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 no such thing as a 'Buddhist' Truth and a 'Scientific' Truth.
Neither are actually about capital T Truth. Scientific truths are held to be tenuous or truths that may be revised with further research. Religious truths are about meaning. Religious truths don't have to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
Although I like the way you put it, it is the perfect example of a slippery slope.
Slippery slope?
Well, first, you're right about science. And I think even in science, truths should be small case "t". I think where some people make a mistake is thinking that the interpretation of science is infallible or complete. Science is always a journey, and rarely do we reach the end point of the journey. Sometimes we do...I think we can safely say, for example, that our solar system revolves around the sun. But when you look, for example, about the discovery of new drugs...we're always only seeing part of the "truth".
But I really don't think that there is such a thing as a religious truth or a religious Truth. If I'm going to say that someone can discover truth through a mere vision, then I am not going to say only Christ or Buddha or Mohammad has that talent. If I'm going to say that the Bible is Truth, then I will have to also say that Buddhist scriptures and the Koran are Truth. At best, "religious truths" or "religious Truths" are posits.
But I really don't think that there is such a thing as a religious truth or a religious Truth. If I'm going to say that someone can discover truth through a mere vision, then I am not going to say only Christ or Buddha or Mohammad has that talent. If I'm going to say that the Bible is Truth, then I will have to also say that Buddhist scriptures and the Koran are Truth. At best, "religious truths" or "religious Truths" are posits.
Did the Buddha have a mere vision? Or was it more than a vision that he had? Do others have the ability to have the same or similar experiences? Maybe, maybe not. Do all the religions contain Truth? Maybe, maybe not? The scientific attitude isn't that complicated. Its mainly about not pretending to know what you don't know.
But I really don't think that there is such a thing as a religious truth or a religious Truth. If I'm going to say that someone can discover truth through a mere vision, then I am not going to say only Christ or Buddha or Mohammad has that talent. If I'm going to say that the Bible is Truth, then I will have to also say that Buddhist scriptures and the Koran are Truth. At best, "religious truths" or "religious Truths" are posits.
Did the Buddha have a mere vision? Or did he have a profound insight into the nature of reality?
1. We'll never know, but since his profound insights were not completely correct, it's all in question.
2. It doesn't matter, at least in terms of this discussion, which is about science and Buddhism. Even profound insights are not scientific discovery.
But I really don't think that there is such a thing as a religious truth or a religious Truth. If I'm going to say that someone can discover truth through a mere vision, then I am not going to say only Christ or Buddha or Mohammad has that talent. If I'm going to say that the Bible is Truth, then I will have to also say that Buddhist scriptures and the Koran are Truth. At best, "religious truths" or "religious Truths" are posits.
Did the Buddha have a mere vision? Or did he have a profound insight into the nature of reality?
And what about Mohammad, was he a visionary or a prophet and messenger of God?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
2. It doesn't matter, at least in terms of this discussion, which is about science and Buddhism. Even profound insights are not scientific discovery.
The scientific method could be applied to profound insights. A profound insight could be the beginning of a hypothesis that could be further studied scientifically, depending on the insight of course.
An insight like no-self, for instance, couldn't be studied scientifically because there's no way to test immaterial things.
1. We'll never know, but since his profound insights were not completely correct, it's all in question.
Maybe we will never know. Maybe his insights were not completely correct. My knowledge of Buddhism and my knowledge of the nature of reality are very incomplete.
I would have said it this way: "I doubt we will ever know, but since his profound insights don't seem to be in agreement with current scientific understanding, it's all in question.
2. It doesn't matter, at least in terms of this discussion, which is about science and Buddhism. Even profound insights are not scientific discovery.
It matters what the source of the Buddhas knowledge/wisdom was, because that could give us an idea of whether its accurate or not. You say profound insight isn't scientific discovery. First of all, "profound insight" isn't well defined, so its something to investigate rather than make assumptions about. Secondly, I don't think we know whether the Buddhas methods of obtaining his insights were scientific or not. I think you may be using a definition for science which restricts it to material investigation, peer reviews, etc. As long as we have different definitions of the word 'science' we are bound to have conflicting views.
