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.
How Buddhist theories/concepts stand today in the face of modern science?
Those who believe they have understood ultimate are so bothered by the simplest facts.
Ok I'll play along.. Please state as much facts as I need to know about anything. I'm here to read, listen, and learn more so than I am here to post my opinions. I have not made any claims to understanding anything "ultimate". Please do correct any of my flaws and guide me towards your common correct way and understanding.
You cant make a sarcastic passive aggressive statement and end it with metta. Sarcasm used in a passive aggressive way is not lovingkindness even if you end it with metta.
You cant make a sarcastic passive aggressive statement and end it with metta. Sarcasm used in a passive aggressive way is not lovingkindness even if you end it with metta.
but lets not get sidetracked here...
I don't think I wrote anything "sarcastic" or "aggressive". Metta is for all living beings. All living beings share metta. Metta is beyond all human antics and mischiefs.
You cant make a sarcastic passive aggressive statement and end it with metta. Sarcasm used in a passive aggressive way is not lovingkindness even if you end it with metta.
but lets not get sidetracked here...
I don't think I wrote anything "sarcastic" or "aggressive". Metta is for all living beings. All living beings share metta. Metta is beyond all human antics and mischiefs.
May all beings be free of suffering
To be honest, Ric, you read that into what he wrote. I don't see anything sarcastic or aggressive, either.
I realize its my fault for saying that little things bother people who cling to conventional truths. I wasn't expecting anyone to take offense to that. sorry.
I know that we are getting way off topic but i think this might be a teachable moment
I didnt really take much offense to you personally but I just see kind of a traditional answer that seems somewhat demeaning that if somebody doesnt see what you see that it is because they are holding on to lesser truths thus making their reality somewhat inferior. But I realize that your intention was not to offend so Ill apologize too. And I have to also realize I do this too sometimes.
But cmon you and vinyl, "Please do correct any of my flaws and guide me towards your common correct way and understanding." Is this really not sarcastic or somewhat aggressive? Im not saying its a huge attack or that im offended but its definitely sarcastic with a tinge of aggressiveness. If not, then I have to work on my mental filter because it might be a bit dirty.
... But cmon you and vinyl, "Please do correct any of my flaws and guide me towards your common correct way and understanding." Is this really not sarcastic or somewhat aggressive?
I think it's one of the problems with the written word, particularly when we tend to write short on the internet. I can see that it could be sarcastic, or might not be sarcastic. If we were saying and listening together, we could tell by speech tone and body language. But with simply the written statement, you cannot tell...at least that's my view.
Ok well anyways..going back to the topic.. In my opinionated statement that was not directed towards anyone, "Those that hold strongly to conventional truths are so bothered by the simplest of notions." I just wanted to make a point about people who prefer science over religion. I don't have a problem with what they choose. If they prefer science that's great. I am just starting to notice that there is an attachment involved into believing something as "fact". That is all I wanted to say. When someone holds strong to unproven facts, they usually are quite often offended by anything else that is slightly different from that understanding.
Ok well anyways..going back to the topic.. In my opinionated statement that was not directed towards anyone, "Those that hold strongly to conventional truths are so bothered by the simplest of notions." I just wanted to make a point about people who prefer science over religion. I don't have a problem with what they choose. If they prefer science that's great. I am just starting to notice that there is an attachment involved into believing something as "fact". That is all I wanted to say. When someone holds strong to unproven facts, they usually are quite often offended by anything else that is slightly different from that understanding.
metta
It may not be that they prefer science over religion (at least in my case), it's that they feel there is the religious/spiritual realm for some things, and science for other things.
Somebody mentioned the Big Bang Theory. If I want to learn about that, I'll go to a scientific source. If I want to learn about a moral code, I'll go to the Dhamma or the New Testament. Each has its place.
Science has contributed more to overall human wellbeing than buddhism.
"Science" contributed to the arms race, to experimentation on animals and humans, to pollution of the environment, to mind-altering drugs, etc. "Science" does not devote itself to anything except the pursuit of worldly knowledge, which of course can lead to many benefits to the wellfare of living beings but also the detriment of many living beings.
The Buddha (not necessarily Buddhism) has contributed the greatest, most complete and most profound doctrine of truth in the history of this world, pointing the way to liberation, awakening, happiness, peace, and wellbeing for all sentient beings. He is unsurpassed.
