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.
There is just 'one' thing I still cant understand about Buddhist path to Enlightenment..
@Floating_Abu, I liked your post. The main idea of my sangha is samaya between the practitioner and awakened beings which brings us to our own awakening. This is called adhistana. A bodhisattva creates a pureland that draws beings toward them and toward awakening.
Thankyou Jeffrey. It is my great good fortune to have been aided by many Awakened friends. The effect is undeniable. My own teacher shines like light, pureness of clarity and skin as bright as baby even though he is 3 times my own age. I once met a Thai Forest Ajahn - he shined like light, spoke of things that sounded purely ludicrous to any skeptical intellect, but his joy, his light, and his knowing could not be hidden.
For the record, there's nothing wrong with cherry-picking. I was only saying that the unscientific parts of BUddhism (I, myself, had never heard of the 32 Realms, and all the complex cosmology that the Buddha taught, before joining NB) get ignored by the people who say Buddhism is scientific. It's definitely Buddhism, because the Buddha taught it, but cosmology and in some cases, rebirth tend to get left out of Western secular Buddhism, which is what is referred to as "scientific".
And if we look at how Buddhism has adapted to different cultures, we see local influences which, also, aren't scientific. Believing in the power of a mantra, how scientific is that? But who says that "scientific" is "good", and "un-scientific", or "faith-based" is bad? That's not at all the point, and we don't need to make value judgments, we can all choose the form of Buddhism we prefer. But in order to have a Buddhism that's scientific, it means not only stripping Buddhism of folk practices, it also means dismissing some of the Buddha's teachings, certain sutras, anyway. But one person's "cherry-picking" is another's "pure Buddhism", i.e. adhering to what the Buddha actually taught. This is a subject of endless debate. So...to each his/her own.
The question of whether Buddhism is scientific or not depends on how we define Buddhism. That's a patch of quicksand best avoided, for this discussion, at least.
@misecmisc1 Could you provide a sutric reference to the passage you mentioned, where Brahma told the Buddha to teach the Dharma? I'm not familiar with that. Thanks.
As I understand it, the Buddha never denied the existence of Brahma, did he?
For the record, there's nothing wrong with cherry-picking. I was only saying that the unscientific parts of BUddhism (I, myself, had never heard of the 32 Realms, and all the complex cosmology that the Buddha taught, before joining NB) get ignored by the people who say Buddhism is scientific. It's definitely Buddhism, because the Buddha taught it, but cosmology and in some cases, rebirth tend to get left out of Western secular Buddhism, which is what is referred to as "scientific".
And if we look at how Buddhism has adapted to different cultures, we see local influences which, also, aren't scientific. Believing in the power of a mantra, how scientific is that? But who says that "scientific" is "good", and "un-scientific", or "faith-based" is bad? That's not at all the point, and we don't need to make value judgments, we can all choose the form of Buddhism we prefer. But in order to have a Buddhism that's scientific, it means not only stripping Buddhism of folk practices, it also means dismissing some of the Buddha's teachings, certain sutras, anyway. But one person's "cherry-picking" is another's "pure Buddhism", i.e. adhering to what the Buddha actually taught. This is a subject of endless debate. So...to each his/her own.
The question of whether Buddhism is scientific or not depends on how we define Buddhism. That's a patch of quicksand best avoided, for this discussion, at least.
@misecmisc1 Could you provide a sutric reference to the passage you mentioned, where Brahma told the Buddha to teach the Dharma? I'm not familiar with that. Thanks.
As I understand it, the Buddha never denied the existence of Brahma, did he?
I have been formally trained in science (microbiology to be specific) and to me the idea that buddhism is a scientific endeavor is slightly misguided. Science is based on the senses and what can be empirically observed through those senses. It is also reproducible and peer reviewed (more or less an extension of reproducibility).
