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.
I would agree, but when we start dealing with terms like "truth" as it related to fact, context is everything.
Truth is one of those words that has a number of definition. For example, Truth can be a "transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality ". That definition places truth firmly in the realm of the subjective. It can also mean "of being in accord with fact or reality". Ok, that's a bit more objective.
Is one definition right and the other wrong? No. Can't be.
BTW who decides what is true?
It depends. If we taken the first definition I cite, then we can only decide for ourselves or side with sources we trust.
If it's the latter, then it must accord with facts.
If the matter is of a transcendant, spiritual nature, then we can apply the first definition of truth. If it becomes a matter of fact we go with the second. Again, context is everything. Fact can be truth, but truth isn't always fact.
Just because no one knows what "transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" is doesn't mean that it's true.
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
Science is - or at least tries as hard as possible to be - objective. It does that in many ways, using a variety of techniques which you are free to google as "scientific method". But your personal subjective experience is in no way 'science'.
What part of the scientific method is unavailable to one studying their mind?
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
Science is - or at least tries as hard as possible to be - objective. It does that in many ways, using a variety of techniques which you are free to google as "scientific method". But your personal subjective experience is in no way 'science'.
What part of the scientific method is unavailable to one studying their mind?
Any observation is subjective, btw.
Technically, you're right. But when analyzing one's own mind it is highly doubtful they will be objective, or will even be able to recognize objectivity.
Arguing about Buddhism on the internet definitely doesn't work. :-)
I'm always surprised when I come back to this site at the amount of discord I find.
Makes me think that for many, Buddhism is just another view to hold onto, another set of ideas to support the self...
Really? I'm always amazed at the amount of compassion and reluctance to engage in name calling and flame wars while discussing our differences in opinion. This IS the internet, after all. Have you read what happens on most lightly moderated boards or any sort of discussion forum? Compared to what passes for discussion out there, this is a Zen garden.
Not that we're a bunch of monks sitting around chanting the Dharma here. And I think every group of Buddhists I've ever had anything to do with could be described as mostly people holding onto ideas that support the self. But they're trying to let go.
Arguing about Buddhism on the internet definitely doesn't work. :-)
I'm always surprised when I come back to this site at the amount of discord I find.
Makes me think that for many, Buddhism is just another view to hold onto, another set of ideas to support the self...
Really? I'm always amazed at the amount of compassion and reluctance to engage in name calling and flame wars while discussing our differences in opinion. This IS the internet, after all. Have you read what happens on most lightly moderated boards or any sort of discussion forum? Compared to what passes for discussion out there, this is a Zen garden.
Not that we're a bunch of monks sitting around chanting the Dharma here. And I think every group of Buddhists I've ever had anything to do with could be described as mostly people holding onto ideas that support the self. But they're trying to let go.
I used to hang out in aol 'christian' chatrooms. Even Dhamma Dhatu seems like a girlscout compaired to some on that aol forum haha.
Okay, @Simplify, if you want to think that the difference between anger and joy is subtle, go right ahead.
If you want to think that a person can realistically and reliably make judgements about his or her own mind in a scientific nature, go ahead.
Of course, if all that were true, 25% of the American population wouldn't have some form of mental illness, there wouldn't be 24,000 psychiatrists (not to mention psychologists), and there wouldn't be 3,680 psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals.
And, we wouldn't say, "The doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient."
And what you think is okay for you...but it is not science.
I'm not saying that the difference between anger and joy is subtle, that was an example to show that even with bias, we are still able to take, at the very least, crude measurements of aspects of our mind.
If we are using science to mean the scientific method, what part of the scientific method is unavailable to the study of ones self?
If we are broadening the term, what part of science is unavailable to the study of self?
Objectivity and repetition by different scientists.
As I said, if you want to think what you're suggesting is science, go ahead. But as a person with multiple degrees in the sciences, I'm telling you it's not.
Why can't others meditators repeat my experiments? Scientists rarely use the same exact instruments and samples to replicate other scientists experiments.
Why can't others meditators repeat my experiments? Scientists rarely use the same exact instruments and samples to replicate other scientists experiments.
I am not naive about science
You certainly don't understand the concept of independent and controlled variables.
To be honest -- and I do mean honest -- I heard the same kind of statements from my ninth grade science students. And then they would wonder why their experiments had poor results.
