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.
Ditto - thank you Channah - lovely thought-provoking post, non inflammatory and very informational.
Quite a breath of fresh air after the board seemed to have gone a bit mental in my absence - I thought I was going to have to put people on the naughty step and get out Mr Whacky-Stick.
Thank you for your complements and high opinions that I feel I dont deserve.
I read the posts of others here and its obvious their knowledge and understanding of all aspects of Buddhism is immense compared to mine.
I speak only from my own experiences. I come from a very mixed background, and kind of grew up in between cultures where non conformity to their respective norms was not really an option.
I learned very early on to think with both a Hungarian ( with its jewish influences ) head, and an english head. To adapt not only my speach and language but my body language, the way i walked, dressed - everything depending on which relative i was visiting or speaking with at any one time.
What I wrote comes not from any knowledge really but an understanding that most people dont realise that even things like geograpy - the physical surroundings in which a people live and develop - effect everything from the sounds in their language to thier culture..
My personal opinion is that in order to fully understand ANY philosophy, path, religion or belief - be it Buddhism - shamanism, Christianity, Islam etc we have to immerse ourselves - at least to some degree in the culture and language which gave it birth - otherwise we miss out on subtle but important ideas and understandings.
Take Hinduism for example... on the surface lies ideas and images that many of us will now be familiar with, ahimsa, vegerarianism, om, sanskrit, blue gods, elephant gods, women in saris etc... same goes for Buddhism...
But behind these surface images and ideas is thousands of years of cultural developement and nuances and like Buddhism layers of meaning that are not always obvious on the surface...
Its possible for a westerner to go to a Hindu ''arati'' - service but much of the meaning and benefit would be lost without a deeper understanding of the WHY... why saris - not jeans, why ghee lamps - not candles , why the flowers, why the offerings, why sanskrit not english etc ...
I think when you are taking eastern paths to the west there always has to be a certain level of adaption to make up for the cultural background and nuances. And there will always be some who adapt and take on new ideas more easily, but i think its dangerous to adapt too far because we risk diluting things beyond recognition.
Buddhism is perhaps more easily adapted than other beliefs since it doenst have a strict dress code ( like the islamic hijab ) nor does it require worship only in temples ..
Buddhism seems to me to be very much a path of the traveller... no statues or ''things '' are really or absolutly required in order to practise it ( although of course it always helps to have teachers and temples and books etc ) which makes it easily transplantable into the west... But the beauty and the benefit of Buddhism also lies in the culture which gave it birth and i dont think that element should ever be taken out completly.
oy - im rambling again so ill stop now... hope some of that makes sense at least...
I think the original linked article is a bit of a minestrone of different ideas and assumptions, some of which I thought were okay, others not.
For me, personally, a significant discovery was that I did not, in any way, have to make myself into something I was not in order to practice Buddha Dhamma.
For years I laboured under the illusion that I would have to almost become an ersatz Asian, learn an exotic language, adopt customs etc. I was also intimidated by my assumed inadequacy; either morally, spiritually or intellectually and held back by unrealistic expectations of what should transpire as a result of practice.
Mostly I lacked clear guidance on how to practically apply Buddhism. I'm happy to say, that's all history now. The legacy of that is with me though and I sometimes sense aversion when I perceive some kind of pre-requisites being advocated for what is in essence a very simple and direct path, which is never closed to us because of who and what we are.
Buddha's path is about liberation. If people want to enfold that in tradition, ritual and cultural stuff, then I understand that need - it's about rites of passage in our lives after all. As western Buddhists we lack that element in our lives, as our rites are in the hands of the Christian church.
So, I'm not against cultures and traditions, as they can be valuable and give comfort and joy. It's just that the experiential inner "essence" of Buddha's teachings is way beyond any such limitations and it is universal, not the exclusive property of any culture, group or sect.
Sri, I think your experience is pretty common for us westerners. I think most of us go into Buddhism trying to become a Tibetan or a Japanese or a Thai or whatever only to realize in the end that we have to make this our path and just be ourselves. It's a natural thing, kind of like trying on Mommy and Daddy's clothes as children before coming to the realization that we have to be ourselves, that we can never be them.
Can't say that I ever wanted to be an asian clone. But I'm just an old country boy who decided a very long time ago to take Dharma out for a test drive. Shucks I'm still on the road.
Sri, I think your experience is pretty common for us westerners. I think most of us go into Buddhism trying to become a Tibetan or a Japanese or a Thai or whatever only to realize in the end that we have to make this our path and just be ourselves. It's a natural thing, kind of like trying on Mommy and Daddy's clothes as children before coming to the realization that we have to be ourselves, that we can never be them.
Palzang
Indeed. When westerners get involved and delighted with Tibetan Buddhism, they often tend to use Tibetan names and phrases in their everyday western lives, hailing each other like Tibetans, and sometimes dressing partly in Tibetan clothing and adopting Tibetan customs too. Does it enhance their practice? I don't think so, it just enhances a fantasy that somehow it makes them more like Tibetans. Harmless, but it's not unlike people trying to act, talk ,and dress like their favorite pop stars with a few bits of another language thrown in as well.
Years later, of course, they're likely to be still practicing, but have returned to being themselves again, just as Palzang observed.
Adopting the core teachings of a Buddhist tradition is essential, but personally I don't think some of the more superficial cultural additions are necessary.
I think this is quite common in many experiences - newbie pagans are easily recognised as they are clanking with sigils and "mystical" jewellery. Those of us who have been at it a while longer have usually put aside the "outward and physical signs" and if we wear jewellery it is usually discreet or under our clothing.
Many people coming to a new belief system feel they literally have to dress up to belong - takes time to realise that is is what is on the inside that counts;
It seems to me that to ask the question, “How will Buddhism change us?” is to miss the point completely. We will, of course, change. In an impermanent world, that much is a given. And it seems to me that if we stop asking questions at this point, the answers that we will get will be somewhere between superficial and uninteresting.
I would suggest, however, that the far more pertinent question is, “How will we change Buddhism?”
Unlike Christianity, Buddhism has no long history of contact with science. So, how will Buddhism adapt to such critical scrutiny? And, importantly, what will we do, after we have become immersed in Buddhism, and then find parts of Buddhism which are incompatible with science? Will we cling to the teachings that we have been given, even when they fly in the face of established facts? Superstition, after all, does not die easily. Christianity has survived quite nicely, despite a mountain of contrary evidence, and there is no reason why Buddhism-as-religion can't do the same.
But, would we, as Buddhists, prefer superstition to fact?
And if we did, what would that say about our egos?
Unlike Christianity, Buddhism has no long history of contact with science. So, how will Buddhism adapt to such critical scrutiny? And, importantly, what will we do, after we have become immersed in Buddhism, and then find parts of Buddhism which are incompatible with science? Will we cling to the teachings that we have been given, even when they fly in the face of established facts? Superstition, after all, does not die easily. Christianity has survived quite nicely, despite a mountain of contrary evidence, and there is no reason why Buddhism-as-religion can't do the same.
But, would we, as Buddhists, prefer superstition to fact?
And if we did, what would that say about our egos?
I, for one, am quite pleased with Buddhism’s relationship with science. I think that it encourages people to ask questions and to seek answers; sharing much in common with the scientific method. It is one of the fastest growing religions today and I think that it has a great chance to survive for millennia to come. As for teachings, I know that personally, I will throw out any aspect of Buddhism in my life that can be proven inaccurate beyond a shadow of a doubt by scientific analysis and most of the other Buddhists I’ve met feel the same way. There is no reason to believe the sky is orange when it is blue. I think that the Buddha’s teachings challenge us to seek out our own true path to nibbana, and not necessarily the one that’s handed to us on a silver platter.
