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.
Does Buddhism work? How do we know?
Daozen
Veteran
Does Buddhism work?
How do we know?
Is Buddhism any different to quack medicine (things like faith healing and homeopathy), where the answers are "I believe it works for me" and "because I experienced it, try it and you'll see" ... ?
Related questions:
Can suffering (and its reduction) be measured in some objective way?
How might a clinical trial of Buddhism be conducted?
Is Buddhism able to be assessed objectively in general?
How do we know?
Is Buddhism any different to quack medicine (things like faith healing and homeopathy), where the answers are "I believe it works for me" and "because I experienced it, try it and you'll see" ... ?
Related questions:
Can suffering (and its reduction) be measured in some objective way?
How might a clinical trial of Buddhism be conducted?
Is Buddhism able to be assessed objectively in general?
1
Comments
Individually, Dukkha is subjective to a large extent, I think. Hard to design a test for that, although psychology has some tests that measure happiness and depression in a person.
Sociologists look at entire cultures and we can see in cultures that are mostly Buddhist people are no better or worse than other people, all things considered. People suffer under famine no matter what religion they have. However, a society is much more than its religion. So maybe we can look at temples.
Sorry, but even there most monks in a temple are no better or worse than anyone else. They have worries and struggle with their desires and hate their bosses sometimes.
If Buddhism had a magic solution, the world would be Buddhist by now. See, that whole "caused by selfish desires" thing? People don't want to give up their selfish desires. That's pretty much a given. What they want is for their desires to be met.
But looked at another way, Buddhism has about as much success on an individual level as measured by observing a person's behavior as any other religion does is producing a compassionate, wise person.
so does it work? depends on the persons desire, effort, and skillful means.
This is one of the reasons mindfulness based stress reduction was created. It is a simple 8 week course that can be replicated. Makes it easier for scientists to study.
There are many more study's on "meditation" and it's effects. They are not that hard to find.
No.
The same as any other clinical trial - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial
No.
Science cant really quantify "if it works" other then to observe how the actions of people change over time.
Kind of funny, the practice has done the opposite for me.. It has made me "colder" with regards the suffering of all beings, simply because ive come to realize that this is just how life is and all beings are stuck in it.
I dont have the "bleeding heart" anymore nor do i have a desire to change/save the world, which imo is good because it was based out of emotions and ignorance. Instead i have much more acceptance and simple compassion for the predicament of all beings. So I work on changing myself to make life better for both myself and others.
The most important thing, as ever, is to keep going with the practice. Thats the only way to find out for yourself how far it can take you.
Am I "enlightened"? No. But I certainly feel I have taken an important step in the right direction. That's the only thing that really matters.
The Buddha didn't stop practicing the day he became enlightened. The Buddhadharma is a path to be walked upon--it is an activity, not a destination.
'Forget enlightenment, just make sure you are facing the right direction'.
First, you're asking a group of Buddhists if Buddhism works. Do you really expect them to say "no"? If you posed the same question about Christianity to a forum of Christians, they'd be just as positive that Christianity worked. Same for any other religion.
Second, once again, why try to mix science and religion? It's about as practical as mixing religion and government. Render unto...
Third, even if you take a scientific field such as psychiatry, it's difficult to find overwhelming success. The best psychiatrist in the world is only successful to varying degrees with a range of patients.
Science might agree to certain small acknowledgements about Buddhism, but think about this: if tomorrow archaeologists discovered that key points about Siddhartha were totally wrong (after all, recently it was reported that he was around far earlier than previously thought), would you then throw up your hands and say Buddhist principles don't work?
As a person with 2 degrees in the sciences, I vote "no" to the OP.
From a very practical perspective it can be argued that what one promotes, what one builds up in life, tends to become reinforced, becomes stronger, maybe even habitual in one's life? So if one undertakes a practice that promotes joy, loving-kindness, equanimity, mindfulness and compassion, this overtime intertwines with one's character and outlook, and as with all actions bears a result. Does that "work"? Come from a different angle, promote and reinforce a Machiavellian nihilism in your life. What will those kind of actions work to bring about? All one's action will bear a result, what result does one want? What result "works"?
ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation
Also, some of the results of Buddhism work if they work for you. So some of the literature about the 'quantified self' might be relevant... that's where you take meticulous records of what you do and see if there is a correlation with outcomes you are interested in. Lots of pitfalls, but science is still better than making up your own conclusions according to whatever is pleasant to believe.
Each of us can practice our thing. From our experience what do we find?
I know my formal practice works.
I know following the practices of the eightfold path, works.
I know this not because of what science says, or what you say, or what is written or what the Cookie Monster believes.
I know experientially.
I know from experience as has been said:
Buddhism works for me
Your experience?
The Oracle: You know why Morpheus brought you to see me?
Neo: I think so.
The Oracle: So, what do you think? Do you think you're The One?
Neo: I don't know.
The Oracle: You know what that means? It's Latin. Means 'Know thyself'. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Being The One is just like being in love. No one can tell you you're in love, you just know it. Through and through. Balls to bones.
The Matrix
And should not a person who practices a spiritual path try and apply the values to all aspects of their life? (Eg. compassion, mindfulness).
