Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Science and Buddhism

EarthninjaEarthninja WandererWest Australia Veteran

I'm on a mobile so I hope this link works!

This is a short 20 minute video about the general themes in Buddhism such as emptiness and how they parallel with science/quantum physics.

It's also well narrated in an easy to understand way.

Mind blowing stuff

Comments

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    Probably watch that later, but quantum physics being thrown into anything at this point seems folly. Just look at what Deepak does with it. ;)  

    EarthninjaVictorious
  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran

    Since becoming somewhat-Buddhist, I no longer explode. Except perhaps when people start mixing science and Buddhism (or science and any other religion).

    It's as important or perhaps more important than separating church and state.

  • EarthninjaEarthninja Wanderer West Australia Veteran

    @AldrisTorvalds‌ if it helps you understand yourself it's not folly. Deepaks approach is a good thing, it's a new focus apart from what most physicists believe.
    Good food for thought!

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    @Earthninja I don't think physicists even really understand quantum physics. They understand the math, but what's actually happening is a mystery. People are taking that mystery and trying to use it as an explanation; that reminds me of people who use God as an explanation for the universe, but can't explain where God came from. :D I'd rather have something substantial. I read and listened to Deepak for a while, but it's not for me. To each their own!

    Earthninja
  • EarthninjaEarthninja Wanderer West Australia Veteran

    @AldrisTorvalds‌ I agree with you, I'm listening to Deepak at the moment. Just because I don't know all that much about the guy. I like his theories but your right, they are but theories.
    Substantial is good.
    That's when you stop believing and start knowing.

    May you have a great day/evening! Thanks for your replies

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    @Earthninja You have a great day/evening too!

    Earthninja
  • EarthninjaEarthninja Wanderer West Australia Veteran

    @vinlyn said:
    Since becoming somewhat-Buddhist, I no longer explode. Except perhaps when people start mixing science and Buddhism (or science and any other religion).

    It's as important or perhaps more important than separating church and state.

    But why? Isn't science trying to work out how everything works and it's function? Isn't this the same as Buddhism? Just different avenues of approach?

  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran

    Why? Can you see what Christian evangelists are trying to do to American science? It is the ever-present effort of religion to bend science to prove the religion in question.

  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran

    @vinlyn said:
    Since becoming somewhat-Buddhist, I no longer explode. Except perhaps when people start mixing science and Buddhism (or science and any other religion).

    It's as important or perhaps more important than separating church and state.

    I've read similar comments from you before. Separating church and state is . . . well, let's just say obvious!

    In my head, though, separating church and state are not equivalent, in meaning, to separating religion and science. Especially if there is an emotional aspect to it, clearly there have been some personal 'clashes' or (insert your description here). Genuinely curious :) and don't have that much of a position on this subject, myself.

    David
  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran
    edited August 2014

    That's what I was thinking @Lobster, which makes 'religion' and 'science' friendly with each other as I personally see it, but I've been delusional before.

    People who seek power and control at all costs can make a right f*ck up of science wedded (in some way) to religion. I wouldn't want the subject avoided because of what some idiot might DO with such a marriage.

  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran

    Oh wait. They already HAVE. We have potential stem cell technology to eradicate or diminish symptoms or diseases altogether -- but a fertilized ovum is a person :buck: .

  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran

    Actually, separation of church and state is a very western concept, and I would submit that it is not a Buddhist concept. Religious Buddhists love to base their beliefs on pretty-much single historical texts. Right?

    So let's stick with history. Buddhism was spread from India to Southeast Asia in the 3rd century B.C. primarily by the Indian emperor Asoka who sent Buddhist missionaries out from India...even to today's Syria. Good thing he did...because the later Hindu revival pretty much eliminated Buddhism in India.

    Buddhism thrived in the various cultures of Southeast Asia mostly when kings changed the local religions to Buddhism. In early Thai kingdoms, for example, Buddhism became the dominant religion when a king adopted the religion or forced it on rival kingdoms.

    Today, Buddhism is supported in Thailand by the government...used by the government...spread by the government...regulated by the government...is a pillar of the government and nation.