As for Christianity, I wouldn’t want Buddhism to share in one moment of its relationship with science. Look at the constant, ongoing conflict between those two! I see Buddhism taking on the challenge of mixing science and theology on a much more civilized and rational manner. Those Buddhists who cannot detach themselves from superstitions should probably take another look at the Buddha’s teachings and attempt to gain some insight into their own lives so they can see why holding on to those beliefs are more important than attaining enlightenment.
I, for one, am quite pleased with Buddhism’s relationship with science. I think that it encourages people to ask questions and to seek answers; sharing much in common with the scientific method. It is one of the fastest growing religions today and I think that it has a great chance to survive for millennia to come. As for teachings, I know that personally, I will throw out any aspect of Buddhism in my life that can be proven inaccurate beyond a shadow of a doubt by scientific analysis and most of the other Buddhists I’ve met feel the same way. There is no reason to believe the sky is orange when it is blue. I think that the Buddha’s teachings challenge us to seek out our own true path to nibbana, and not necessarily the one that’s handed to us on a silver platter.
As for Christianity, I wouldn’t want Buddhism to share in one moment of its relationship with science. Look at the constant, ongoing conflict between those two! I see Buddhism taking on the challenge of mixing science and theology on a much more civilized and rational manner. Those Buddhists who cannot detach themselves from superstitions should probably take another look at the Buddha’s teachings and attempt to gain some insight into their own lives so they can see why holding on to those beliefs are more important than attaining enlightenment.
~nomad
I think we need to make a distinction between literate, science-minded Westerners who have come to Buddhism by a personal decision and the millions of "cradle Buddhists". I am sure that we have people here who have spent time among such and can testify, as do I, that they demonstrate as deep a fund of pre-scientific superstition as an 'ordinary' Christian or Muslim.
The creative dialogue relationship with science, either by Buddhists such as HHDL or Christians such as Bernard d'Espagnat tends to take place among a minority of educated men and women. It is important, I believe, that in our temples and churches we challenge any teaching which is demonstrably non-scientific. By such a challenge, I do not mean that we rubbish it, but we show that it has a metaphorical/mythic meaning which is generally far more significant than appears on the surface.
I know that personally, I will throw out any aspect of Buddhism in my life that can be proven inaccurate beyond a shadow of a doubt by scientific analysis and most of the other Buddhists I’ve met feel the same way.
~nomad
This is certainly a commendable attitude, but I'm not as optimistic about the numbers as you are. I rather suspect that you are in the minority, but I could be wrong.
I would feel a lot better if Buddhist teachers would take on the responsibility themselves of reconciling traditional Buddhism with modern critical thinking, but I doubt seriously that anything like that will happen in the near future. After all, a religious teacher has, almost by definition, found “the truth,” and therefore spends his/her time expounding on it.
On the other hand, scientists [or, generally, those of a more critical bent] have dedicated themselves to searching for "the truth." And, as a result, they can't ever really say that they have found it. Strictly speaking, they can only say that something is “probably” true, and so, in the light of new information, they remain open to constantly revising their personal [and shared] visions of the world.
It's just my opinion, of course, but to me the attitude of being open-but-critical is the essence of the Middle Way.
So, I'm rather doubtful that religious teachers will spend much time mucking around with any kind of science that is critical of Buddhism. It might make things open to revision. After all, there's not much point in looking for the truth if you've already found it, and it's darn difficult to revise ...
I did not mean to imply that a majority of Buddhists feel this way. I apologize for not wording that better. There will be resistance to change in any tradition that involves human beings because that is just our nature. I was only referring to the few Buddhists that I have been fortunate enough to interact with in person. I agree that many teachers will not spend their time attempting to dissect and disprove particular aspects of the Dhamma. As a layman, I just like to keep my options open.
I'm not sure how science really relates to Buddhism anyway. We're comparing apples and hand grenades here, imho. They essentially deal with two completely different things. Science, in essence, is concerned with describing how samsara works. Buddhism, on the other hand, is concerned with enlightenment, getting out of samsara. Science is relative, based on dualism; Buddhism is not. Two very different things.
It is a truism in Buddhism that one cannot solve the problems of samsara using samsaric methods. Science, of course, only has access to samsaric methods by definition. Buddhism, on the other hand, comes from the mind of enlightenment and so operates from without the boundaries and limitations of samsara. So I'm not sure what point would really be made to compare the two or to try to "adjust" Buddhism to fit science. (T'would make more sense to make science adjust to Buddhism methinks!)
I'm not sure how science really relates to Buddhism anyway. We're comparing apples and hand grenades here, imho. They essentially deal with two completely different things. Science, in essence, is concerned with describing how samsara works. Buddhism, on the other hand, is concerned with enlightenment, getting out of samsara. Science is relative, based on dualism; Buddhism is not. Two very different things.
It is a truism in Buddhism that one cannot solve the problems of samsara using samsaric methods. Science, of course, only has access to samsaric methods by definition. Buddhism, on the other hand, comes from the mind of enlightenment and so operates from without the boundaries and limitations of samsara. So I'm not sure what point would really be made to compare the two or to try to "adjust" Buddhism to fit science. (T'would make more sense to make science adjust to Buddhism methinks!)
Palzang
Does not Buddhism posit certain 'facts', such as rebirth? Are you saying that such ideas are not open to scientific investigation?
And what do we do about the experimental work being done, with the support of HHDL and other lamas, on the effects of meditation?
Rebirth, I would submit, is also beyond the ken of science as there is no way to prove or disprove it using samsaric means.
As for using science to study meditation, I can see value in that as it can demonstrate the benefits of meditation to samsaric beings. The ultimate benefit of meditation, however, is, again, beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove. The ultimate truth of Buddhism is beyond duality.
I also agree with 5 bells that any ontogical question has no place in Buddhist practice as it by definition would be dualistic in nature.
Rebirth, I would submit, is also beyond the ken of science as there is no way to prove or disprove it using samsaric means.
As for using science to study meditation, I can see value in that as it can demonstrate the benefits of meditation to samsaric beings. The ultimate benefit of meditation, however, is, again, beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove. The ultimate truth of Buddhism is beyond duality.
I also agree with 5 bells that any ontogical question has no place in Buddhist practice as it by definition would be dualistic in nature.
Palzang
I have to admit that I feel very uncomfortable at your comment, Palzang. Without wishing to offend, I would say that it reminds me too much of the anti-scientific justifications adduced by, for example, Christian fundamentalists or 'creationists'.
Are you saying that they only way to test and prove the Dharma as the Buddha urges us is to exclude scientific method? What method or paradigm do you then present?
Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything of the kind. Science is fine as far as science can go. But when it comes to Dharma, the only way to "prove" it is just to accomplish it. "Prove" is a word that doesn't really apply anyway. "Realize" might come closer. You're simply awakening to your true nature, not discovering or making anything. You can't discover your true nature using the scientific method. Sorry.
Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything of the kind. Science is fine as far as science can go. But when it comes to Dharma, the only way to "prove" it is just to accomplish it. "Prove" is a word that doesn't really apply anyway. "Realize" might come closer. You're simply awakening to your true nature, not discovering or making anything. You can't discover your true nature using the scientific method. Sorry.
Palzang
Very true. Excuse my constantly bringing up lucid dreams but it's very much the same. It's only possible to demonstrate them to yourself by actually having them (even though scientists like Stephen Laberge have now been able to scientifically prove them), no one can come up and give you one in a box, I believe the same goes to true realization as opposed to the mini/practice one experienced when lucidity is gained in dreams.