If buddhism says that the five senses and the faculties of the brain are merely aggregates onto which "we" cling, then in the most strict sense, buddhism is already beyond science (despite that what is learned can apply to the world of senses). It seems that what people are trying to say when they say that buddhism is scientific, is that it follows a reproducible pattern of cause and effect (ultimately what science seeks to discover in the observable world).
So if we ignore that science deals in empirical evidence, then buddhism fits a bit more with science; however, even then, science is limited by the fact that the "evidence" generated through buddhist practice isn't readily shared. It can't be recorded in a journal or analyzed for hidden biases or factors that may change the conclusion. It requires the "peer reviewer" to have a practice of his/her own and have realized the same things.
I guess what I am trying to say is that at best a buddhist practice is logical, but not scientific. If you must attribute it to science, then perhaps it is a new type of personal science which deals with the areas beyond what traditional science strives to describe.
In the end, trying to say that buddhism is more this or that, is just another debate that distracts us from our practice, which is what is all that is necessary for liberation. I say call buddhism whatever you want: philosophy, religion, or science, but don't pretend that it changes the way we practice.
In the end, trying to say that buddhism is more this or that, is just another debate that distracts us from our practice, which is what is all that is necessary for liberation. I say call buddhism whatever you want: philosophy, religion, or science, but don't pretend that it changes the way we practice.
I don't even understand why people feel like they have to qualify Buddhism (or anything for that matter) as "scientific" for it to be seen as "good."
I think it's the Western science-based culture and mindset that tend to do that. Look at all the Buddhist practitioners in Asia who would find it very puzzling to even consider that Buddhism might be "scientific". How can you mix faith, or religion, and science, they would probably ask.
By the general Western worldview, science = reality-based = "good", faith = "superstition" = "bad".
I think it's the Western science-based culture and mindset that tend to do that. Look at all the Buddhist practitioners in Asia who would find it very puzzling to even consider that Buddhism might be "scientific". How can you mix faith, or religion, and science, they would probably ask.
By the general Western worldview, science = reality-based = "good", faith = "superstition" = "bad".
Yeah, I'm just wondering how Western society came to this point of "science = good; faith = bad," seeing as how it has pretty strong roots in Christianity.
But even this whole deal about science vs faith is a false dichotomy. Many scientists are also religious, and many religious people "believe in" science.
It's sort of annoying how society always posits things in this binary fashion, as if there's no such thing as an in-between.
I think it's the Western science-based culture and mindset that tend to do that. Look at all the Buddhist practitioners in Asia who would find it very puzzling to even consider that Buddhism might be "scientific". How can you mix faith, or religion, and science, they would probably ask.
By the general Western worldview, science = reality-based = "good", faith = "superstition" = "bad".
Yeah, I'm just wondering how Western society came to this point of "science = good; faith = bad," seeing as how it has pretty strong roots in Christianity.
But even this whole deal about science vs faith is a false dichotomy. Many scientists are also religious, and many religious people "believe in" science.
It's sort of annoying how society always posits things in this binary fashion, as if there's no such thing as an in-between.
I'm not sure that our society does say faith = bad. I think it's more a recognition that some people cannot differentiate between faith and fact.
@misecmisc1 Could you provide a sutric reference to the passage you mentioned, where Brahma told the Buddha to teach the Dharma? I'm not familiar with that. Thanks.
My question is straight-forward: are all Suttas in Tipitaka valid? if the above Sutta is valid, then Brahma should exist, then whatever all is said in Hinduism cannot be a just made-up story without any basis.
Moreover, i think in some Suttas it is said that Buddha did tell about the experiences of beings in heaven and hell - about Devas living in heaven, about sufferings in hell etc.
moreover, what is scientific can only be seen/understood through this physical body - but what if there exists something which is beyond this physical realm , like realm of consciousness, which may exist outside the boundary of physical realm and cannot be reached through activities in external world, but can be reached only by going in the inner world. so does claiming a religion to be scientific really leads us to the truth?
All that be known or perceived goes through our sense of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and thoughts. Science is attempting to extend our abilities through tools such as microscopes, telescopes etc. There is nothing beyond our senses, as you alluded to.