I would have said it this way: "I doubt we will ever know, but since his profound insights don't seem to be in agreement with current scientific understanding, it's all in question.
If you know of any scientific investigations into the Buddhas profound insights please post them, otherwise it would be apparent that the Buddha's profound insights are not in agreement or disagreement with current scientific understanding.
"profound insight" isn't well defined, so its something to investigate rather than make assumptions about.
Anattā is well defined.
Secondly, I don't think we know whether the Buddhas methods of obtaining his insights were scientific or not.
We know with certainty that they were not.
I think you may be using a definition for science which restricts it to material investigation, peer reviews, etc. As long as we have different definitions of the word 'science' we are bound to have conflicting views.
2. It doesn't matter, at least in terms of this discussion, which is about science and Buddhism. Even profound insights are not scientific discovery.
The scientific method could be applied to profound insights. A profound insight could be the beginning of a hypothesis that could be further studied scientifically, depending on the insight of course.
An insight like no-self, for instance, couldn't be studied scientifically because there's no way to test immaterial things.
You are correct. Could be the beginning of a hypotheses that could be studied further. But there is no evidence that I am aware of that Buddha took that approach. Hence, it's not science.
And yes, I think I agree that immaterial things can't be tested. Hence, that's not science either. ALthough, isn't the study of psychiatry about immaterial things...and that is a science?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
.... And yes, I think I agree that immaterial things can't be tested. Hence, that's not science either. ALthough, isn't the study of psychiatry about immaterial things...and that is a science?
This dude seems to think Science and Buddhism could communicate on many levels....
No, it doesn't. Saying things happen by chance is just that, saying things happen by chance. It is not saying that there is something you don't know that is unknowable. Again, there is no mystery here. Probability is a very simple thing without any magic to it.
In every other application of probability theory that I am aware of, probability distributions represent ignorance (the not-knowing kind, not the I-don't-want-to-know kind.) Why do we say a coin has a 50% chance of landing heads-up? Because we don't know the precise conditions in which it's thrown. If we do, then we can give a more precise distribution. (See fig. 2, p. 67.) In other words, in every other application probability distributions are subjective in the sense that their precision reflects the information used to calculate them. More information leads to more precise distributions.
It's only in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that probability distributions are seen as having some kind of independent ontological reality, i.e., that the ignorance is swept under the rug as inherently unknowable. (The ignorance implied by the imprecision in the distributions predicted by QM, that is.)
But what does this still have to do with Buddhism.. I don't know. So I'll leave it at this for now.
Totally agree, but somehow, I can't put this down. Judging from the thoughts which proceed my coming over here to check for a response, I am showing off and compensating for a deep sense of inadequacy to the job of becoming a valued member of society. It is shameful, and I should go meditate.
Well that's the point. In everyday life probability describes the outcome of a process, like rolling a dice. In QM, probability is the process. In the usual interpretation there is no need to automatically assume a deeper mechanism, because the model and the maths works so beautifully with probability as the mechanism. That's not ignorance. We could also search for a mechanism behind gravity, but at a certain point it just stops getting deeper because it appears it is just the way nature is - masses attract each other, end of story. Not that I don't support looking deeper, but I think one should also keep in mind that there may not necessarily be any deeper explanation.
What could we as Buddhists learn from this? In the suttas we also see the Buddha saying some questions are inappropriate. Who am I? What will I be? Those questions are incorrect because they assume something that is not there. To wonder "what is the mechanism behind QM probability?" for now seems to be a similar question. And as I said before, I think that is beautiful because it makes us accept we don't understand nature by intellect. We just accept her as she behaves. Getting to know Dhamma is similar to me. At a certain point questions end and answers don't exist.
And yes, I think I agree that immaterial things can't be tested. Hence, that's not science either. ALthough, isn't the study of psychiatry about immaterial things...and that is a science?
Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disorders. Apparently it's more akin to religion, in being a belief system, than to science.
.... And yes, I think I agree that immaterial things can't be tested. Hence, that's not science either. ALthough, isn't the study of psychiatry about immaterial things...and that is a science?