    I'm not saying that in today's world that that is good or bad. But I am saying there is wide historical precedence for Buddhism to not be separated from government.

    As far as science in Buddhism...virtually every town or city in Thailand has a "spirit house" in which the city pillar is installed...along with statues and other relics of Buddha. It is fairly common for there to be depictions of Buddhist cosmology. Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with scientific cosmology. So much for Buddhism and science.

    But go ahead...let's mix science with Buddhism:

    1. Is there scientific proof for the history of Siddharta? Very limited, probably mostly restricted to where he was. Apparently "when" he was has come into scientific question recently.

    2. Is there scientific proof of rebirth? No.

    3. Scientific proof of karma? No.

    4. Were the documents related to Buddha and Buddhism kept in any scientific manner? No. You can't let scientific than hundreds of years of word of mouth.

    There is just as much room for contamination of science by Buddhism as there is by government...and in fact, history may very well show MORE contamination.

    Thank you, but for me, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto Galileo what is Galileo's, and unto Buddha what is Buddha's.

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran
    edited August 2014

    I don't really care much for a "Science of Buddhism" if it's going to relate to cosmology and all that jazz, but a "Science of Enlightenment" would be nice. I do consider enlightenment to be a causal process that could theoretically be explained in scientific terms in time (not likely anytime soon; we're only to the point of studying meditation's effects on the brain and emotions... not enlightenment per se).

    lobsterDavidJeffrey
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @vinlyn said:
    There is just as much room for contamination of science by Buddhism as there is by government...and in fact, history may very well show MORE contamination.

    And science will also contaminate itself. That contamination will come from the same things that has contaminated both government and religion - money. The money itself wasn't the contaminating force. Rather, it was lusting after it and what it could provide.

    Jeffrey
  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran

    Yes, @Chaz, science, religions, politics, government, the press (and virtually every other "institution") -- all must be monitored and occasionally "busted" to keep them honest. And self-monitoring -- in the long run -- rarely works.

  • EarthninjaEarthninja Wanderer West Australia Veteran

    @vinlyn‌ - none of the below are hinted at in the video I posted. They are more to do with quantum mechanics and the emptiness, oneness, consciousness in Buddhism. Could be any religion.

    Is there scientific proof for the history of Siddharta? Very limited, probably mostly restricted to where he was. Apparently "when" he was has come into scientific question recently.
    (The video is about the quantum theories, not archeological findings)

    Is there scientific proof of rebirth? No.
    (Science can't even explain consciousness and how it works. However we are conscious?, just because science can't prove everything doesn't mean it can't help reinforce what we already know)

    Scientific proof of karma? No. (Scientific proof of "action" or cause and effect? Yes it can prove this" depends what you mean by karma, if your talking other lifetimes than it's the same as the consciousness)

    Can science prove impermanence. Annica? Yes.

    Can science prove emptiness? Well not yet, it's a theory still but a viable one. See the video :)

    Can science disprove rebirth? No. Energy cannot be created from nothing and then disappear. This can be proven. Nothing truly dies.

    I'm not using the video posted as a tool for Buddhists to claim their authority as a true religion.
    I don't even consider Buddhism as a religion.

    So the video could reinforce parts of Hinduism, paganism and other forms of spirituality.
    I don't wholly trust all science but I'm not a fool enough not to learn what I can.

    If science proved that the lunar eclipse was not a dragon eating the moon but my religion said it was. Because Buddha said so. I would take both points on board and discern my own truth.

    Where's the problem in this? :)

  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran

    @Earthninja, there's no problem with you believing anything you want about science and religion. To each his own. But as a person who has 2 degrees in the sciences, has taught science, has witnessed how science and religion have bastardized each other at the hands of the wrong people, I stated my view. It's okay to have a different view.

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran

    @vinlyn said:
    Yes, Chaz, science, religions, politics, government, the press (and virtually every other "institution") -- all must be monitored and occasionally "busted" to keep them honest. And self-monitoring -- in the long run -- rarely works.

    Monitored? I don't think so. Doesn't "all must be monitored" strike you as a bit ..... fascist? And busted? Prisons on Colorado will be full of scientists, teachers, ministers and publishers. Good thing we legalized pot. More room for the corrupt.