"modern science" is nice, but when it comes to exploring the nature of self it is still in the 1800's
And what do we do about the experimental work being done, with the support of HHDL and other lamas, on the effects of meditation?
Any kind of cutting-edge research is both valuable and interesting and no one would dispute the benefits it brings.
I ask myself, thought, whether a subjective personal experience, like enlightenment can ever be objectively measured and endorsed? Perhaps physical and chemical events around it can be measured but the experience and reality of it "itself"?
Can we even quantify universally accepted states such as grief or joy?
If you want to experience meditative states for yourself then you have no alternative but to walk the path to them. There's nothing dogmatic in that. If you need bread, you've got to go to the shops. Superstition, dogma, belief and endless discursive digging are just ways of putting it off.
I'm not sure how science really relates to Buddhism anyway. We're comparing apples and hand grenades here, imho. They essentially deal with two completely different things. Science, in essence, is concerned with describing how samsara works. Buddhism, on the other hand, is concerned with enlightenment, getting out of samsara. Science is relative, based on dualism; Buddhism is not. Two very different things.
While I certainly agree that there is an apples-and-hand oranges problem here, would you be surprised to learn that I don't quite see it the same way that you do?
First, let me draw your attention to a rather surprising—at least to me—point of agreement between Buddhism and science by giving you some recent quotes by two neuroscientists:
... [T]he “I” who narrates this book and then vanishes on the final page is no different from that other “I,” Chris Frith, who wakes from nothing every morning at about 7 a.m. and vanishes again every night. I am not sure which of us is writing these final pages, but in both cases this “I” is created by my brain.
Educated people, of course, know that perception, cognition, language, and emotion are rooted in the brain. But it is still tempting to think of the brain as it was shown in old educational cartoons, as a control panel with gauges and levers operated by a user—the self, the soul, the ghost, the person, the “me.” But cognitive neuroscience is showing that the self, too, is just another network of brain systems.
Pretty much seems to be in line with traditional Buddhist teachings, if you ask me.
Now, the question becomes, how can “two very different things” reach such strikingly similar conclusions? I'd really like to have someone explain that to me. Because I would suggest that the quotes by Frith and Pinker would indicate that science and Buddhism have at lease something in common.
The apples-and-hand oranges problem? The Buddhism-as-religion group seem to be following the dictum of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, as well as any Christian: Don't ask questions. Just Believe. In other words, there's no need to actually go through all the trouble of testing one's beliefs if they are true in the first place, is there? And why wouldn't they be true? Didn't you get them directly from your guru/priest/roshi/rabbi/imam/whatever? [Of course, all those other guys believe in superstition! Not me! My belief has been personally verified by my guru/priest/roshi/imam/whatever.]
On the other hand, there are still some Buddhists who take this seriously:
I, for one, prefer not to put much stock in “what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition” without periodic reassessments in the light of new evidence and other [maybe better] reasoning.
Like it or not, we all live our lives in a box. From the inside, the box always looks huge, spacious ... infinite or bordering on the infinite. It's only when we get outside of the box that we can see how small and confining it really was. The trick, as nearly as I can figure it, is to get out of as many boxes as possible. If we don't make that effort, our spiritual lives simply stagnate.
Science is relative, based on dualism; Buddhism is not.
Not entirely. Anyone who has studied environmental issues, food issues or the psychology of sense perceptions quickly understands how well science works in an interconnected world. The Cartesian model went out a long time ago.
On the other hand, Buddhism is not without its own dualistic dilemmas. Which comes first, Dharma qua truth or Dharma qua teaching of truth? This little chicken-and-egg problem has a venerable history, remains unresolved, and has caused quite a few monks quite a few headaches.
It is a truism in Buddhism that one cannot solve the problems of samsara using samsaric methods.
Did the Buddha ever claim to solve the problems of samsara? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Seems to me that he thought that problems of suffering, old age, illness and death were unsolvable. If they have been solved, can I stop growing older now?
Buddhism, on the other hand, comes from the mind of enlightenment and so operates from without the boundaries and limitations of samsara.
Perhaps so, but every mystic from the Swedenborg Society to feel-good New Age nonsense to a drunk I saw sitting in a gutter one time can pretty much claim the same thing [although they might use slightly different vocabulary to describe the experience of being beyond the boundaries of normal society and the limitations of our usual sense perceptions.]. Nothing special about it.
And, as nearly as I can tell, there's nothing Buddhist about it, either. The Buddha said: "I teach one thing and one only: suffering and the end of suffering." Maybe not very exciting for religious types, I guess.
Also, these mystical experiences are being duplicated in the laboratory now. “Ecstatic bliss triggered solely by wayward electrons? Why not? ... [T]he studies of Toronto psychologist Michael Persinger [show that mystical experiences] can be created with external stimulation of the brain. Volunteer con a cloth swimmer's cap outfitted with a grid of magnetic coils. Using the magnets to stimulate localized areas of the brain, Persinger has been able to generate feelings of a “sensed presence,” “another self,” or “oneness with the universe” (actual patient descriptions.). Those with a Christian upbringing often describe the presence of Jesus; those with Muslim backgrounds have described the presence of Mohammad. Also frequently mentioned are profound emotions such as awe, joy, and a general sense of harmony and deep significance—though without being attached to any specific idea or belief.”
Nothing special about it. Ask any drunk. Actual thinking on the other hand ... that's harder. Or just sitting on a cushion. That's harder yet. But it does lead to an end of suffering, humbling though it may be.
Any kind of cutting-edge research is both valuable and interesting and no one would dispute the benefits it brings.
I ask myself, thought, whether a subjective personal experience, like enlightenment can ever be objectively measured and endorsed? Perhaps physical and chemical events around it can be measured but the experience and reality of it "itself"?
Can we even quantify universally accepted states such as grief or joy?
If you want to experience meditative states for yourself then you have no alternative but to walk the path to them. There's nothing dogmatic in that. If you need bread, you've got to go to the shops. Superstition, dogma, belief and endless discursive digging are just ways of putting it off.
Namaste
I agree wholeheartedly, Sri, and really like the way you expressed this.
The Buddha said: "I teach one thing and one only: suffering and the end of suffering."
To me this is the crux of the matter. It seems to me to indicate that the Buddha was primarily interested in practical psychology rather than philosophical musings or religious dogma.
I recently posted a link to this article in the Current Events section of the forum, but it might be appropriate to tack it on here, too. The article is mostly concerned with political beliefs, but political and religious beliefs have at least a few things in common, so the ideas really should transfer without much of a problem.
There are several basic points to an aspect of modern psychology which is concerned with how the ego actually does work that I found to be quite well-expressed; here is one of them:
"[R]ather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. ... [and] for the most part people completely ignore contrary information."
....
It seems to me that Buddhists are no more immune from this syndrome than anyone else. ... And if we are immune, exactly how and when did that occur?
Good point. This kind of blinkered vision is a particular kind of ignorance and as such it must help to perpetuates the craving responsible for suffering.
Speaking of which, I know that the Buddha implicated craving as the source of suffering but did he say anything about the source(s) of craving?
My own estimation is that craving arises out of conditioning (genetically inherited tendencies/instincts along with beliefs acquired through personal experience).
And with all due apologies if I've gone too far, on the path to the end of our suffering, isn't it important to lose one's ego?
Yes, upon reflection, that most certainly was carrying things too far.
My deepest, sincere apologies to guests who happen to read this post, the members of the forum, and, especially to Palzang, who was kind enough to over-look my mistake; he hasn't even mentioned it.
I am ashamed of myself for having made such an egregious remark in the first place, let alone for not noticing it for several days.
