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.
"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline there is but one taste — the taste of freedom"
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.
First of all, Floradora (I know you won't mind me calling you that since you have never once gotten my screen name correct), this particular discussion is about the relationship between Buddhism and science. That's a particular context. And it is within that context that this discussion is taking place. And the basic stance of some of us is that Buddhism does not = science, and science does not = Buddhism. It doesn't mean there can't be relationships between the two spheres of thought, but they are not congruent. They each deal with different issues, a very few of which may overlap.
Most of the concepts in Buddhism (or Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism) have not been scientifically proven, which relates directly to the title of this thread. That is not to say that there's anything wrong with having a religious belief or religious belief system. Some of us on this forum have a Theravadan belief system, some a Mahāyānan belief system, some (like me) a mix of religious beliefs. That's fine. Whatever your religious belief is, is fine with me. But when you cross the line and say that your belief system is fact, then as a scientist and as a Buddhist, I'm going to shake my head and wag my finger...because no religious belief system has been proven to be fact.
I thought that one of the things we were supposed to do in Buddhism was to control our egos. Well, when I hear someone say that "even though the vast majority of people in the world are not Buddhists, they are all 100% wrong in their belief system, but we few select people have seen the true way" -- well, there's an ego that needs to be controlled. And when a fundamentalist Christian says that, I know you'll disagree with them. And when a Muslim says that, I know you'll disagree with them.
You seem to have the need in this issue to say that almost everyone else in the world is wrong and you and a few associates are the few enlightened (small "e") ones. Okay, prove it. Prove it. That's part of what this thread is about. And, you can't. It's perfectly fine to say, "I believe in..." It is not perfectly fine to say, "My beliefs are the only correct beliefs".
Meanwhile, while a few people are consumed with the need to say, "We're right and everyone else is wrong", the rest of us will just try our best to live by Buddhist principles -- the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Five Precepts -- just because they're wise and good and promote compassion. And if living by wise Buddhist principles isn't good enough for someone, then we'll just shrug our shoulders and go on doing it. (And, by the way, you might point out that I referred to the Four Noble Truths...note the word "Truth"; I referred to it that way because that's how a group of people have labeled them, not because they have been scientifically proven).
Sorry to butt in, but I'm seeing lots of equivocation going on. Just because X, Y, and Z can all be lumped as "religions" doesn't mean they have much in common. I also think "no religious belief system has been proven to be fact." is too sweeping. Certain core aspects of Buddhist views are easily provable by anyone with common sense. Attachment and delusion lead to suffering. That's a fact. The effects of right meditation are a fact.
@Vinlyn - A thousand apologies for my misreading of your name. As a fan of vinyl I lazily read that into the shape of the letters.
As for the rest, I feel you are just restating your view rather than egaging with those who disagree with you, and I do not understand your view, which appears to be highly critical of the Buddha and his teachings or at least to seriously underestimate them. But I don't know how to proceed without things getting out of hand.
You talk about the mistakes made by the Buddha but cannot mention one. You talk about religious truths until I object and then talk instead about religious beliefs, which are beside the point. A truth is not a belief and vice versa. Maybe lack of rigour is the issue. At any rate, I see no reason yet to modify my view.
How do you explain the Dalai Lama's statement that Buddhism is a science of mind? He is well aware of how science is defined.
Certain core aspects of Buddhist views are easily provable by anyone with common sense. Attachment and delusion lead to suffering. That's a fact. The effects of right meditation are a fact.
Attachment does not always lead to suffering. So, that's not a fact.
Not all people have the same result in meditation. So, that's not a fact.
@Vinlyn - A thousand apologies for my misreading of your name. As a fan of vinyl I lazily read that into the shape of the letters.
As for the rest, I feel you are just restating your view rather than egaging with those who disagree with you, and I do not understand your view, which appears to be highly critical of the Buddha and his teachings or at least to seriously underestimate them. But I don't know how to proceed without things getting out of hand.
You talk about the mistakes made by the Buddha but cannot mention one. You talk about religious truths until I object and then talk instead about religious beliefs, which are beside the point. A truth is not a belief and vice versa. Maybe lack of rigour is the issue. At any rate, I see no reason yet to modify my view.