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited August 2014

    @vinlyn said:
    Why? Can you see what Christian evangelists are trying to do to American science? It is the ever-present effort of religion to bend science to prove the religion in question.

    For me, it helps to remember that Buddhism is not just a religion.

    How Buddha's insights on emptiness reflect the findings of quantum AND particle physics does not go to say anything about Buddhist beliefs such as rebirth/reincarnation, gods or chanting to Amitta Buddha.

    Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. That's life in a vacuum. Space has properties which prevents an absolute vacuum. Potential particles are pulled out of space itself which is why it is said that nature abhors a vacuum. That's also part of why there is no such thing as nothing or "zero" aside from a concept.

    For monitoring scientific findings, i'd say peer review works the best. There is more money made in disproving theories than in trying to prove them.

  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited August 2014

    @Chaz said:
    Monitored? I don't think so. Doesn't "all must be monitored" strike you as a bit ..... fascist? And busted? Prisons on Colorado will be full of scientists, teachers, ministers and publishers. Good thing we legalized pot. More room for the corrupt.

    As a teacher, I monitored student behavior. I never put anyone in prison.
    As a principal, I monitored student behavior, teacher performance, the quality level of the work done by custodians and secretaries and cafeteria personnel. I never put anyone in prison.

    There is no reason to equate monitoring someone's performance with fascism. And this discussion has nothing to do with legalizing pot in Colorado.

    I'm using the term "busted" in the informal sense. As @ourself pointed out, peer review (not self-review) -- which has ramifications -- is the best place to start. But, it often must go beyond that. For example, there were certainly cases in education where educators on peer review panels "overlooked" actions by other educators. Cases in hospitals where surgeons on peer review panels "overlooked" actions by other surgeons.

    Jeffrey
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran

    That's the problem with any investigation we do, human error.

    It sucks that sometimes we find an oversight too late to help a life but what can we do?

    By "we" I just mean us humans in general though I do administer meds at a retirement home so...

  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited August 2014

    Interesting, @ourself, because I was thinking about medications when I wrote my previous comment. I was thinking about the peer review that has gone on in drug companies when they are developing new drugs, some of which have turned out to be nightmares. I was also thinking of peer review that has taken place in petroleum and mining companies when they state their research.

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran

    Oh yes, big oil and big pharma... I've heard many stories about that bedroom.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran Veteran

    @ourself, I think you are off the track; emptiness is not a vacuum imo. I think it is a mental thing. Form is empty is also true but not a vacuum. Remember the chariot. It is not a wheel. It is not the stearing. It is not the horses. It is not the rivets. etc...

  • EarthninjaEarthninja Wanderer West Australia Veteran

    @vinlyn said:
    Earthninja, there's no problem with you believing anything you want about science and religion. To each his own. But as a person who has 2 degrees in the sciences, has taught science, has witnessed how science and religion have bastardized each other at the hands of the wrong people, I stated my view. It's okay to have a different view.

    I never said I believed anything? I just put out some of the profound similarities. Your just assuming I believe it.
    You seem very closed to this, are you saying that you have degrees in quantum physics or astro physics? I know lots of zoologists, veterinarians, ecologists, year 9 chemistry teachers who all have degrees in the sciences. It's not the same thing. There are different fields no?

    I agree each to their own. Would you say your a scientist? Or a Buddhist?

    Those are personal questions, you don't have to answer them. :)
    I'm just trying to figure out where your coming from. It's so hard on the net!

  • vinlynvinlyn Veteran Colorado...for now Veteran

    I think I've explained my concerns sufficiently. As you have yours. If we don't agree, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just stating an opinion based on the title of the thread, and continuing threads on this topic that come along every few weeks.

    But yes, on this particular matter, my position is firm.

    Time to stop beating a dead horse.

  • EarthninjaEarthninja Wanderer West Australia Veteran

    @vinlyn I love that you put "every few weeks" I have no doubt the same topics keep resurfacing!
    Well thank you for your point of view. I will head what you say especially in regards to science and religion in the hands of the wrong people.

