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.
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
re: meditation is effective as a short nap (for stress reduction I suppose?)
It's a big heterogeneous thing. A religion contains practices (from meditation to rituals, workout-like prostrations, and so on), ethics, dietary rules (well for Chinese Monks), a lifestyle (esp for monks), a lot of book reading (which counts as education if you read enough books. Education, exercise, diet, lifestyle all have measurable effects.
Specific Practices. Meditation. One type is supposed to make your brain stronger, better able to concentrate, less susceptible to distractions, better executive function, less anxiety.
And the other kind of meditation is analytical, trying to figure out what the world really is. I suppose you could ask people if they had an insight and if they think they have figured out who they really are and what the world really is (i.e. insights into anatman, emptyness) and see if there were positive benefits to that. I'm not sure how this would get funded & checked in an environment where the experimenters would be willing to consider that metaphysical insights were worthless (or valuable). [There was a guy who weighted a dying person at the moment of death to try to get the weight of a soul. I'm sure that guy really wanted to get positive results and if I remember correctly, he reported something like 1/4 of a lb]
Ethics. Institutionalist economist found positive relationships between religion and economic conditions-- i.e. if people are ethical for religious reasons-- not just for fear of the cops or if they're atheists because they read Kant & understood any of him--, business deals get done safely, crime is less of a problem.
The vinaya is a whole lifestyle-- it is so radically different than lay life that I would be astounded to find that there was no measurable difference between monks and lay followers-- they eat differently, sleep differently, mentally focus their minds on different things. And among monks, there are different kinds of monasteries, different
Filtering out the specific causes and effects would be a challenging project.
Is Buddhism any different to quack medicine (things like faith healing and homeopathy), where the answers are "I believe it works for me" and "because I experienced it, try it and you'll see" ... ?
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
The idea is to investigate deeply and intimately. Is there something to see when you look deeply and intimately at yourself and the world? Who else but yourself could tell you?
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
The idea is to investigate deeply and intimately. Is there something to see when you look deeply and intimately at yourself and the world? Who else but yourself could tell you?
Good point.
My teacher refers to Buddhism as a "Science of Mind".
This makes sense in that our's is a Mahamudra lineage. Mahamudra is all about the true nature of mind. Our practice is how we investigate, research and prove this.
We may not have nice, white, lab coats, but still follow priciples of research used in hard science.
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
The idea is to investigate deeply and intimately. Is there something to see when you look deeply and intimately at yourself and the world? Who else but yourself could tell you?
Good point.
My teacher refers to Buddhism as a "Science of Mind".
This makes sense in that our's is a Mahamudra lineage. Mahamudra is all about the true nature of mind. Our practice is how we investigate, research and prove this.
We may not have nice, white, lab coats, but still follow priciples of research used in hard science.
No. Saying something, including Buddhism, is science, does not make it science.
May I assume you don't have a professional background in science?
Is Buddhism any different to quack medicine (things like faith healing and homeopathy), where the answers are "I believe it works for me" and "because I experienced it, try it and you'll see" ... ?
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
The idea is to investigate deeply and intimately. Is there something to see when you look deeply and intimately at yourself and the world? Who else but yourself could tell you?
Your priest, teacher, and/or religious doctrine told you of course. If it had come from you it would be called Simplifism or something.
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
The idea is to investigate deeply and intimately. Is there something to see when you look deeply and intimately at yourself and the world? Who else but yourself could tell you?
Good point.
My teacher refers to Buddhism as a "Science of Mind".
This makes sense in that our's is a Mahamudra lineage. Mahamudra is all about the true nature of mind. Our practice is how we investigate, research and prove this.
We may not have nice, white, lab coats, but still follow priciples of research used in hard science.
No. Saying something, including Buddhism, is science, does not make it science.
May I assume you don't have a professional background in science?
You may assume whatever you like.
Assumptions are like beliefs, wouldn't you say?
What constitutes "science"?