Moreover, somewhere i have read about the supernatural powers which Buddha attained - like the story of calming the wild elephant, seeing past lives of other people etc. So these indicate there can exist something beyond this physical realm in which we live, something like a realm of consciousness which is outside the boundary of physical realm and so beyond the boundary in which science operates. Just an analogy came to my mind - it can be something similar to - a fish lives in water, so if a fish is asked - is there a possibility that there be a realm of existence consisting of air in which a creature called bird flies? - then the fish will from its point of view say that - how can there be a different realm of existence from this water realm, in which the fish exist. So similarly we as in physical bodies are living in physical realm, but there exists a possibility that there be a realm of consciousness, which is outside the boundary of physical realm and so cannot be found outside in external world, but only inside in the inner world.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." Rohitassa Sutta
Moreover i think this Sutta also indirectly says that entire cosmos in inside our bodies - in a way suggesting that the outer world(Samsara) is a projection of our mind, so the mind can transcend the physical plane of existence if the mind is completely drawn inwards, and then those realities (which is outside the physical plane of existence) can be known.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
When Buddha confronted Mara, he was in a meditative state. Does that mean Mara doesn't exist?
To me, it isn't that gods don't exist so much as that they have no power/control over an awakened mind.
When I think of Brahma I feel we could really be the many carnations of Vishnu. However, my idea of what God could be is closer to Taoism where the name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
Yeah, I'm just wondering how Western society came to this point of "science = good; faith = bad," seeing as how it has pretty strong roots in Christianity.
But even this whole deal about science vs faith is a false dichotomy. Many scientists are also religious, and many religious people "believe in" science.
It's sort of annoying how society always posits things in this binary fashion, as if there's no such thing as an in-between.
It might have something to do with the Western so-called "Enlightenment" period, considered the Age of Reason? Superstition was supposed to be abandoned (which the witch-burnings and so on helped to achieve). I'm not up on that aspect of history, but it did have to do with the evolution of philosophy in the West, emphasizing logic and science and rationality.
@misecmisc1 Could you provide a sutric reference to the passage you mentioned, where Brahma told the Buddha to teach the Dharma? I'm not familiar with that. Thanks.
My question is straight-forward: are all Suttas in Tipitaka valid? if the above Sutta is valid, then Brahma should exist, then whatever all is said in Hinduism cannot be a just made-up story without any basis.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." Rohitassa Sutta Moreover i think this Sutta also indirectly says that entire cosmos in inside our bodies - in a way suggesting that the outer world(Samsara) is a projection of our mind, so the mind can transcend the physical plane of existence if the mind is completely drawn inwards, and then those realities (which is outside the physical plane of existence) can be known.
Fascinating material. "Are all the Suttas in the Tipitika valid?" I think that's potentially a real hornet's nest of a question, that different scholars would answer different ways. Some say that some of the suttras show a clear influence from Indian culture and beliefs. Some scholars only go by the earliest suttras as a guide re: what the Buddha said, vs. what others added later. But then, even among those scholars who identify some suttras as "authentic" and others not, there are differences of opinion. So just do what works for you, unless you want to spend years reading all these people's opinions, sort through them, decide which arguments are valid, and make a major study of it all, in order to get a satisfactory answer to your question. I go through phases of being intrigued by all that, but it would be very time-consuming to seriously dedicate myself to studying it, sending queries to the scholars, etc. etc.
I can tell you that if you were to write Stephen Batchelor (you can google him to get his website, which has an email address for contacting him) and ask him, he would most likely say that the sutra you mention is a later influence. But if you'd like to try that experiment, I'd be interested. If you do go through with it, please let us know the result. It's a very good question.
My question is straight-forward: are all Suttas in Tipitaka valid? if the above Sutta is valid, then Brahma should exist, then whatever all is said in Hinduism cannot be a just made-up story without any basis.
Moreover, i think in some Suttas it is said that Buddha did tell about the experiences of beings in heaven and hell - about Devas living in heaven, about sufferings in hell etc.