This is probably a good time for me to take a break from the forum for a while, and spend some time reflecting ... on my own ego ...
How are you defining the word "samsara" in this context? I am not sure I have seen or heard of any scientist mention a concern of "how samsara works", or that they are "using 'dualism-based, samsaric' methods, by definition".
I'm not sure how science really relates to Buddhism anyway. We're comparing apples and hand grenades here, imho. They essentially deal with two completely different things. Science, in essence, is concerned with describing how samsara works. Buddhism, on the other hand, is concerned with enlightenment, getting out of samsara. Science is relative, based on dualism; Buddhism is not. Two very different things.
It is a truism in Buddhism that one cannot solve the problems of samsara using samsaric methods. Science, of course, only has access to samsaric methods by definition. Buddhism, on the other hand, comes from the mind of enlightenment and so operates from without the boundaries and limitations of samsara. So I'm not sure what point would really be made to compare the two or to try to "adjust" Buddhism to fit science. (T'would make more sense to make science adjust to Buddhism methinks!)
Palzang
I would point out that science relates to the Buddha's teachings in that they both rely on empirical observation of what can be detected for oneself. The Buddha's teachings are concerned with such things as they apply to mental events, and especially those mental events, processes, and habits that generate misery and suffering in response to experience. In this way the teachings of the Buddha are quite scientific, just applied to a narrow field.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurableevidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup>
While most (but not all) scientific endeavors tend to investigate physical phenomena, the Buddha's teachings are concerned primarily with mental phenomena, and specifically as they apply to how we cause suffering for ourselves and others in response to our inner-and-outer environment.
Well, thanks, Ragyaba, but I've actually been too busy to even visit the forum lately, so I didn't even see your comment!
Stuka, samsara is simply our ordinary, dualistic (self and other) way of looking at the world. The scientific method uses samsaric methods because it is a product of samsaric mind. It utilizes the senses, or extensions of those senses (i.e. telescopes, microscopes, computers, etc) to test hypotheses about how the world (i.e. the samsaric world) works. They don't, obviously, call it samsaric because they don't even know the term, but that's what they're doing.
It's true that the Buddha's teachings are quite logical and scientific, and very, very much ahead of his time in his observations on the nature of the universe. For instance, he pointed out that there are "3000 myriads of universes" long before humanity even had a concept of what one universe was, much less countless universes (which is something quantum physics has only recently "discovered"). For more on this, I would recommend "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra which shows how much in synch the ancient teachings of the Buddha are in tune with "modern" science. I fully encourage science to test the teachings of the Buddha, at least those it can. I don't have any problem at all with that and hope that scientists do just that because it could provide them with the key they've been looking for so long.
But it still remains true that the core teachings of the Buddha - karma, rebirth, enlightenment itself - are beyond the scope of the scientific method simply because they are dualistic in nature, and the mind of enlightenment is not. That is not a trivial difference.
Stuka, samsara is simply our ordinary, dualistic (self and other) way of looking at the world.
That's not quite true. The scientific method is intrinsically designed to factor "self" out of the process. Hence such things as double-blind testing.
The Buddha didn't teach "non-dualism", BTW: that's Advaita Vedanta. Didn't you know...?
The scientific method uses samsaric methods because it is a product of samsaric mind.
Rather a circular definition, though it fails for the same reason.
It utilizes the senses, or extensions of those senses (i.e. telescopes, microscopes, computers, etc) to test hypotheses about how the world (i.e. the samsaric world) works.
By that definition, the Buddha Himself taught liberation through "samsaric methods" using "samsaric mind". The Buddha hypothesized anicca, anatta, and dukkha, and encouraged us to use our senses to observe these qualities for ourselves. The Anapanasati Sutta is a very good example of this; demonstrating the very method by which He came to his Great Awakening.
They don't, obviously, call it samsaric because they don't even know the term, but that's what they're doing.
Nor did the Buddha use, or know, the terms "samsaric methods" or "samsaric mind".
It's true that the Buddha's teachings are quite logical and scientific, and very, very much ahead of his time in his observations on the nature of the universe.
The Buddha's own teachings were concerned with the nature and quenching of suffering.
For instance, he pointed out that there are "3000 myriads of universes" long before humanity even had a concept of what one universe was, much less countless universes (which is something quantum physics has only recently "discovered").
That sounds like a later Mahayana invention. What is your source for this speculative view?
For more on this, I would recommend "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra which shows how much in synch the ancient teachings of the Buddha are in tune with "modern" science.
Ah, it's Taoism. The Buddha did not teach Taoism, thanks.
I fully encourage science to test the teachings of the Buddha, at least those it can. I don't have any problem at all with that and hope that scientists do just that because it could provide them with the key they've been looking for so long.
The actual teachings of the Buddha comport entirely with scientific methods. As I pointed out before, the Buddha's teachings are concerned with empirical observation of observable processes, just like science.
But it still remains true that the core teachings of the Buddha - karma, rebirth, enlightenment itself - are beyond the scope of the scientific method simply because they are dualistic in nature, and the mind of enlightenment is not. That is not a trivial difference.
The core teaching of kamma the Buddha taught was that it is intention. One can very easily observe the relationship between intention and action, whether skillful or unskillful.
While I agree that, as you say, pre-Buddha notions of deterministic karma and reincarnation ("re-birth") are very definitely dualistic (as well as samsaric) in nature -- the Buddha called such views "right view with defilements" because they are based in and dependent upon greed, aversion, and ignorance (superstition) -- they are irrelevant to the Buddha's own actual teachings of the ending of suffering through discernment (which in MN 117 he called "Noble Right View that is without defilements, transcendent, a Factor of the [Noble Eightfold] Path"), as they are speculative views, which the Buddha mentions (in the Simile of the Snake Sutta, for example) that his own teachings were designed to rid oneself of.
May I just comment on this point.
"The scientific method is intrinsically designed to factor "self" out of the process"
Not knowing the scientific method, being not a scientist, does not mean I do not understand it. So I checked it out. And the name comes up John Stuart Mill. Without even going further I am thinking. An economist who would come up with a design to factor self out of the process. When economy is the nature of self, and all about self. Economy is the specialisation of self, via efficiency of energy, to be a baker, rather than hopping between both baker and butcher. So that the baker wars with the butcher, until they decide to unite and war with you. So if we say science stems from economy. Then a scientist who claims to factor out self, is deeming himself a spiritualist. But they are poles apart. Not one person can claim anything true until they are a spiritualist. For any truth they claim will be born of lies. Any man who becomes a spiritualist, advances by realising: Science is false. Numbers are false. Time is false. Thought is false. Vision is false. Everything is false. Because SELF is false. Anything created from self is false. And here and now is true, if you are one with the spirit, and then you have the power of creation in your every being. Why would you then need science? If you want a door in the wall. Create one. If you want to catch the ball. Create it. If you want a friend. Create it. If you want your life back. Create it. But you cannot create anything, until you have lost everything. And everything to the individual is self. And any method, and word created by anyone at all, is born of self, and even if they feel that what they are doing is selfless, it is only because the self has been deceived so well that it is. Selfless actions within a realm of selfness, such as "I am trying to cure cancer with the abacadabra pill", when they do not know the spell of abacadabra, is like trying to heal your heart of lonelyness by cutting out your heart. Everyone pats every heart cutter on the back as if they are all going fowards in the right direction, but one man stops them and says "We have been cutting out hearts for so damn long, and still we are heartless and dieing, so why don't we just turn a corner". All of the men belittle him, "you don't want to save the world with us by cutting out hearts"? "No", he says, "I want to save the world by giving it a heart, so that then I may see no hurt, feel no blood, and no impurity of blood, so when hurt is not known, it is never felt".
