

2.1.1.1. (Ellis, 2008)’s version of the Four Noble Truths seems to have lower
impact factor; it should be rephrased with clarity as in the original:(1) Suffering
does exist, which (2) arises from attachment to desires and (3) ceases when
attachment to desire ceases via (4) practicing the Eightfold Path.9

2.1.1.2. If the goal is to have stress-free suffering free life, which is a sort of
nirvana, enlightenment or mukti (release) from suffering, appropriate karma
depending on the context should be suffice to some extent.

2.1.1.3. One could also rationally interpret karmic hypothesis based on

atheist version of DAMv (Vimal, 2011c) as follows: our karmas/actions (as
cause) must have effects in future in us, one way or other, before death; after
death our karmas may have effects in the life of others (such as the life of our
children, relatives, close friends, people who read our articles and books, and

9
so on). Therefore, we must be very careful with our karmas on daily basis and
we try our best. The term ‘soul’ or ‘karma’ can also be interpreted in terms of
information we produce, such as information in our publications.

2.1.1.4. One could also argue that pratityasamutpada or dependent co-

origination is basically organism-environment interaction for co-evolution and
co-development for entities such as mind and brain, which is an important
principle in science/neuroscience; further details are given in (Vimal, 2009a).

2.1.1.5. There are 3 kinds of Realities: (1) our daily conventional mind-
dependent Reality (CMDR), which is constructed by our subjective experiences,
(2) ultimate MDR (UMDR) at samadhi state where subject and objects unify,
but it is still mind dependent Reality; and (3) mind independent Reality (MIR),
which is unknown (as per Kant) or partly known via CMDR and/or UMDR (as
per neo-Kantian view) because mind is also a product of Nature. One could
argue that CMDR and also UMDR are maya (illusion/delusion) with respect to
MIR; details are given in (Vimal, 2009a). Perhaps, (Ellis, 2008)’s ‘reality’ is close
to CMDR and ‘Reality’ is close to MIR.

2.1.1.6. What remains after Ellis’ critique: (Ellis, 2008) writes, “Not just the
Middle Way, but the Noble Eightfold Path and many of the further formulae
which develop limbs of that path, such as the Four Right Efforts. The
interlocking Threefold Path of morality, meditation and wisdom is left, with a
rich fund of meditation practices, wisdom reflections, and inspiring stories. A
great deal of Buddhism, fortunately, is completely practical.” This is
interesting; it can be elaborated further, which may become the core of
Buddhism using the Middle Way (i.e., the middle of substance
dualism/idealism and materialism), such as DAMv framework (Dual-Aspect
Monism (Vimal, 2008) with dual-mode (Vimal, 2010a) and varying degree of
dominance of the aspects depending on the level of entities ((Vimal, 2012) and
(Vimal, 2011c)). The DAMv has the least number of problems (Vimal, 2010a).

(Ellis, 2008) discuses the following:

The First Noble Principle: ‘The Middle Way is the Principle of investigation,
which allows us to get closer to truth [about stress-free satisfactory living]
through experience’: Middle Way is suffering-free living through experience.
The Second Noble Principle: ‘If we are to improve the problematic and
unsatisfactory aspects of our experience, we must first recognise that they are
problematic and unsatisfactory.’ This implies that suffering does exist.

10
The Third Noble Principle: ‘Aspects of our experience are often made
problematic and unsatisfactory by greed of a type [with negative energy] that
can be transformed and rechanneled’. This implies the process of sublimation
of negative ego for reducing suffering.
The Fourth Noble Principle: ‘Investigating our experience usually shows that
progress is possible.’

2.1.1.7. Good karma: These are interesting; further research is needed to

make them more effective compared to Buddha’s 4 Noble Truths via DAMv
framework. For example, in DAMv framework, suffering can be further reduced
as follows: If good karmas is based on CMDR, then it is limited to a specific
ethnic group and is not universal. In other words, suffering will be reduced as
long as the subject resides in that specific ethnic group and follows its social
rules along with individual desire in a compromised manner. Once the subject
is out to the world of multiple ethnic groups, then that subject may need to
restart all over again because that previous suffering-reducing ‘good karmas’
may not work.

Here, DAMv can help us: The mental aspect of the state of multiple ethnic
groups to whole world (the physical aspect) will play important role. For
example, there should be many kinds of laws because of many interacting
brains: (i) there should be general universal laws (such as laws of world); then
(ii) legal and ethical laws of a specific country; (iii) laws of state/province; (iv)
laws of town in which the subject is residing; (v) laws of specific ethnic group;
(vi) laws/rules within a family members; and (vii) views/desires/goals of
individual subject.

These laws/views/desires/goals are the mental aspect of single or multiple

interacting brain-states that has many NNs and their activities as physical
aspect; the interaction includes brain, body, and environment. If all the laws
(which can be dynamic) are followed, karma will be considered as good karma
and then suffering may be reduced to some extent, but can never be
eliminated. This is because there will always be some conflict of interests
between the desires/views/goals of each individual and the laws/rules of
‘others’ (family/society/town/state/country/world) in life, which is not easy to
eliminate. One can practice meditation, autosuggestion, compromises, better
understanding the dynamics of events in life to minimize suffering/un-
satisfaction of life, but it will never be eliminated. Happiness, suffering, war
and peace are essential for evolution as they generate variations; perhaps the
best way is the optimum/middle way (with minimum suffering and war) in life.

One could argue for Cosmic Justice to motivate people for good karma. In
DAMv framework, this needs re-interpretation. Theist version of DAMv may be
similar to that of Kant and theist religions. Atheist version of DAMv may be
similar to secular systems and that of atheist religions such as Buddhism. In
other words, we can follow accordingly to reduce suffering further by noting

11
that atheist-theist phenomenon is genetic and/or acquired. Briefly, I have two
versions of DAMv: theist and atheist. This is because theist-atheist
phenomenon is genetic (such as God gene: see (Hamer, 2005)) and/or acquired
(such as accidents, how one is raised, and so on). Thus, truth and worldly-
local-cosmic-global justice should be independent of theist-atheist
phenomenon, metaphysics, and realities. Further details are given in (Vimal,
2011c, 2011e).

To sum up, suffering can be minimized better using DAMv framework (the
middle path) by dynamically optimizing the self-interests (desires) with respect
to the interests of others along with the understanding that the mental and
physical aspects are inseparable so affecting one aspect will affect other aspect
related to individual (self), ‘others’, and their interactions, and optimized (good)
karma will result optimized suffering.

2.1.2. RE (Robert Ellis)’s response: I can’t agree with any of the metaphysical
claims you make in your comments. I begin with scepticism about all
metaphysical claims. The ‘Reality’ I am sceptically discussing can also not be
reduced to neuroscientific accounts of different representations in the brain
(representations in the brain are not ‘Realities’), as I am commenting
philosophically on people’s beliefs, and the unhelpfulness of metaphysical or
ontological beliefs. You can find more of my arguments about this in the first
chapter of ‘Truth on the Edge’, which is included on my website
(http://www.moralobjectivity.net/Truth_on_the_Edge.html).

2.1.3. RLPV: You have not given me reasons for rejecting my DAMv (Dual-
aspect monism) framework. What is your definition of the term ‘metaphysics’
and what is your metaphysical framework? My definition of the term
‘metaphysics’ is foundation on which everything depends; this means
metaphysics includes underlying principles for both physics and beyond
physics. For example, Dalai Lama's metaphysical framework is substance
dualism; Wallace agrees with my DAMv. In general, Graham also agrees with
DAMv with some reservations, such as he thinks that the fundamental
quantum reality is mind-like (as (Stapp, 2009)), whereas DAMv suggests
fundamental quantum reality has dominant mental-aspect and latent physical
aspect. Dual-aspect monism (DAM) is now acceptable to many neuroscientists.
We are in the process publish an edited book that includes DAM (Vimal, 2012).
It should be noted that dominant metaphysics of science is still materialism.
This means, representations in brain is also based on materialism, which
seems to be your metaphysical framework if you still maintain brain-
representation theory.

12
2.1.4. GS (Graham Smetham): In general, I agree with DAM (Vimal, 2008,
2010a, 2011c, 2012), but have certain reservations, as we have discussed,
about some of the detail of your presentation.

