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.
Buddhism And Science
in Philosophy
Its always amazed me how The Buddha actually discovered a lot of things 2000 plus years before modern science. Theres a lot more videos out there and tons of books on the subject but heres something for those who are interested.
part 2
part 3
part 2
part 3
0
Comments
There's a great deal of knowledge in science.
Why anyone feels it necessary to combine the two, I don't know.
The best advice I can give anyone in any religion is that famous quote: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (modify slightly for the religion of your choice).
P.S. I have two degrees in the geosciences, concentrating in invertebrate paleontology. So I'm very "into" science.
It should not be surprising that we will find some commonalities along the way.
And just as a general point, just because Einstein or HHDL said that science and Buddhism could be cool with each other, I don't see why that should make the point more valid. I think what's more important is if we agree according to our own experience.
These videos about quantum physics and all that are wayyyy over my head, so it's difficult for me to even begin to try and connect the dots (not that I really care to). It doesn't really work in my experience, so I'm not really going to make any claims. If anything, I'd personally tout the benefits of meditation.
I understand the point about restricting science and religion to their own territory but if the dhamma is true then this has direct implications for science, so I don't think it's possible.
It is possible, and to me it seems likely, that the next major advance in physics will be recognising the elegance and usefulness of Buddhist cosmology. Before that, however, physics has to find out what it is. At this point physicists as a rule do not have the slightest idea, and are staunchly detirmined not to find out.
Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. That is the key to abundance and abundance will go a long way towards opening the eyes of those of us afraid of running out.
Greed, hunger and war are symptoms of the greatest disease that ever inflicted mankind. Us and "them". This disease can be cured.
Alberts quote can't be confirmed by him but I agree wholeheartedly with both H.H. Dalai Lama and whoever penned that the quotes about Buddhism attributed to Einstein.
Perhaps you could outline for me some specific experiments that Buddha conducted using the scientific method, rather than seeing things through a vision. Because, quite clearly, you have no concept of what science really is.
This is one way buddhism is scientific!!!
also, i was not actually aware that the quotes were attributed to Einstein, I thought he actually did say such things. But the Dalai Lama did actually mention what I said a number of times on video and books.
Im in total agreement with him.
His intuition is being proven correct by science. You aren't making any sense.
I would suggest Hawking's The Grand Design except when he says "nothing" think of emptiness.
this "vision" as you call it has been proven...2000 years AFTER buddha already explained it
@vinlyn
To put it bluntly, without intuition, there would be no science.
And yes, as a person who is degreed in the sciences, and who taught science for years, I am defensive about science because the integrity of science must always be protected. And I'm not being a bit more defensive about the integrity of science than you are being about the all-knowingness of Buddha (and yes, I realize that is not a real word).
Sure, as soon as science disproves certain Buddhist ideas, they should be discarded. But to go the other way, use science as a mean to 'prove' Buddhism does injustice to both Buddhism and science, and is not particularly useful for individual practitioners. All of this in my humble opinion.
But I guess it's all ok if we treat it skillfully and don't grasp at it.
If I were to draw parallels between the Buddha and science, it wouldn't be the topics of these videos, but about how the Buddha was willing to challenge anyone and anything until he found his answers. Science ideally does the same. In this way, Buddhism is science of the mind. To get deeper and find out what's happening in there and why, that's what we as Buddhists should do. And not believing because somebody says it be it a scientist or a sutta, but only when we can replicate it and really belief it is it true. This was also how I was taught as a scientist, to even check the most simple assumptions in a test. In this respect science and Buddhism can teach other world views a lot.
I think many people who make videos of parallels between Buddhism and scientific topics haven't really tested or studied either of them and are just relying on texts. That's not Buddhism and that's not science as I see it.
All that aside, I'm not going to argue at all the wrong things I see in these videos as a scientist and a buddhist. I admit I just skipped through, but one thing I think deserves some attention. The 'observer' in the double slit experiment is a device, not a mind.. So again a false parallel drawn there. Quantum physics works perfectly without having to define something like a mind. And so, it doesn't, at least not in mainstream physics or I wouldn't heard about it.