...
Moreover, somewhere i have read about the supernatural powers which Buddha attained - like the story of calming the wild elephant, seeing past lives of other people etc. So these indicate there can exist something beyond this physical realm in which we live, something like a realm of consciousness which is outside the boundary of physical realm and so beyond the boundary in which science operates. Just an analogy came to my mind - it can be something similar to - a fish lives in water, so if a fish is asked - is there a possibility that there be a realm of existence consisting of air in which a creature called bird flies? - then the fish will from its point of view say that - how can there be a different realm of existence from this water realm, in which the fish exist. So similarly we as in physical bodies are living in physical realm, but there exists a possibility that there be a realm of consciousness, which is outside the boundary of physical realm and so cannot be found outside in external world, but only inside in the inner world.
...
Interesting and thought provoking post.
I am moving more toward the view that it matters less whether Buddha actually said something, than whether it is a valid teaching. And I have come to the conclusion that there are some references in the Dhamma which may be more Hindu-centric, in terms of culture and time, which may have no relevance to us today. And, then there's the issue of things like parables and the like, which may be just stories to make a point, rather than factual. When it comes to things like heaven and hell and Devas (etc.), I don't know, and don't believe or disbelieve in them...I'll keep an open mind.
The question about Buddha's supernatural powers...well, here I go back to keeping the same standard as we use for other religions. I question (but not eliminate) the "magic" of Jesus, so I will question it for the "magic" of Buddha, as well. But still, I'll retain an open mind about such matters.
I see myself moving more and more toward seeing Buddhism as a philosophy, rather than a religion.
I dont seem to understand why Buddhists, (especially MONKS) havent achieved Awakening by following Buddhas Path. I have spoke to many Teachers, Masters, Practitioners and Lay people (from all over the world) and I havent found one person who is Awaken or Enlightened by following the path (of course we all agree with buddha and follow his teachings but that 'ache feeling' is still within us)..
(Just like when Prince Siddartha left home because he had this 'aching pain in his heart', he went searching for Enlightenment) And his found it and then shared his teachings... BUT..
But if the 8 fold path is the way to Enlightenment, then why arnt 'all' the monks Enlightened? Ive been lucky enough to meet many monks and i always asked the same question. 'Have you achieved the goal of Enlightenment? and the answer is always NO!
I dont want to sound like a troll.. Im just that this question keeps bugging me every now and again..
Does anyone have any answers to this pls?
If it is just this thing you do not understand then would you mind giving us heads up on the rest?
@misecmisc1 - regarding the "superpowers" of the Buddha, one of my professors said that a modernist/secular Buddhist way of interpreting such events (as well as his miraculous birth) is simply to understand these tales as ways of describing the Buddha as an extraordinary individual. We may not necessarily believe he banished demons from Sri Lanka or whatever, but we may believe that his teachings spread to that geographic region and created - to Buddhists at the time - a "peaceful" and "holy" area.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
But if the 8 fold path is the way to Enlightenment, then why arnt 'all' the monks Enlightened? Ive been lucky enough to meet many monks and i always asked the same question. 'Have you achieved the goal of Enlightenment? and the answer is always NO!
It is called the 8 fold path not the 8 fold destination. People on the path need to walk it and not just take a teleporter to the mountaintop.
Moreover i think this Sutta also indirectly says that entire cosmos in inside our bodies - in a way suggesting that the outer world(Samsara) is a projection of our mind, so the mind can transcend the physical plane of existence if the mind is completely drawn inwards, and then those realities (which is outside the physical plane of existence) can be known.
The Buddha taught many things, but start where you are. Speculation is a waste of valuable time, and time is short.
Best wishes, Abu
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I have to admit the term "supernatural" never sat well with me. If something happens, it happens naturally. No thing is more natural than anything else.
I'm reminded of a parable but I can't remember where I heard it. It may even be a sutta but am not sure.