Science is a sick sick disease, as the world is sick sick disease. If science were not a sick disease, then science could cure all. But science has only ever created illusion. Light globes instead of the sunlight. Computers instead of faces. Things instead of beings. It is all about self, because hypothesis is formed with the self in mind. Always. You never would form a hypothesis that did not take your comfort out of self, or for fear of loss of self. Only the little fears enter your conciousness, the big fears stay in the greater conciousness, with a shared illusion of what they mean. Such is the subject known as Science. Multiplication built upon multiplication, so that the simplicity can never be divided. A simplicity of, "what are you afraid of"? These shared illusions are created from comforting hypothesis, multiplications upon multiplications, so that we aim to divide it with one hypothesis, to be ready to multiply it with another.
Double blind testing, is still blind, if the man was blinded by his own hypothesis. When the only hypothesis you need to know, is to be, to live, to love, to not worry, and then not piece of science is needed. For you have the power of creation in your hearts.
Very Interesting as of what I've read. How does this affect your practice? Knitwitch said that beginners of Wicca (and any other religion) like the outward symbols as it helps them to feel they belong. When I was a fundy xtian I had an arrogant shirt that said "Hey wait a minute, I've been ripped off. Where's my friends to help me cool off!" The cartoon surfer was in a lake of fire. I don't think anyone who read it "came to the Lord". I did get a Buddhist sweatshirt and a bunch of books, and other items. They did not add one bit to my practice. Luckily, in coming back to it, I'm flat broke and am forced to practice. I was able a few months back to get a meditation chair. Not necessary but I really wanted it. I use it when I can as my back can cause me to need to sit much more upright. Some of the stuff that I bought I gave to a sangha that I was involved with for about a year. It didn't add any thing that I was aware of. Just sitting and meditating and reading a few of the books that I kept is what I must accept. It will be interesting to see how things turn out. I don't feel any less spiritual with all the accoutrements. Also, I feel relieved that I can't go out and buy anything since it was getting to be insane. You can become attached to anything when trying to become less attached to worldly things.
I myself cannot see any noticible contradiction between the Buddha Dharma and information gained through the use of the scientific method.
The Buddha teaches us to be compassionate to all living things, correct? Isn't the scientist who strives to cure a crippling disease acting as a bodhisattva, trying to liberate all beings from one form or another of Dukkha?
The information gained through science can be employed with wisdom [prajna] and compassion [metta] or it can be used to create greater suffering in a world that hardly needs more of it, such as inventing new methods to kill and maim one another through the billions funneled through the Pentagon in any given week. Science more then anything is merely a way for people to understand the Cosmos and its inner workings. The Buddha was concerned with only two things: Suffering (Dukkha) and liberation from suffering through the path (Magga) laid out by him more then 2,500 years ago.
It seems to me that to build nuclear weapons is contrary to Right Livelihood, Right Thought, Right Mindfulness, and Right Action. To dismantle nuclear weapons seems to me to be right action. -and so forth.
The ability to make a bladed metal instrument, a knife, is a result of science...but science cannot tell us what to do with such an impliment. It is the teachings of the Buddha and our own Buddha-nature that informs us if we should use such an object to chop vegtables for a meal or kill our neighbor because they have slighted us.
I myself cannot see any noticible contradiction between the Buddha Dharma and information gained through the use of the scientific method.
The Buddha teaches us to be compassionate to all living things, correct? Isn't the scientist who strives to cure a crippling disease acting as a bodhisattva, trying to liberate all beings from one form or another of Dukkha?
The information gained through science can be employed with wisdom [prajna] and compassion [metta] or it can be used to create greater suffering in a world that hardly needs more of it, such as inventing new methods to kill and maim one another through the billions funneled through the Pentagon in any given week. Science more then anything is merely a way for people to understand the Cosmos and its inner workings. The Buddha was concerned with only two things: Suffering (Dukkha) and liberation from suffering through the path (Magga) laid out by him more then 2,500 years ago.
It seems to me that to build nuclear weapons is contrary to Right Livelihood, Right Thought, Right Mindfulness, and Right Action. To dismantle nuclear weapons seems to me to be right action. -and so forth.
The ability to make a bladed metal instrument, a knife, is a result of science...but science cannot tell us what to do with such an impliment. It is the teachings of the Buddha and our own Buddha-nature that informs us if we should use such an object to chop vegtables for a meal or kill our neighbor because they have slighted us.
What do you all think?
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ckmh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Welcome to the forums. I've enjoyed reading the few post you have made so far. You show much contemplative reasoning and insight. Science can give us a way to lessen some of the suffering from life. The key is to know how to apply proper wisdom and understanding to steer the discoveries of science to a beneficial use for all.
I myself cannot see any noticible contradiction between the Buddha Dharma and information gained through the use of the scientific method.
The Buddha teaches us to be compassionate to all living things, correct? Isn't the scientist who strives to cure a crippling disease acting as a bodhisattva, trying to liberate all beings from one form or another of Dukkha?
The information gained through science can be employed with wisdom [prajna] and compassion [metta] or it can be used to create greater suffering in a world that hardly needs more of it, such as inventing new methods to kill and maim one another through the billions funneled through the Pentagon in any given week. Science more then anything is merely a way for people to understand the Cosmos and its inner workings. The Buddha was concerned with only two things: Suffering (Dukkha) and liberation from suffering through the path (Magga) laid out by him more then 2,500 years ago.
It seems to me that to build nuclear weapons is contrary to Right Livelihood, Right Thought, Right Mindfulness, and Right Action. To dismantle nuclear weapons seems to me to be right action. -and so forth.
The ability to make a bladed metal instrument, a knife, is a result of science...but science cannot tell us what to do with such an impliment. It is the teachings of the Buddha and our own Buddha-nature that informs us if we should use such an object to chop vegtables for a meal or kill our neighbor because they have slighted us.
What do you all think?
That is what I've been thinking but not able to put into words. Aleviation of suffering that all persons in the health field are doing whether or not they follow the path. Science is used regularly to help others to heal. Friends ask me how I can be an RN. I tell them I may have to inflict some pain (needles, IV sticks and shots) in order to alleviate the symptoms the patient is feeling or administering medicines that will help in the long run. It is helping someone that I keep in mind while I'm doing it.
So Validus, thanks for saying what I can explain but not put so eloquently.:cool:
Comments
Quite a breath of fresh air after the board seemed to have gone a bit mental in my absence - I thought I was going to have to put people on the naughty step and get out Mr Whacky-Stick.
Bless you, dear for an insight.
Muzzeltoff!
Thank you for your complements and high opinions that I feel I dont deserve.
I read the posts of others here and its obvious their knowledge and understanding of all aspects of Buddhism is immense compared to mine.
I speak only from my own experiences. I come from a very mixed background, and kind of grew up in between cultures where non conformity to their respective norms was not really an option.
I learned very early on to think with both a Hungarian ( with its jewish influences ) head, and an english head. To adapt not only my speach and language but my body language, the way i walked, dressed - everything depending on which relative i was visiting or speaking with at any one time.
What I wrote comes not from any knowledge really but an understanding that most people dont realise that even things like geograpy - the physical surroundings in which a people live and develop - effect everything from the sounds in their language to thier culture..
My personal opinion is that in order to fully understand ANY philosophy, path, religion or belief - be it Buddhism - shamanism, Christianity, Islam etc we have to immerse ourselves - at least to some degree in the culture and language which gave it birth - otherwise we miss out on subtle but important ideas and understandings.
