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.
So I guess to summarize my opinion, to respect and know the boundaries of both science and Buddhism, I think is important. These videos do not represent this. If anything, they represent pseudoscience. And that can be deceiving.
Respect boundaries, sure. But how do we know what those boundaries are until we test them?
I say, sure, test fire away! Boundaries are not fixed. I mean, I respect them where they are now. And so I don't like when videos make ideas of science and Buddhism having somehow met and discovered the same "reality". Because to put it frankly, they didn't.
i find both useful, full of knowledge and truth, can co operate together. I stand by what ive said about certain suttas and what The Buddha discovered and how science is saying the same things in a non religious way. In the end nobody will change my mind. I support both. Other " beliefs " will vary and it is what it is. Much more productive to get along and not fight especially when most buddhists support science in the first place. FYI these videos are not the reason for "my" ideals or beliefs. Ive been interested in this topic for a number of years.
Buddhists - interested in the fundamental nature of reality Scientists - interested in the fundamental nature of reality
Difference: one search ends suffering, the other doesn't?
They are investigating different realities. A Buddhist practitioner is studying the construction of personal experience. Science is a social endeavor built around the rhetorical strategy of buttressing ontological assertions with verifiable data. The reality Buddhist practice investigates will become a scientific domain when precise, verifiable data about the construction of personal experience can be gathered. (That is likely to be at least a decade away.) Until then, any connections between Buddhist ontologies and scientific theories are superficial and mostly useless (useful only in the sense that they might lead someone with an interest in one to take an active interest in the other) and most such connections are faintly ludicrous (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with Buddhist emptiness, and in any case is not a verified scientific theory.)
i find both useful, full of knowledge and truth, can co operate together. I stand by what ive said about certain suttas and what The Buddha discovered and how science is saying the same things in a non religious way. In the end nobody will change my mind. I support both. Other " beliefs " will vary and it is what it is. Much more productive to get along and not fight especially when most buddhists support science in the first place. FYI these videos are not the reason for "my" ideals or beliefs. Ive been interested in this topic for a number of years.
Buddhists - interested in the fundamental nature of reality Scientists - interested in the fundamental nature of reality
Difference: one search ends suffering, the other doesn't?
They are investigating different realities. A Buddhist practitioner is studying the construction of personal experience. Science is a social endeavor built around the rhetorical strategy of buttressing ontological assertions with verifiable data. The reality Buddhist practice investigates will become a scientific domain when precise, verifiable data about the construction of personal experience can be gathered. (That is likely to be at least a decade away.) Until then, any connections between Buddhist ontologies and scientific theories are superficial and mostly useless (useful only in the sense that they might lead someone with an interest in one to take an active interest in the other) and most such connections are faintly ludicrous (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with Buddhist emptiness, and in any case is not a verified scientific theory.)
My point is that there are no different realities. There is Reality.
I say, sure, test fire away! Boundaries are not fixed. I mean, I respect them where they are now. And so I don't like when videos make ideas of science and Buddhism having somehow met and discovered the same "reality". Because to put it frankly, they didn't.
I feel you are making assumptions here. There are many books out there, many scientists, researchers, philosophers. I don't know what "they" have determined, and I don't pretend there is a consensus (or is there one?). There are too many unknowns to draw conclusions now, is my view. :-/
@John_Spencer, From the Buddhist perspective, ultimately there is the reality of raw sense data. From the scientific perspective, there is the reality of consensus models for explaining and predicting (mostly) repeatable phenomena. From the Buddhist perspective, the models composing scientific reality are conceptual proliferations, and only interesting to the extent that they lead to cessation of grasping/suffering/fabrication/etc. From the scientific perspective, the raw sense data which Buddhist practice is concerned with is inaccessible for now.
How does this Reality of which you speak relate to these worldviews?
@fivebells calm down man.... I think John is talking about the ONE reality we all share. Reality is simply reality. If Buddha says "there is suffering" or a scientist says E=mc 2 your going to separate them and call it 2 different realites??
@fivebells isn't the physical world form and then you have namarupa? So science is understanding the nature of rupa. It is like a sculptor. You try theories and then you cut away the wrong ones. That's how you do reaction mechanisms in chemistry. Cut away everything that's not a violin and you are left with insight into rupa.