I've actually done thousands of controlled experiments in cell biology and published the results, but is this about the topic or our credentials?
Saying what you think about my understanding of variables is, talking about your credentials, and giving a vague reference to the views of your students does little to help me understand your view of objectivity.
And as I've already hinted at, I think objectivity is always about degrees and really comes down to measuring, to comparing one thing to another.
Which if your comment of variables is any hint, you seem to see in a similar way, for controls are really anbout trying to be specific about what is being measured
What is this compulsion that some of you have to say that Buddhism = (or is congruent) to science?
Some of you who want to try to make the connection are horrified when government and religion become tangled, and yet you want science and religion to become entangled.
I suggest that if that is the way you want to think that you make a chart with 2 columns. In the column on the left you list all the things that are Buddhist thought (e.g., devas, Buddhist hell, enlightenment) that science has not proved. And in the column on the right you list all the aspects of Buddhist thought that science has proved. If you're honest and objective, you're going to have an awfully lopsided chart.
But so what? Religion rarely comes down to things that are proven. That's faith.
Only mathmatics is really a pure science, and the funny thing is its all in the mind! Next comes physics of course and then, to be honest chemistry should be in a whole other category.
When I was talking about being a scientist investigating your own mind, the aspects of 'scientist' I was thinking of were not perfect controls or statistics. But you can use controls, however imperfect and you can use statistics, however imperfect.
So personally I don't have trouble putting math in one category, physics in another, chemistry, biology, psychology, meta meditation, samadhi...
I also don't have trouble seeing similarities and putting things in the same category based on the similarities.
So where does secular Buddhism fit in? Column A or B?
Why does it have to be in either?
Isn't there enough substance in Buddhist principles to stand on their own?
Right. When I read about Buddhism, I don't think I ever consider it to be science or religion, for my purposes. The religious aspects of it are interesting as a tourist. I can't really get much more out of it than that, so far. I don't really know anything much about science, so I can't make a comparison. I was just wondering where secular Buddhism fit in because you seemed to be coming from the position that religion and science need not be mixed. Which is true. But apparently some people who consider themselves Buddhists aren't religious. Just confused is all.
This whole "what is truth?" question has got me thinking ... and I've come up with the following definitions, which I'm sure is not original but anyway, it makes sense to me
There is the objective/subjective spectrum of truth, and there is the absolute/relative spectrum. The 2 spectrums are subtly different, but easily confused.
Objective/subjective describes whether something is established by scientific proof or method as true (objective) vs a personal experience or opinion (subjective). Absolute/relative is more to do with the nature of the experience or phenomenon described - is it something universally true (absolute) or something that varies with conditions (relative).
By dividing truths as objective/subjective and absolute/relative, we arrive at 4 categories of truth (there may be more of a sliding scale, but this gives the rough idea):
SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS
Objective-Absolute Such truths might include mathematical constants and simple facts, such as the speed of light in a vacuum. They are universally true for all times and places, and are independent of opinion or experience.
Objective-Relative Such truths vary in value depending on conditions, but do have an objective, indisputable value. For example, if I ask "what time is it now?" on this forum, there are many "true" answers, each relative to the time-zones people live in, but for each time zone, there is only one, objectively true answer - it is not a matter of subjective opinion.
PERSONAL TRUTHS
Subjective-Relative If I ask "is it late at the moment?" on this forum, then the answers I receive will be both relative to the time-zone different people live in, and also dependent on each responders individual, subjective view on what constitutes "late".
Subjective-Absolute For a person who believes strongly in a creationist God, the statement "God made us all" is an absolute-subjective truth.
I don't know if this helps anyone else, but it certainly clarified things in my own head. Feel free to disagree, and thanks for indulging me.
In my view, there's nothing wrong with holding beliefs that cannot be proven. The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are true and scientific.
Why is that a problem? If the belief leads to skillful behavior and away from unskillful behavior, how can it be a problem?
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
In my view, there's nothing wrong with holding beliefs that cannot be proven. The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are true and scientific.
Why is that a problem? If the belief leads to skillful behavior and away from unskillful behavior, how can it be a problem?
read his comment again. There's nothing wrong in belief. he's not arguing that. What he said was:
The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are [must therefore be] true and scientific.