Not to mention also that a person exploring various paths would do well to apply critical thinking (a key ingredient in science) to determine which paths may lead somewhere, and which lead nowhere or to somewhere negative. Which sciences?
Think about what science does. It takes some concept and questions whether or not there is a dependable outcome. For example, when is a new drug suitable for sale? When science says it solves or significantly improves a health condition without causing significant side effects for very many people.
I don't care what happens to the brain during prayer. The question is: does prayer do what it's supposed to do. The scientific answer appears to be no. Most things that most people pray about, do not happen. Does prayer have some other positive effect? Perhaps. Let's say it lowers blood pressure. Okay, fine. But that is not why the majority of the people who pray, pray.
There's nothing wrong with using the scientific method in your everyday life, but that is not the same as real science where similar outcomes should occur in the vast majority of cases (reliability) to be scientifically valid.
And I would add one other caution. Do we really want to put Buddhism up to the scientific test? Because keep in mind how ofter science shows us something different than we expect to find...the majority of the time.
Given the personal nature of the journey, I suppose that the subjective standard carries at least as much merit as its more-reliable-sounding cousin.
Thus the dharma to enlightenment can never be found by an objective analysis. That is because Nirvana is not objective or conditional. Buddha said that the range of a arhat during meditation is an imponderable. Thus a Buddha and an arhat are beyond the measurable.
To summarise the "results" so far, most comments seem to be along the lines of:
1. Hey, it works for me
Unfortunately, as I stated in the OP, this kind of response is far from satisfactory if we are trying to investigate (as I am) whether Buddhism has a demonstrable effect. It's not that I am saying these responses are 'wrong', but that anecdote doesn't equate to the kind of evidence I'm looking for. These kind of responses are also typical of believers of all kinds of demonstrably bogus theories, faith healing, homeopathy etc etc.
2. Science doesn't apply here
This I find strange. After all, Buddha presented his teaching not as a religion (although obviously it has taken on that status over time) but as a practice - a practice centred on meditation. And he claimed some pretty spectacular results - enlightenment, whatever that is
3. Science could apply here, but it' tricky, and the results are inconclusive
Now I think this might be getting closer to the murky truth. Digging further into this link uncovered a very helpful piece of research, where decades of meditation research was analysed. The conclusion:
"Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence."
This was also interesting (from the Wiki link): "Of more than 3,000 scientific studies that were found in a comprehensive search of 17 relevant databases, only about 4% had randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which are designed to exclude the placebo effect. Reviews of these RCTs consistently find that meditation without a focus on developing "mental silence", an aspect often excluded from techniques used in Western society, does not give better results than simply relaxing, listening to music or taking a short nap."
Right, i'm off for a short nap then
So the KKK was "right". Tens of thousands felt they had that "truth".
Funny how many "truths" people find that aren't true at all.
But let me ask you this: how do you define "working" in the context of Buddhism? What's your criterion, your yardstick? Are we talking about: people begin to feel more calm, less prone to agitation? Or are we talking: full-blown Enlightenment? Are you asking if there is such a thing as Enlightenment or Nirvana? Or are you just asking if practicing Buddhism will help resolve stresses and neurotic tendencies?
Good luck 'science' with sleeping your way to awakening . . . which is not your remit, method or capacity.
:vimp:
But that's a good point that often people are wrong about the truth. I think the reason is that delusion can cover that truth.
So it is like a precious jewel covered by mud and feces. Om Mani Peme Hum means the jewel (of the mind) is in the lotus (a flower going into the muck).
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/meaning-is-healthier-than-happiness/278250/
A couple of tales from Sufi comedian, the imponderable Nasrudin . . . . . . finally a quote from Picasso
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
:wave:
My mother is approaching 80 and obviously is not going to be alive very much longer. For now, she is still active enough to enjoy life. She had a rather wild early life but for a long time now has focused on her Christian faith. Saying her practice has brought meaning to her life is an understatement. She spends her days serving people who need it. For instance, she has played and sang in a band all her life and now takes her guitar and plays at nursing homes. And her belief in Heaven is a certainty that means she does not fear death and looks forward to reuniting with her loved ones.
If you ask her if Christianity works, what sort of answer will you get? And it will be completely true for her. She has been saved by the Holy Spirit and given a mission in life and been blessed. She has seen miracles. Her entire world view makes sense only through the eyes of a Christian. She can provide examples all day on why it works, for her and others she knows.
But to me, the Christian religion is nonsense and filled with charlatans and hypocrites and overall has a dismal history and only occasional success. I can preach all day on the failures and why I walked away from my family's religion. But I would never try to convince my mother of that. For one thing, it would do nothing but upset her. If faith really can move mountains, she's the person to call on if you got one in your way.
But for science, "It works for me" is not an answer. It's a subjective statement that proves nothing and a mistake in logic that still allows nonsense like copper bracelets to be sold for arthritis relief. Something is either true or it isn't. It either has the same affect on everyone, given a set of variables, or not. If I look through a telescope and see canals on Mars, that doesn't mean it's all right for me to believe there are canals on Mars even though other people tell me they don't see it. It's either true or it isn't and my personal experience is irrelevant.
So "It works for me" isn't a scientific answer. But it is an answer. We're talking about the mind here, after all. Ask any ten psychologists what makes the mind what it is, and get ten different answers.