There are too many unknowns to draw conclusions now, is my view. :-/
Exactly. Yet, the videos do draw -or very much imply- such conclusions by drawing parallels between Buddhist ideas and scientific ideas, but not presenting either accurately.
Science and Buddhism are not in disagreement, but neither are they in the implied agreement. Not that that's important, really. Because people have been practicing Buddhism effectively before current scientific understanding was present.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Buddhists - interested in the fundamental nature of reality Scientists - interested in the fundamental nature of reality
Difference: one search ends suffering, the other doesn't?
They are investigating different realities. A Buddhist practitioner is studying the construction of personal experience. Science is a social endeavor built around the rhetorical strategy of buttressing ontological assertions with verifiable data.
Buddha was interested in ending our suffering and science can be used to that end. It doesn't matter how the universe started or if it started for that matter (I somehow doubt there could be an absolute beginning to all that is, was or ever could be) but it does matter that we can use the way things go to better understand them.
The reality Buddhist practice investigates will become a scientific domain when precise, verifiable data about the construction of personal experience can be gathered. (That is likely to be at least a decade away.) Until then, any connections between Buddhist ontologies and scientific theories are superficial and mostly useless (useful only in the sense that they might lead someone with an interest in one to take an active interest in the other) and most such connections are faintly ludicrous (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with Buddhist emptiness, and in any case is not a verified scientific theory.)
Truth be told I didn't watch the videos in this thread but am only going by quantum mechanics and the quite obvious parallels in light of vacuum creation science. The uncertainty principle is neither here nor there (pun intended) when discussing how science and Buddhism are useful in ending suffering and can (and almost should) go hand in hand.
Having said that I must disagree with your opinion.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
His intuition is being proven correct by science. You aren't making any sense.
I would suggest Hawking's The Grand Design except when he says "nothing" think of emptiness.
No. It doesn't matter what somebody's intuition is, even if they turn out to be correct. Intuition is not science.
Again, nobody said it was. You seem to be defensive about the topic.
To put it bluntly, without intuition, there would be no science.
That I can agree with, in the sense that a person's intuition may lead him or her to approach that intuition from a scientific standpoint. But that's not what you have been saying.
What I am saying is that Buddha's simple truths hold true on more than one scale even if he didn't mean it as a scientific persuit.
And yes, as a person who is degreed in the sciences, and who taught science for years, I am defensive about science because the integrity of science must always be protected. And I'm not being a bit more defensive about the integrity of science than you are being about the all-knowingness of Buddha (and yes, I realize that is not a real word).
You are not being defensive about science, you are being defensive about your view. To the point of putting words in my mouth even.
All I have said so far is that when Buddha said that form and emptiness are precisely the same thing he was right on the money and science has proven it to be quite a fundamental statement.
Being a science teacher you should know about particles in a vacuum and potential energy, do you not?
You seem to think I am saying Buddha was a scientist.
I'm saying his intuition is dead on in this regard.
From the Buddhist-practice perspective, "E=mc2" is a conceptual proliferation which is largely irrelevant to the goal (could be relevant if your livelihood is engineering, I suppose.) "Real" doesn't enter into it, it's just not a useful thing to point your brain at.
From the scientific perspective, Buddhist practice is currently a largely solitary and unmeasurable activity. "Real" doesn't enter into it, it's just not a useful thing to point your brain at.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
From the Buddhist-practice perspective, "E=mc2" is a conceptual proliferation which is largely irrelevant to the goal (could be relevant if your livelihood is engineering, I suppose.) "Real" doesn't enter into it, it's just not a useful thing to point your brain at.
What do you feel the goal is?
From the scientific perspective, Buddhist practice is currently a largely solitary and unmeasurable activity. "Real" doesn't enter into it, it's just not a useful thing to point your brain at.
Meditation is practice for living life and all the obstacles it offers but I agree with you here. Real or not, this is here so it makes it real by default.
Release/the end of suffering. If someone's actually doing science because it will lead to the end of some specific suffering related to sickness, old age and death, that is highly meritorious. Two things, though: most scientific effort, even in biomedical research, is not concerned with this, and that is not the kind of end to suffering the Buddha was talking about. I.e., again, there is value to science and there is value to Buddhist practice, but there is little practical overlap, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise, particularly with the kind of claims in the OP videos, which have nothing to do with the end of suffering in either form.