2.1.5. RE: I think you [GS & RLPV: for the comments of GS see (Smetham,
2011)] have probably taken the section on quantum physics in my book (Ellis,
2008) out of context, and certainly not understood the wider argument about
Buddhism of which it is a small part. I don't have a metaphysical framework.
My whole approach is based on the greater objectivity of avoiding metaphysical
claims altogether. Physicists can have provisional theories with varying degrees
of supporting evidence, which is fine, but any claims that quantum physics
supports a metaphysical framework of any description does not stand up to
basic sceptical arguments (See 'Truth on the Edge' chapter 1) - and I take
sceptical arguments seriously.

I think you have misunderstood the practical insights of the Buddha's rejection
of metaphysics (avyakrta), if you take it as a basis to support a new
metaphysical position, including monistic positions or even the denial of
positive metaphysical claims. Only strict agnosticism will do, because only
strict agnosticism withdraws us from useless debates based on speculation
that lie beyond all experience [it seems that Ellis’ metaphysics implies beyond
all experiences including physics, which is a product of human mind!]. I think
it is a mistake for Buddhists to think that Quantum physics supports their
position, because it has no effect on beliefs that make a practical difference,
apart from the attachment that may arise from speculation on the subject. I
will happily agree with Graham both that he has vastly superior knowledge of
quantum physics to myself and that my treatment of it was brief. […]

It does seem that Graham's detailed study of quantum physics in relation to

Buddhism has been based on two philosophical assumptions that I do not
share with him. Firstly, I do not agree that any sense experience can show us
that substance does not exist any more than it can show it to exist. As I said
above, my basic approach is sceptical and agnostic for practical reasons.
Secondly, I do not agree that spiritual progress is dependent on insight into
'Reality' by an enlightened being. Rather it depends on our incremental
experience of spiritual progress. My arguments about this are in Chapter 2 and
the beginning of chapter 6 of the Trouble with Buddhism.

The idea that spiritual progression depends on beliefs about Reality or

Unreality leads to immediate contradictions with our experience if you follow it
through. Presumably, it would mean that those who believe in Unreality could
make spiritual progress, whilst those who believe in Reality can make none.
However, this clearly does not relate to our mixed experience, of people who

13
both believe in Reality and those who believe in Unreality each making partial
and limited spiritual progress. Our experience suggests that the particular kind
of metaphysics you subscribe to makes no practical difference - it's just
attachment to metaphysical beliefs in general which hinders our progress.

This is the kind of evidence I am interested in as regards the spiritual life. Not
the irrelevance of speculation over metaphysical views about 'Reality' or
'Unreality', but evidence about beliefs and their relationship to our experience.
If you can give me any more evidence about this, which doesn't just appeal to
the authority of the Buddhist tradition but is adequate to what we experience
today in the modern world, I will happily consider it closely. However, I'm afraid
I'm not at all interested in reading about metaphysical theories related to
quantum physics.

2.1.5. RLPV: Thanks for elaborating further.

2.1.5.1. Metaphysical framework: Metaphysics, in my view, is the ROOT of

our mind including thinking process. We have different definition of
metaphysics; my definition includes everything both physics and beyond
physics and yours only beyond physics. Whether an investigator explicitly says
or do not say what his/her metaphysics is, there is always an implicit
metaphysics (as per my definition). I think, from your writing, your
metaphysical framework seems close to be materialism and Popper’s skeptic
view of falsification10, but you try to write as if your view is independent of any
metaphysics because your pragmatic approach is simply how to reduce
suffering via Buddhism with no-self. Buddhism has multiple metaphysics
(such as substance dualism (Dalai Lama), idealism, dual-aspect monism,
materialism) depending on an investigator as I discussed before. Varela’s (well-
known Buddhist biologist/neuroscientist) framework is materialism. Graham’s
seems to be idealism, but he is sympathetic to dual-aspect monism with
certain reservation. In my view, all have problems, but DAMv has the least
number of problems (my framework, initially I was materialist but because of
its unresolvable problems I have selected the middle path: DAMv). In my view,
if taken seriously, metaphysics makes significant difference: For example, if the
metaphysics is materialism, then we try to reduce suffering using materialistic
neuroscience: such as (Damasio, 2010)’s protoself, core self, autobiographical
self and so on. If it is DAMv, procedure will be different (see (Vimal, 2009b); if it
is substance dualism then it could be Advaita’s Brahman, Christian-trinity etc
based reduction of suffering.

2.1.5.2. In my view, quantum physics can be used for the superposition of

multiple states, potential experiences etc as done in (Vimal, 2008, 2010a). I

14
had long discussion with Stapp in (Vimal, 2011a). At quantum level, as per
(Stapp, 2009), all entities behave as mindlike (so close to mentalistic idealism),
which in DAMv means the mental aspect is dominant and physical aspect is
latent. Classically, inert entity is matter (fermion) or force carrier (boson),
which in DAMv means physical aspect is dominant and mental is latent. In
normal awake active human subject, both aspects are equally dominant. It
should be noted that both aspects are inseparable in each entity in DAMv; so
our neural-net (NN) state has two inseparable aspects: mental (e.g., redness, 1st
person) and physical (related NN and its activities, 3 rd person).

2.1.5.3. Reality: It is good idea to define the term before using them to avoid
confusion for readers. Which reality you have in mind: CMDR, (our daily
conventional mind dependent reality), UMDR (samadhi state ultimate MDR
where subject and object unify), or MIR (mind independent reality which is
unknown or partly known via CMDR and UMDR because mind is also a
product of Nature) (see (Vimal, 2009a))? Default is usually CMDR, but it all
depends on a reader unless writer clearly mentions it; and thus every reader
will have his/her own definition. I assume your tem ‘Reality’ = MIR and
‘unreality’ (illusion, maya) or ‘reality’ corresponds to CMDR.

2.1.6. RE: Here are some responses to your comments.

2.1.6.1. Metaphysical framework: Metaphysics […] implicit metaphysics.

This sounds like a dogmatic and unfalsifiable position, incompatible with a

scientific approach, let alone the Buddha's insights. I deny that I have
metaphysical beliefs, so you assert that I have them anyway, whether I like it
or not. I think this kind of forced inclusivity is just as intolerant as asserting
that someone is outside a position they claim to be in. E.g. Hindus claiming
that Buddhists are really Hindus even when Buddhists insist that Buddhists
are not Hindus.

As regards our root position, I think you are confusing metaphysics with
Kantian a priori frameworks. I agree that we have Kantian a priori frameworks
(we all experience things in time and space, for example), but these do not have
to be absolute (maybe there are aliens who do not experience things in time
and space). The prior conditions for our experience can be recognised without
metaphysical claims.

I think … with no-self.

15
My view is not materialist. I am just as critical of materialism as I am of other
types of metaphysics, as you would see if you read chapter 4 of my thesis, A
Theory of Moral Objectivity, which gives extensive criticism of such views. I
attempt to maintain a balance between positive and negative metaphysical
assumptions and accept neither. It is common for people to assume I am on
'the other side' when they have only seen me criticising one side and don't have
the whole picture.

Buddhism … reduction of suffering.

My argument is that not just suffering, but all conditions, are best addressed
by avoiding metaphysical assumptions of all kinds, which interfere in our
objectivity of experience.

2.1.6.2. Quantum Mechanics: In my view, quantum physics … 3rd person).

I'm afraid this falls outside my field of interest, and certainly far beyond my
field of competence.

2.1.6.3. Reality: It is good idea … CMDR.

I have made a distinction between 'reality' in everyday speech and 'Reality' in

metaphysical claims. I do not accept that samadhi gives access to any type of
'Reality', integrating and spiritually helpful though it may be. Metaphysical
'Reality' would be realist/materialist and its denial idealist, yes. Since there are
already philosophical terms for these positions I don't see why you have to
make up a new jargon for them.

In my view our experience does not need to assume a metaphysical Reality,

although we talk conventionally about 'reality' meaning the view we have
constructed, this view can be held provisionally without metaphysical
assumptions. The degree of provisionality corresponds to the degree of
objectivity or integration of the psychological state with which we hold a belief.
Metaphysical beliefs, however, are unfalsifiable and outside justification from
experience, so they merely function as egoistic rallying points, interfering in
our unprejudiced assessment of evidence.

2.1.7. RLPV: Thanks for commenting further. I think that we have slightly
different meanings of the terms ‘metaphysics’ and ‘reality’ and have a little
different way of describing them.

For me, all entities can be categorized in two categories: mental entities and
physical entities. Major possible metaphysics can be:

16
(i) Mind from matter: Materialism

(ii) Matter from mind: Idealism

(iii) Mind and matter on equal footing (each can exist independent of other) but
they can interact: substance dualism

(iv) Each entity has two inseparable aspects: mental and physical; this is dual-
aspect monism.