He's criticising the PoV that if you believe something to be true, it is therefore proven officially.....
He's criticising the PoV that if you believe something to be true, it is therefore proven officially.....
He seems to be objecting to the idea that religious beliefs can be arrived at in a scientific fashion. I described a process of you would find in a Mahamudra traditon that utilizes a basic scientific process. He dismisses this, apparently, on the basis that the findings are a part of religious pursuit.
That's not being critical.
0
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
edited December 2013
I'm about 2 pages late... I don't think anyone pointed this out...
What is called science in Tibetan Buddhism is better described as scholasticism, which would be quite at home in the science of logic where the axioms are abstract things we just say are true and above all, it is important that arguments and derived conclusions are valid and well formed *provided the axioms are true* Even in mathematical physics, if you go down far enough, you get to axioms-- it isn't turtles all the way down.
That isn't quite the same as the modus operandi in experimental science which relies more on a methodology and far less on axioms and proofs. And the standard of truth for the various sciences vary-- physic has a much higher standard of truth than, say economics, the later must rely on natural experiments, which are less satisfying to the mind than independently reproducible experiments. (i.e economists can say something about the economies of Sanghas and Buddhist countries in contrast with lay and non-Buddhist countries, but they can't repro any of it in a controlled lab)
As a science, Buddhism relies on logic & and n=1 experiments (i.e. experiments where the results rely on the data from one person, there are few books written about this edge case in psychology where their data comes from case studies of sometimes super unique people-- and then psychologists must some how generalize the results to other *different* people)
Me thinks to be a good scientific Buddhist, I'm going to have to go back and review my methodology of science readings from college.
In my view, there's nothing wrong with holding beliefs that cannot be proven. The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are true and scientific.
Why is that a problem? If the belief leads to skillful behavior and away from unskillful behavior, how can it be a problem?
read his comment again. There's nothing wrong in belief. he's not arguing that. What he said was:
The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are [must therefore be] true and scientific.
He's criticising the PoV that if you believe something to be true, it is therefore proven officially.....
Sorry, I still don't see where the problem is. He said there is a problem somewhere. Why is that POV a problem? I understand He's criticising the PoV, but why? What problem does it cause?
So where does secular Buddhism fit in? Column A or B?
Secular Buddhism is by definition non-religious, and therefore rejects the religious content of Buddhism. I've noticed that secular Buddhists talk quite a lot about science, presumably because they feel their approach is more scientific.
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
In my view, there's nothing wrong with holding beliefs that cannot be proven. The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are true and scientific.
Why is that a problem? If the belief leads to skillful behavior and away from unskillful behavior, how can it be a problem?
read his comment again. There's nothing wrong in belief. he's not arguing that. What he said was:
The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are [must therefore be] true and scientific.
He's criticising the PoV that if you believe something to be true, it is therefore proven officially.....
Sorry, I still don't see where the problem is. He said there is a problem somewhere. Why is that POV a problem? I understand He's criticising the PoV, but why? What problem does it cause?
It becomes a problem if it becomes universally acceptable then one person proves it to be mistaken. look at Galileo galilei and his demonstration of the earth revolving around the sun.....
But GG's findings didn't violate religious tenants - at least not technically speaking. An Earth-centered universe came from the Greeks not the Bible. The Holy See adhered to that thinking stubbornly, but that's not religious, either. Even Scientists today are known to defend their intellectual turf, even in the face of proof to the contrary. In GG's case it wasn't a matter of doctrine. It was temporal power and ego that was threatened
And the latter is what we might be dealing with here.
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
(tenets)
I just gave that as a general simile, not as a direct concrete example.....
I just gave that as a general simile, not as a direct concrete example.....
Of course!
The Galileo story isn't one of religion vs science although it's often portrayed as such. It's actually a matter of the status quo in conflict with a revolutionary influence. We overlook or ignore this when it occurs within both hard and soft science and it does, frequently. We overlook the fact that this sort of thing is a very human process - one that illustrates the process of evolution of thinking about the world we inhabit. Science ignoring or degrading the contribution of religious/spiritual thinkers is no different from situations where it's the opposite.