Take Hinduism for example... on the surface lies ideas and images that many of us will now be familiar with, ahimsa, vegerarianism, om, sanskrit, blue gods, elephant gods, women in saris etc... same goes for Buddhism...
But behind these surface images and ideas is thousands of years of cultural developement and nuances and like Buddhism layers of meaning that are not always obvious on the surface...
Its possible for a westerner to go to a Hindu ''arati'' - service but much of the meaning and benefit would be lost without a deeper understanding of the WHY... why saris - not jeans, why ghee lamps - not candles , why the flowers, why the offerings, why sanskrit not english etc ...
I think when you are taking eastern paths to the west there always has to be a certain level of adaption to make up for the cultural background and nuances. And there will always be some who adapt and take on new ideas more easily, but i think its dangerous to adapt too far because we risk diluting things beyond recognition.
Buddhism is perhaps more easily adapted than other beliefs since it doenst have a strict dress code ( like the islamic hijab ) nor does it require worship only in temples ..
Buddhism seems to me to be very much a path of the traveller... no statues or ''things '' are really or absolutly required in order to practise it ( although of course it always helps to have teachers and temples and books etc ) which makes it easily transplantable into the west... But the beauty and the benefit of Buddhism also lies in the culture which gave it birth and i dont think that element should ever be taken out completly.
oy - im rambling again so ill stop now... hope some of that makes sense at least...
For me, personally, a significant discovery was that I did not, in any way, have to make myself into something I was not in order to practice Buddha Dhamma.
For years I laboured under the illusion that I would have to almost become an ersatz Asian, learn an exotic language, adopt customs etc. I was also intimidated by my assumed inadequacy; either morally, spiritually or intellectually and held back by unrealistic expectations of what should transpire as a result of practice.
Mostly I lacked clear guidance on how to practically apply Buddhism. I'm happy to say, that's all history now. The legacy of that is with me though and I sometimes sense aversion when I perceive some kind of pre-requisites being advocated for what is in essence a very simple and direct path, which is never closed to us because of who and what we are.
Buddha's path is about liberation. If people want to enfold that in tradition, ritual and cultural stuff, then I understand that need - it's about rites of passage in our lives after all. As western Buddhists we lack that element in our lives, as our rites are in the hands of the Christian church.
So, I'm not against cultures and traditions, as they can be valuable and give comfort and joy. It's just that the experiential inner "essence" of Buddha's teachings is way beyond any such limitations and it is universal, not the exclusive property of any culture, group or sect.
Palzang
grackle
Palzang
Thank you for the nice sentiment. It is much appreciated.
grackle
Indeed. When westerners get involved and delighted with Tibetan Buddhism, they often tend to use Tibetan names and phrases in their everyday western lives, hailing each other like Tibetans, and sometimes dressing partly in Tibetan clothing and adopting Tibetan customs too. Does it enhance their practice? I don't think so, it just enhances a fantasy that somehow it makes them more like Tibetans. Harmless, but it's not unlike people trying to act, talk ,and dress like their favorite pop stars with a few bits of another language thrown in as well.
Years later, of course, they're likely to be still practicing, but have returned to being themselves again, just as Palzang observed.
Adopting the core teachings of a Buddhist tradition is essential, but personally I don't think some of the more superficial cultural additions are necessary.
_/\_
Many people coming to a new belief system feel they literally have to dress up to belong - takes time to realise that is is what is on the inside that counts;
I would suggest, however, that the far more pertinent question is, “How will we change Buddhism?”
Unlike Christianity, Buddhism has no long history of contact with science. So, how will Buddhism adapt to such critical scrutiny? And, importantly, what will we do, after we have become immersed in Buddhism, and then find parts of Buddhism which are incompatible with science? Will we cling to the teachings that we have been given, even when they fly in the face of established facts? Superstition, after all, does not die easily. Christianity has survived quite nicely, despite a mountain of contrary evidence, and there is no reason why Buddhism-as-religion can't do the same.
But, would we, as Buddhists, prefer superstition to fact?
And if we did, what would that say about our egos?
I, for one, am quite pleased with Buddhism’s relationship with science. I think that it encourages people to ask questions and to seek answers; sharing much in common with the scientific method. It is one of the fastest growing religions today and I think that it has a great chance to survive for millennia to come. As for teachings, I know that personally, I will throw out any aspect of Buddhism in my life that can be proven inaccurate beyond a shadow of a doubt by scientific analysis and most of the other Buddhists I’ve met feel the same way. There is no reason to believe the sky is orange when it is blue. I think that the Buddha’s teachings challenge us to seek out our own true path to nibbana, and not necessarily the one that’s handed to us on a silver platter.
As for Christianity, I wouldn’t want Buddhism to share in one moment of its relationship with science. Look at the constant, ongoing conflict between those two! I see Buddhism taking on the challenge of mixing science and theology on a much more civilized and rational manner. Those Buddhists who cannot detach themselves from superstitions should probably take another look at the Buddha’s teachings and attempt to gain some insight into their own lives so they can see why holding on to those beliefs are more important than attaining enlightenment.
~nomad
I think we need to make a distinction between literate, science-minded Westerners who have come to Buddhism by a personal decision and the millions of "cradle Buddhists". I am sure that we have people here who have spent time among such and can testify, as do I, that they demonstrate as deep a fund of pre-scientific superstition as an 'ordinary' Christian or Muslim.
The creative dialogue relationship with science, either by Buddhists such as HHDL or Christians such as Bernard d'Espagnat tends to take place among a minority of educated men and women. It is important, I believe, that in our temples and churches we challenge any teaching which is demonstrably non-scientific. By such a challenge, I do not mean that we rubbish it, but we show that it has a metaphorical/mythic meaning which is generally far more significant than appears on the surface.
~nomad
This is certainly a commendable attitude, but I'm not as optimistic about the numbers as you are. I rather suspect that you are in the minority, but I could be wrong.
I would feel a lot better if Buddhist teachers would take on the responsibility themselves of reconciling traditional Buddhism with modern critical thinking, but I doubt seriously that anything like that will happen in the near future. After all, a religious teacher has, almost by definition, found “the truth,” and therefore spends his/her time expounding on it.
On the other hand, scientists [or, generally, those of a more critical bent] have dedicated themselves to searching for "the truth." And, as a result, they can't ever really say that they have found it. Strictly speaking, they can only say that something is “probably” true, and so, in the light of new information, they remain open to constantly revising their personal [and shared] visions of the world.
It's just my opinion, of course, but to me the attitude of being open-but-critical is the essence of the Middle Way.
So, I'm rather doubtful that religious teachers will spend much time mucking around with any kind of science that is critical of Buddhism. It might make things open to revision. After all, there's not much point in looking for the truth if you've already found it, and it's darn difficult to revise ...
~nomad
You didn't imply that, and there's no need to apologize!
It is a truism in Buddhism that one cannot solve the problems of samsara using samsaric methods. Science, of course, only has access to samsaric methods by definition. Buddhism, on the other hand, comes from the mind of enlightenment and so operates from without the boundaries and limitations of samsara. So I'm not sure what point would really be made to compare the two or to try to "adjust" Buddhism to fit science. (T'would make more sense to make science adjust to Buddhism methinks!)
Palzang
Does not Buddhism posit certain 'facts', such as rebirth? Are you saying that such ideas are not open to scientific investigation?
And what do we do about the experimental work being done, with the support of HHDL and other lamas, on the effects of meditation?
As for using science to study meditation, I can see value in that as it can demonstrate the benefits of meditation to samsaric beings. The ultimate benefit of meditation, however, is, again, beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove. The ultimate truth of Buddhism is beyond duality.
