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.
Dharma is a science?
lobster
Crusty Veteran
Some believe in a curriculum based dharma. So many cushion hours, mantra, acts of prostration, walking around in circles etc and one gets to overcome suffering.
Most of us are well aware of the benefits, the cause and effect of practice. It is experientially verifiable.
Is Buddhism a science? Is dharma a 'soft science'?
0
Comments
Can we use the scientific method to prove that the process of Buddhism works to alleviate suffering?
Well, the Dalai Lama seems to think we can; he works in close association with many centres focussed on studying the Mind, the brain and its functions, and has expounded Buddhist theory and philosophy to expand and explain the processes involved in alleviating sufering, and so far, it seems, no scientific body has found cause to shoot holes in that reasoning...
The Dhamma is the Dhamma. And Science is Science. And their uses are mostly different. But they can benefit from each other.
When you want to understand the physical world then Science is the primary choice. When you need to understand living beings and their behaviour then the Dhamma is the primary choice.
/Victor
I'm going to take that as a yes to my question but I guess there is a science to Buddhism but since there are some other claims that go along with it, Buddhism is not a science.
Is dharma a 'soft science'?
Sort of, perhaps a bit like psychology?
I'd agree, but also add Psychology to the mix (Dharma + Psychology). I think we'd be missing out if we didn't have both perspectives/methods to apply to human behavior.
Kia Ora,
Meditation can be liken to a form of "inner science" where mind explores the workings of mind, and the Dharma as scientific test experiments which involves life experience as its subject..
Metta Shoshin .
..
I'm pretty heavily biased in the psychology department, and regard psychology as a tool to discover and illustrate the Dharma, in that Dharma = 'the way it is'. It might be the only science we've developed to the point it can be used to explore the Dharma? Well now that we have fMRI and fancy EEG gizmos, we are in the bare beginnings of using those tools to study the Dharma too.
Can science actually be used as a confirmation for things. Just check in the health news, one day some research suggests something, some other day, another suggests something completely different.
@mmo What is "suggested" and what Science finally confirms, are two different things. The media love to latch onto ideas that scientists are looking into, and findings that haven't really been vetted yet, and make more out of them than is there. Our problem is really not recognizing all the b.s. that the media put out there daily for entertainment value and ratings.
That's not to say Science can't, or doesn't, change its mind (so to speak). It does... but only in the face of better evidence. If we were to claim that Science had to get it right from the start, we'd be claiming that humans had to be able to get it right from the start. Clearly as technology progresses we're able to investigate reality much more thoroughly; without it, we'd only have gotten so far. I doubt we're anywhere near having "final" knowledge on anything, but we're only getting closer all the time.
@AldrisTorvalds, yes that is right. What I also want to say is that science itself is not complete. Let alone being used as a measure for truth. That why, to describe our understanding in the world around us, it is like putting the tip of toe in the sand. This analogy says so much is left yet to be discovered by Man.
@mmo The search continues, always. I'm "pro" anything that brings us a more complete picture. Of course even when we get a more complete picture of Nature and of the Earth itself, and of humans and other lifeforms on our planet, we still have an entire Universe to contend with...
This is gonna take a while, hahaha.
If science were the refuge we would be screwed if our pills went bad or our nation went in to turmoil. Luckily with refuge in the unconditonal we can work with any situation.
Longer than you think, with headlines like these....
Kia Ora,
Dharma can be molded into whatever the participant needs it to be, for the scientifically minded " a science", for the spiritually minded "a spiritual path", or both...
In the end it's about unlocking the magic of the mind's potential
Metta Shoshin .
..
Thanks guys,
Perhaps. However I find that objectivity towards and from Dhamma (dharma, Buddhist lore) is not as independent as Buddhists in some quarters like to imagine. What are the inherent assumptions and confirmations? I would also suggest that the Buddha was an early advocate of scientific method. What do you know or have proved and what do you believe? Is one science, the other superstition?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology
:wave: .
Baby steps, I suppose... We could open ourselves up to an even worse mindset of us and "them" if we run into aliens that do not realise we are inseparable. Especially if we are still floundering with the truth down here.