Om namo manjushriye - namo sushriye - namo utama shriye soha
Buddha taught of the four noble truths and or conventional and ultimate truths! In regards to ultimate truths and conventional truth Buddha teaches whatever exists is either a conventional or an ultimate truth, and since ultimate truth refers just to emptiness, everything except emptiness is a conventional truth. The things we see directly such as buildings, car, and objects are all conventional truths.
All conventional truths are false objects because the way they appear and the way they exist do not correspond. If a person appears to be friendly and kind but his real intention is to gain our confidence in order to steal from us, we would say that he or she is false and deceptive because there is a discrepancy between the way he appears and his real nature.
Buddha taught all conventional truths are deceptive truths or phenomena. Nevertheless although conventional truths are false objects they actually exist because the mind directly perceiving a conventional truth is a valid mind, a completely reliable mind. However although the mind perceiving an object, is a valid mind, it nevertheless is mistaken insofar as the object appears to that mind to be truly existent. It is a valid and non-deceptive mind with respect to the conventional nature of the object – but is mistaken with respect to the objects or subjects ultimate nature.
Working as a social worker and counsellor I use conventional psychological (Humanistic, Cognitive and Psychodynamic theories) legal and sociological theories (Kantian) as well as legal frameworks, duties and tools for assessing and intervening in a person’s life. These ideas enable me to understand the drivers –emotional and delusions which drive Neurotic, psycho-pathological and psychotic behaviours. Determine the medical social and psychological needs they have and application of legal frameworks enable me to ensure persons legal rights, protections are promoted but that care, and control is exercised when needed.
However I also acknowledge that the approaches I use are ideas and one man’s truth is another man’s lies and of the existence of anti-psychiatry theories developed by Zimbardo ET all.
I am also a law student and law concerns rules, rights, responsibilities and justice – the aim of justice is to prove the truth and facts of case, and apply those facts to the rule of law.
Central to an understanding of the law is the difference between proof and truth. Most facts which a court is concerned cannot be proved empirically.
Therefore it has been necessary to devise and construct legal frameworks and procedures for seeking to prove to an appropriate standard, the existence or non-existence of a fact that is in issue in a legal case.
These procedures frameworks and processes are the rules of evidence largely evolving from judicial decisions made by Judges over centuries however in UK Criminal Evidence Act 1898, PACE 1984 and Civil Evidence Act 1995 are statutory frameworks which cover the rules of evidence.
However regardless of whatever rule of common or statutory law is applied for proving the truth and presenting the facts - absurdities and injustices continue to occur at the end of the day and at the end of the day the truth is only what a jury or reasonable person in the street would impute on the facts presented to them and the situation which is present before the persons eyes.
The things we see directly such as buildings, car, objects are all conventional truths. Buddha taught all conventional truths are deceptive truths or phenomena. So conventionally the jury subjectively imputes that a person is guilty or not based on objective and conventional facts.
Buddha taught of the gross subtle and very subtle mind – our gross minds objective analyse the facts and evidence and our subtle mind responds subjectively by forming the valid belief that the facts presented are valid or not however taken away the legal, psychological sociological frameworks, definitions, processes and theories and the evidence what is left of the case, and the person standing accused or making a claim. Without these frameworks for attempting to prove the facts and truth would cases would be empty and left to imputations, prejudices and projections however take away projections and imputation what is left ???
I have no idea if Buddhism works for other people unless they say one way or the other, but we can either believe them when they say so, or decide that they are telling lies.
I can say it works for me. How do I know? Because I feel better. I deal with things better, I am calmer, and when I meditate it's like a sensation of 'going home'. My head feels better and I cope with 'life events' in a more healthy way.
I just gave that as a general simile, not as a direct concrete example.....
Of course!
The Galileo story isn't one of religion vs science although it's often portrayed as such. It's actually a matter of the status quo in conflict with a revolutionary influence. We overlook or ignore this when it occurs within both hard and soft science and it does, frequently. We overlook the fact that this sort of thing is a very human process - one that illustrates the process of evolution of thinking about the world we inhabit.
You haven't even begun to explain your theory about how GG isn't a story of religion vs science. Religion is not something that exists apart from the status quo. Religion is entirely human, or as you say it's an entirely "human process."
To put it another way, so you might see it more reasonably, I might ask: how could the GG story have been religion vs science, instead of status quo vs revolutionary influence?
Science ignoring or degrading the contribution of religious/spiritual thinkers is no different from situations where it's the opposite.
