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.
Well, hate to tell you, but I've seen Buddhist cosmology displayed in dozens and dozens of Theravadan temples in Thailand. Very common.
From The Four Noble Truths by Geshi Tashi Tsering:
"When I was studying Buddhist philosophy, very few monks had any doubt about the accuracy of the cosmology in the traditional Abhidharma texts, which give precise dimensions for the universe; the vast majority believed that the structure and origin of the universe was exactly as the texts explained. Although a few elder monks still take the texts literally, nowadays most of the monks have either seen the outside world or have at least seen science documentaries. Whether their understanding of modern science is good or not, they no longer accept the Abhidharma explanation of the universe literally."
So I say again, Buddhism has already changed in the face of science.
Indeed. No western educated Vajrayana students as far as I am aware accept that there is a literal vast mountain at the centre of the universe. From what I gather even modern Theravadins accept that Buddhist cosmology is not a view based on ontological truth. In other words that it is poetic.
Well, hate to tell you, but I've seen Buddhist cosmology displayed in dozens and dozens of Theravadan temples in Thailand. Very common.
From The Four Noble Truths by Geshi Tashi Tsering:
"When I was studying Buddhist philosophy, very few monks had any doubt about the accuracy of the cosmology in the traditional Abhidharma texts, which give precise dimensions for the universe; the vast majority believed that the structure and origin of the universe was exactly as the texts explained. Although a few elder monks still take the texts literally, nowadays most of the monks have either seen the outside world or have at least seen science documentaries. Whether their understanding of modern science is good or not, they no longer accept the Abhidharma explanation of the universe literally."
So I say again, Buddhism has already changed in the face of science.
Okay, I guess that's good to hear, even though there would be evidence to the contrary.
Well, hate to tell you, but I've seen Buddhist cosmology displayed in dozens and dozens of Theravadan temples in Thailand. Very common.
From The Four Noble Truths by Geshi Tashi Tsering:
"When I was studying Buddhist philosophy, very few monks had any doubt about the accuracy of the cosmology in the traditional Abhidharma texts, which give precise dimensions for the universe; the vast majority believed that the structure and origin of the universe was exactly as the texts explained. Although a few elder monks still take the texts literally, nowadays most of the monks have either seen the outside world or have at least seen science documentaries. Whether their understanding of modern science is good or not, they no longer accept the Abhidharma explanation of the universe literally."
So I say again, Buddhism has already changed in the face of science.
What is the Abhidharma explanation of the universe? Dimensions as in size or time?
Does anybody know? That was interesting.
EDIT: Actually if somebody has any sutta references I would be gratefull. I already found a text about the cosmology but no sutta refs...
I think science is knowledge which can be made into a system, which depends on experimenting and testing stuff; then stating general natural laws.
I think the core of Buddhism is like this; even the Buddha said we shouldn't just believe him (or others), but we should test the teachings for our selves. I think this is why Buddhism is often described as 'not a belief system', it provides a framework where we can do our own experiments and find our own understandings.
Well, I don't have quite that negative a view of "the market". A few months ago I caught a movie that dated to around 1950. It was the story of a young married couple. The wife had a heart condition and was told by doctors to basically stay home, sit around, sleep more, etc. Turned out she had the same heart condition I now have, and the drug I take allows me to have a pretty full life...with a little being careful. The drug companies are making lots of money off of Metoprolol, but that drug is doing wonders for me and millions of other people.
My earlier comment about the scientific method can best be exemplified by a short story. When I was at university taking geomorphology (the study of landforms), we went on a little field trip to a large gravel pit. The assignment was to find a miniature landform in that gravel pit, develop a hypothesis about what leads to such a formation, and then make enough observations to support the hypothesis. I hypothesized that the angle at which a tributary stream enters the main stream is -- at least in part -- determined by the slope of the land. Was there some technology involved in my experiment? Yes -- a protractor, a level, and a pen. But did it have a financial outcome? No. And when you begin reading scientific journal articles in some fields, you will find that some have no real financial benefit to anyone. Thus the scientific method can be and is used whether or not there is going to be financial benefit to "the market".
@vinlyn I have a couple of relatives working in an medical drug producing company. I think you are forgetting the wonderful drugs that are NOT being produced due to the Market.
A drugcompany would produce a wonderful drug that keeps you healty as long as you take it but No(or few) drugcompanies sees any lasting market for a pill that cures your condition totally...(except like antibiotics because sickness always returns)...
I think I was seeing more global. You were funded by college funds. In the broader picture the money controls a lot of the science that is done. I recall in my studies that some professors doing fundamental research say on fluorine atom I can't remember but that guy had NSA grants and his research was more like yours in that it was fundamental and not directly courting technology. It could still be a starting point for technology years down the road. How do you know your thesis could have zero applications? There are a lot of cases like that and certainly fundamental research has it's role.
I think more along technology lines. My first(s) question to my internship professor was asking what the research can DO. It turned out that knowledge about the morphology of conductive polymers was an idea that could be helpful to xerox machines. And then my research in graduate school was funded partly on the idea of making polymers that turn colors in a printed plastic. All of the funding was from the armed forces to make portable maps. I guess i-phone scooped us?
My point is that there are different types of funding. NSA etc and military etc. My comment on the aspect of technology is a generalization. Every professor tried to put 'nano' or 'bio' in the headlines of their research just to get the money. When I was studying the professors who discovered conductive polymers got the nobel prize! So yeah I think funding directs science.
It's a truism to say that a theory whose consequence conflict with the facts can't be true. But if there are more theories than the one giving the same consequences, we have a problem.
