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.
The Dalai Lama weighs in on science and spirituality
Brian
Detroit, MI Moderator
The Dalai Lama weighs in on science and spirituality
Tenzin Gyatso, also known as the 14th Dalai Lama, has written an editorial piece in the New York Times today. One of the keenly interesting, and timely, bits is that he claims that if some scientific discovery clearly contradicts Buddhism, then Buddhism itself must adapt. If only other religious leaders were so quick to allow compromise.
Tenzin Gyatso, also known as the 14th Dalai Lama, has written an editorial piece in the New York Times today. One of the keenly interesting, and timely, bits is that he claims that if some scientific discovery clearly contradicts Buddhism, then Buddhism itself must adapt. If only other religious leaders were so quick to allow compromise.
0
Comments
What a guy! :ukflag:
(Please mentally visualise Tibetan flag. I thank you!)
HHDL says: I saw him asked what he would do if science proved that rebirth was not possible. He replied that he would immediately stop believing in it!
Those who have untangled themselves from attachment are not even attached to their deepest beliefs. Ignatius of Loyola, threatened with the dissolution of his beloved Company (which became the Society of Jesus) by the Pope, said he needed 15 minutes to become completely reconciled to the loss. Would that I sat as lightly to my own unexamined beliefs to which I cling.
Now, this same technology saved my life at the beginning of the year and I'm glad for it. I was 39 at the time and had many years left to live. When I see that same technology used on 85-90 year olds who are just being kept alive for what ever reason, I struggle. If I know that the person who is laying there wanted all of this machinery and technology, it doesn't bother me a bit. I know that is what they wanted. But when we don't know and the children are making the decisions, then I wonder. Most often, the families want everything done. I find it difficult when the doctor has to make a quick decision, and it is always in the direction of saving lives. I'm not for active euthanasia, but sometimes it seems that letting nature take it's course is the kindest thing to do. Since finding Buddhism, it's made it harder for me in some ways. We are not to kill actively, but at the same time if doing nothing means the termination of life, is that okay? I would always like to say yes. But ethical questions aren't always that easy. Any input here?
You have a leader of the religion stating that "if something is found to be true, we need to accept that and change our beliefs based upon that truth."
There is no wrangling trying to protect statements or lies that have been followed for centuries. There is no dodging behind the falsehoods you've propogated over the years trying to protect your own "interest" in what you've been teaching. There is no worrying about losing your financial security (because if you now state that "I was wrong" you may lose followers that pay tithes)...
Because "truth" is what matters.
Very interesting article.
-bf
Jerbear,
I'm not sure if you know the Journal of Buddhist Ethics. There is a good article on medical ethics which poses the question of euthanasia and makes it apparent that there is no single position which can be called "Buddhist" in a normative sense:
http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/2/dkhughes.html
This is all just my opinion on the ending of a life from the stance of the Theravadin Suttas, but there is the case of one monk who decided to end his own life and was found 'blameless' by the Buddha. This was recorded in the Channovada Sutta: Majjhima Nikaya 144.
It appears from this account that at the end of this monk's life, when the body's pain was unbearable but the mind was free from clinging, the ending of that life was accepted as 'blameless'. Now, this Sutta is in no way promoting suicide, or the taking of a life, but the Buddha makes one point clear:
‘Sariputta, there may be the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well-wishers and earlier relatives, I say, there is no fault to that extent. Sariputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.'
- From the Channovada Sutta
In the Theravadin view, when an un-Awakened person makes the decision to end a life, whether it be another's or their own, there may be fault because that person is not fully Enlightened and therefore may not know exactly why they have made that decision in the first place (not to mention the other person's situation). There is the possibility that such a decision could be made out of the defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion, and such an action would be propelling that existence further into the cycle of death and rebirth (besides giving the person who committed the act itself the most unwholesome of kamma).