Meditation is practice for living life and all the obstacles it offers but I agree with you here. Real or not, this is here so it makes it real by default.
Sure, but it is counterproductive to bring it up in almost any scientific discourse.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Excuse me, when I said science and Buddhism almost should go hand in hand I meant that they share the same path in my view. I hope nobody thought I meant Buddhism is the only way to awaken the Buddha. Sorry for the bad wording.
In all honesty I am afraid to watch the videos presented because I've heard many people like Deepak Chopra going a bit overboard and know many people do it with Buddhism.
I guess I will watch them right now and see...
I guess I'm a bit passionate about the topic because I think if guided by wisdom and compassion, science and the age of information could trigger a global awakening.
I'm with @fivebells. The Buddha wasn't really interested in ontological reality in the sense that he wasn't interested in making claims about "the nature of reality" but rather human experience. Indian philosophy was actually highly sophisticated at the time and the Buddha would have known that we cannot truly know the nature of reality due to the limitations of being born in a human incarnation. Science actually doesn't study reality either. A scientist who is actually versed in the philosophical underpinnings of science will never claim to be studying "reality." Instead, science is built on empirical observation -- that which can be known through our senses.
To give an example, color is not an inherent quality of reality -- it is merely our experience of how our eyes and brains process light information. Imagine an extraterrestrial race who had no eyes, but a different organ that processed this energy differently. They would not recognize color as a qualia, but may experience and detect the light energy in a different way. Science can only quantify and study "reality" only to the extent to which our particular human senses allow us to know it. Reality exists independent of our experience of it. Scientists recognize it.
Likewise, the Buddha never really spoke of objective "reality." He simply spoke of "experience." In fact, this extended to his definition of "the world":
The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
And he makes a radical claim about experience itself. The very first verse of the Dhammapada is: "All experience is created by mind." <-- This is Gil Fronsdal's translation. The word translated here as "experience" is actually the word the Buddha uses for "reality": dhamma. Dhamma is not objective reality -- it is our knowable experience of that reality.
So you might ask, what is the difference between the Buddha's approach and a scientific, empirical approach? The difference is the application of scientific method and the goals. The Buddha kept the goal of his philosophy very clear: "dukkha and the end of dukkha." He actually had a long list of "imponderables" about the nature of reality that one couldn't really get at beyond speculative conjecture and were a detour from spiritual liberation. Science, on the other hand, is simply a tool. It can be applied to creating something as destructive as the atom bomb to something as healing as the cure for deadly diseases.
Also scientific enquiry there are the scientists experience including their playfulness, inquisitiveness, hard work, and objectivity. Science is dependently originated with scientists as a condition. Without scientists we would just think a tree had a god living in it. And if that were our limits then this observer much like the scientist has playfulness, inquisitiveness, appreciation for beauty. So whether there are scientists or not we still have all the qualities of mind. But without scientists we do not have the laws or theories.
Thus awareness is a contstant and encompasses matter. Whereas science is dependently originated (the revealed laws) based on scientists. Matter would still fall down, but the subjective world would be different, we would think some myth about why things go down if we didn't have science, but they still would go down.
Thus awareness practice is more reliable way to transform suffering because the awareness can always be worked with whereas a scientist might not have enough instruments or theories such as to unify quantum mechanics with relativity.
Just want to share a few Einstein quotes where he specifically mentioned the Buddha and Buddhism as well as when he spoke about religion and its relationship to science (all bolding and emphasis are my own):
Source: Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman
Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living.
Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983) by William Hermanns
If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done.
Source: Religion and Science (1930) by Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of the idea of God. Only exceptionally gifted individuals or especially noble communities rise essentially above this level; in these there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image.
Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983) by William Hermanns.
Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God* [See my note below on Einstein's idea of God]. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe.
*Note: Einstein in a later conversation with Hermanns said this about his view of "God":
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
[My comment: sounds like Einstein could be agreeable to the suggestion of a natural law of cause and effect (ie. karma) in this context of fruits of good and evil acts]
Source: Science and Religion (1941) by Albert Einstein
Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Source: The New Quotable Einstein (2005) by Alice Calaprice
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.
Source: Religion and Science (1930) by Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine
A contemporary has rightly said that the only deeply religious people of our largely materialistic age are the earnest men of research
Source: The World As I See It (1949) by Albert Einstein
The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained to liberation from the self.
Source: Einstein's God (1997) by Robert Goldman
The fact that man produces a concept "I" besides the totality of his mental and emotional experiences or perceptions does not prove that there must be any specific existence behind such a concept. We are succumbing to illusions produced by our self-created language, without reaching a better understanding of anything. Most of so-called philosophy is due to this kind of fallacy.
"If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done."
@John_Spencer, From the Buddhist perspective, ultimately there is the reality of raw sense data. From the scientific perspective, there is the reality of consensus models for explaining and predicting (mostly) repeatable phenomena. From the Buddhist perspective, the models composing scientific reality are conceptual proliferations, and only interesting to the extent that they lead to cessation of grasping/suffering/fabrication/etc. From the scientific perspective, the raw sense data which Buddhist practice is concerned with is inaccessible for now.
How does this Reality of which you speak relate to these worldviews?
It's true that the Buddha's only goal was to end suffering.
But to do this, insight into impermanence (and hence the conditioned nature of things) was instrumental (not speculation for the sake of it).
I think the fact that the Buddha taught 'everything has conditions that lead to it and those conditions are discoverable' is the basis of scientific enquiry today. Quite an extraordinary statement to make 2500 years ago.
I don't see you changing anything about your ego my friend. Your going to defend your opinion as much as the next guy. So we are not so different in regards to your little statement.
Just as an observation: The topic starting with videos mingling Buddhism and quantum theory now quotes Einstein to show links between science and Buddhism. Yet Einstein was one of the big opponents of quantum theory, especially of the field theory that the videos portray as something the Buddha already knew..
I think the fact that the Buddha taught 'everything has conditions that lead to it and those conditions are discoverable' is the basis of scientific enquiry today. Quite an extraordinary statement to make 2500 years ago.
And this is that which quantum science refutes (and exactly what Einstein also couldn't accept.) Yet, nowadays it is commonly accepted as true: in quantum theory things happen by chance, they have no discoverable conditions. Double slit experiment, why does a particle end in a particular spot and not another? Nobody knows. It's all by chance. There also don't seem to be any hidden variables as Einstein thought.
So to say today science things everything has conditions leading to it, is not correct.
Does that mean the Buddha was wrong?... Not necessarily. We just have to take in mind that science and Buddhism work on different levels. The Buddha wasn't speaking about matter or light when he was talking about cause and condition. He was speaking about mind, about the arising of consciousness and such. Something else.
Furthermore That statement did not actually make much sense considering Ive stated a number of times I am in support of science. So me not changing my mind simply means nobody will change my mind about being open minded to buddhism and science. So...yeah...that was pretty pointless on your part.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Just as an observation: The topic starting with videos mingling Buddhism and quantum theory now quotes Einstein to show links between science and Buddhism. Yet Einstein was one of the big opponents of quantum theory, especially of the field theory that the videos portray as something the Buddha already knew..
That's a shame too. Einstein came up with the special theory of relativity because of throwing accepted norms out the window. Then he clung to his ideas and made mistakes.
Einstein said about quantum mechanics: "god doesn't play dice" Of course he had his own peculiar notion about God. Did he find the quantum world meaningless perhaps?
Just as an observation: The topic starting with videos mingling Buddhism and quantum theory now quotes Einstein to show links between science and Buddhism. Yet Einstein was one of the big opponents of quantum theory, especially of the field theory that the videos portray as something the Buddha already knew..
That's a shame too. Einstein came up with the special theory of relativity because of throwing accepted norms out the window. Then he clung to his ideas and made mistakes.
It's a part of science. Hypothesis are there to be tested and fired upon. In that regard he did a great job. And to say again, I think that's where science and Buddhism meet; at their methods. Not necessarily at their outcomes.
In Buddhism we should also test and fire upon the hypothesis laid before us by the Buddha and the teachers that followed him. Can we really find a way out of suffering? A way out of old age, sickness and death? Any correlation between what the Buddha said and current scientific understanding is useless if we can't replicate the peace the Buddha promised us.
I think the fact that the Buddha taught 'everything has conditions that lead to it and those conditions are discoverable' is the basis of scientific enquiry today. Quite an extraordinary statement to make 2500 years ago.
And this is that which quantum science refutes (and exactly what Einstein also couldn't accept.) Yet, nowadays it is commonly accepted as true: in quantum theory things happen by chance, they have no discoverable conditions. Double slit experiment, why does a particle end in a particular spot and not another? Nobody knows. It's all by chance. There also don't seem to be any hidden variables as Einstein thought.
Yes - I agree, this is interesting @Sabre. When we get to the quantum world weird stuff happens and things become 'undiscoverable' in that way. (I should have said classical physics).
Similarly, before the Big Bang cause and effect break down (at least as we know them)
The Buddha wasn't speaking about matter or light when he was talking about cause and condition. He was speaking about mind, about the arising of consciousness and such. Something else.
The Buddha was absolutely (also) speaking about matter when he talks about cause and condition. He does this a lot.
I watched this a month ago. Mooji is an advaita vedanta teacher but actually some Buddhism is very similar. I watched the whole thing and it was very interesting. But it's over an hour so only if you are very interested.
The Buddha was absolutely (also) speaking about matter when he talks about cause and condition. He does this a lot.
Well, that means he was wrong.
Because the uncertainty principle of quantum theory does not apply just on small scale. The theory applies to freight trucks just as well as it does to electrons. It's just not measurable on the trucks, but in theory it is there.
I watched this a month ago. Mooji is an advaita vedanta teacher but actually some Buddhism is very similar. I watched the whole thing and it was very interesting. But it's over an hour so only if you are very interested.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Many deep thinkers have tried to ascertain the nature of material reality through philosophical logic rather than empirical observation primarily because they were interested and the tools for direct observation weren't available.
Rigorous philosophical reasoning is quite scientific in its proofs and conclusions. One example made by both Greeks and early Buddhist philosophers is the idea of the atom, an indivisible particle. The reasoned that if you can divide an object into smaller and smaller parts there would reach a point where you could no longer divide it.
In Buddhist philosophy these thinkers were known as Sautantrika. These views were later surpassed by the Yogacara school which posited a type of mind-only form of reality. Today it is argued that the Madhyamika position is the highest form of philosophical thinking about reality, basically championing Nagarjuna and the tetralema that things neither exist, don't exist, neither or both.
These philosophical systems aren't mere guesses or passed down ideologies but rigorously debated and reasoned positions about the nature of reality. So its not scientific in the sense of being based on empirically gathered data, but it is scientific in the sense of testing and peer reviewing hypotheses, then rejecting or improving upon logical proofs until a consensus is reached.
Yogacara is also based exactly as you have described based on Madyamaka and Nagarjuna as far as I know. I think you meant prasangika which views 'all views as wrong' ** which is my understanding.
** in an oversimplification
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Yeah, an important point of clarification @Jeffrey. There is an older school of pure Yogacara and there is a more modern type of Yogacara-Madhyamika.
Yes and sautantrika was a precursor of madyamaka/prasangika I think it was?
Emptiness of skhandas are the school called shravaka like the heart sutra says (no form, no perception.... no eye no ear....no suffering and no end of suffering). The crazy thing is that the heart sutra is not just bullshitting. They really mean it.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Yes and sautantrika was a precursor of madyamaka/prasangika I think it was?
Emptiness of skhandas are the school called shravaka like the heart sutra says.
I'm not sure of the timeline for the separate schools of Madhyamika but there are 3 prasangika, sautantrika, and yogacara-sautantrika. Don't ask me to tell you the difference between them though.
I don't see you changing anything about your ego my friend. Your going to defend your opinion as much as the next guy. So we are not so different in regards to your little statement.
I'm sorry, but when someone tells me they're defending science, and they're saying that nothing will change their mind, then further discussion with them is pointless.
I don't see you changing anything about your ego my friend. Your going to defend your opinion as much as the next guy. So we are not so different in regards to your little statement.
I'm sorry, but when someone tells me they're defending science, and they're saying that nothing will change their mind, then further discussion with them is pointless. Of course, you're welcome to continue your chat with the others.
@vinlyn you must have missed what else I said.... The antithesis of science.
Furthermore That statement did not actually make much sense considering Ive stated a number of times I am in support of science. So me not changing my mind simply means nobody will change my mind about being OPEN MINDED to buddhism and science.
Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo (scholar) Tsultrim Gyamptso (ocean of ethical conduct) Rinpoche (teacher)
The difference between the Madhyamaka Svatantrika and the Madhyamaka Prasangika is that the former use arguments to refute hte self-nature of phenomenon (dharmas) adn then further arguments to establish their true nature as emptiness. The Prasangika only use arguments to refute self-nature, without trying to establish the true nature by reasoning at all. Thus the Svatantrikas first establish that dharmas do not truly exist; in other words that they have no self-nature. Then they establish that in fact their true nature is emptiness. Their arguments are very effective in refuting certain Hindu ideas according to which things do not have self-nature because their true nature is God.
To say something has no self-nature means it has no separate, independent, lasting nature of its own. For example a rainbow appears very vividly and arises from the coming together of causes and conditions such as the sky, the rain, the sun, the angle of the light, and so on. However, when one looks closely for its ultimate nature, one finds empty space. It is as if it had disappeared under one's eyes, and yet it is still there shining brightly in the sky.
In the same way scientists study physical things like, for example, flowers. The first rough analysis breaks the flowers up into its parts, petals, stamens etc. More refined analysis breaks it down into cells, molecules, then atoms, then sub-atomic particles. Finally those sub-atomic particles themselves lose their identity and become simple movement in empty space and the ultimate nature of that movement defies rational analysis. Yet the flower remains as vivid and obvious as ever.
One has to accept, therefore, that there are two truths, the relative and the absolute. The relative is how things appear to the non-critical ordinary consciousness and the absolute is the ultimate nature of a thing that is established through accurate and minute analysis by means of the rational mind. This is the Svatantrika view. The relative is merely concepts and the absolute is emptiness free from concepts.
--------------------
The Prasangika Approach
The Svatantrika system is very effective for a first understanding of emptiness because it cuts through one's attachment to things as real. However, even though Svatantrikas themselves think they teach an understanding that goes beyond concepts, from the Prasangika point of view their understanding is still subtly conceptual. The Prasangikas argue that to establish emptiness through reasoning is a subtle atempt to grasp the ultimate nature with the conceptual mind. Reason shows the conceptual mind is always in error, it can only ever give a distorted and ultimately self-contradictory version of experience, never the nature of reality itself. Therefore they refuse to tuse any reasoning to establish the true nature of phenomena. They say that since the ultimate nature is beyond the most subtle concepts (nisprapanca), it is misleading to try to establish or prove nisprapanca as a description or a concept that expresses the ultimate nature of reality.
They are adamant in not positiing anything either positive or negative. Some argue that this is a dishonest view in the sense that one is simply side-stepping issues and refusing to allow opponents to refute one's views. However, there is something very profound in this method. It is quite uncompromising in its systematic refutation of all conceptual attempts to grasp the nature of the absolute. The original Prasangikas in India and Tibet did not assert anything about the relative appearance of phenomena either. They consider the nature of this also to be beyond even the most subtle concepts of existence, non-existence, etc.
See the end of this lecture where Richard Feynman discusses what quantum theory implies; things are unpredictable. He concludes with what he things science should be like: looking honestly at things without strict prejudice or wanting a specific outcome. And I think it is that which should ideally also be present in Buddhists. That's what I think we should take from physics, mainly. Not the results.
By the way, the entire lecture is worth a watch for those who want to learn more about quantum physics and its weirdness. May take away some of the bias or wrong ideas that may arise if one only watches "buddhism and science" or other pseudo scientific videos.
It really is an awesome lecture, by an awesome guy.
Haha, I just noticed the video I quoted was posted on youtube by a Buddhist monk. Coincidence or predetermined? However, I assure you the video is not flavored in any way towards Buddhism. Feynman was (as some of you probably know) a very respected and unbiased scientist.
The Buddha was absolutely (also) speaking about matter when he talks about cause and condition. He does this a lot.
Well, that means he was wrong.
Because the uncertainty principle of quantum theory does not apply just on small scale. The theory applies to freight trucks just as well as it does to electrons. It's just not measurable on the trucks, but in theory it is there.
I note the smiley face @Sabre but I don't believe you believe the Buddha was wrong.
Quantum theory doesn't undermine conditioned co-production not does it make the classical physical world unpredictable or chance-based.
Comments
In the end nobody will change my mind. I support both. Other " beliefs " will vary and it is what it is. Much more productive to get along and not fight especially when most buddhists support science in the first place.
FYI these videos are not the reason for "my" ideals or beliefs. Ive been interested in this topic for a number of years.
In the end nobody will change my mind. I support both. Other " beliefs " will vary and it is what it is. Much more productive to get along and not fight especially when most buddhists support science in the first place.
FYI these videos are not the reason for "my" ideals or beliefs. Ive been interested in this topic for a number of years.
Impermanence,
conditions,
form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
etc
:-/
How does this Reality of which you speak relate to these worldviews?
If Buddha says "there is suffering" or a scientist says E=mc 2
your going to separate them and call it 2 different realites??
In other words mind and body must interbe.
Science and Buddhism are not in disagreement, but neither are they in the implied agreement. Not that that's important, really. Because people have been practicing Buddhism effectively before current scientific understanding was present.
Having said that I must disagree with your opinion.
All I have said so far is that when Buddha said that form and emptiness are precisely the same thing he was right on the money and science has proven it to be quite a fundamental statement.
Being a science teacher you should know about particles in a vacuum and potential energy, do you not?
You seem to think I am saying Buddha was a scientist.
I'm saying his intuition is dead on in this regard.
When did I use the term "all-knowing"?
From the scientific perspective, Buddhist practice is currently a largely solitary and unmeasurable activity. "Real" doesn't enter into it, it's just not a useful thing to point your brain at.
In all honesty I am afraid to watch the videos presented because I've heard many people like Deepak Chopra going a bit overboard and know many people do it with Buddhism.
I guess I will watch them right now and see...
I guess I'm a bit passionate about the topic because I think if guided by wisdom and compassion, science and the age of information could trigger a global awakening.
To give an example, color is not an inherent quality of reality -- it is merely our experience of how our eyes and brains process light information. Imagine an extraterrestrial race who had no eyes, but a different organ that processed this energy differently. They would not recognize color as a qualia, but may experience and detect the light energy in a different way. Science can only quantify and study "reality" only to the extent to which our particular human senses allow us to know it. Reality exists independent of our experience of it. Scientists recognize it.
Likewise, the Buddha never really spoke of objective "reality." He simply spoke of "experience." In fact, this extended to his definition of "the world": Source: Loka Sutta: The World
And he makes a radical claim about experience itself. The very first verse of the Dhammapada is: "All experience is created by mind." <-- This is Gil Fronsdal's translation. The word translated here as "experience" is actually the word the Buddha uses for "reality": dhamma. Dhamma is not objective reality -- it is our knowable experience of that reality.
So you might ask, what is the difference between the Buddha's approach and a scientific, empirical approach? The difference is the application of scientific method and the goals. The Buddha kept the goal of his philosophy very clear: "dukkha and the end of dukkha." He actually had a long list of "imponderables" about the nature of reality that one couldn't really get at beyond speculative conjecture and were a detour from spiritual liberation. Science, on the other hand, is simply a tool. It can be applied to creating something as destructive as the atom bomb to something as healing as the cure for deadly diseases.
Thus awareness is a contstant and encompasses matter. Whereas science is dependently originated (the revealed laws) based on scientists. Matter would still fall down, but the subjective world would be different, we would think some myth about why things go down if we didn't have science, but they still would go down.
Thus awareness practice is more reliable way to transform suffering because the awareness can always be worked with whereas a scientist might not have enough instruments or theories such as to unify quantum mechanics with relativity.
Source: Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983) by William Hermanns Source: Religion and Science (1930) by Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983) by William Hermanns. *Note: Einstein in a later conversation with Hermanns said this about his view of "God": [My comment: sounds like Einstein could be agreeable to the suggestion of a natural law of cause and effect (ie. karma) in this context of fruits of good and evil acts]
Source: Science and Religion (1941) by Albert Einstein Source: The New Quotable Einstein (2005) by Alice Calaprice Source: Religion and Science (1930) by Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine Source: The World As I See It (1949) by Albert Einstein Source: Einstein's God (1997) by Robert Goldman
Nice
:om:
Buddhism is not pissing on your lab coat anymore than science is pissing in your bowl of Zen-O's
seeing the similarities should be something to celibate not separate.
But to do this, insight into impermanence (and hence the conditioned nature of things) was instrumental (not speculation for the sake of it).
I think the fact that the Buddha taught 'everything has conditions that lead to it and those conditions are discoverable' is the basis of scientific enquiry today. Quite an extraordinary statement to make 2500 years ago.
So to say today science things everything has conditions leading to it, is not correct.
Does that mean the Buddha was wrong?... Not necessarily. We just have to take in mind that science and Buddhism work on different levels. The Buddha wasn't speaking about matter or light when he was talking about cause and condition. He was speaking about mind, about the arising of consciousness and such. Something else.
The antithesis of science.
Furthermore That statement did not actually make much sense considering Ive stated a number of times I am in support of science. So me not changing my mind simply means nobody will change my mind about being open minded to buddhism and science.
So...yeah...that was pretty pointless on your part.
In Buddhism we should also test and fire upon the hypothesis laid before us by the Buddha and the teachers that followed him. Can we really find a way out of suffering? A way out of old age, sickness and death? Any correlation between what the Buddha said and current scientific understanding is useless if we can't replicate the peace the Buddha promised us.
Similarly, before the Big Bang cause and effect break down (at least as we know them) The Buddha was absolutely (also) speaking about matter when he talks about cause and condition. He does this a lot.
http://awareofawareness.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/mooji-meets-academia-physics-advaita-vedanta/
Because the uncertainty principle of quantum theory does not apply just on small scale. The theory applies to freight trucks just as well as it does to electrons. It's just not measurable on the trucks, but in theory it is there.
http://awareofawareness.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/mooji-meets-academia-physics-advaita-vedanta/
Rigorous philosophical reasoning is quite scientific in its proofs and conclusions. One example made by both Greeks and early Buddhist philosophers is the idea of the atom, an indivisible particle. The reasoned that if you can divide an object into smaller and smaller parts there would reach a point where you could no longer divide it.
In Buddhist philosophy these thinkers were known as Sautantrika. These views were later surpassed by the Yogacara school which posited a type of mind-only form of reality. Today it is argued that the Madhyamika position is the highest form of philosophical thinking about reality, basically championing Nagarjuna and the tetralema that things neither exist, don't exist, neither or both.
These philosophical systems aren't mere guesses or passed down ideologies but rigorously debated and reasoned positions about the nature of reality. So its not scientific in the sense of being based on empirically gathered data, but it is scientific in the sense of testing and peer reviewing hypotheses, then rejecting or improving upon logical proofs until a consensus is reached.
** in an oversimplification
Emptiness of skhandas are the school called shravaka like the heart sutra says (no form, no perception.... no eye no ear....no suffering and no end of suffering). The crazy thing is that the heart sutra is not just bullshitting. They really mean it.
The antithesis of science.
Furthermore That statement did not actually make much sense considering Ive stated a number of times I am in support of science. So me not changing my mind simply means nobody will change my mind about being OPEN MINDED to buddhism and science.
See the end of this lecture where Richard Feynman discusses what quantum theory implies; things are unpredictable. He concludes with what he things science should be like: looking honestly at things without strict prejudice or wanting a specific outcome. And I think it is that which should ideally also be present in Buddhists. That's what I think we should take from physics, mainly. Not the results.
By the way, the entire lecture is worth a watch for those who want to learn more about quantum physics and its weirdness. May take away some of the bias or wrong ideas that may arise if one only watches "buddhism and science" or other pseudo scientific videos.
It really is an awesome lecture, by an awesome guy.
-Yogi Berra
Quantum theory doesn't undermine conditioned co-production not does it make the classical physical world unpredictable or chance-based.