Let's say that bruises (a) in children are due to parental abuse (b) so that a implies b. Bobby, who is 6 years old, comes to the ER with bruises (a). b is true Therefore, Bobby's parents abused him (a). Ergo, a is true.
This theory is rather limited and certainly not true in all cases because Bobby fell off of his bicycle.
This is not the scientific method but a parody of it. The method would be to consider all the possible causes of a. As it stands this chain of reasoning is idiotic. Obviously bruises may have more than one cause.
The scientific method would be to test the truth of the hypothesis that bruises are caused by parental abuse, not to take it for granted.
Scientists are often very dense when it comes to other topics, frighteningly so, but they are not often actually stupid.
pursuit of truth/buddha method/dharma scientists and technology/sangha
A science joke that I was sent. A neutron walks into a bar and orders a drink, he is reaching for his wallet when the barman stops him and says ' for you, there is no charge '.
Comments
"When I was studying Buddhist philosophy, very few monks had any doubt about the accuracy of the cosmology in the traditional Abhidharma texts, which give precise dimensions for the universe; the vast majority believed that the structure and origin of the universe was exactly as the texts explained. Although a few elder monks still take the texts literally, nowadays most of the monks have either seen the outside world or have at least seen science documentaries. Whether their understanding of modern science is good or not, they no longer accept the Abhidharma explanation of the universe literally."
So I say again, Buddhism has already changed in the face of science.
No western educated Vajrayana students as far as I am aware accept that there is a literal vast mountain at the centre of the universe.
From what I gather even modern Theravadins accept that Buddhist cosmology is not a view based on ontological truth. In other words that it is poetic.
Sorry. Small phone, big fingers and lousy english.
Does anybody know? That was interesting.
EDIT: Actually if somebody has any sutta references I would be gratefull. I already found a text about the cosmology but no sutta refs...
/Victor
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/universe/buddhist_cosmology_comparison_abhid.html
We studied Buddhist psychology based on the Abhidharma texts too; so I guess it's quite a hefty wide-ranging thing.
Other than that, I remember very little of what I was formally taught.
pursuit of truth/buddha
method/dharma
scientists and technology/sangha
Then I went to my favorite site and found this.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html
and google turned up this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma
I have just skimmed them but I see no references to suttas containeing the cosmology.
I will read the linked media properly to see if I find something.
Maybe I have an Abhidamma book somewhere ... Have a faint notion that I bought something on my latest trip to Sri Lanka. I'll have to dig.
Thanks!
/Victor
I think the core of Buddhism is like this; even the Buddha said we shouldn't just believe him (or others), but we should test the teachings for our selves. I think this is why Buddhism is often described as 'not a belief system', it provides a framework where we can do our own experiments and find our own understandings.
Just my own view.
EDIT: No forget the one above. This is what you are after @Jeffrey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Chami, Have a look at what Buddhism says about the creation of concepts like 'science' and the apprehending mind!
But seriously where should I read that ...Mom?
My earlier comment about the scientific method can best be exemplified by a short story. When I was at university taking geomorphology (the study of landforms), we went on a little field trip to a large gravel pit. The assignment was to find a miniature landform in that gravel pit, develop a hypothesis about what leads to such a formation, and then make enough observations to support the hypothesis. I hypothesized that the angle at which a tributary stream enters the main stream is -- at least in part -- determined by the slope of the land. Was there some technology involved in my experiment? Yes -- a protractor, a level, and a pen. But did it have a financial outcome? No. And when you begin reading scientific journal articles in some fields, you will find that some have no real financial benefit to anyone. Thus the scientific method can be and is used whether or not there is going to be financial benefit to "the market".
I think you are forgetting the wonderful drugs that are NOT being produced due to the Market.
A drugcompany would produce a wonderful drug that keeps you healty as long as you take it but No(or few) drugcompanies sees any lasting market for a pill that cures your condition totally...(except like antibiotics because sickness always returns)...
Its a dirty world...
/Victor
I think more along technology lines. My first(s) question to my internship professor was asking what the research can DO. It turned out that knowledge about the morphology of conductive polymers was an idea that could be helpful to xerox machines. And then my research in graduate school was funded partly on the idea of making polymers that turn colors in a printed plastic. All of the funding was from the armed forces to make portable maps. I guess i-phone scooped us?
My point is that there are different types of funding. NSA etc and military etc. My comment on the aspect of technology is a generalization. Every professor tried to put 'nano' or 'bio' in the headlines of their research just to get the money. When I was studying the professors who discovered conductive polymers got the nobel prize! So yeah I think funding directs science.
The scientific method would be to test the truth of the hypothesis that bruises are caused by parental abuse, not to take it for granted.
Scientists are often very dense when it comes to other topics, frighteningly so, but they are not often actually stupid.
A neutron walks into a bar and orders a drink, he is reaching for his wallet when the barman
stops him and says ' for you, there is no charge '.
Stephen Hawkings is telling a story at a party about when he was canal swimming in his youth.
"So" he says, "After a while I came to a barge in the canal that was to broad to pass by and it lay to deep to go under."
"Did you climb it?" asked another of the guests.
"No no" said Stephen "It was to slippery for me to get a grip, but anyway after a while I swam on..."
"Hold on" says the other guest "How did you do that if you neither could pass the barge on the sides nor climb it nor dive beneath it!!??"
"Well" says Stephen "You tell me, what else was I supposed to do?"
roflmao.
Get it? Thats how much sense QT makes.
/Victor