This dude seems to think Science and Buddhism could communicate on many levels....
Good communication includes the ability to listen and possessing an open-mind.
I think this discussion might benefit from a look at the etymology of the word science:
"c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from Old French science, from Latin scientia "knowledge," from sciens (genitive scientis), present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- (cf. Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)).
I think, at least on this basis, you can say Shakyamuni was 'scientific'.
Then there is a nice quote:
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"
Sorry Vinyl and Nevermind but I can't agree (yet). Religious truths do not change, no kind of truth ever changes. This is why it's called a truth. If it can change then it is not a truth. And Buddhist 'visions' are no different to scientific observations. In both cases they acqaint us with empirical facts. Yes, we can misinterpret our observations, and we can confuse deceptive visions with facts, and that's why we must be scientific and continually check our facts and our interpretations. The Buddha did not rely on visions. A vision requires a vision and a seer of the vision. This is two things, which is one too many for a direct knowledge of truth.
I can imagine a scientist in the Matrix arguing that his/her observations are facts. In reality they are naive and false visions, while Neo's insights into reality are empirical, more profound and more true.
The suggestion seems to be that Buddhists can never be certain that the theories they form from the visions they have are actually true. But this is to make a mockery of Buddhism.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point being made. The idea that religious truths don't have to be true seems just plain daft to me. If a truth is not true it is not a truth, and I'm not even sure I can distinguish between a scientific and a religious truth, or why anyone would bother.
1. We'll never know, but since his profound insights were not completely correct, it's all in question.
Oh. I didn't know this. Which bits did he get wrong?
How can an incorrect insight be called an insight? I would call it a failure to have an insight.
I'm going to give you an unsatisfactory answer. I can't remember what I read back in the 1980s that led me to that conclusion, although I do remember thinking that it was all sort of nebulous and not able to be substantiated.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point being made. The idea that religious truths don't have to be true seems just plain daft to me. If a truth is not true it is not a truth, and I'm not even sure I can distinguish between a scientific and a religious truth, or why anyone would bother.
Vinlyn addressed this succinctly by pointing out how different religions have different Truths. For example, according to Hinduism there is ātman and according to Buddhism there is anātman. How can both be true? Why doesn't it matter?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was bringing to question the whole concept of "religious truths" because I don't feel any religion has the right to claim they own the truth.
That's not ignorance. We could also search for a mechanism behind gravity, but at a certain point it just stops getting deeper because it appears it is just the way nature is - masses attract each other, end of story. Not that I don't support looking deeper, but I think one should also keep in mind that there may not necessarily be any deeper explanation.
You mean like how Einstein investigated it more deeply and developed the General Theory of Relativity? If he had only shared your attitude, we might not be burdened with this knowledge today.
But I agree with you that there may not be any deeper explanation, I just think it's inaccurate to pretend that we know there's none, which is what the Copenhagen interpretation does.
Those questions are incorrect because they assume something that is not there. To wonder "what is the mechanism behind QM probability?" for now seems to be a similar question.
This analogy is highly ironic, because the role of appropriate attention is to foster greater awareness of the causes and conditions of the current moment of karma so that karma can evolve more skillfully in future, and eventually cease. "What conditions caused this particle to pass through the diffraction slit at that angle?" is a perfectly appropriate question. "The angles follow this probability wave distribution" is an answer, but to pretend we know it's the complete answer is ignorance on roughly the same scale as "I'm angry about half the time, and it's just the way I'm wired."
That's not ignorance. We could also search for a mechanism behind gravity, but at a certain point it just stops getting deeper because it appears it is just the way nature is - masses attract each other, end of story. Not that I don't support looking deeper, but I think one should also keep in mind that there may not necessarily be any deeper explanation.
You mean like how Einstein investigated it more deeply and developed the General Theory of Relativity? If he had only shared your attitude, we might not be burdened with this knowledge today.
But I agree with you that there may not be any deeper explanation, I just think it's inaccurate to pretend that we know there's none, which is what the Copenhagen interpretation does.