You are not weighing the facts. The benefits of science, for example in medicine where billions of lives have been saved, extended or improved thanks to science, far far outweighs the negative that you choose to mention here. You perhaps are not considering that science benefits 99% of people of earth; Buddhism merely 5%. I have not doubt that, for some of those 5%, the benefits of Buddhism on their individuals lives may be greater than science, but my statement was about society as a whole.
Daozen you are probably using a different standard than others. For you the number of people are important. I think for many buddhists they view anything science to provide as a band aid.
Daozen you are probably using a different standard than others. For you the number of people are important. I think for many buddhists they view anything science to provide as a band aid.
And when they get sick they are more than happy to seek that band-aid.
Milarepa said that you are ok if you rest with the energy of sickness. Most people are not ready for that practice. I am not. I take medicine for sure.
Maybe something that people aren't quite realizing is that Buddhism is a science - the science of the mind.
sci·ence [sahy-uhns] –noun 1. A branch of knowledge or study that deals with a body of facts or truths that are systematically arranged and that show the operation of a general law. (www.dictionary.com)
Is Buddhism a branch of knowledge? Yes, it is. Does it deal with a body of truths? Yes, it does. Are they systematically arranged? Yes, they are. Do they show the operation of a general law? Yes, they do.
People who are scientifically inclined can derive a large amount of satisfaction from understanding the dhamma, and practicing the meditation. Likewise, people who take the dhamma, turn it into a dogma, and cling to it, can derive a large amount of satisfaction from letting go and entertaining the scientific aspect of the practice.
Correct Tikal2012. I don't look at science and religion as two opposites like some people. To me, science has evolved into something quite complex that the human being sometimes forgets that it had started from a certain point in time. Perhaps a time when people sat in church or meditation and wondered about different things, or how to improve something. Or perhaps a long time ago where the chief, the medicine man, or guru was the only doctor, scientist, religious leader that some people had. When I get sick, I take medicine. There isn't any witchdoctor where I live.
One point I think is worth considering here is that Dharma is true of all possible universes, not just this one.
There may be a universe made of musical notes or made of whims of gods, but if those universes contain causally interdependent changes then those universes will be subject to the Three Foundations of Existence and thus anything that experiences in those universes will be subject to The Four Noble Truths.
It is not a scriptural proclamation that Dharma is eternal and universal, it is a foundational truth that cannot be doubted, however hard one tries.
So of course science coheres with Dharma, but that isn't that remark-arable when you see that it couldn't be any other way- in this or any other possible world.
This is one of those often under-looked wonders of the Totality of Dharma.
Comments
metta
You cant make a sarcastic passive aggressive statement and end it with metta. Sarcasm used in a passive aggressive way is not lovingkindness even if you end it with metta.
but lets not get sidetracked here...
May all beings be free of suffering
may all beings be free of suffering
I didnt really take much offense to you personally but I just see kind of a traditional answer that seems somewhat demeaning that if somebody doesnt see what you see that it is because they are holding on to lesser truths thus making their reality somewhat inferior. But I realize that your intention was not to offend so Ill apologize too. And I have to also realize I do this too sometimes.
But cmon you and vinyl, "Please do correct any of my flaws and guide me towards your common correct way and understanding." Is this really not sarcastic or somewhat aggressive? Im not saying its a huge attack or that im offended but its definitely sarcastic with a tinge of aggressiveness. If not, then I have to work on my mental filter because it might be a bit dirty.
metta
Somebody mentioned the Big Bang Theory. If I want to learn about that, I'll go to a scientific source. If I want to learn about a moral code, I'll go to the Dhamma or the New Testament. Each has its place.
(Just kiddin :buck: )
sci·ence [sahy-uhns]
–noun
1. A branch of knowledge or study that deals with a body of facts or truths that are systematically arranged and that show the operation of a general law.
(www.dictionary.com)
Is Buddhism a branch of knowledge? Yes, it is.
Does it deal with a body of truths? Yes, it does.
Are they systematically arranged? Yes, they are.
Do they show the operation of a general law? Yes, they do.
People who are scientifically inclined can derive a large amount of satisfaction from understanding the dhamma, and practicing the meditation. Likewise, people who take the dhamma, turn it into a dogma, and cling to it, can derive a large amount of satisfaction from letting go and entertaining the scientific aspect of the practice.
Very well said! Buddhism is indeed a branch of science.
"Musical notes and whims of gods!" HEHE!