To quote Heisenberg, which the video also is very willing to quote - but of course not the quote below: So, another point why I think these videos do injustice towards both science and Buddhism.
I do like the idea behind “codependent arising”; the understanding of phenomena in their context, as processes and basically denying their “inherent existence”. It sounds like a modern philosophical approach to me.
Yes right now that is yet to be proven, but in 2012 a planet was discovered having 2 suns in its orbit.
Dont you think its interesting the buddha was really the first one to say something that probably seemed so bizarre during that time in history, and now that very thing is very logically possible?
Yes Buddhism is about the mind...no doubt...but to dismiss anything scientific within buddhism when things have been proven? why not dismiss the whole thing?? he talked about the universe AND the mind.
this is nothing new people.
Sumeru software?
Sumeru art of living?
All 3 are going well. Thanks for asking
To prove solar systems can have more than one sun (I thought it was proven many years ago?) doesn't say anything about the correctness of that sutta about the seven suns burning the earth. Apparently it takes just 5 to dry up the oceans...
The only thing that could be special is the sutta talking about more than one sun. I'm not a historian, but I just think that's not something unique to Buddhism in ancient literature.
Since the Buddha apparently also said he wouldn't teach anything that didn't lead to the end of suffering makes me think suttas such as these were added later and are not part of the Buddha's teachings. Even if they were, no need to take them literal anyway.
My ex was like that, one of the reasons she broke up with me was because I converted to buddhism and started to support science.
So....I support science!!
When science is divorced from spirituality, you get lots of advances in technology but little advancement in other regards.
@ourself - I couldn't agree more enthusistically. 'Separated by fools'!! Brilliant. The comment 'If religion cannot be scientific it is a waste of time' represents my view also. I simply cannot understand how we could draw a line between science and religion, or why we'd want to do it. Everybody's studying the same universe.
Scientists - interested in the fundamental nature of reality
Difference: one search ends suffering, the other doesn't?
It is certainly possible for a man to separate his religious beliefs with his scientific knowledge. There are times the two may intersect.
Those who oppose evolution are not members of any religion that I recognise, but some bowdlerised and profoundly unscientific version of Christianity. A straw man in this discussion. Only in the US is evolution a big issue, and it's all a bit odd. If you're saying that we should separate such unscientific approaches to religion from science then yes, I'd be all for it.
But really I feel that to link Buddhism, or religion more generally, to science it is better to go via metaphysics. It is easier to start by identifying the implications of a religious views for metaphysics, and then identifying the implications of the resultant metaphysics for physics. Going direct is tricky.
It is telling , I think, that science has not yet refuted or falsified even one statement made by Nagarjuna in his Fundamental Wisdom, despite their boldness and astonishing implications for theoretical physics. This suggests that he did not depend on unreliable visions but checked his facts.
Also @swaydam I'm not saying separate the two totally. I think there areas where they can work together and there are areas where they don't. Areas where the two might work together, like current studies on the benefit of meditation, are very promising.
But these videos are about totally different things, atoms and universes. Apart from some phrases, the Buddhist scripture's descriptions of the universe are not really in line with scientific understanding. Also, the Buddha never taught quantum physics and quantum physics doesn't need a 'mind' or 'consciousness' to work. So no need to equate the two, or draw parallels that imply too much.
Take this example to clarify: Consciousness exists. That's 100% clear to us, because we experience it. But did any scientific test ever have the capability to prove this? No. And I predict it will not happen, simply because one can't measure it.
And can your meditation prove insight into the nature of sub-atomic particles? No.
So I guess to summarize my opinion, to respect and know the boundaries of both science and Buddhism, I think is important. These videos do not represent this. If anything, they represent pseudoscience. And that can be deceiving.
What about nonlocality? I can see no other explanation than to suppose extension is an illusion of some kind. It's not an uncommon view in science. Indeed, one physicist calls our idea of extended time and space a 'mystical illusion'. Predictably, he misses the fact that according to mysticism it is a scientific illusion.
Sorry, too many posts. It's a hobby-horse of mine.