Those questions are incorrect because they assume something that is not there. To wonder "what is the mechanism behind QM probability?" for now seems to be a similar question.
This analogy is highly ironic, because the role of appropriate attention is to foster greater awareness of the causes and conditions of the current moment of karma so that karma can evolve more skillfully in future, and eventually cease. "What conditions aused this particle to pass through the diffraction slit at that angle?" is a perfectly appropriate question. "The angles follow this probability wave distribution" is an answer, but to pretend we know it's the complete answer is ignorance on roughly the same scale as "I'm angry about half the time, and it's just the way I'm wired."
I was never taught general relativity because it was unimportant for my profession, therefore I forgot about it. Thanks for correcting me there. But the point was the analogy. I could draw the same analogy with general relativity as the mechanic. For now there seems to be nothing deeper there, if I'm correct.
It's not about not knowing there is some deeper mechanic, it's about not needing one. For now there are no experiments that need the explanation of a deeper mechanic. If it's complete as is, then it is complete as is. You may think that's inaccurate and that's fine, I applaud that view. But that's something else than calling it arrogant. A scientific point of view is not about having an attitude like that. I don't say things must be this and that way, that's exactly what I argued against before. I'm open for a deeper mechanic, but if there is no need for it, I won't automatically assume it. Call it ignorant if you wish, but it aint.
Your question may be 'inappropriate', if there is no condition that causes the particle to land at a certain location. But in terms of science it's a fine question. That's where the analogy loses it strength I agree, but analogies only go so far. I think you drew it between things that I didn't intend to.
At some point in science perhaps there will never be any answers for deeper mechanics. It can't keep going forever with a mechanic behind a mechanic. For now that mechanic seems to be chance, however hard to accept for some, but perhaps that mechanic is something else and then what? Then we don't understand the why of that. So at the very least people have to accept that we don't understand the why behind everything. And we just have to accept. Like the Dhamma. That was the main analogy. I think that's where science and Buddhism can also learn from each other.
@Sabre, I think we agree on the points I care about.
Just want to note, though: GR came straight from Einstein's head. There were no experimental results motivating its development, and there was no experimental support until roughly a decade after he'd published it, and then only because people were specifically looking to test his theory. An inquisitive attitude matters for these kinds of developments. If he'd just said, "Well, the world just prefers inertial motion, that's just the way it is. How wonderful the universe is, how wonderful that I can't know these things about it!" it might have taken much longer for GR to be developed.
It was probably a pretty miserable form of samsara for him, though.
@Sabre, I think we agree on the points I care about.
Just want to note, though: GR came straight from Einstein's head. There were no experimental results motivating its development, and there was no experimental support until roughly a decade after he'd published it. An inquisitive attitude matters for these kinds of developments. If he'd just said, "Well, the world just prefers inertial motion, that's just the way it is. How wonderful the universe is, how wonderful that I can't know these things about it!" it might have taken much longer for GR to be developed.
It was probably a pretty miserable form of samsara for him, though.
Yeh - ALL of Einstein's stuff came straight from his head.
@John_Spencer: Actually, his work on the photo-electric effect, which introduced the notion of quantized energy states and for which he won the Nobel prize, was addressing a paradox in experimental results. The same for his work on Brownian motion. Even his work on special relativity was motivated by the results from the Michelson-Morley experiment.
@John_Spencer: Actually, his work on the photo-electric effect, which introduced the notion of quantized energy states and for which he won the Nobel prize, was addressing a paradox in experimental results. The same for his work on Brownian motion. Even his work on special relativity was motivated by the results from the Michelson-Morley experiment.
What I was trying to say was that the paradox he addressed was in his head. That's where the paradox starts not 'out there' in reality.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
[What I was trying to say was that the paradox he addressed was in his head. That's where the paradox starts not 'out there' in reality.
Everything starts with mind.]
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point being made. The idea that religious truths don't have to be true seems just plain daft to me. If a truth is not true it is not a truth, and I'm not even sure I can distinguish between a scientific and a religious truth, or why anyone would bother.