There are 3 kinds of realities: CMDR, UMDR, and MIR (first two are adapted
from Nāgārjuna, and MIR is adapted from Kant): (Vimal, 2009a).

In other words, all four kinds of metaphysics are in MDR as they are products
of human mind. MIR is unknown or partly known via CMDR and UMDR
because mind is also part of MIR as per neo-Kantian view.

You have written in a little different way and mixed up ‘metaphysics’ and
‘realities’ (using my terms); thus, I do not see much contradiction, except I
wonder that your framework has no ‘metaphysics’ (as per my definition) as I
have elaborated: is this really true?

2.1.8. RE: My approach is epistemological and moral rather than

metaphysical. From an epistemological perspective there is no distinction
between 'Reality' and 'metaphysics' [this means Ellis’ ‘Reality’ = Ellis’
‘metaphysics’ = RLPV’s ‘MIR’ (Ellis, 2011)], given that neither is accessible to
experience and no claims about either can be demonstrated empirically. I do
not accept that experience should be understood as 'Reality' [RLPV agrees
because MIR is unknown], because our experience is capable of different
degrees of provisionality. The 'reality' that we construct (small r) is
incrementally variable in its justification, whereas metaphysical claims can
only be absolutely accepted (on revelatory grounds, or with what I would argue
is dubious a priori reasoning) or rejected. The problem of induction makes it
impossible to justify metaphysical claims through empirical methods.

2.1.9. RLPV: I guess, your term ‘reality’ = my term ‘CMDR’ where we construct
objects via subjective experiences as the appearance of objects and your Reality
= my MIR: is this correct?

2.1.10. RE: Yes (as far as I can tell from this account), except that I do not
think experience is “subjective” as opposed to objective. Objectivity is
incremental and hence so is subjectivity.

2.1.11. RLPV: Your term ‘metaphysics’ (beyond physics and beyond

mind/experiences) = your ‘Reality’ = my MIR, but NOT equal to my
‘metaphysics’ (that includes everything, i.e., physics, mind, experiences, and

17
beyond physics): is this correct? But this is unclear to me why you do so, when
the rest of world defines metaphysics as I do. It is indeed confusing to readers.
What do you mean by ‘objective experience’?

2.1.12. RE: I don't know enough of your work to comment on whether the rest
of the world defines metaphysics as you do. My use of the word has a lot of
continuity with its use by, for example, Karl Popper or A. J. Ayer (much as I
would not want to be associated with Ayer in many other ways!). For me,
metaphysics is a set of claims about Reality or its denial, yes. It is not always
easy to distinguish in practice where such claims are being made or not.

2.1.13. RLPV: Furthermore, in my view, without metaphysics (the ROOT), it is

like building a strong caste without concrete foundation. DAMv is a strong
foundation for building a castle related to the reduction of
suffering/unsatisfaction in life.

2.1.14. RE: I'm afraid that your belief in such foundations cannot itself be
well-founded. See www.moralobjectivity.net/thesis3ab.html (section 3.b.i) if
you're interested in my view of foundationalism.

2.1.15. RLPV: I do not see much contradiction; it appears contradiction

because we attribute different meanings to same terms. To sum up: your
Reality = your metaphysics (beyond physics and beyond mind/experiences) =
my MIR; your reality = my CMDR; my metaphysics = the ROOT/foundation of
everything including MIR, CMDR, UMDR, physics, mind, experiences, beyond
physics and so on. For example, DAMv metaphysical framework can address
everything without making category mistakes.

2.1.16. RE: Let me ask you some questions. How do you (generally and briefly,
without jargon please) justify your theory?

2.1.17. RLPV: Justification: When we are awake, normal and active, we have
two aspects of the same neural-network (NN)-state: (i) mental: first person
perspective or subjective experiences (SEs) such as SE redness and (ii) physical
or third person perspective such as V4/V8/VO-NN for color and its activities
which we can measure experimentally such as fMRI. This is our empirical solid
observation. So, I do not think anybody will object on this. I have extended this
dual-aspect observation in all entities. For example, in inert entities such as
rock, physical aspect is dominant and mental is latent. At quantum level,
mental is dominant and physical is latent.

2.1.18. RE: I certainly do! This sounds like Locke's primary and secondary
qualities all over again. Is it? Berkeley had a good argument against this, when
he pointed out that all primary qualities can only be perceived through
secondary ones. There are also all sorts of sceptical arguments that undermine
this ‘solid' observation. Neither the experiences themselves, nor the language
we use to describe these two kinds of experience can be wholly distinct. I will

18
attach a summary of sceptical arguments from the book I am currently writing.
This [extension dual-aspect observation to all entities] sounds pretty
speculative to me.

2.1.19. RLPV: Well, you have misconstrued DAMv. The doctrine of

inseparability of mental and physics aspects of an entity such as a NN-state
does not require primary and secondary qualities hypothesis. Because of space
limitation, I would strongly suggest to study DAMv detailed in (Vimal, 2008,
2010a, 2011c, 2012). My speculations are: (i) In atheist 'no-self' religions such
as Buddhism, after death karma may be imprinted in some dual-aspect
quantum entity. (ii) In theist religions, karma may be imprinted in the physical
aspect of a dual-aspect quantum entity (say, subtle body, tachyon) that has
soul/Atman/ruh as mental aspect. God/Brahman/Allah is a dual-aspect
primal entity from which other entities arise via co-evolution and co-
development of both aspects. (iii) In science, no life after death, no God, no
Soul; our dead body disintegrates in to many dual-aspect entities from which it
was originally formed during birth via reproductive process.

2.1.20. RE: As you say, these are indeed speculations. Why should anyone
believe them?

2.1.21. RLPV: Why shouldn’t they? What is justification of not believing them?

***************

2.1.22. RE: Is your justification empirical or a priori, or appealing to religious

revelations?

2.1.23. RLPV: Empirical in the start, then extrapolation to religions.

2.1.24. RE: But it sounds to me as though your empirical interpretation

depends on a hugely questionable distinction between two types of experience:
one that could only be justified a priori, if at all.

2.1.25. RLPV: By the term ‘empirical’, I mean daily observation, such our daily
psychophysical observation and/or scientific measurements.

2.1.26. RE: How do you respond to sceptical arguments about these

approaches?

2.1.27. RLPV: Skeptical arguments are valid when there is no scientific proof.
Since I have proof of dual-aspect during wakefulness, therefore, it is scientific.
However, my extrapolation of DAMv to religions is speculative and my response
is given above.

2.1.28. RE: This assumes that there is such a thing as scientific ‘proof’. I
would disagree. There are scientific theories with greater or lesser degrees of
justification, that’s all. Why should your scientific conclusions be immune from
sceptical arguments? The great virtue of sceptical argument is that it removes

19
the possibility of 'proof' but not that of justification. Presumably you are aware
of all the “proven” scientific paradigms of the past that have been shown to be
not quite so certain by later developments?!

2.1.29. RLPV: Do you doubt our daily subjective experience (our daily wakeful
life and also experimental psychophysical observations) and related brain
activities (such as fMRI) in related brain-NN? These are empirical data that
have been interpreted by almost all views. However, DAMv has least number of
problems compared to other views, and hence it optimal framework. Skeptics
must try their best to reject DAMv until then it should be taken as the most
optimal framework.

***************

2.1.30. RE: And what is the relationship of your theory to ethics and to the
spiritual life?

2.1.31. RLPV: DAMv is fully compatible with ethics and moral life, and with
Buddhism and perhaps also your framework. We need to do good karma;
otherwise, we will suffer individually and/or collectively. The DAMv view on
good karma is given in Section 2.1.1.7.

2.1.32. RE: This is certainly not compatible with my framework! See Trouble
with Buddhism chapter 4 on belief in karma, which I do not think supports
ethics at all.

***************

2.1.33. RLPV: We need to be responsible of our action because Free Will is

neither deterministic nor random; it is somewhat in between variable semi-Free
Will as non-conscious processes depend on previous conscious processes (see
further detail, (Vimal, 2010c) and (Damasio, 2010).

2.1.34. RE: If you mean 'freewill' as used in philosophy, it is a metaphysical

absolute and therefore cannot be either variable or semi. I think you're going
down a track which will not help you to justify ethics, just because
metaphysical [i.e., MIR] claims cannot justify ethics that relates to experience.
If it's perfect, it's beyond our experience, or if it's imperfect, it has no
metaphysical justification.