A woman's child dies of disease and she (hearing that Buddha was teaching nearby) was so grief stricken that she refused to bury him and instead took the body to Buddha. She knew he was a performer of miracles and begged him to bring back her son. He said he could help her but first she had to return to her village and bring him back a mustard seed from a household that has never suffered the loss of
I have to admit the term "supernatural" never sat well with me. If something happens, it happens naturally. No thing is more natural than anything else.
I have to admit the term "supernatural" never sat well with me. If something happens, it happens naturally. No thing is more natural than anything else.
Yup
Yes, which means that what normally gets labeled "supernatural" is actually quite natural. It's science that has a lot of catching up with reality to do.
Yeah, I'm just wondering how Western society came to this point of "science = good; faith = bad," seeing as how it has pretty strong roots in Christianity.
I'm not a historian, but didn't it have something to do with Europe's age of Enlightenment (how ironic)?
Yes, which means that what normally gets labeled "supernatural" is actually quite natural. It's science that has a lot of catching up with reality to do.
Agree
But I don't think science can ever capture those elements because that's not what science is about. Science is about witnessable, verifiable, repeatable (i.e. controllable by humans only) phenomena.
I would be a complete sceptic - conservative and straight up - but I have seen enough now to be reformed, with grace.
Comments
May you be very well.
Abu
And if we look at how Buddhism has adapted to different cultures, we see local influences which, also, aren't scientific. Believing in the power of a mantra, how scientific is that? But who says that "scientific" is "good", and "un-scientific", or "faith-based" is bad? That's not at all the point, and we don't need to make value judgments, we can all choose the form of Buddhism we prefer. But in order to have a Buddhism that's scientific, it means not only stripping Buddhism of folk practices, it also means dismissing some of the Buddha's teachings, certain sutras, anyway. But one person's "cherry-picking" is another's "pure Buddhism", i.e. adhering to what the Buddha actually taught. This is a subject of endless debate. So...to each his/her own.
The question of whether Buddhism is scientific or not depends on how we define Buddhism. That's a patch of quicksand best avoided, for this discussion, at least.
@misecmisc1 Could you provide a sutric reference to the passage you mentioned, where Brahma told the Buddha to teach the Dharma? I'm not familiar with that. Thanks.
As I understand it, the Buddha never denied the existence of Brahma, did he?
@Floating_Abu Nice passages you provided.
If buddhism says that the five senses and the faculties of the brain are merely aggregates onto which "we" cling, then in the most strict sense, buddhism is already beyond science (despite that what is learned can apply to the world of senses). It seems that what people are trying to say when they say that buddhism is scientific, is that it follows a reproducible pattern of cause and effect (ultimately what science seeks to discover in the observable world).
So if we ignore that science deals in empirical evidence, then buddhism fits a bit more with science; however, even then, science is limited by the fact that the "evidence" generated through buddhist practice isn't readily shared. It can't be recorded in a journal or analyzed for hidden biases or factors that may change the conclusion. It requires the "peer reviewer" to have a practice of his/her own and have realized the same things.
I guess what I am trying to say is that at best a buddhist practice is logical, but not scientific. If you must attribute it to science, then perhaps it is a new type of personal science which deals with the areas beyond what traditional science strives to describe.
In the end, trying to say that buddhism is more this or that, is just another debate that distracts us from our practice, which is what is all that is necessary for liberation. I say call buddhism whatever you want: philosophy, religion, or science, but don't pretend that it changes the way we practice.
:cool:
By the general Western worldview, science = reality-based = "good", faith = "superstition" = "bad".
But even this whole deal about science vs faith is a false dichotomy. Many scientists are also religious, and many religious people "believe in" science.
It's sort of annoying how society always posits things in this binary fashion, as if there's no such thing as an in-between.
My question is straight-forward: are all Suttas in Tipitaka valid? if the above Sutta is valid, then Brahma should exist, then whatever all is said in Hinduism cannot be a just made-up story without any basis.
Moreover, i think in some Suttas it is said that Buddha did tell about the experiences of beings in heaven and hell - about Devas living in heaven, about sufferings in hell etc. Moreover, somewhere i have read about the supernatural powers which Buddha attained - like the story of calming the wild elephant, seeing past lives of other people etc. So these indicate there can exist something beyond this physical realm in which we live, something like a realm of consciousness which is outside the boundary of physical realm and so beyond the boundary in which science operates. Just an analogy came to my mind - it can be something similar to - a fish lives in water, so if a fish is asked - is there a possibility that there be a realm of existence consisting of air in which a creature called bird flies? - then the fish will from its point of view say that - how can there be a different realm of existence from this water realm, in which the fish exist. So similarly we as in physical bodies are living in physical realm, but there exists a possibility that there be a realm of consciousness, which is outside the boundary of physical realm and so cannot be found outside in external world, but only inside in the inner world. Moreover i think this Sutta also indirectly says that entire cosmos in inside our bodies - in a way suggesting that the outer world(Samsara) is a projection of our mind, so the mind can transcend the physical plane of existence if the mind is completely drawn inwards, and then those realities (which is outside the physical plane of existence) can be known.
I think it depends on what we mean by "exist"...
When Buddha confronted Mara, he was in a meditative state. Does that mean Mara doesn't exist?
To me, it isn't that gods don't exist so much as that they have no power/control over an awakened mind.
When I think of Brahma I feel we could really be the many carnations of Vishnu. However, my idea of what God could be is closer to Taoism where the name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
"Are all the Suttas in the Tipitika valid?" I think that's potentially a real hornet's nest of a question, that different scholars would answer different ways. Some say that some of the suttras show a clear influence from Indian culture and beliefs. Some scholars only go by the earliest suttras as a guide re: what the Buddha said, vs. what others added later. But then, even among those scholars who identify some suttras as "authentic" and others not, there are differences of opinion. So just do what works for you, unless you want to spend years reading all these people's opinions, sort through them, decide which arguments are valid, and make a major study of it all, in order to get a satisfactory answer to your question. I go through phases of being intrigued by all that, but it would be very time-consuming to seriously dedicate myself to studying it, sending queries to the scholars, etc. etc.
I can tell you that if you were to write Stephen Batchelor (you can google him to get his website, which has an email address for contacting him) and ask him, he would most likely say that the sutra you mention is a later influence. But if you'd like to try that experiment, I'd be interested. If you do go through with it, please let us know the result.
I am moving more toward the view that it matters less whether Buddha actually said something, than whether it is a valid teaching. And I have come to the conclusion that there are some references in the Dhamma which may be more Hindu-centric, in terms of culture and time, which may have no relevance to us today. And, then there's the issue of things like parables and the like, which may be just stories to make a point, rather than factual. When it comes to things like heaven and hell and Devas (etc.), I don't know, and don't believe or disbelieve in them...I'll keep an open mind.
The question about Buddha's supernatural powers...well, here I go back to keeping the same standard as we use for other religions. I question (but not eliminate) the "magic" of Jesus, so I will question it for the "magic" of Buddha, as well. But still, I'll retain an open mind about such matters.
I see myself moving more and more toward seeing Buddhism as a philosophy, rather than a religion.
lol.
When you say it sounds pretty strange.
Victor
Best wishes,
Abu
I'm reminded of a parable but I can't remember where I heard it. It may even be a sutta but am not sure.
A woman's child dies of disease and she (hearing that Buddha was teaching nearby) was so grief stricken that she refused to bury him and instead took the body to Buddha. She knew he was a performer of miracles and begged him to bring back her son. He said he could help her but first she had to return to her village and bring him back a mustard seed from a household that has never suffered the loss of
But I don't think science can ever capture those elements because that's not what science is about. Science is about witnessable, verifiable, repeatable (i.e. controllable by humans only) phenomena.
I would be a complete sceptic - conservative and straight up - but I have seen enough now to be reformed, with grace.
Best wishes,
Abu