"Religious thinkers" can ignore scientific findings, because it doesn't matter. As I've pointed out several times in this topic, religion doesn't need to be true, it only needs to be meaningful. A fictional story can have just as much meaning, if not more meaning, than a factual story.
Science, on the other hand, can't ignore the facts, because science addresses more practical needs. Scientific laws need to be reliable. Religious truths don't need to be reliable, they only need to be meaningful.
You haven't even begun to explain your theory about how GG isn't a story of religion vs science. Religion is not something that exists apart from the status quo. Religion is entirely human, or as you say it's an entirely "human process."
To put it another way, so you might see it more reasonably, I might ask: how could the GG story have been religion vs science, instead of status quo vs revolutionary influence?
Science ignoring or degrading the contribution of religious/spiritual thinkers is no different from situations where it's the opposite.
"Religious thinkers" can ignore scientific findings, because it doesn't matter. As I've pointed out several times in this topic, religion doesn't need to be true, it only needs to be meaningful. A fictional story can have just as much meaning, if not more meaning, than a factual story.
Science, on the other hand, can't ignore the facts, because science addresses more practical needs. Scientific laws need to be reliable. Religious truths don't need to be reliable, they only need to be meaningful.
Great post!
I couldn't help thinking of the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence", when the newspaper editor says, ""This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".
1. We shall understand that none of Buddha’s teachings are contradictory 2. We shall take all Buddha’s teachings as personal advice and put them into practice 3. We shall easily realise Buddha’s ultimate intention 4. We shall naturally become free from the great fault and from all other faults.
Buddha’s ultimate intention is that all living beings attain full enlightenment by gaining all the realisations of the stages of the path.
These are included within five: realisations of the three principle aspects of the path – renunciation, bodhichitta, and correct view of emptiness, and realisations of generation and contemplation stage of secret Mantra. To realise Buddha’s ultimate intention is to gain all these realisations and thus fulfil the greatest wish he had for us.
Is Buddhism a science? Not as it's generally conceived of, no. But I think if approached properly, the practice can be scientific.
Following the basic steps of the scientific method, you start with a question, e.g., Does Buddhism have the potential to reduce/eliminate suffering? You research Buddhism, finding out as much as you can from the Suttas and from contemporary Buddhists I.e., study). You form a hypothesis and then test your hypothesis, experimenting with different meditative and contemplative techniques (i.e., practice). Finally, you record and analyze your results and see if your hypothesis was correct.
Although there are a lot of things about Sam Harris that I don't like, one of the things I do is that he's coming at things like vipassana meditation from the standpoint of neuroscience, de-emphasising their strictly religious roots and moving more towards developing "a scientific account of the contemplative path" (A Contemplative Science ).
If there were more people like Sam Harris, who were at least interested in what Buddhism and other contemplative paths have to offer from a scientific standpoint, I'm sure we could easily create a robust contemplative science of our own utilizing the latest in modern technology and knowledge of how the brain functions. (Incidentally, I think his blog post "What’s the Point of Transcendence?" does a great job of pointing out the importance and usefulness of meditation and transcendent experiences.)
Another interesting perspective on Buddhism as first-person science is offered by the author of The Zennist, who recently wrote:
When we enter the world of Buddhism, we are no longer dealing with the world of third-person science which I hasten to add is not cognitively exhaustive. In the world of Buddhism, we are dealing, exclusively, with what I shall call a first-person science. This science is about knowing our true nature, directly.
In the West, there is a broad ugly ditch between third-person and first-person science. This divide mainly owes to third-person science which will not accept the claim that all reality is not knowable by the third-person perspective. It also refuses to accept the fact third-person evidence is not the same as first-person evidence. What third-person science is suffering from is 'scientism' which is a philosophical claim about science—not a scientific claim.
I realize that many western Buddhists are hooked on science. But it is basically a third-person understanding which amounts to a commonsense conception of the world. This is all well and good for a modern culture. But it is inadequate for the study of Buddhism which stems from a first-person perspective, that is, the ability to conceive the absolute essence from within).
Hello, yes buddhist teaching is workig really finel if you do the Eightfold Path. There is even an instrument of measuring your progress. It`s called the Eight Jhanas. What is holding you still in Samsara, the circles of live and suffering.