Or do you mean our experience of making choices freely? If so, I would agree
that this relates to ethics in experience. However, I don't see how this could be
reconciled with the metaphysical claims you are making otherwise (e.g. karma,
'proof', empirical foundationalism).

2.1.35. RLPV: I think that main problem is our different meanings attributed
to the same term, otherwise we more or less agree.

***************

20
2.1.36. RE: How does it address the problem of absolutism and relativism?

2.1.37. RLPV: Absolutism: There is a dual-aspect primal fundamental entity

(such as physics’ dual-aspect vacuum field/dual-aspect quantum field or
Brahman in religion) from which other dual-aspect entities arise via co-
evolution and co-development of both aspects. This is a brute fact (that is the
way it is!) assumption. As long as there is no solid contradiction with evidence,
this brute fact assumption cannot be rejected.

2.1.38. RE: Just by way of comparison: I believe in the Flying Spaghetti

Monster who lives on the planet Zarg. This is a brute fact assumption. It's just
the way it is. As long as there is no solid contradiction with evidence (and I'm
quite sure you won't be able to come up with any), this brute fact assumption
cannot be rejected.

2.1.39. RLPV: This is an incorrect analogy because DAMv involves empirical

observation such as our daily subjective experience and related ‘NN and its
activities’. Flying Spaghetti Monster and the planet Zarg are not empirically
observed.

2.1.40. RLPV: Relativism: The dominance of the aspects varies depending on

the levels of entities. In that sense, entities are relative to each other.

2.1.41. RE: What I meant by the problem of absolutism and relativism is how
you reconcile the two, i.e. how you justify ethical or scientific (or aesthetic)
claims without just appealing to dogma. I can't see any sign that you have a
way of doing so here.

2.1.42. RLPV: Let me answer by taking an example: let scientific claim is ‘color
experience is related V4/V8/VO-NN activities’; this claim is justified/reconciled
by performing psychophysical and fMRI measurements simultaneously without
any dogma. Various metaphysics such as materialism, mentalistic idealism,
interactive substance dualism, and DAMv have their own way of interpreting
the above observation, but DAMv has the least number of problems; therefore,
DAMv is optimal and hence favorable metaphysical framework.

***************

2.1.43. RE: How do you think it actually helps people?

2.1.44. RLPV: DAMv is actually help people because it has the least number of
problems compared to other views. Suffering or un-satisfaction of life may not
be completely eliminated but it will certainly be minimized if appropriate

21
methods are followed in DAMv framework. Details are given in (Vimal, 2009b)
and in Section 2.1.1.7.

2.1.45. RE: I have been following some of your links, but they are so wrapped
in impenetrable jargon that I don't even understand the abstract. From what I
can gather here, you see sublimation as the main key to improving people's
lives. I'd agree that it has a helpful role to play. However, sublimation is an
experience: it has no necessary relationship with metaphysics, and particularly
not with the various Hindu concepts you try to relate to it. I also understand
sublimation as an aesthetic state, which may have a positive effect on moral
states in the short-term, but has no direct or necessary moral implications. For
that, I think, you need the more wide-ranging and flexible psychological
concept of integration rather than sublimation.

2.1.46. RLPV: Abstracts should be re-read after reading the whole articles; in
addition, you need background of many sciences. The jargons (your term) are
the terms used in various sciences and I have pre-defined them if you read
articles in order: For DAMv, read (1) (Vimal, 2008) for Dual-Aspect Monism, (2)
(Vimal, 2010a) for the introduction of dual-mode and concept of matching
selection, (3) (Vimal, 2012) and (Vimal, 2011c) for the elaboration of varying
degree of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities, and also in
parallel read (4) (Vimal, 2009c) for the multiple meanings attributed to the term
‘consciousness’ and (5) (Vimal, 2010b) for the definition of consciousness.

***************

2.1.47. RE: These are the sorts of questions (such as suffering, un-satisfaction
of life, process of sublimation, and so on) and that I started off by asking
myself as I developed my theories. My concerns are practical, in a broad sense
of 'practical'. If you don't consider these questions relevant (just as I don't
consider metaphysical questions relevant - except in being worth avoiding),
then this will explain our difference in approaches.

2.1.48. RLPV: Good. I consider that both your practical questions and others’
metaphysical (my term that includes practicality as well) questions of life are
very important to address. There is no silly question; all types of questions
need to be addressed to the satisfaction of questioners.

2.1.49. RE: I agree that there are no ‘silly’ questions, if by that you mean
meaningless or insignificant ones. However, there are questions, which are
formulated in such a way as to admit only of dogmatic answers, as noted by
the Buddha in his avyakrta.

22
 ***************

2.1.50. RLPV: In my view, all questions in all kinds of formulations need to be

addressed. It is interesting discussion between both of you (RE and GS). I am
not sure that Buddha rejected metaphysics as I defined the term ‘metaphysics’
based on categorization of entities in two categories: mind and matter. In this
sense, Buddha had strong metaphysics: (i) An atheist version of Sāṃkhya
interactive substance dualism of Purusha and Prakriti, which is still used by
Dalai Lama, (theist version of Sāṃkhya is in Gita), (2) Materialism (from
Charwalk/Lokāyata), and/or (3) Dual-Aspect Monism close to atheist version
of Trika Kashmir Shaivism (Shiva/mental and Shakti/physical are two aspects
of the same state or process). Buddha may not have said these explicitly, but it
is certainly there implicitly. As per (Vimal, 2011c) the time line is, “Vedas (Rig-
Vedic period: 4000–2000 BC11, Geeta (3000 BCE?, Vyas)12, Sāṃkhya (1000–600
BCE?, Kapila:550 BCE?)13, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (Yajnavalkya, Mid-first
millennium BCE)14, Jainism (Rishabh Dev, 900-600 BCE,15
Lokāyata/nastika/materialist/atheist (Cārvāka, 800-500 BCE; Chānakya, c.
350–283 BCE)16, Buddhism (Buddha, birth:c.563 or 623 BCE, death c.483 or
543 BCE),17 mind–body holism of pre-Qin (pre-221 BCE) China (Slingerland &
Chudek, 2011), Judaism (Tanakh: 450 BCE – 70 CE), 18 Christianity (Jesus
Christ, c. 5 BCE–c. 30 CE),19 Islam (Muhammad: 610–632),20 Advaita (non-
dualism, Adi Shankara: 788-820)21, Kashmir Shaivism (Vasugupta, 860–925)22,
Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism, Ramanujacharya: 1017–1137)23,
Dvaitadvaita (Nimbārkāchārya: 1130-1200)24, Dvaita (dualism, Madhvacharya:
1238–1317)25, Shuddhādvaita (pure non-dualism, Vallabhacharya: 1479-
1531)26, and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, 1486-1534)27.”

2.1.51. GS: Yes I agree with you [RLPV] about this - the Buddha rejected
certain metaphysical questions as being inappropriate but he did not reject all
metaphysics, his view tended to depend upon who he was addressing - it is a
subtle point but the Buddha did have a very subtle metaphysical perspective -
emptiness, this is not to say that emptiness is to be reified though. For
instance he clearly indicated the insubstantiality of the 'material' world when
he declared that matter was like foam floating on a river.

2.1.52. RLPV: Buddha’s and Nāgārjuna’s ‘sunyata’ or emptiness is similar to

physics’ vacuum or quantum potential field, which is really NOT ‘nothing’. For
me, it is a dual-aspect primal entity from which everything arose; in theist’s
term it is Brahman. Foam example, can be interpreted in terms of DAMv
framework as dominant mental aspect and latent physical aspect, whereas just
mindlike entity in mentalistic idealism makes category mistake and has

23
explanatory gap problem (how matter can arise from mind because mind and
matter are of different category).

Please note that theist-atheist phenomenon is genetic and/or acquired as

elaborated in one of my previous emails; therefore, Truth should be
independent of theism and atheism; terminology should not matter in search of
truth: do you agree?

I guess, the term ‘enlightenment’ means samadhi state experience: is this

correct? It is subjective though; whatever directly experienced varies with
person to person. All theist rishis also attained this state and experienced
different from Buddha. So it is hard to say who was right. I guess, Buddha’s
reduction of suffering is important and useful in our lives. Subtle body or
physical aspect of an entity contains traces of karma; this view is in Vedas as
well. Stapp’s idea-like means mental aspect dominant in DAMv.