    Have a great day

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited August 2014

    @Jeffrey said:
    ourself, I think you are off the track; emptiness is not a vacuum imo. I think it is a mental thing. Form is empty is also true but not a vacuum. Remember the chariot. It is not a wheel. It is not the stearing. It is not the horses. It is not the rivets. etc...

    Even a vacuum isn't a vacuum.

    It does work on both levels. If emptiness is just a mental thing than all are mental things because that would imply that form is a mental thing. If it takes up no space, can it be considered form?

    Space is matter and matter is space. The potential for energy would be itself another form of energy as particles get pulled out of "empty space" preventing an actual vacuum.

    There is no such thing as a vacuum because space itself has properties.

    I can't be the only one that sees the connection.

    Actually, I recommend a book called the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. And don't worry, there's nothing New Age about it.

    "An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism"

    It's fairly old now but aside from the Higgs Boson, not much has changed.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @ourself said:

    How Buddha's insights on emptiness reflect the findings of quantum AND particle physics...

    Could you say how they do?

  • BuddhadragonBuddhadragon Ehipassiko & Carpe Diem Samsara Veteran

    For many years now, the Dalai Lama has been trying to make a rapprochement between science and Buddhism through the Mind & Life Institute, a place where some of today's most brilliant minds in the different fields of science take part.
    I see nothing wrong with that.
    It's much better than having the Inquisition burn Giordano Bruno for heresy, or letting Galileo Galilei narrowly escape the same fate, just for letting science disentangle the contradictions of the official de facto religion.

    The fact that Science happens to back up much of what Buddhism has been preaching for over 2000 years is a sure sign that the application of critical thinking to religion can take us farther than BS creationalist superstition and passive acquiescence to a dogma.

    David
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    Could you say how they do?

    I can't really explain the quantum physics part of it better than the books and links already provided but I've already explained the particle physics aspect.

    If that's of no help, Google particles in a vacuum.

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited August 2014

    1998 may have been a while back but I was reading about the Dalai Lama meeting with Anton Zeilinger about quantum teleportation.

    In Dharamsala, Zeilinger had demonstrated some basic quantum phenomena - such as wave-particle duality - using a laser-based double-slit experiment with a photomultiplier tube connected to a loud-speaker. The Dalai Lama's visit to Innsbruck allowed other quantum effects to be demonstrated for him.

    Zeilinger says that the Dalai Lama did not have a problem with photons having both particle and wave-like properties, but was reluctant to accept that individual quantum events are random. For example, he refused to accept that we cannot know which path a photon takes in a two-path quantum interference experiment.

    I do seem to remember another poster talking about the same meeting in another thread but I wanted to focus on what one of the interpreters said at the meeting. Alan Wallace was a monk for 14 years before becoming a physics major. He now teaches Tibetan studies at the University of California.

    "It is natural for Buddhists to be interested in science, " he says, "because science is the most complete and successful theory of the physical universe we have. The Buddhist pursuit of truth includes not only the nature of consciousness, about which modern science knows very little, but also the entire world of which we are conscious."

    Wallace agrees that quantum mechanics and Buddhism have many similarities: neither is fully objective (i.e. certain quantum properties only have meaning in the context of a measurement) nor fully subjective. Consciousness and various mind-body problems are also similar in this respect, he adds. According to Wallace, the Dalai Lama had not realized before that these sorts of philosophical questions could be so clearly demonstrated in the laboratory, while physicists were surprised that the introspective approach of Buddhism led to similar questions.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1998/aug/07/talking-physics-with-the-dalai-lama

    Hamsaka
  • yagryagr Veteran Veteran

    @AldrisTorvalds said:
    Earthninja I don't think physicists even really understand quantum physics.

    This reminded me of a line in a novel I'm writing...

    “No, it really doesn’t does it?” Daniel asked rhetorically and continued, “The far-fetched part begins when you start to consider what is referred to as quantum entanglements. If reality isn’t fixed but is instead dependent upon the observer, then is there an objective reality if it isn’t observed? Does reality exist unobserved?”
    “I’m confused.” Josh said.
    **“Oh good; I was afraid you weren’t following.” **Daniel said cheerfully.

    ToraldrisVictoriousEarthninjaDavid
Sign In or Register to comment.