Vinlyn addressed this succinctly by pointing out how different religions have different Truths. For example, according to Hinduism there is ātman and according to Buddhism there is anātman. How can both be true? Why doesn't it matter?
Stories don't need to be true to be meaningful.
Wow. I had no idea Buddhism was held in such low regard by Buddhists.
Of course, not all religious doctrines are true. When they are not true they are not truths. A religious truth is called this becasue it is true. If it is not true then why would anyone call it a truth? I really struggle with the idea that there are truths that are not true.
What seems to be being said here is that Buddhist doctrine is not true, but it's meaningful. I would happily argue against this pernicious idea all day an night, and am amazed to hear it being said here. Why would anyone want to practice if not to discover truth?
But at least this explains how it is posible to argue for a division betwen science and Buddhism. If the method leads to a false doctrine then science must reject it. First. however. there is the task of showing that it is not true. Difficult when Nagarjuna proves it is true.
It is certainly no good just stating that it is not true. I'm sorry to be so hard-nosed about this @vinyl, but to say that the Buddha's 'visions' were incorrect and then not to be able to justify this with examples is just about as unscientific an approach to the issues as I can imagine.
This is weirdest discussion I've seen on this wonderful forum.
Comments
But I really don't think that there is such a thing as a religious truth or a religious Truth. If I'm going to say that someone can discover truth through a mere vision, then I am not going to say only Christ or Buddha or Mohammad has that talent. If I'm going to say that the Bible is Truth, then I will have to also say that Buddhist scriptures and the Koran are Truth. At best, "religious truths" or "religious Truths" are posits.
"You" can't just say you're scientific.
2. It doesn't matter, at least in terms of this discussion, which is about science and Buddhism. Even profound insights are not scientific discovery.
Let's stick to topic, thanks.
An insight like no-self, for instance, couldn't be studied scientifically because there's no way to test immaterial things.
Maybe we will never know. Maybe his insights were not completely correct. My knowledge of Buddhism and my knowledge of the nature of reality are very incomplete.
I would have said it this way:
"I doubt we will ever know, but since his profound insights don't seem to be in agreement with current scientific understanding, it's all in question.
2. It doesn't matter, at least in terms of this discussion, which is about science and Buddhism. Even profound insights are not scientific discovery.
It matters what the source of the Buddhas knowledge/wisdom was, because that could give us an idea of whether its accurate or not. You say profound insight isn't scientific discovery. First of all, "profound insight" isn't well defined, so its something to investigate rather than make assumptions about. Secondly, I don't think we know whether the Buddhas methods of obtaining his insights were scientific or not. I think you may be using a definition for science which restricts it to material investigation, peer reviews, etc. As long as we have different definitions of the word 'science' we are bound to have conflicting views.
And yes, I think I agree that immaterial things can't be tested. Hence, that's not science either. ALthough, isn't the study of psychiatry about immaterial things...and that is a science?
What could we as Buddhists learn from this? In the suttas we also see the Buddha saying some questions are inappropriate. Who am I? What will I be? Those questions are incorrect because they assume something that is not there. To wonder "what is the mechanism behind QM probability?" for now seems to be a similar question. And as I said before, I think that is beautiful because it makes us accept we don't understand nature by intellect. We just accept her as she behaves. Getting to know Dhamma is similar to me. At a certain point questions end and answers don't exist.
"c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from Old French science, from Latin scientia "knowledge," from sciens (genitive scientis), present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- (cf. Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)).
I think, at least on this basis, you can say Shakyamuni was 'scientific'.
Then there is a nice quote:
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"
I can imagine a scientist in the Matrix arguing that his/her observations are facts. In reality they are naive and false visions, while Neo's insights into reality are empirical, more profound and more true.
The suggestion seems to be that Buddhists can never be certain that the theories they form from the visions they have are actually true. But this is to make a mockery of Buddhism.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point being made. The idea that religious truths don't have to be true seems just plain daft to me. If a truth is not true it is not a truth, and I'm not even sure I can distinguish between a scientific and a religious truth, or why anyone would bother.
How can an incorrect insight be called an insight? I would call it a failure to have an insight.