2.1.53. RE: I'm afraid I don't understand how your response here relates either
to my page on Nagarjuna or the section on Kant. You are going to need to
explain the context of these thoughts a bit more. As I understand the
traditional Buddhist account of karma, it is a form of moral conditioning which
ensures effects absolutely morally equivalent to the causes. So I don’t
understand how any question arises as to how it could be unconditioned. Also,
if you want to reduce karma to some kind of account of non-absolute
conditioning, why call it karma rather than just conditioning? See chapter 4 of
Trouble with Buddhism for my arguments on how Buddhists use the term
‘karma’ as well as arguments for the rejection of the metaphysical assumptions
it involves.

2.1.54. RLPV: It will be clear if you read my articles in order because we use
different meanings to the same terms and you need background. In my view,
Quantum physics is useful in consciousness related development as follows:
(1) Quantum superposition of multiple potential experiences that can be
realized during quantum conjugate matching (see Section 2 of (Vimal, 2010a)).
(2) Stapp’s idea/mind-like entities at quantum level: in my DAMv
framework, these entities have dominant mental aspect and latent physical
aspect. See 4 types of cuts: mental-mental, physical-physical that does not
make category mistake, where physical-mental (Heisenberg cut) or mental-
physical make this mistake. See my discussion with Stapp in Sections 1.2, 1.3,
and 2.2 (especially pp 33-40) (Vimal, 2011a).

24
2.2. My commentary on (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008) and (Smetham, 2011) is
as follows

2.2.1. The radical agnostic skepticism required by (Ellis, 2008) based on

arguments summarized in (Smetham, 2011) is useful to sharpen our thinking
process in the search of truth and should be seriously addressed.

2.2.2. Mind is always involved in both our conventional daily life (CMDR:
conventional mind dependent reality) and in altered state such as samadhi-
state (UMDR: ultimate mind dependent reality); mind-independent reality (MIR)
is unknown and/or partly known via CMDR and/or UMDR as one could argue
that mind is also a product of Nature. For example, Ellis’ statement, “the
physical world is beyond our experience” is related to MIR.

2.2.3. In my view, a metaphysical (my use of term, not Ellis’ metaphysics)

framework is the foundation on which a building of the search of truth is built;
if foundation is not strong, building will be week. Therefore, Ellis’ rejection of
(my use of the term) ‘metaphysics’ needs to be reconsidered because his
meaning attributed to the term ‘metaphysics’ as ‘the study of things beyond
our experience’ in not the only meaning. For example, my meaning attributed
to the term ‘metaphysics’ includes both within and beyond our experience’, i.e.,
it includes all 3 realities: CMDR, UMDR, and MIR. It should be noted that the
term ‘consciousness’ in consciousness research has been used with multiple
meanings; for example, over 40 different but overlapping meanings have been
attributed to the term ‘consciousness’ (Vimal, 2009c), which has been
categorized in two categories, namely functions and experiences; see also
(Vimal, 2010b). As (Smetham, 2011) critically analyzes, (Ellis, 2008) implicitly
uses Ellis’ definition of metaphysics, consistent with my argument (all views
have some kind of metaphysics, implicitly or explicitly) that Ellis rejects
(personal email communication) because of misunderstanding as we attribute
different meanings to the same term ‘metaphysics’; otherwise, more or less, we
are not contradicting each other.

2.2.4. The search of truth involves the trial-and-error method to the best of
investigator’s ability; therefore, Ellis’ term ‘Buddhist betrayal of its own
insights’ is too strong and needs reconsideration.

2.2.5. I prefer ‘Middle Way’ and avoid extremes to minimize the problems and
optimize the framework. My DAMv framework is a middle path between the
opposite poles mentalistic-idealism/dualism/eternalism 28, and hence has the
least number of problems compared to extreme views.

2.2.6. Quantum physics is useful in consciousness research to some extent,

for example, the superposition of potential subjective experiences in the mental

25
aspect of each entity, and the realization/actualization of potentiality via say
quantum collapse.

2.2.7. As per (Smetham, 2011), “In this case one might claim as Buddhists do
that because experience is part of ‘Reality’ itself, there is a way of experiencing
which gives direct and unmediated access to reality (‘enlightenment’). If we take
‘Reality’ to be a concept which embraces all aspects of experience and
anything, if anything, that lies beyond, then sentient beings, including
‘physical’ senses and the experiences generated by the senses, are clearly part
of ‘Reality’, so the possibility of direct ‘non-conceptual’ (as Buddhists refer to
this immediate experience) knowledge cannot be ruled out a-priori.”

This is interesting in a sense that the enlightenment (whatever that means—

samadhi-state experiences!) based ‘non-conceptual’ experience may be related
to phenomenal consciousness (Block, 2005) where cognitive feedback signals
do not interact and hence reportable/access consciousness has not yet arisen,
i.e., we have only stimulus-dependent feed forward representation in cortical
areas such as V4/V8/VO for color, as in 15-50 msec duration stimulus
presentation; see also (Sperling, 1960) and (Vimal, 2011d). However, this is still
UMDR, not MIR.

2.2.8. It seems that the relationship between entities in CMDR and MIR is
invariant even though we do not know if appearance of entities in CMDR
entails the thing-in-itself or attributes of MIR. In neo-Kantian framework, one
could argue that since mind, consciousness (experiences and functions), and
brain themselves are products of Nature or MIR, CMDR and UMDR might be at
the least revealing partly MIR. Perhaps, (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008)’s ‘reality’ is
equivalent to or close to CMDR/UMDR and ‘Reality’ is equivalent to or close to
MIR.

2.2.9. Buddhism entertains the following metaphysical framework depending

on the investigators: (1) atheism because of no-self (Anatman), i.e., there is no
eternal self/atman/God, but belief in karmic theory and rebirth based on
karma, perhaps also close to materialism (mind from matter) in this sense of
no-self after death, (2) mentalistic idealism (matter from mind) (Smetham,
2011), (3) interactive substance dualism (Dalai Lama framework in (Luisi,
2008) and see also in (Vimal, 2009e)), (4) dual-aspect monism (Wallace’s
framework: in (Wallace, 2007) and in (Vimal, 2009e)) and (Vimal, 2008, 2010a),
and (5) skepticism (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008). Skepticism is useful as long as
investigators do not cross limit; otherwise, progress in consciousness research
is hampered because there are many unknown parameters; we have to start
somewhere and if we keep on endlessly arguing against then we will not move
ahead much. We can always come back and re-evaluate using hard skepticism,

26
once we are try to do quality control. For example, DAMv is best framework so
far; this needs hard skepticism to sharpen our thinking process. So far, I do
not think that Ellis’ framework rejects DAMv. However, Ellis is most welcome to
study thoroughly all relevant articles for DAMv and then provide string
critique; I will be happy to address all his comments.

2.2.10. The existence of ‘substance’ at the ground level of reality is ruled out
based on quantum physics because entities are fundamentally mindlike
nondual at deep ontological level as per (Stapp, 2009)’s ‘nondual-dualism’;29
this is an interesting hypothesis. However, one could argue that it leads to an
incomplete story if properly not interpreted because it entails
mind/consciousness/experiences as fundamental entity leading to mentalistic
idealism (the opposite extreme of materialism), which has explanatory gap
problem: how matter can arise from mind. In addition, there is category
mistake because mind and matter are of two different categories. The
hypothesis that quantum physics entails ‘matter’ as illusion via mentalistic
idealism and classical physical ‘mind’ as illusion via materialism, is misleading
because both make category mistake and have explanatory gap problems. Both
are extreme views. These problems are addressed by DAMv based on middle
path between two extremes, namely, materialism and mentalistic-idealism. For
example, one can hypothesize that each entity has two inseparable aspects,
namely mental and physical aspects; the mental aspect is dominant and
physical aspect is latent at ground quantum level; the latter (physical aspect)
becomes dominant and mental aspect becomes latent at classical level for inert
systems; whereas in awake active conscious beings such as us both aspects
becomes dominant: first person perspective (subjective experiences) reveals the
mental aspect of the brain-state and third person perspective reveals its
physical aspect. This hypothesis leads to DAMv. Interaction of consciousness
for collapse for the actualization of potentiality is an interesting topic; this is
elaborated in my discussion with Stapp in (Vimal, 2011a). DAMv implies that
the fundamental coherency is the dual-aspect unified quantum field. As per
(Vimal, 2010a), “Bohm’s implicate/explicate order or enfolded/unfolded
framework (Bohm, 1980, 1990; Bohm & Hiley, 1993) is consistent with a dual-
aspect view and DAMv; he is explicitly a double-aspect theorist. Hameroff and
Powell (Hameroff & Powell, 2009) defend neutral monism (a branch of dual-
aspect view), where matter and mind arise from or reduce to a neutral third
entity ‘quantum spacetime geometry (fine-grained structure of the universe.)’,
and Penrose OR (objective reduction) 30 is the psycho-physical bridge: ‘Orch OR
provides a possible connection between quantum spacetime geometry—a
possible repository of proto-conscious experience—and brain processes
regulating consciousness’.”