Comments
If it's the latter, then it must accord with facts.
If the matter is of a transcendant, spiritual nature, then we can apply the first definition of truth. If it becomes a matter of fact we go with the second. Again, context is everything. Fact can be truth, but truth isn't always fact.
Just because no one knows what "transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" is doesn't mean that it's true.
Any observation is subjective, btw.
Same in the mind, the question is how well can we measure a difference?
Most can measure the difference between anger and joy for example
Not that we're a bunch of monks sitting around chanting the Dharma here. And I think every group of Buddhists I've ever had anything to do with could be described as mostly people holding onto ideas that support the self. But they're trying to let go.
If you want to think that a person can realistically and reliably make judgements about his or her own mind in a scientific nature, go ahead.
Of course, if all that were true, 25% of the American population wouldn't have some form of mental illness, there wouldn't be 24,000 psychiatrists (not to mention psychologists), and there wouldn't be 3,680 psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals.
And, we wouldn't say, "The doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient."
And what you think is okay for you...but it is not science.
If we are using science to mean the scientific method, what part of the scientific method is unavailable to the study of ones self?
If we are broadening the term, what part of science is unavailable to the study of self?
As I said, if you want to think what you're suggesting is science, go ahead. But as a person with multiple degrees in the sciences, I'm telling you it's not.
Why can't others meditators repeat my experiments? Scientists rarely use the same exact instruments and samples to replicate other scientists experiments.
I am not naive about science
To be honest -- and I do mean honest -- I heard the same kind of statements from my ninth grade science students. And then they would wonder why their experiments had poor results.
Saying what you think about my understanding of variables is, talking about your credentials, and giving a vague reference to the views of your students does little to help me understand your view of objectivity.
And as I've already hinted at, I think objectivity is always about degrees and really comes down to measuring, to comparing one thing to another.
Which if your comment of variables is any hint, you seem to see in a similar way, for controls are really anbout trying to be specific about what is being measured
Do you think that psychiatry is as exact a science as genetics?????
Some of you who want to try to make the connection are horrified when government and religion become tangled, and yet you want science and religion to become entangled.
I suggest that if that is the way you want to think that you make a chart with 2 columns. In the column on the left you list all the things that are Buddhist thought (e.g., devas, Buddhist hell, enlightenment) that science has not proved. And in the column on the right you list all the aspects of Buddhist thought that science has proved. If you're honest and objective, you're going to have an awfully lopsided chart.
But so what? Religion rarely comes down to things that are proven. That's faith.
When I was talking about being a scientist investigating your own mind, the aspects of 'scientist' I was thinking of were not perfect controls or statistics. But you can use controls, however imperfect and you can use statistics, however imperfect.
So personally I don't have trouble putting math in one category, physics in another, chemistry, biology, psychology, meta meditation, samadhi...
I also don't have trouble seeing similarities and putting things in the same category based on the similarities.
Isn't there enough substance in Buddhist principles to stand on their own?
The religious aspects of it are interesting as a tourist. I can't really get much more out of it than that, so far.
I don't really know anything much about science, so I can't make a comparison.
I was just wondering where secular Buddhism fit in because you seemed to be coming from the position that religion and science need not be mixed. Which is true. But apparently some people who consider themselves Buddhists aren't religious.
Just confused is all.
There is the objective/subjective spectrum of truth, and there is the absolute/relative spectrum. The 2 spectrums are subtly different, but easily confused.
Objective/subjective describes whether something is established by scientific proof or method as true (objective) vs a personal experience or opinion (subjective). Absolute/relative is more to do with the nature of the experience or phenomenon described - is it something universally true (absolute) or something that varies with conditions (relative).
By dividing truths as objective/subjective and absolute/relative, we arrive at 4 categories of truth (there may be more of a sliding scale, but this gives the rough idea):
SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS
Objective-Absolute
Such truths might include mathematical constants and simple facts, such as the speed of light in a vacuum. They are universally true for all times and places, and are independent of opinion or experience.
Objective-Relative
Such truths vary in value depending on conditions, but do have an objective, indisputable value. For example, if I ask "what time is it now?" on this forum, there are many "true" answers, each relative to the time-zones people live in, but for each time zone, there is only one, objectively true answer - it is not a matter of subjective opinion.