But something that I have read more recently that I really think helps explain this aspect of Buddha's teaching is at: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/was_the_buddha_omniscient.html
Stories don't need to be true to be meaningful.
But I agree with you that there may not be any deeper explanation, I just think it's inaccurate to pretend that we know there's none, which is what the Copenhagen interpretation does. This analogy is highly ironic, because the role of appropriate attention is to foster greater awareness of the causes and conditions of the current moment of karma so that karma can evolve more skillfully in future, and eventually cease. "What conditions caused this particle to pass through the diffraction slit at that angle?" is a perfectly appropriate question. "The angles follow this probability wave distribution" is an answer, but to pretend we know it's the complete answer is ignorance on roughly the same scale as "I'm angry about half the time, and it's just the way I'm wired."
If it's an insight into the nature of reality it's just that. It's true.
Same with scientific insights into the nature of reality.
If it's an insight - it's true. That's what defines insight.
I have more faith that the Buddha saw things truly than I do any scientist (controversial?)
If you see into something you see the truth in that 'thing'.
Realising that 2+2 = 4 is insight into the nature of reality.
True in that sense.
Insight in that sense.
It's not about not knowing there is some deeper mechanic, it's about not needing one. For now there are no experiments that need the explanation of a deeper mechanic. If it's complete as is, then it is complete as is. You may think that's inaccurate and that's fine, I applaud that view. But that's something else than calling it arrogant. A scientific point of view is not about having an attitude like that. I don't say things must be this and that way, that's exactly what I argued against before. I'm open for a deeper mechanic, but if there is no need for it, I won't automatically assume it. Call it ignorant if you wish, but it aint.
Your question may be 'inappropriate', if there is no condition that causes the particle to land at a certain location. But in terms of science it's a fine question. That's where the analogy loses it strength I agree, but analogies only go so far. I think you drew it between things that I didn't intend to.
At some point in science perhaps there will never be any answers for deeper mechanics. It can't keep going forever with a mechanic behind a mechanic. For now that mechanic seems to be chance, however hard to accept for some, but perhaps that mechanic is something else and then what? Then we don't understand the why of that. So at the very least people have to accept that we don't understand the why behind everything. And we just have to accept. Like the Dhamma. That was the main analogy. I think that's where science and Buddhism can also learn from each other.
Insight can't 'prove' itself to someone else.
Someone else has to develop insight.
Person B's insight is anatman.
Both are meaningful. Neither must to be true.
Just want to note, though: GR came straight from Einstein's head. There were no experimental results motivating its development, and there was no experimental support until roughly a decade after he'd published it, and then only because people were specifically looking to test his theory. An inquisitive attitude matters for these kinds of developments. If he'd just said, "Well, the world just prefers inertial motion, that's just the way it is. How wonderful the universe is, how wonderful that I can't know these things about it!" it might have taken much longer for GR to be developed.
It was probably a pretty miserable form of samsara for him, though.
Then he went and investigated it.
(It can't work the other way round).
Everything starts with mind.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
[What I was trying to say was that the paradox he addressed was in his head. That's where the paradox starts not 'out there' in reality.
Everything starts with mind.]
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
Of course, not all religious doctrines are true. When they are not true they are not truths. A religious truth is called this becasue it is true. If it is not true then why would anyone call it a truth? I really struggle with the idea that there are truths that are not true.
What seems to be being said here is that Buddhist doctrine is not true, but it's meaningful. I would happily argue against this pernicious idea all day an night, and am amazed to hear it being said here. Why would anyone want to practice if not to discover truth?
But at least this explains how it is posible to argue for a division betwen science and Buddhism. If the method leads to a false doctrine then science must reject it. First. however. there is the task of showing that it is not true. Difficult when Nagarjuna proves it is true.
It is certainly no good just stating that it is not true. I'm sorry to be so hard-nosed about this @vinyl, but to say that the Buddha's 'visions' were incorrect and then not to be able to justify this with examples is just about as unscientific an approach to the issues as I can imagine.
This is weirdest discussion I've seen on this wonderful forum.