27
2.2.11. The violation of Bell’s inequality in favor of quantum physics with
experimental verification leads to non-locality (‘telepathy’) in quantum entities.
This has been interpreted as fundamental reality is mind-like, which is close to
mentalistic idealism that (1) has explanatory gap problem: how matter can
emerge from mind) and (2) makes category mistake (mind and matter are two
different categories). In other words, it has problems reverse of materialism.
These are two extreme views and are untenable. These problems can be easily
address if we assume that fundamental reality (CMDR/UMDR, perhaps the
unknown MIR as well) is dual-aspect monism; for example, (1) dual-aspect
Brahman (as in theist version of DAMv) or (2) dual-aspect unified quantum field
or dual-aspect Implicate Order (as in atheist version of DAMv). It should be
noted that theist/atheist phenomenon is genetic (God gene) and/or acquired;
therefore, the fundamental Truth should independent of this phenomenon.
This is further elaborated in (Vimal, 2011c, 2011e).

2.3. Shastrarth/Discussion with Smetham

2.3.1. GS: You call my perspective 'mentalistic idealism' and seem to think it is
different to that of Alan Wallace. However I consider my perspective, to all
intents and purposes, to be the same as Wallace's, and the phrase 'mentalistic
idealism' does not really apply. In Buddhist parlance I am an exponent of
Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka. The problem is that Tibetan Buddhist
metaphysical frameworks are more subtle than those offered by Western
philosophy. If a label is to be applied something like Dual Aspect Mindnature
Monism is far more appropriate as I use the term Mindnature primarily in my
writings in JCER.

2.3.2. RV: Good. Then I make correction that your framework is more or less
same as Wallace’s, which is more or less dual-aspect monism (DAM). Please
clarify why you want to qualify with Mindnature. DAM has been for a long time;
if we research it, it might be in RigVedic period (~4000BC) also in different
form. In west also; please its history in (Vimal, 2010a). I started DAM (Vimal,
2008) added dual-mode in it (Vimal, 2010a), and later added varying degree of
dominance of aspect depending on the levels of entities ((Vimal, 2011c, 2012). I
call my version of DAM as DAMv. If you justify qualifying DAM with the term
‘Mindnature’, then it might be useful to add further: DAM with Mindnature.
You explicitly also made clear in Sections 2.1.18 and 2.1.20 of (Vimal, 2011b)
that your framework is the Dual-Aspect Monism with quantum mindnature
(DAMqm) framework, which is another version of dual-aspect view

28
2.3.3. GS: I feel the need to address ER (Robert Ellis)'s claim that metaphysics
is an impossibility in. For surely what ER, crudely speaking, is asserting is that
Monism, Dual Aspect Monism. Materialism as metaphysical positions is
nonsense. He is asserting the invalidity of any metaphysical claim and I feel
that this claim has to be discussed before we can move on to put forward any
particular metaphysical views. What do you think?

2.3.4. RLPV: I guess, his use of the term metaphysics is different from what we
use. His metaphysics = beyond physics/experiences/mind = his Reality = our
MIR. Our use of the term ‘metaphysics’ is the foundation of everything, which
includes CMDR, UMDR, and MIR; it is within physics/experiences/mind and
beyond. He is using literal meaning of meta-physics: meta=beyond, we have
extended it from its literal meaning.

2.3.5. GS: One other issue has come to mind - Buddhists who are informed
about their own philosophy (I say this because there are some 'Buddhists' who
clearly do not comprehend their own tradition) do not use the term 're-
incarnation' because this implies that there is a 'soul' whereas a fundamental
tenet of Buddhism is no fixed and enduring soul. There is a mental continuum
which conditions future rebirths. All knowledgeable Buddhists will use the
term 'rebirth' only.

2.3.6. RLPV: Wallace uses Kalachakra principle for rebirth/re-incarnation,

which in Buddhist no-self or no eternal self (contrary to Vedanta), needs to be
reinterpreted. Fundamental Truth must be independent of theist (eternal self)
and atheist (no eternal self) because theist/atheist phenomenon is genetic
(Hamer’s God gene) and/or acquired (such as lack of inhibition from temporal
lobe to frontal lobe in theists). We really do not what happens after death; it is
all speculation. So as far science is concerned we do not have proof one way or
other. Because of this‘don’t know’ status, I have theist and atheist versions of
DAMv (Vimal, 2011c, 2011e). In atheist version, either (1) karma (including
unfulfilled intense desire) traces are stored in quantum cosmic memory field,
which are picked up via tuning process (tuning similar to our radio-TV system)
during conception when sperm and egg meet and reproduction process starts;
or (2) no such transmission of karma as materialism predict, just interaction
between sperm and egg with possible mutation. In theist version of DAMv, soul
is a dual-aspect quantum entity whose mental aspect (M) is dominant and
physical aspect is latent; karma-traces are stored in this hidden physical
aspect (P) (it is also called ‘subtle body’); there are M-M and/or P-P interactions
between soul, egg, and sperm (no cross interaction M-P is allowed because of
category mistake in both versions). Please note that each entity (including
sperm, egg, and soul) has inseparable mental and physical aspects. M-M, P-P,

29
M-P, and P-M interactions were discussed with Stapp in different context in
(Vimal, 2011a).

2.3.7. GS: I have two articles in JCER Vol 2, No 1 (2011) which fully explore
the concept of Mindnature. http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/124
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/125.

'Mindnature' is a term borrowed from the Buddhist Dzogchen tradition. In this

context it refers to an infinite energetic field of quantum potentiality which
contains within in an innate function of cognition. It is the function of
cognition which unfolds the potentialities into apparent actualities which are
experienced by sentient beings.

2.3.8. RLPV: It sounds like Bohm’s Implicate/Explicate Order; Bohm’s

framework is clearly dual-aspect monism. If this is the case, then one could
argue that Mindnature or fundamental infinite energetic field of quantum
potentiality has inseparable dual-aspect. You could elaborate further your
version of DAM and compare with DAMv.

2.3.9. GS: He is using the term metaphysics and 'Reality' as synonymous and
he claims that both are necessarily beyond experience. He therefore claims that
our experiences can tell us nothing about 'metaphysics' or 'Reality'.

2.3.10. RLPV: Yes. It would be better and less confusing if he (ER) drops
‘metaphysics’ and just use the term “Reality’, which seems to be Kant’s mind-
independent reality (MIR). In that case, strictly speaking, MIR is unknown.
However, neo-Kantian movement claims that since mind is also a product of
Nature, CMDR and UMDR must be telling us something about MIR partly and
indirectly. I think, the relationship between entities should more or less remain
invariant over these three kinds of realities. For example, the distance between
two objects (such as trees) should more or less is remain invariant, even
though how objects (such as trees) appear and what they really are (thing-in-
itself) in MIR may differ.

2.3.11. GS: If you could add an introductory bit about why you think that
Ellis's use of terminology - metaphysics and 'Reality' is incorrect that would be
great. And yes - Mindnature closely corresponds to the implicate order.

2.3.12. RLPV: I am not sure that he is incorrect because any investigator is

allowed to attribute a meaning to relevant term with justification. For example,
there are over 40 meanings attributed to the term 'consciousness' (Vimal,
2009). So if he is using the term metaphysics on the basis of literal meaning,
‘meta = beyond’, then the meaning attributed the term ‘metaphysics’ should be
‘beyond physics’. However, I am not sure why he is attributing a meaning

30
'beyond mind and experience’ to metaphysics; this may not be appropriate
unless he is materialist (which he says, he is not) because materialism
assumes that mind/experiences are part of physics (they emerge/arise from
matter/brain or identical with NN-state). I my view, he should define the terms
before using. Otherwise it is confusing to readers. Same goes with the term
'Reality'.

If Mindnature corresponds to Implicate Order, then you can say Mindnature

has two inseparable aspects (mental and physical) and then your framework is
consistent with DAM and hence does not have problems of mentalistic idealism
or interactive substance dualism.

2.3.14. GS: If everyone gave their own meaning to words communication would
be impossible. The way that 'metaphysics' is generally taken is as indicating
the 'ultimate nature of 'Reality'. Now Ellis is saying that we cannot know
anything about the ultimate nature of reality, in fact if I have read him
correctly - I have only briefly read his paper so far - he actually accepts the
possibility that Noddy and Bigears might be a metaphysical explanation of the
universe. Would you agree with such a view?