How do you explain the Dalai Lama's statement that Buddhism is a science of mind? He is well aware of how science is defined.
Yes, it is clear that you cannot see what I am saying. So there is no sense in my saying anything more to you about it. If you don't get it, you don't get it. And that's fine.
Certain core aspects of Buddhist views are easily provable by anyone with common sense. Attachment and delusion lead to suffering. That's a fact. The effects of right meditation are a fact.
Attachment does not always lead to suffering. So, that's not a fact.
Not all people have the same result in meditation. So, that's not a fact.
From the context of Buddhist scripture this is not true, I feel. From the context of a yogi that would just be a fleeting perspective that passes through the mind. A yogi might find a self (apparently mistakenly) and that would just be the passing thoughts going through their mind.
By attachment I think it means that in attachment you develop reliance. Family, beliefs, feelings of mind. The problem is that these attachments inevitably end in the death of the phenomenon and that results in distress. This is the reason of the refuge. The universe is alive and dynamic around the refuge to the practitioner. Because it is all based on observing impermanence and so forth it is not limited to the lifetime of one object or belief, but rather it applies to all.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
From what I know of him from his posts here he has a background in philosophy and when he's talking about proven facts in Buddhism he is largely referring to Nagarjuna and his metaphysics, which from a philosophical proof standpoint can indeed be proven to be a fact. I could be wrong and feel free to correct or add to anything I've said.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I relistened to a Radiolab podcast today on emergence and it struck me that this idea fits quite well with the Buddhist notion of dependent arising.
Emergence basically says that independent seemingly chaotic phenomena can self harmonize and form into a larger coherent form without any need of a director in charge of the situation.
From what I know of him from his posts here he has a background in philosophy and when he's talking about proven facts in Buddhism he is largely referring to Nagarjuna and his metaphysics, which from a philosophical proof standpoint can indeed be proven to be a fact. I could be wrong and feel free to correct or add to anything I've said.
That's fine. He and I have a totally different point of view. And that's fine.
Thanks @Person. Nothing much to correct. It's not only N's metaphysics it's the entire doctrine I'm defending. But it doesn't need me to defend it so I'll retire.
From what I know of him from his posts here he has a background in philosophy and when he's talking about proven facts in Buddhism he is largely referring to Nagarjuna and his metaphysics, which from a philosophical proof standpoint can indeed be proven to be a fact. I could be wrong and feel free to correct or add to anything I've said.
From what I know of him from his posts here he has a background in philosophy and when he's talking about proven facts in Buddhism he is largely referring to Nagarjuna and his metaphysics, which from a philosophical proof standpoint can indeed be proven to be a fact. I could be wrong and feel free to correct or add to anything I've said.
Well, there does seem to be some disagreement on the subject, so you can stick to your view on the subject honestly, but this guy seems to think that philosophy should be categorized as a science.
If I'm honest, I haven't studied philosophy in school and what I'm talking about in regards to proofs I get largely from this talk by Oxford philosopher Marianne Talbot.
As a person oriented in the physical sciences, I would say it's not a science. Or at best a "soft science".
But, why exactly would we need to look at philosophy as a science? What's wrong with philosophy just being philosophy? It's a wonderful , interesting, and exciting field of study.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
As a person oriented in the physical sciences, I would say it's not a science. Or at best a "soft science".
But, why exactly would we need to look at philosophy as a science? What's wrong with philosophy just being philosophy? It's a wonderful , interesting, and exciting field of study.
This really isn't about what we call it but rather whether its proofs are falsifiable. It seems to me like the logic of any given statement can conclusively be said to be true or false. I've heard some arguments that are logically sound yet the preposition is flawed, so just because an argument is logically valid doesn't necessarily make it true. Nagarjuna was pretty thorough in his reasoning, I and many others are convinced.
The essential point of all this is whether these are belief systems or reasoned and valid conclusions.
Well, the title of the thread is about science and Buddhism, and a hard scientist would not rely on philosophy. Others, of course, may have a different viewpoint.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
This thread has mostly focused on the nature of reality. There is an actual way that Buddhism and science have been working together largely in the realm of psychology and emotion. There is a Mind and Life institute that meets regularly with HHDL to discuss certain questions and this leads to research into the mind and emotion.