So you see, from the Theravadin perspective, not only would it depend on your state of mind, but theirs as well. It is not so simple as to say, "It's ok as long as it is done out of compassion." or "Such a thing is not accepted at all." It is a very complicated, and muchly debated topic amongst Theravadins.
I hope that my opinion is in line with what the Buddha taught, and not offensive in anyway. If you find me or my interpretations in error, I apologize.
Jason
These are wise words spoken by a wise person. It is hard to find fault with such a man. Even if I do not practice Tibetan (Vajrayana) Buddhism, I still see the Noble Eight fold Path in his actions of body, speech, and mind.
Jason
Thank you for the references. It made things as clear as mud! Having worked in the ICU for the past 5 years, I've seen so much suffering. As Jason pointed out, if we aren't enlightened, we're taking a risk. I don't think most people are enlightened.
Four years ago, I made the decision to have my twin sister taken off life support d/t brain death after a massive brain aneurysm burst. No question that "she" was gone. When I only hear moans from some one, I'm not sure if they are just in pain or are they trying to tell me something. I always follow the orders that are in force at that time, whether I agree with them or not.
Euthanasia is always a sticky topic no matter what school of thought one is coming from.
I am sorry to hear about your sister. Sometimes we simply do not know what the best thing to do is. In her case, however, I believe that you made the right decision. As for while you're at work, I think it is the wisest choice to follow the orders that are enforced at the time. In hospitals the decision is usually the families, or the doctors, to make. Whether you like the decision or not, it is best to respect their wishes.
That is my belief anyway.
Jason
Buddhism, in particular, poses moment-by-moment existential questions for each of us.
Jason,
For me to do other than the written orders is illegal and reason for me to lose my nursing license and go to prison. Good reasons for following the orders. One thing we do as nurses is to let the families know as much as we can while following that thin line of what the doctor's want the families to know. In ICU, we start talking about what the patient would have wanted right away because it can be a lengthy illness for some.
I also agree that it isn't my business to make the decision or to like them. I try to be as respectful as possible. I try to remember that I really don't know the person in the bed. The family is looking at them in a totally different manner. I know that when I looked at my sister I kept hoping that brain function would return but knowing as a nurse it wasn't going to happen. I was medical power of attorney for her as she was single. Luckily her minister was there to help out the rest of the family while I dealt with the medical aspects. Some family members had a hard time believing that she was actually brain dead. But I also thought of the past 36 years we had spent together also. My point is that whatever decision someone makes isn't just for what is going on that moment, but for someone's lifetime. Thank you for your input as I think you are quite wise.
Well, you're welcome for my input, but I wouldn't agree that I am wise. I'm really more of a wise-ass in person.
Jason
When I met Brian for coffee, he told me about you. I'm amazed at how far you've come. I have to be honest and say I respect the fact that you have studied so much and can answer alot for us beginners. I am really trying to follow what my teacher is telling me to do also, because there are times I want to dive in deeper and he wants me to "Keep it simple". I would add the last s, but it wouldn't be nice. And by the way, I'm a smart aleck also.
The context:
Reference: http://www.stoqnet.org/index_e.html
What did he tell you...!?!? It's all a lie! I was never in Texas, I don't even know what a knoll is!
...er...
I hope it was ALL good things. *eyes Brian*
Jason
To be serious though, thank you for what you've said. I do study a lot, and I attempt to help those with questions the best that I can, but that is all. There is nothing wise about that. I am sure that my understanding of what the Buddha taught is infinitely small compared to the actual truth of it all. While I appreciate the nice things you say about me (I honestly feel very happy when I read them) I do not feel I am deserving of them. I am afraid people might get the wrong idea about me and think I really do know a lot!
Jason
I think it's the kindness and understanding you convery when you are helping the rest of us that makes people feel like they do towards you.
-bf
I still find statements like this amazing.
How can faith be taken as an expert voice. Faith in it self provides no reason, no basis, no nothing. It is the very basis of faith that you believe without evidence.
How can faith be applied to science?
Good post, Simon.
-bf