2.3.15. RLPV: If his meaning of ‘Reality’ is mind-independent reality (MIR),

which is, strictly speaking, unknown as per Kant. In this sense (metaphysics =
Reality = MIR), Ellis is correct, by definition; but then he is not saying anything
new; this is already said by Kant long time back. To the best of our abilities, we
can know only CMDR; and if we are able to attain the extremely difficult
‘samadhi state’ then we will know UMDR, where subject and objects
merge/unify; even if there is enemy in front of meditator, enemy will be felt as a
great friend; this is very risky if lion happens to be in front of meditator! For
materialist, the ultimate nature of CMDR is matter; for mentalistic idealist, it is
mind; for substance dualist, it is both matter and mind but independent and
interacting; for dual-aspect monist, it is dual-aspect: each entity has
inseparable dual aspects (physical and mental aspects). However, for all, the
ultimate nature of MIR = Ellis' Reality is unknown.

2.3.16. GS: Quantum physics (Bell's theorem etc.) shows us that there is no
MIR! As Henry Stapp and many others now conclude there is only a pool of
potential experience represented by the quantum wave function and the
actualized experiences which are the result of interactions which
individual consciousness. We do know that there is no possibility of
Newtonian/Cartesian matter - it’s just not there! However, that is what
I argue in my paper, if you agree with Ellis then I guess we just
leave the matter there. I happen to agree with Stapp, Zurek, Zeh, Joos

31
... we do know that the ultimate nature of ‘reality’ is of the nature of
mind.

2.3.17. RLPV: Quantum physics (including Bell’s theorem) itself is a product of

human mind as is classical physics. Classical physics is not that bad for macro
objects. Newton’s laws work for large objects to some extent with its limitation
for low speed compared to the speed of light. Bell’s theorem can be written
without quantum physics: is this correct? Quantum physics is for micro and
smaller objects, but still mind-dependent. Therefore, its conclusion that it is all
mind-like (as per Stapp) is CMDR; it is not MIR. Multiple potential experiences
are in superposed state before collapse; after collapse, they are actualized to
one specific subjective experience (such as say redness). However, both
potential and actualized experiences are in CMDR; MIR is totally unknown as
per Kant; however, neo-Kantian investigators argue that MIR is partly known
via CMDR and UMDR as mind is also a part of Nature so mind must be
revealing the fundamental Truth about MIR to some extent. In my view, all of
us (Bell, Stapp, Zurek, Zeh, Joos, Ellis, you, me, and like) are not contradicting
each other in this sense; it appears contradiction because we attribute different
meanings to the same terms. That is why, it is strongly recommended to define
the terms before using them to avoid apparent contradiction. Problem with
Ellis is that, in my view, he uses the terms but does not define them clearly
(one has to ‘dig’ them) and hence readers get confused. As I commented in
(Ellis, 2011) the Ellis’ metaphysics may be called e-metaphysics ( = his term
‘Realty’ = my term MIR) and our metaphysics as sv-metaphysics (which
includes everything including e-metaphysics, CMDR, UMDR, MIR, physics,
experiences, mind, and beyond) to minimize confusion in readers.
Furthermore, to know about MIR is the dream of some investigators; we can
imagine what it might be: just imagine that we are in the sea of EMR
(electromagnetic radiation) and it is we who assign color SE to long wavelength
light as redness (see also (Metzinger, 2009)).

2.3.18. GS: Stapp laid into me saying that my notion that the Buddhist
concept of the ground consciousness and the quantum wave function were
related was
mistaken. I wrote a paper refuting him.

2.3.19. RLPV: As per (Stapp, 2009), “quantum mechanics conforms at the

pragmatic/operational level to the precepts of Cartesian duality, but reduces at
a deep ontological level to a fundamentally mindlike nondual monism.” This
seems to be close to mentalistic idealism, which has explanatory gap (how
matter can arise from mind) and makes category mistake (mind and matter are
two different categories). However, if we assume at deep ontological quantum

32
level, entities have dominant mental aspect and latent physical aspect as per
DAMv, then these problems are addressed and still consistent with quantum
physics. I discussed this with Stapp in (Vimal, 2011a). In my view, if Buddhist
concept of the ground consciousness is the same as Bohm’s Implicate order,
which is clearly consistent with dual-aspect monism, then all are consistent
with DAMv. How did you refute him?

2.3.20. GS: You ask Ellis to define his term ‘metaphysics’ but I think his use of
the term is quite clear. For him metaphysics is to assert that we can say
anything certain about the ultimate and final nature of reality.

2.3.21. RLPV: Yes, but which reality: CMDR, UMDR, or MIR? I think, his
metaphysics = beyond experience/mind = his Reality = my MIR (so I called e-
metaphysics). He rejects e-metaphysics because it is beyond our mind and
hence unknowable as Kant said. So it is not very useful to investigate
something that cannot be known. There is better and more interesting topics to
investigate in ‘reality’ (= CMDR), I tend to agree with him in this sense.

My/our definition of metaphysics includes CMDR, UMDR, MIR, within and

beyond mind/experiences (so I call it sv-metaphysics) and we do not reject sv-
metaphysics and I/we think it is the root/foundation of everything and should
be taken seriously.

Thus, if we define our terms clearly, then confusion and disagreements will be
minimized.

One could argue, “Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with

explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world, although the term is
not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic
questions in the broadest possible terms: 1. "What is there?" 2. "What is it
like?" […] [Metaphysics was meant as] "the books that come after the [books
on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the
science of what is beyond the physical". […] The metaphysician attempts to
clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g.,
existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and
possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into
the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other […] the skeptics'
How do you know? led to a new branch of philosophy called epistemology (how
we know) to fill-out the metaphysics (what we know) and this led to science
(Latin to know) and to the scientific method (the precision of which is still being
debated)” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics). This term ‘metaphysics’
has several meanings and needs to be clearly by investigators to minimize
confusion and apparent disagreements.

33
2.3.22. GS: In both Western and to some degree Buddhist philosophy one
fundamental issue regarding the ultimate nature is the question of whether it
is mind-like or whether it is matter-like, to use the terminology of Stapp. Now
Ellis is saying that no matter what evidence can have we can never come to any
certain conclusion, whereas physicists like Stapp, Zurek, Penrose, and many
others now say that the ultimate nature cannot be Cartesian-Newtonian type
matter – we know this for sure. Ellis is saying that this is incorrect.

2.3.23. RLPV: He is correct in his e-metaphysics = his ‘Reality’ = our MIR

because mind-like metaphysics is in CMDR; it is NOT MIR; but he is not saying
(can cannot say) anything in sv-metaphysics (as I read it). It is necessary to
understand his framework, otherwise you will never agree with him.

2.3.24. GS: His title ‘Taking the meta out of Physics’ is just an attempted
clever piece of word play indicating that he thinks that physics tells us
absolutely nothing about ultimate reality. He is using the term ‘metaphysics’ in
the usual sense of ‘certain knowledge about the ultimate nature and structure
of reality’. And that is the way that I am also using the term – so you are
incorrect to use the distinction ‘e-metaphysics’ and ‘sv-metaphysics’, my use of
the term is the same as his. The issue is whether or not ‘Reality’ is entirely
beyond experience of not, is ‘Reality’ manifested within experience, and
whether we can know the ultimate nature of ‘Reality’ on the basis of experience
and whether it can be can it be fully and absolutely comprehended within
experience. Ellis says no to all of these questions.

2.3.25. RLPV: In my view, terms should be defined clearly. For eample, my

interpretation of his title is that he is trying to say that quantum physics or
any science will never reveal MIR because MIR is simply unknown; once we say
we know, this clearly implies that we involve our minds, and hence our
knowledge cannot be mind-independent. That is why, I guess, he says ‘no’ to
all those questions. I tend to agree somewhat in the sense of his meaning
attributed to the term ‘metaphysics’ as MIR. It is neo-Kantians like us
hypothesize that mind/experience can tell us at least partly about MIR because
mind/experience is also a product of Nature/MIR. Ellis rejects neo-Kantians’
view because he thinks that this view is incorrect. In this sense, he seems to
follow Kant strictly. In my view, distinction is necessary if we want to avoid
unnecessary confusion and disagreements.