I also agree with 5 bells that any ontogical question has no place in Buddhist practice as it by definition would be dualistic in nature.
Palzang
I have to admit that I feel very uncomfortable at your comment, Palzang. Without wishing to offend, I would say that it reminds me too much of the anti-scientific justifications adduced by, for example, Christian fundamentalists or 'creationists'.
Are you saying that they only way to test and prove the Dharma as the Buddha urges us is to exclude scientific method? What method or paradigm do you then present?
Palzang
Very true. Excuse my constantly bringing up lucid dreams but it's very much the same. It's only possible to demonstrate them to yourself by actually having them (even though scientists like Stephen Laberge have now been able to scientifically prove them), no one can come up and give you one in a box, I believe the same goes to true realization as opposed to the mini/practice one experienced when lucidity is gained in dreams.
"modern science" is nice, but when it comes to exploring the nature of self it is still in the 1800's
Any kind of cutting-edge research is both valuable and interesting and no one would dispute the benefits it brings.
I ask myself, thought, whether a subjective personal experience, like enlightenment can ever be objectively measured and endorsed? Perhaps physical and chemical events around it can be measured but the experience and reality of it "itself"?
Can we even quantify universally accepted states such as grief or joy?
If you want to experience meditative states for yourself then you have no alternative but to walk the path to them. There's nothing dogmatic in that. If you need bread, you've got to go to the shops. Superstition, dogma, belief and endless discursive digging are just ways of putting it off.
Namaste
While I certainly agree that there is an apples-and-hand oranges problem here, would you be surprised to learn that I don't quite see it the same way that you do?
First, let me draw your attention to a rather surprising—at least to me—point of agreement between Buddhism and science by giving you some recent quotes by two neuroscientists:
... [T]he “I” who narrates this book and then vanishes on the final page is no different from that other “I,” Chris Frith, who wakes from nothing every morning at about 7 a.m. and vanishes again every night. I am not sure which of us is writing these final pages, but in both cases this “I” is created by my brain.
From page 184 of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Mind-Br...dp/1405136944/
And this one is by Steven Pinker, on page 42:
http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Mo...dp/0142003344/
Educated people, of course, know that perception, cognition, language, and emotion are rooted in the brain. But it is still tempting to think of the brain as it was shown in old educational cartoons, as a control panel with gauges and levers operated by a user—the self, the soul, the ghost, the person, the “me.” But cognitive neuroscience is showing that the self, too, is just another network of brain systems.
Pretty much seems to be in line with traditional Buddhist teachings, if you ask me.
Now, the question becomes, how can “two very different things” reach such strikingly similar conclusions? I'd really like to have someone explain that to me. Because I would suggest that the quotes by Frith and Pinker would indicate that science and Buddhism have at lease something in common.
The apples-and-hand oranges problem? The Buddhism-as-religion group seem to be following the dictum of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, as well as any Christian: Don't ask questions. Just Believe. In other words, there's no need to actually go through all the trouble of testing one's beliefs if they are true in the first place, is there? And why wouldn't they be true? Didn't you get them directly from your guru/priest/roshi/rabbi/imam/whatever? [Of course, all those other guys believe in superstition! Not me! My belief has been personally verified by my guru/priest/roshi/imam/whatever.]
On the other hand, there are still some Buddhists who take this seriously:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
I, for one, prefer not to put much stock in “what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition” without periodic reassessments in the light of new evidence and other [maybe better] reasoning.
Like it or not, we all live our lives in a box. From the inside, the box always looks huge, spacious ... infinite or bordering on the infinite. It's only when we get outside of the box that we can see how small and confining it really was. The trick, as nearly as I can figure it, is to get out of as many boxes as possible. If we don't make that effort, our spiritual lives simply stagnate.
Not entirely. Anyone who has studied environmental issues, food issues or the psychology of sense perceptions quickly understands how well science works in an interconnected world. The Cartesian model went out a long time ago.
On the other hand, Buddhism is not without its own dualistic dilemmas. Which comes first, Dharma qua truth or Dharma qua teaching of truth? This little chicken-and-egg problem has a venerable history, remains unresolved, and has caused quite a few monks quite a few headaches.
Did the Buddha ever claim to solve the problems of samsara? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Seems to me that he thought that problems of suffering, old age, illness and death were unsolvable. If they have been solved, can I stop growing older now?
Perhaps so, but every mystic from the Swedenborg Society to feel-good New Age nonsense to a drunk I saw sitting in a gutter one time can pretty much claim the same thing [although they might use slightly different vocabulary to describe the experience of being beyond the boundaries of normal society and the limitations of our usual sense perceptions.]. Nothing special about it.
And, as nearly as I can tell, there's nothing Buddhist about it, either. The Buddha said: "I teach one thing and one only: suffering and the end of suffering." Maybe not very exciting for religious types, I guess.
Also, these mystical experiences are being duplicated in the laboratory now. “Ecstatic bliss triggered solely by wayward electrons? Why not? ... [T]he studies of Toronto psychologist Michael Persinger [show that mystical experiences] can be created with external stimulation of the brain. Volunteer con a cloth swimmer's cap outfitted with a grid of magnetic coils. Using the magnets to stimulate localized areas of the brain, Persinger has been able to generate feelings of a “sensed presence,” “another self,” or “oneness with the universe” (actual patient descriptions.). Those with a Christian upbringing often describe the presence of Jesus; those with Muslim backgrounds have described the presence of Mohammad. Also frequently mentioned are profound emotions such as awe, joy, and a general sense of harmony and deep significance—though without being attached to any specific idea or belief.”
From pages 24 and 25 of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/031254152X/
Nothing special about it. Ask any drunk. Actual thinking on the other hand ... that's harder. Or just sitting on a cushion. That's harder yet. But it does lead to an end of suffering, humbling though it may be.
And you might well think so. But there are others who would might not share that opinion.
http://www.iwise.com/KYlF7
... and I'll just let you two work out your differences between yourselves ...
And with all due apologies if I've gone too far, on the path to the end of our suffering, isn't it important to lose one's ego?
To me this is the crux of the matter. It seems to me to indicate that the Buddha was primarily interested in practical psychology rather than philosophical musings or religious dogma.
There are several basic points to an aspect of modern psychology which is concerned with how the ego actually does work that I found to be quite well-expressed; here is one of them:
"[R]ather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. ... [and] for the most part people completely ignore contrary information."
....
It seems to me that Buddhists are no more immune from this syndrome than anyone else. ... And if we are immune, exactly how and when did that occur?
http://www.brainmysteries.com/research/Study_demonstrates_how_we_support_our_false_beliefs.asp
Speaking of which, I know that the Buddha implicated craving as the source of suffering but did he say anything about the source(s) of craving?
My own estimation is that craving arises out of conditioning (genetically inherited tendencies/instincts along with beliefs acquired through personal experience).
And this craving has what as its cause, what as its origination, what as its source, what as that which brings it into play?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.011.than.html
Yes, upon reflection, that most certainly was carrying things too far.
My deepest, sincere apologies to guests who happen to read this post, the members of the forum, and, especially to Palzang, who was kind enough to over-look my mistake; he hasn't even mentioned it.
I am ashamed of myself for having made such an egregious remark in the first place, let alone for not noticing it for several days.
This is probably a good time for me to take a break from the forum for a while, and spend some time reflecting ... on my own ego ...
How are you defining the word "samsara" in this context? I am not sure I have seen or heard of any scientist mention a concern of "how samsara works", or that they are "using 'dualism-based, samsaric' methods, by definition".