PERSONAL TRUTHS
Subjective-Relative
If I ask "is it late at the moment?" on this forum, then the answers I receive will be both relative to the time-zone different people live in, and also dependent on each responders individual, subjective view on what constitutes "late".
Subjective-Absolute
For a person who believes strongly in a creationist God, the statement "God made us all" is an absolute-subjective truth.
I don't know if this helps anyone else, but it certainly clarified things in my own head. Feel free to disagree, and thanks for indulging me.
Namaste
The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are [must therefore be] true and scientific.
He's criticising the PoV that if you believe something to be true, it is therefore proven officially.....
That's not being critical.
What is called science in Tibetan Buddhism is better described as scholasticism, which would be quite at home in the science of logic where the axioms are abstract things we just say are true and above all, it is important that arguments and derived conclusions are valid and well formed *provided the axioms are true* Even in mathematical physics, if you go down far enough, you get to axioms-- it isn't turtles all the way down.
That isn't quite the same as the modus operandi in experimental science which relies more on a methodology and far less on axioms and proofs. And the standard of truth for the various sciences vary-- physic has a much higher standard of truth than, say economics, the later must rely on natural experiments, which are less satisfying to the mind than independently reproducible experiments. (i.e economists can say something about the economies of Sanghas and Buddhist countries in contrast with lay and non-Buddhist countries, but they can't repro any of it in a controlled lab)
As a science, Buddhism relies on logic & and n=1 experiments (i.e. experiments where the results rely on the data from one person, there are few books written about this edge case in psychology where their data comes from case studies of sometimes super unique people-- and then psychologists must some how generalize the results to other *different* people)
Me thinks to be a good scientific Buddhist, I'm going to have to go back and review my methodology of science readings from college.
Just noodling.
And the latter is what we might be dealing with here.
I just gave that as a general simile, not as a direct concrete example.....
The Galileo story isn't one of religion vs science although it's often portrayed as such. It's actually a matter of the status quo in conflict with a revolutionary influence. We overlook or ignore this when it occurs within both hard and soft science and it does, frequently. We overlook the fact that this sort of thing is a very human process - one that illustrates the process of evolution of thinking about the world we inhabit. Science ignoring or degrading the contribution of religious/spiritual thinkers is no different from situations where it's the opposite.
Truth and proof
Om namo manjushriye - namo sushriye - namo utama shriye soha
Buddha taught of the four noble truths and or conventional and ultimate truths!
In regards to ultimate truths and conventional truth Buddha teaches whatever exists is either a conventional or an ultimate truth, and since ultimate truth refers just to emptiness, everything except emptiness is a conventional truth. The things we see directly such as buildings, car, and objects are all conventional truths.
All conventional truths are false objects because the way they appear and the way they exist do not correspond. If a person appears to be friendly and kind but his real intention is to gain our confidence in order to steal from us, we would say that he or she is false and deceptive because there is a discrepancy between the way he appears and his real nature.
Buddha taught all conventional truths are deceptive truths or phenomena. Nevertheless although conventional truths are false objects they actually exist because the mind directly perceiving a conventional truth is a valid mind, a completely reliable mind. However although the mind perceiving an object, is a valid mind, it nevertheless is mistaken insofar as the object appears to that mind to be truly existent. It is a valid and non-deceptive mind with respect to the conventional nature of the object – but is mistaken with respect to the objects or subjects ultimate nature.
Working as a social worker and counsellor I use conventional psychological (Humanistic, Cognitive and Psychodynamic theories) legal and sociological theories (Kantian) as well as legal frameworks, duties and tools for assessing and intervening in a person’s life.
These ideas enable me to understand the drivers –emotional and delusions which drive Neurotic, psycho-pathological and psychotic behaviours. Determine the medical social and psychological needs they have and application of legal frameworks enable me to ensure persons legal rights, protections are promoted but that care, and control is exercised when needed.
However I also acknowledge that the approaches I use are ideas and one man’s truth is another man’s lies and of the existence of anti-psychiatry theories developed by Zimbardo ET all.
I am also a law student and law concerns rules, rights, responsibilities and justice – the aim of justice is to prove the truth and facts of case, and apply those facts to the rule of law.
Central to an understanding of the law is the difference between proof and truth. Most facts which a court is concerned cannot be proved empirically.