2.3.26. GS: You seem to me to make requests for definitions where they are
surely not necessary. For instance you say: It seems that quantum physicists
have become gods [define it], if they really claim to be able to support [e-]
metaphysical beliefs from finite scientific observation and experiment: and

34
none of the evidence Smetham offers gives any justification for such
extraordinary claims, as I shall explain.

But there is no need for definition of the term ‘gods’. Ellis is simply being
provocative here – he is saying that we take the assertions of quantum
physicists too seriously, there is nothing more to this assertion.

2.3.27. RLPV: Okay, I agree with you on this point. I just wanted to make sure
that this is what it means. My understanding of the term ‘gods’ is that
physicists are acting as if they know MIR as ‘gods’ (some supernatural
unknown entity) might know who have super-minds/beyond-our-minds.
Obviously, physicists have human minds; so Ellis is correct in the sense that
physicists cannot tell us about MIR as per Kant; he is partly wrong as per neo-
Kantians.

2.3.28. GS: Also arguments about the status of quantum theories: that is,
questions of language [elaborate], psychology and ethics. This will offer the
basis of a further secondary argument against accepting metaphysical beliefs,
on the grounds of the practical effects of doing so.

But Ellis does elaborate in his paper. Here Ellis is simply saying that he knows,
on the basis of his analysis of the functioning of language, in a kind of
Wittgensteinian type of style, that the philosophy of language undermines
metaphysical claims. He does ‘elaborate’ on this issue in the rest of his paper. I
am a bit puzzled because, although I disagree vehemently with his assertions, I
do not find that his claims are not clearly articulated as you seem to find.

2.3.29. RLPV: It is unclear to me how ‘the philosophy of language undermines

metaphysical claims’. This should be concisely elaborated. For example, (1)
Wittgensteinian’s view is discussed in
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/>; (2) “the philosophy of
language for analytic philosophers is concerned with four central problems: the
nature of meaning, language use, language cognition, and the relationship
between language and reality. […] First, philosophers of language inquire into
the nature of meaning, and seek to explain what it means to "mean" something.
[…] Second, they would like to understand what speakers and listeners do with
language in communication, and how it is used socially. […] Third, they would
like to know how language relates to the minds of both the speaker and the
interpreter. […] Finally, they investigate how language and meaning relate to
truth and the world” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language ).

2.3.30. GS: I agree with what you say metaphysically in broad outline and
have always agreed with Stapp on this issue – although he currently seems to

35
want to have no more intellectual dealings with me. But it is no good saying
stuff like this to Ellis because his claim is that this is nonsense because HIS
philosophical analysis indicates that we cannot say anything like this with
certainty. THIS is the issue which needs to be addressed – what is wrong with
Ellis’s claim that metaphysics is not possible?

2.3.31. RLPV: I am not sure that he (ER) means that. In my view, he seems to
mean that it is ‘nonsense’ in terms of MIR because MIR is unknown and
physicists, in his view, continuously keep on claiming (unknowingly/implicitly)
that ‘reality’/CMDR = ‘Reality’/MIR.

3. Conclusions

(1) Buddhism has multiple frameworks depending on investigators. For

example: (i) Atheism because of no-self (Anatman), i.e., there is no eternal
self/atman/God, but the belief in karmic theory and rebirth is based on karma,
perhaps also close to materialism (mind from matter) in this sense of no-self
after death; (ii) mentalistic idealism (matter from mind) (Smetham, 2011); (iii)
interactive substance dualism (Dalai Lama framework in (Luisi, 2008) and see
also in (Vimal, 2009e)); (iv) dual-aspect monism: Wallace’s framework in
(Wallace, 2007) and (Vimal, 2009e) and DAMv framework in (Vimal, 2008,
2010a); and (v) skepticism (Ellis, 2011; Ellis, 2008).

(2) DAMv framework: Dual-Aspect Monism (Vimal, 2008) with dual-mode

(Vimal, 2010a) and varying degree of dominance of the aspects depending on
the level of entities ((Vimal, 2012) and (Vimal, 2011c)). Buddhism is close to
atheist version of DAMv (Vimal, 2011c, 2011e). DAMv has the least number of
problems compared to other views and hence it is optimal framework. Strong
skepticism is needed to test its viability further.

Acknowledgments
The work was partly supported by VP-Research Foundation Trust and Vision
Research Institute research Fund. I would like to thank Robert Ellis and
Graham Smetham for long discussions. In addition, I would like to thank
colleagues/critiques, anonymous reviewers, Manju-Uma C. Pandey-Vimal,
Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Shalini Pandey Vimal, and Love (Shyam) Pandey
Vimal for their critical comments, suggestions, and grammatical corrections.

Competing interests statement

The author declares that he has no competing financial interests.

36
References
Endnotes

37
1
As per Dennett, “Varela is a very smart man who, out of a certain generosity of spirit, thinks he gets
his ideas from Buddhism. I'd like him to delete the references to Buddhist epistemology in his
writings. His scientific work is very important, and so are the conclusions we can draw from the
work. Buddhist thinking has nothing to do with it, and bringing it in only clouds the real issues.”
Dennett’s comments in (Varela, 1995).

2
As per <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path>, “by altering one's distorted worldview,
bringing out ‘tranquil perception’ in the place of ‘perception polluted’, one is able to ease suffering.
Watson [(Watson, 2001)] points this out from a psychological standpoint: ‘Research has shown that
repeated action, learning, and memory can actually change the nervous system physically, altering
both synaptic strength and connections. Such changes may be brought about by cultivated change in
emotion and action; they will, in turn, change subsequent experience’.”
3
The term ‘reincarnation’ is misleading in Buddhism as per Smetham (personal communication)
because it gives an impression of eternal self which reincarnates, i.e., it implies that there is a 'soul'
whereas a fundamental tenet of Buddhism is no fixed and enduring soul (see Section 2.3). Therefore,
term ‘rebirth’ is used for atheist religion such as Buddhism and the term ‘reincarnation’ is used in
theist related frameworks such as Vedanta.
4
Adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion.
5
“What humans desire can be described as increasing degrees of control, freedom, unconditionality
or, in Nietzsche’s word, power. […] The power to attain the object whenever I want it, not the object, is
what is wanted, even if it is ‘power’ that is objectified as the desideratum (and also to get rid of it
when I don’t want it”.
6
Some of the information is extracted or adapted (shown in italics) from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy.
7
Weber, 2004; Whitehead, 1926; Whitehead, 1933; Whitehead, 1978.
8
Cobb & Griffin, 1977; http://www2.citytel.net/~gmnixon/pubs/deQuincey.html

9
Four Noble Truths in classical Buddhism are as follows:
1.Suffering does exist
2.Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3.Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4.Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path

1.The Nature of Suffering (or Dukkha):

This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is
suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in
brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
2.Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):
This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence,
accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual
pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.
3.Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation
of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it.
4.The Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada Magga)
This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path;
that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
mindfulness and right concentration."
10
See (Smetham, 2011) and (Eccles & Popper, 1984).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper’s_experiment; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper.
11
See (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2007) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyasa
13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Eastern_philosophers,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/311732/Kapila
14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad: Author: Yajnavalkya, Date of
composition: Mid-first millennium BCE, Place of composition (ancient name): Videha, Mithila
(Southern Nepal).
15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabha_(Jain_tirthankar)
16
See (Mádhava Áchárya, 1996 [1882]), http://www.humanistictexts.org/Carvaka.htm,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokayata, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barhaspatya_sutras, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kautilya
17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha
18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh
19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ
20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara
22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasugupta
23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujacharya
24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaitadvaita,
25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Madhvacharya
26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuddhadvaita and (Sharma, 1968).
27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_Mahaprabhu

28
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

29
According to (Stapp, 2009), “Von Neumann (orthodox) quantum mechanics is thus dualistic in the
pragmatic and operational sense that it involves aspects of nature that are described in physical
terms and also aspects of nature that are described in psychological terms, and these two parts
interact in human brains in accordance with laws specified by the theory. This is all in close accord
with classic Cartesian dualism. On the other hand, and in contrast to the application to classical
mechanics, in which the physically described aspect is ontologically matterlike, not mindlike, in
quantum mechanics the physically described part is mindlike! So both parts of the quantum
Cartesian duality are fundamentally mindlike. Thus quantum mechanics conforms at the
pragmatic/operational level to the precepts of Cartesian duality, but reduces at a deep ontological
level to a fundamentally mindlike nondual monism.” See also my discussion with Stapp in (Vimal,
2011a).
30
In OR, the quantum system is reduced from a superposition of multiple possible states to a single
definite state.