Comments
Jesus called his path 'the way', not 'Christianity'.
Buddha called his path 'the path', not 'Buddhism'.
I don't doubt that both paths (and many others) have produced Enlightened beings.
Only once you have arrived in Rome can you see that all paths that lead there.
Most of the concepts in Buddhism (or Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism) have not been scientifically proven, which relates directly to the title of this thread. That is not to say that there's anything wrong with having a religious belief or religious belief system. Some of us on this forum have a Theravadan belief system, some a Mahāyānan belief system, some (like me) a mix of religious beliefs. That's fine. Whatever your religious belief is, is fine with me. But when you cross the line and say that your belief system is fact, then as a scientist and as a Buddhist, I'm going to shake my head and wag my finger...because no religious belief system has been proven to be fact.
I thought that one of the things we were supposed to do in Buddhism was to control our egos. Well, when I hear someone say that "even though the vast majority of people in the world are not Buddhists, they are all 100% wrong in their belief system, but we few select people have seen the true way" -- well, there's an ego that needs to be controlled. And when a fundamentalist Christian says that, I know you'll disagree with them. And when a Muslim says that, I know you'll disagree with them.
You seem to have the need in this issue to say that almost everyone else in the world is wrong and you and a few associates are the few enlightened (small "e") ones. Okay, prove it. Prove it. That's part of what this thread is about. And, you can't. It's perfectly fine to say, "I believe in..." It is not perfectly fine to say, "My beliefs are the only correct beliefs".
Meanwhile, while a few people are consumed with the need to say, "We're right and everyone else is wrong", the rest of us will just try our best to live by Buddhist principles -- the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Five Precepts -- just because they're wise and good and promote compassion. And if living by wise Buddhist principles isn't good enough for someone, then we'll just shrug our shoulders and go on doing it. (And, by the way, you might point out that I referred to the Four Noble Truths...note the word "Truth"; I referred to it that way because that's how a group of people have labeled them, not because they have been scientifically proven).
But then of course what isn't....
As for the rest, I feel you are just restating your view rather than egaging with those who disagree with you, and I do not understand your view, which appears to be highly critical of the Buddha and his teachings or at least to seriously underestimate them. But I don't know how to proceed without things getting out of hand.
You talk about the mistakes made by the Buddha but cannot mention one. You talk about religious truths until I object and then talk instead about religious beliefs, which are beside the point. A truth is not a belief and vice versa. Maybe lack of rigour is the issue. At any rate, I see no reason yet to modify my view.
How do you explain the Dalai Lama's statement that Buddhism is a science of mind? He is well aware of how science is defined.
Not all people have the same result in meditation. So, that's not a fact.
By attachment I think it means that in attachment you develop reliance. Family, beliefs, feelings of mind. The problem is that these attachments inevitably end in the death of the phenomenon and that results in distress. This is the reason of the refuge. The universe is alive and dynamic around the refuge to the practitioner. Because it is all based on observing impermanence and so forth it is not limited to the lifetime of one object or belief, but rather it applies to all.
From what I know of him from his posts here he has a background in philosophy and when he's talking about proven facts in Buddhism he is largely referring to Nagarjuna and his metaphysics, which from a philosophical proof standpoint can indeed be proven to be a fact. I could be wrong and feel free to correct or add to anything I've said.
Emergence basically says that independent seemingly chaotic phenomena can self harmonize and form into a larger coherent form without any need of a director in charge of the situation.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/is-philosophy-a-science/45795
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/philosophy-by-another-name/
If I'm honest, I haven't studied philosophy in school and what I'm talking about in regards to proofs I get largely from this talk by Oxford philosopher Marianne Talbot.
http://www.mariannetalbot.co.uk/podcasts/philosophy-for-beginners/2-the-philosophical-method-logic-and-argument/
But, why exactly would we need to look at philosophy as a science? What's wrong with philosophy just being philosophy? It's a wonderful , interesting, and exciting field of study.
The essential point of all this is whether these are belief systems or reasoned and valid conclusions.