I would point out that science relates to the Buddha's teachings in that they both rely on empirical observation of what can be detected for oneself. The Buddha's teachings are concerned with such things as they apply to mental events, and especially those mental events, processes, and habits that generate misery and suffering in response to experience. In this way the teachings of the Buddha are quite scientific, just applied to a narrow field.
While most (but not all) scientific endeavors tend to investigate physical phenomena, the Buddha's teachings are concerned primarily with mental phenomena, and specifically as they apply to how we cause suffering for ourselves and others in response to our inner-and-outer environment.
Stuka, samsara is simply our ordinary, dualistic (self and other) way of looking at the world. The scientific method uses samsaric methods because it is a product of samsaric mind. It utilizes the senses, or extensions of those senses (i.e. telescopes, microscopes, computers, etc) to test hypotheses about how the world (i.e. the samsaric world) works. They don't, obviously, call it samsaric because they don't even know the term, but that's what they're doing.
It's true that the Buddha's teachings are quite logical and scientific, and very, very much ahead of his time in his observations on the nature of the universe. For instance, he pointed out that there are "3000 myriads of universes" long before humanity even had a concept of what one universe was, much less countless universes (which is something quantum physics has only recently "discovered"). For more on this, I would recommend "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra which shows how much in synch the ancient teachings of the Buddha are in tune with "modern" science. I fully encourage science to test the teachings of the Buddha, at least those it can. I don't have any problem at all with that and hope that scientists do just that because it could provide them with the key they've been looking for so long.
But it still remains true that the core teachings of the Buddha - karma, rebirth, enlightenment itself - are beyond the scope of the scientific method simply because they are dualistic in nature, and the mind of enlightenment is not. That is not a trivial difference.
Palzang
That's not quite true. The scientific method is intrinsically designed to factor "self" out of the process. Hence such things as double-blind testing.
The Buddha didn't teach "non-dualism", BTW: that's Advaita Vedanta. Didn't you know...?
Rather a circular definition, though it fails for the same reason.
By that definition, the Buddha Himself taught liberation through "samsaric methods" using "samsaric mind". The Buddha hypothesized anicca, anatta, and dukkha, and encouraged us to use our senses to observe these qualities for ourselves. The Anapanasati Sutta is a very good example of this; demonstrating the very method by which He came to his Great Awakening.
Nor did the Buddha use, or know, the terms "samsaric methods" or "samsaric mind".
The Buddha's own teachings were concerned with the nature and quenching of suffering.
That sounds like a later Mahayana invention. What is your source for this speculative view?
Ah, it's Taoism. The Buddha did not teach Taoism, thanks.
The actual teachings of the Buddha comport entirely with scientific methods. As I pointed out before, the Buddha's teachings are concerned with empirical observation of observable processes, just like science.
The core teaching of kamma the Buddha taught was that it is intention. One can very easily observe the relationship between intention and action, whether skillful or unskillful.
While I agree that, as you say, pre-Buddha notions of deterministic karma and reincarnation ("re-birth") are very definitely dualistic (as well as samsaric) in nature -- the Buddha called such views "right view with defilements" because they are based in and dependent upon greed, aversion, and ignorance (superstition) -- they are irrelevant to the Buddha's own actual teachings of the ending of suffering through discernment (which in MN 117 he called "Noble Right View that is without defilements, transcendent, a Factor of the [Noble Eightfold] Path"), as they are speculative views, which the Buddha mentions (in the Simile of the Snake Sutta, for example) that his own teachings were designed to rid oneself of.
"The scientific method is intrinsically designed to factor "self" out of the process"
Not knowing the scientific method, being not a scientist, does not mean I do not understand it. So I checked it out. And the name comes up John Stuart Mill. Without even going further I am thinking. An economist who would come up with a design to factor self out of the process. When economy is the nature of self, and all about self. Economy is the specialisation of self, via efficiency of energy, to be a baker, rather than hopping between both baker and butcher. So that the baker wars with the butcher, until they decide to unite and war with you. So if we say science stems from economy. Then a scientist who claims to factor out self, is deeming himself a spiritualist. But they are poles apart. Not one person can claim anything true until they are a spiritualist. For any truth they claim will be born of lies. Any man who becomes a spiritualist, advances by realising: Science is false. Numbers are false. Time is false. Thought is false. Vision is false. Everything is false. Because SELF is false. Anything created from self is false. And here and now is true, if you are one with the spirit, and then you have the power of creation in your every being. Why would you then need science? If you want a door in the wall. Create one. If you want to catch the ball. Create it. If you want a friend. Create it. If you want your life back. Create it. But you cannot create anything, until you have lost everything. And everything to the individual is self. And any method, and word created by anyone at all, is born of self, and even if they feel that what they are doing is selfless, it is only because the self has been deceived so well that it is. Selfless actions within a realm of selfness, such as "I am trying to cure cancer with the abacadabra pill", when they do not know the spell of abacadabra, is like trying to heal your heart of lonelyness by cutting out your heart. Everyone pats every heart cutter on the back as if they are all going fowards in the right direction, but one man stops them and says "We have been cutting out hearts for so damn long, and still we are heartless and dieing, so why don't we just turn a corner". All of the men belittle him, "you don't want to save the world with us by cutting out hearts"? "No", he says, "I want to save the world by giving it a heart, so that then I may see no hurt, feel no blood, and no impurity of blood, so when hurt is not known, it is never felt".
Science is a sick sick disease, as the world is sick sick disease. If science were not a sick disease, then science could cure all. But science has only ever created illusion. Light globes instead of the sunlight. Computers instead of faces. Things instead of beings. It is all about self, because hypothesis is formed with the self in mind. Always. You never would form a hypothesis that did not take your comfort out of self, or for fear of loss of self. Only the little fears enter your conciousness, the big fears stay in the greater conciousness, with a shared illusion of what they mean. Such is the subject known as Science. Multiplication built upon multiplication, so that the simplicity can never be divided. A simplicity of, "what are you afraid of"? These shared illusions are created from comforting hypothesis, multiplications upon multiplications, so that we aim to divide it with one hypothesis, to be ready to multiply it with another.
Double blind testing, is still blind, if the man was blinded by his own hypothesis. When the only hypothesis you need to know, is to be, to live, to love, to not worry, and then not piece of science is needed. For you have the power of creation in your hearts.
Palzang
The Buddha teaches us to be compassionate to all living things, correct? Isn't the scientist who strives to cure a crippling disease acting as a bodhisattva, trying to liberate all beings from one form or another of Dukkha?
The information gained through science can be employed with wisdom [prajna] and compassion [metta] or it can be used to create greater suffering in a world that hardly needs more of it, such as inventing new methods to kill and maim one another through the billions funneled through the Pentagon in any given week. Science more then anything is merely a way for people to understand the Cosmos and its inner workings. The Buddha was concerned with only two things: Suffering (Dukkha) and liberation from suffering through the path (Magga) laid out by him more then 2,500 years ago.
It seems to me that to build nuclear weapons is contrary to Right Livelihood, Right Thought, Right Mindfulness, and Right Action. To dismantle nuclear weapons seems to me to be right action. -and so forth.
The ability to make a bladed metal instrument, a knife, is a result of science...but science cannot tell us what to do with such an impliment. It is the teachings of the Buddha and our own Buddha-nature that informs us if we should use such an object to chop vegtables for a meal or kill our neighbor because they have slighted us.
What do you all think?
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ckmh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Welcome to the forums. I've enjoyed reading the few post you have made so far. You show much contemplative reasoning and insight. Science can give us a way to lessen some of the suffering from life. The key is to know how to apply proper wisdom and understanding to steer the discoveries of science to a beneficial use for all.
So Validus, thanks for saying what I can explain but not put so eloquently.:cool: