Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Will Buddhism lose its value later on?
As science uncovers more and more aspects of the truth, religous ideas became redundant. For instance, when the principle behind lightning was understood, the god of lightning became irrelevant. When epilepsy was understood, demonic possession became an unnecessary explanation.
Point is, as science marches on, religion suffers one defeat after another and if at all religion is still around it is mainly because of politics, culture, tradition etc. plus many religions have managed to survive by cleverly altering their ideas in light of the latest scientific theories. Anyway, my point is, is Buddhism only relevant as long as there is no technology (either in the form of a pill or whatever else) to fill our void? If, for example, some technology could cure my stress, give me abundant happiness (even better than drugs), wouldnt meditation, yoga etc. become redundant?
So what I am saying is, is Buddhism (like religions of the past) just filling a temporary gap in knowledge, and once technology fills that gap ... will it also vanish?
Point is, as science marches on, religion suffers one defeat after another and if at all religion is still around it is mainly because of politics, culture, tradition etc. plus many religions have managed to survive by cleverly altering their ideas in light of the latest scientific theories. Anyway, my point is, is Buddhism only relevant as long as there is no technology (either in the form of a pill or whatever else) to fill our void? If, for example, some technology could cure my stress, give me abundant happiness (even better than drugs), wouldnt meditation, yoga etc. become redundant?
So what I am saying is, is Buddhism (like religions of the past) just filling a temporary gap in knowledge, and once technology fills that gap ... will it also vanish?
0
Comments
That seems more likely to me than science proving Buddhism "wrong", or making it redundant.
No because Buddhism is no religion trying to explain something that science can explain better. That which Buddhism explaines is already explained by Buddhism to its fullest potential.
Yes because if people are too well of they will not find the motivation to cultivate. That is what buddhism explains that there must be a mixture of pain and pleasure in your experience to make it possible to cultivate. Through Science we might accomplish too good a world for cultivating.
/Victor
Some facets of 'lightning' are understood but not sufficient to state there is no god of lightning - same with demonic possession.
The principles that uphold religion also lend support to the foundations of science.
There is nothing currently known that overtly precludes an understanding of all facets of life - if we achieve this then I suppose buddhism will renegotiate its place along the way - this may not necessarily lead to redundancy - I do think however that religion and science would cease being different disciplines in such a scenario...
But if you found a pill that stopped all change and suffering, for every sentient being (not just for ourselves), then yes, Buddhism would no longer be necessary, if the pill were available for every sentient being of all six realms; once everyone had taken his/her/its pill, we'd be done.
Hmm...how do you feed a naga or jellyfish a pill..but anyway....
Whether Buddhism is a religion or not is a question better left to long nights of imposing discussion among people drinking lots and lots of beer. Some say yes. Some say no. Waitress! Another pitcher over here, please!
But as to the central question of whether scientific discovery will leave Buddhism in the dust, I think the answer is an obvious no. Science is aimed in the direction of intellectual and emotional conclusions ... things to hold onto for whatever period of time. And such conclusions are based in the past -- a time frame that no one can grasp. The fact that appreciations (of a flat earth, witches in Salem, etc.) come and go is evidence that science is bound to a world of limitation.
Buddhism does not exclude science (as some religions might). Science can be a very good thing and Buddhism acknowledges such potential good. But Buddhism's net is a bit wider. As a practical (as distinct from believing) point of view, it is not limited. Buddhism speaks to the present moment in which anyone, scientist or idjit, might find him- or herself.
Think about it: No matter how smart anyone might be, still they may find themselves suffering or experiencing a sense of something unsatisfactory or uncertain in their lives. Science invites us to out-think our problems. But out-thinking Buddhism is not possible because thought or emotion are as limited as science.
The Hindu swami Vivekananda once observed, "The mind [he meant intellect] is a good servant and a poor master." A good servant and a good tool, but not the sure-fire elixir that will lay uncertainty to rest. Vivekananda's observation, to the extent anyone is willing to credit it, does not mean any of us has to run out and crank up the God Machine. Just because intellect and emotion may play second fiddle in this life does not mean "God" needs to play first violin, as many religions may assert.
What it does mean is that intellect and emotion are not the be-all and end-all that most of us are habituated to thinking. This is hard to credit from the point of view of a fine-tuned intellect or a feel-good emotional palace. If my long-standing habit is to 'think things through,' then naturally Buddhism is something I can think through, know and reach a conclusion about. I am the master of my fate, right? But then life throws us one curve ball or another and the master's mastery is thrown into question.
OK ... if anyone is willing to credit that intellect and emotion only reach so far and no further and if Buddhism provides a beckoning hand, then who or what IS the good master, to use Vivekananda's terminology? Is it "God" or "enlightenment" or "the ineffable" or "emptiness" ... who or what is the good master?
This is a question that is posed differently by each individual, but the question remains unanswered without experiential proof -- the kind of proof that intellect and emotion cannot provide. And in Buddhism, one recommended course of action is to meditate ... literally, sit down, shut up, sit still, and focus the mind. And does this course of action provide the answer to who the good master might be, the answer to what it is that stands at ease and free and outside the confines of intellect and emotion? The only way to know if meditation works is to try it. Experimenting on lab rats won't do the trick. Doing meditation is a decision and a choice and there is no one and nothing (including intellect and emotion) that can do it for you. You won't go to heaven if you do it (a religious paradigm) and you won't go to hell if you don't (another religious paradigm). It's just a quite scientific approach to a problem that science can never answer: Me. You. Us... the stuff that will be around no matter how long science may ply its wonderful trade.
Sorry for all the blather.
The physical sciences are little more than scaffolding placed against X. The only thing that is growing larger is the scaffolding. X is still a mystery.
But let's not forget that Buddhism, too, is a science if by science we mean: "The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied" (Oxford English Dictionary). The science of Buddhism goes much deeper than the useful fictions of our physical sciences. It penetrates through the very veil of phenomena. It comes to know the very substance of all compositions, both mental and physical.
Finally somebody got the Illusion of Science pegged down.
No, never
because
science is worldly
Buddha's Teaching is world beyond
if we here and now still we suffer
if we here and now we are in NEP
Buddha's Teaching is world beyond means
Vimutti
which is beyond NEP
/Victor
"As there is indeed a world beyond, if anyone has the conception that there is not a world beyond, it is a false conception of his....As there is indeed a world beyond, if he convinces others that there is not a world beyond, that convincing of his is against true dhamma, and because of that convincing which is against true dhamma, he is exalting himself and disparaging others" (trans. I.B. Horner, Apannaka sutta, M 60).
"As there is indeed a world beyond, if anyone has the conception that there is not a world beyond, it is a false conception of his....As there is indeed a world beyond, if he convinces others that there is not a world beyond, that convincing of his is against true dhamma, and because of that convincing which is against true dhamma, he is exalting himself and disparaging others" (trans. I.B. Horner, Apannaka sutta, M 60).
I think @Cloud was saying (and I agree) is that the Buddha's teachings--the medicine--is for beings in this "world," i.e. beings in conditioned existence. If we were already in the world-beyond (i.e. completely free of delusion) we wouldn't need any teachings.
@upekka's concise observation that Buddha's teaching is world beyond can be parsed both ways (that the teachings are beyond the world, or that their aim is beyond the world) so we'll have to leave it to @upekka to elaboriate if s/he wants to, or just let us koan it around
if we follow the Norble Eightfold Path as worldling (through insight meditation) we will be able to come to the Noble Right View
once one gains the Noble Right View/Sotapanna/First stage of the path to Nibbana one becomes a Noble Deciple (one of the Eight Type of Noble Deciples)
this is where one sees Nibbana (Nirvana)
(in suttas it says, sakkaya dhitti, viccikicca, seelabbatha paramasa is vanished from this point onwards)
from this point onwards one knows what Buddha tried to Teach us (Dhamma that is in front of us but we can not see because of our ignorance)
this is world beyond or beyond world
without Buddha's Teaching no one can see world beyond or beyond world
So science is inferior to Buddha's Teaching always and EVER
one thing more
seeing Nibbana is not that one is with Nibbana
one who see Nibbana has much more things to do to be with Nibbana
however he knows exactly what s/he should do
s/he does not need to depend on others
Granted that puthujjanas or the worldly have the potential to become current-enterers, the sad fact is they are not. No amount of dumbing down the teaching is going to save them. On their own, they must personally behold the unconditioned; only then do they enter the path. It ain't easy.
"Few among people are those who reach the farther shore (pâragâmino): the other people here run along (this) shore" (Dhammapada, 85).
Before science gave us the washing machine, we had to depend on our arms and legs ... involved a lot of effort and sweat to get things done.
Now we have to depend on our will ... expend a lot of effort to be mindful. But once technology ... well, you get the idea.
Science had nothing to do with the washing machine. History tells us the Shakers invented a prototype washing machine called a wash mill (1858). Shakers were great inventors. They invented things like the apple peeler, metal pen nibs, the flat broom (I was at the Shaker village and watched them being made). The circular saw (invented by a woman), waterproof and wrinkle-free cloth, a metal chimney cap that blocked rain, and improved on the plow.
The Shakers were quite remarkable. They lived to be almost twice as old as the average American in the 19th century. They loved and respected children. Besides the Swedish, they made furniture for children (yep, little potties, beds and chairs). Their system of government was way ahead of the times. The only religious symbol they had was the tree (bodhi tree?). I have always envisioned a Shaker like community of Buddhists. Shakers are well worth studying.
Meanwhile the religious myths, rigidity and dogma that serves to control and/or soothe human fears will dissipate.
I don't think I'll see that end result in my lifetime, nor in my grand-children's lifetime.... but it will happen.
I'm feeling hopeful anyhow, because we can see it happening now; just getting started really- more and more people around the world rejecting the notion of blind faith, resisting the 'need' to let religion infiltrate politics (and vice versa). Other people see this happening too, and that's why the frantic backlash from religious/political nutbags (right-wing extremist Republicans and T-baggers) seems to be at a fevered pitch lately.
I think the world will be better off in the long run.
Thailand -- 95%
Cambodia -- 90%
Burma -- 88%
Bhutan -- 75%
Sri Lanka -- 70%
Tibet -- 65%
Laos -- 60%
Vietnam -- 55%
Japan -- 50%
1. Science-based understanding
2. Personal/individualized spiritual beliefs
He gives the second dharma seal, "All emotions are painful," and explains: "Many religions worship things like love with celebration and songs. Buddhists think, 'This is all suffering.'”
@vinlyn
" 2. Personal/individualized spiritual beliefs "
That's exactly what I meant...
I should have included the words "personal/individual" before spirituality of connection.
Thanks for being clearer
I've noticed that too.
You know, I've always said, with age comes the ability, -no, the necessity- to cut through much of Life's (and people's) BS ... and just get to the heart of the matter and realize that Practicality begins to trump 'romanticism' in most areas of life.
I guess most of the time we're just two old peas in a pod..... ? LOL
However, anyone who knows me would probably agree that I have been 'old' since I'm about 10!
But I've always been fun - and a bit irreverent, too!