Therefore it has been necessary to devise and construct legal frameworks and procedures for seeking to prove to an appropriate standard, the existence or non-existence of a fact that is in issue in a legal case.
These procedures frameworks and processes are the rules of evidence largely evolving from judicial decisions made by Judges over centuries however in UK Criminal Evidence Act 1898, PACE 1984 and Civil Evidence Act 1995 are statutory frameworks which cover the rules of evidence.
However regardless of whatever rule of common or statutory law is applied for proving the truth and presenting the facts - absurdities and injustices continue to occur at the end of the day and at the end of the day the truth is only what a jury or reasonable person in the street would impute on the facts presented to them and the situation which is present before the persons eyes.
The things we see directly such as buildings, car, objects are all conventional truths. Buddha taught all conventional truths are deceptive truths or phenomena.
So conventionally the jury subjectively imputes that a person is guilty or not based on objective and conventional facts.
Buddha taught of the gross subtle and very subtle mind – our gross minds objective analyse the facts and evidence and our subtle mind responds subjectively by forming the valid belief that the facts presented are valid or not however taken away the legal, psychological sociological frameworks, definitions, processes and theories and the evidence what is left of the case, and the person standing accused or making a claim.
Without these frameworks for attempting to prove the facts and truth would cases would be empty and left to imputations, prejudices and projections however take away projections and imputation what is left ???
???????????????????????????
I can say it works for me.
How do I know? Because I feel better. I deal with things better, I am calmer, and when I meditate it's like a sensation of 'going home'. My head feels better
I don't have answers to the other questions!
To put it another way, so you might see it more reasonably, I might ask: how could the GG story have been religion vs science, instead of status quo vs revolutionary influence? "Religious thinkers" can ignore scientific findings, because it doesn't matter. As I've pointed out several times in this topic, religion doesn't need to be true, it only needs to be meaningful. A fictional story can have just as much meaning, if not more meaning, than a factual story.
Science, on the other hand, can't ignore the facts, because science addresses more practical needs. Scientific laws need to be reliable. Religious truths don't need to be reliable, they only need to be meaningful.
Science, on the other hand, can't ignore the facts, because science addresses more practical needs. Scientific laws need to be reliable. Religious truths don't need to be reliable, they only need to be meaningful.
Great post!
I couldn't help thinking of the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence", when the newspaper editor says, ""This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".
2. We shall take all Buddha’s teachings as personal advice and put them into practice
3. We shall easily realise Buddha’s ultimate intention
4. We shall naturally become free from the great fault and from all other faults.
Buddha’s ultimate intention is that all living beings attain full enlightenment by gaining all the realisations of the stages of the path.
These are included within five: realisations of the three principle aspects of the path – renunciation, bodhichitta, and correct view of emptiness, and realisations of generation and contemplation stage of secret Mantra. To realise Buddha’s ultimate intention is to gain all these realisations and thus fulfil the greatest wish he had for us.
?????
Following the basic steps of the scientific method, you start with a question, e.g., Does Buddhism have the potential to reduce/eliminate suffering? You research Buddhism, finding out as much as you can from the Suttas and from contemporary Buddhists I.e., study). You form a hypothesis and then test your hypothesis, experimenting with different meditative and contemplative techniques (i.e., practice). Finally, you record and analyze your results and see if your hypothesis was correct.
Although there are a lot of things about Sam Harris that I don't like, one of the things I do is that he's coming at things like vipassana meditation from the standpoint of neuroscience, de-emphasising their strictly religious roots and moving more towards developing "a scientific account of the contemplative path" (A Contemplative Science ).
If there were more people like Sam Harris, who were at least interested in what Buddhism and other contemplative paths have to offer from a scientific standpoint, I'm sure we could easily create a robust contemplative science of our own utilizing the latest in modern technology and knowledge of how the brain functions. (Incidentally, I think his blog post "What’s the Point of Transcendence?" does a great job of pointing out the importance and usefulness of meditation and transcendent experiences.)
Another interesting perspective on Buddhism as first-person science is offered by the author of The Zennist, who recently wrote:
yes buddhist teaching is workig really finel if you do the Eightfold Path.
There is even an instrument of measuring your progress. It`s called the Eight Jhanas.
What is holding you still in Samsara, the circles of live and suffering.
sakko