Kia Ora,
I'm sure that I read somewhere that Natural philosophy was the precursor for modern science,(don't quote me on this I'm neither a philosopher nor scientist) and many people see Buddhism more as a live by philosophy than a religion, so is there a link ? (Is this the missing link ?)
Metta Shoshin .
..
I would suggest a great deal of dharma can be quantified and studied. In a sense that is what practitioners do. However it is also an art or craft that employs skilful means, the criteria for one person being potentially damaging or ineffectual for others.
I would also suggest that practices such as returning to the breath continue to be useful over a wide range of situations, with measurable improvements. The same can be said for mantra, walking meditation and devotional practice.
Giulio Cesare Giacobbe, a Buddhist Italian psychothapist, puts forth that there is a scientific method to Buddhism.
"For a method to be classed as scientific," he says, "three things are necessary:
1) the elements of the problem to be solved must be known;
2) a procedure must be developed with which to solve it;
3) the practical application of this procedure should be within everyone's reach."
The problem to be solved is our attitude towards suffering, the procedure with which to solve it is the N8P, and the practical application -though not easy- is within everyone's reach.
I do not disagree @Dharmamom but there is a little niggle in me that suggests that perhaps Giulio used the ends to provide the means. However, I do not know Giulio or understand his motives for making such statements. Sounds good though, and hopefully it is financially rewarding enough for him to earn a good living...
Well, Giulio tried to present Buddhism as a psychological self-help system, and Buddhahood as an attainable goal within everyone's reach.
He discards the religious component to introduce Buddhism as a logical, no-nonsense scientific method to come to terms with suffering.
He's very well-known in Italy and I found his method quite fresh and interesting.
I don't know if he has been published in English, though.
Buddhist meditation 'Tong-Len' helps me free from hatred. Just wondering if science can do the same.
I would suggest that positive psychology gives us the the means, method and understanding to modify some of the archaic, cultural and often bizarre practices . . . such as 'corpse contemplation' or spooky Tonglen visualisations . . .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology
:wave: .
Kia Ora,
Quote from the wikipedia link:
"Positive psychology is a branch of psychology that has as its purpose to use scientific understanding and effective interventions to aid a satisfactory life,[1][2][3] rather than merely treating mental illness!"
Sounds quite Buddhist to me....Ambulance at the top of the cliff rather than waiting at the bottom....
Metta Shoshin .
..
I did some reading on The Church of Scientology this weekend, after driving by a Church of Scientology, and realising I had completely dismissed it as a religion. Sounds pretty dharmic to me only, it's attempted to capture everything positive, it even allows me to call myself a buddhist! So I'm gonna give Tom Cruise a call and have a chat with him about his view of the world. Anyone have his number or are Linked In with him?
@anataman Might not want to take their face value at face value. I've read a couple books and watched a documentary or two. Google "Operation Clambake" for starters. I think one of the books was called "Inside Scientology", and one documentary was "Scientologists at War". It's the "auditing" that makes it look scientific, and I actually think they may be onto something there (I'd want to study that aspect), but deeper seems much darker from those who have actually gotten out and been relentlessly harassed and harangued...
Even without throwing in other things, it's a pay-as-you-go system. It gets real expensive real quick, which is probably why it's not a bigger thing than it is. You'd have to make up your own mind naturally but try not to get too deep that you can't back away if you need to!
It helps. Remember somebody had a hypothesis and set up trial and error experiments to come up with these meditation techniques.
What do people do science for? Big paychecks? Inventions? Something interesting to learn to pass the time? What science are you interested in?
Is science in the mind or is the mind in science? both? neither?
They are mostly motivated by an irrepresible sense of curiosity.
An acquaintance of mine who took up engineering could not help getting clocks, calculators, anything that ticks or lights up, open in order to study the machinery that set it in motion.
I like the sciences of the mind such as psychology or neurology.
I am studying chemistry to learn enough material to tutor. I want more excitement and challenge than just sitting at home. To see the big world. With that outlook it seems morbid to have my success merely a curiosity! But I am kinda curious where I will be in 5 years.
Science is both man's study of physicality and reality, and an invention to categorize and quantify and qualify reality. It pretends to be rules, absolute and posited, but really is some "confirmed" positing and and some pure supposition.