In my case the teacher/Guru posits a theorem - "the nature of mind is" ..... (sometimes called "pointing out"). The teacher instructs the student in how realization of the pointing out is reached. The student uses the teacher's instruction to replicate the findings. After a time. the student may add self-found techniques to augment the teacher's instruction. The student reports back to the teacher with his own findings (which may appear different from the teacher's). The teacher may acknowledge success or may send the student back to continue. May give additional instruction. This continues until success is reached.
The methodology includes meditation. Meditation is used to observe the mind's movement in ever-increasing detail until the true nature of mind is found.
There's even peer review. Other teachers may be consulted as well as more senior practitioners.
May I assume you don't have a professional background in science?
And I answred that you may assume what you like.
Now if you want to know what kind of science background I have ----
I workd 5+ years as a field archaeologist and and in accessioning labs for two major USFS offices in the midwest. Among my duties was cataloging specimens/artifacts, reviewing and collating reports & field notes, and preparing samples for outside analysis (c14 mostly).
Is Buddhism any different to quack medicine (things like faith healing and homeopathy), where the answers are "I believe it works for me" and "because I experienced it, try it and you'll see" ... ?
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
The idea is to investigate deeply and intimately. Is there something to see when you look deeply and intimately at yourself and the world? Who else but yourself could tell you?
Your priest, teacher, and/or religious doctrine told you of course. If it had come from you it would be called Simplifism or something.
My understanding and experience is that what the teachers are pointing at is beyond conception, beyond telling. The idea is not the thing, the thing is the experience
Is Buddhism any different to quack medicine (things like faith healing and homeopathy), where the answers are "I believe it works for me" and "because I experienced it, try it and you'll see" ... ?
Related questions:
Can suffering (and its reduction) be measured in some objective way? How might a clinical trial of Buddhism be conducted? Is Buddhism able to be assessed objectively in general?
Is Buddhism any different to quack medicine (things like faith healing and homeopathy), where the answers are "I believe it works for me" and "because I experienced it, try it and you'll see" ... ?
Related questions:
Can suffering (and its reduction) be measured in some objective way? How might a clinical trial of Buddhism be conducted? Is Buddhism able to be assessed objectively in general?
I do not know how one can isolate anything from the rest of existence's effects to produce the measurements you seek. You can either dip your toe in the waters of a Buddhist practice to experience it or you can intellectualize about the worth of such an experience. It all depends on what YOU value most. The clinical trials of the long term efficacy of Buddhist practices are easy enough to track down but really compare poorly against what your own wet toe can show you.
I have been studying and practicing to the best of my ability Mahayana Buddhism for around 25 years being affected by dyslexia is hasnt been easy.
before I become and Buddhist I was an heroin addict using around £100 per day, it was during my final recovery from this addiction that I came across an advert for Buddhist class in a local newspaper, which apprehensively I attended. I was curious but ignorant about Buddhism however for years I had been waking up needing to use a drug just to reduce withdrawal effects and thinking my life has to be more meaningful than this. At the same time I was coming towards the end of my treatment for addiction and due to what occurred at an appointment at the treatment centre and the drug workers negative attitude I decided to enroll on a counselling course not knowing that counselling had any connection to psychology. if I had known due to having learning difficulties I would not have been motivated to attend due to lack of confidence in my abilities.
Anyway start date for counselling course came and nervously I attended. it was run by an elderly female who was teaching basic counselling skills and NLP. she explained the theories frameworks and skills needed and have they were to be taught over the next 30 weeks.
the class were introduced to ideas of Carl Rogers and Virginia Satire. In reference to Carl Rogers she told how he had been an evangelical missionary working for american church group who had been appointed to convert Buddhists in Thailand into Christians around 1930s after six month being on placement he converted to Buddhism. From his conversion he developed Person Centred Counselling which is the basis of all counselling/psycho-therapeutic relationships. Rogers advocated 3 core conditions empathy congruence and unconditional positive regard. which he said only Buddha and Jesus had these true qualities.Rogers philosophies are now applied to medical, nursing and social care, community empowerment and mediation.
Not only did I continue with my counselling course I also continued to attend Dharma centres and practiced all Hinayana instructions I was given as best I could. Having successfully completed the first year of the counselling degree I was eligible to start the second year.
The second year included combining skills and core conditions advocated by Carl Rogers with a theorectical approach Gestalt - Cognitive Behavioral - behavioural or psychodynamic where our choices.
I was also very fortunate to receive training and instruction from Gerrard Egan a modern day counselling guru !! after three years of attending I gain a degree in Counselling and commenced work as a counsellor. I then had an opportunity to start and degree in social worker which after 7 years of training obtained a degree and post graduation qualifications in. I am currently studying for a bachelor of laws LLB.
It is said that dyslexics have a multitude of abilities and that dyslexic will make connections where non dyslexic are unable to for example Einstien's theories of relativity( Einstien was dyslexic)
In regards to Buddhism and Clinical Psychology and medicine I have found that 2500 years ago Buddha was teaching about gross subtle and very subtle minds -
Sigmund Freud taught about the Id the ego and the superego in my conventional understanding Freuds ideas are same as Buddhas.
In respect to Gestalt therapy developed by Fritz Perls again it was an approach based on Zen cones and Humanistic Psychology developed by Carl Rogers is based on Buddhas teachings.
In 2009 I read teachings given by Dharmakirti and Dignapa about understanding the mind. I found no differance in these teachings ancient teachings to the ideas of Cognitive Behavoural therapy currently the most widely used and researched form of counselling/psychotherapy.
last Behvioural therapy founded by Pavlov advocates use of meditation as as form of relaxation.
All these approaches mirror what Buddha taught, people do gain benefit from them and therefore the teachings of Buddha which it can be said has influenced how people are care for, helped and enabled/empowered, treated and that fact that all approaches are used to today have been empiricallly researched and the fact that ideas are uased in mediation whih is employed by couples diverocing to engaging with the taliban suggests Buddhism does work not only for Dharma practioners but for non buddhists and the world.
In light of these facts it is essential that the benefits of Buddhism are properly researched however Buddhism or any spiritual pychological path will only work if people make it work for them if they put the effort in and no counsellor Guru spiritual guide Bodhisattva or holy being from any faith can help them unless they help themselves.
Finally Buddha teaches about inner mind /buddha mind dyslexics are gifted with an acute sense of intuition dyslexic gut feeling. as a counsellor we were taught to understand psychodynamics of relationships and unconciouss levels of communication and develop an internal supervisor - internal supervisors are based on feelings experienced when engaging with another person enable empathy - to understand if a person is being congruent or deceitful - I have learned that Dyslexic gut feelings internal supervisors are one of the same and fortunately to my own and benefit of the people I have supported these feeling have opened windows up for understanding and enabling clients and at all times these feelings have been correct - when I meditate on events with clients use of internal supervisor dyslexic gut feelings which are free from ideas of defense mechanisms inferiority complexes possessed by clients and my clinical imputations and assessments of them I have come to understand that internal supervisor dyslexic gut feelings reflects my Buddha nature which sees things for what they really are without it I would have been lost and no help to any person.
I have alos been told by a uncle of a former girlfriend who is a catholic priest that he was taught that the true way to being a Christian is through Buddhism based on the fact Buddhist is used extensively in psychology caring professions mediation which connected to law and dispute resolution I state that it is reasonable to argue that Buddhism does work for students of it and non students and believers and those who are ignorant about Buddhism.
Your priest, teacher, and/or religious doctrine told you of course.
This isn't any different from what your high school physics teacher taught you. That teacher explained that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second (or something like that). Did we ever actually sit down and do the physics ourself to see if it was true, or did we simply accept what the teacher taught us as true and go from there?
Or maybe it was a college physics professor doing the teaching. Did you use the university's physics lab to test if the speed of light was just as the prof taught you or did you make a note for study so you could regurgitate it on the final?
Or any number of things we are taught in our lives that we don't lift a finger to verify and simply accept it on faith that we're being told the truth.
Chaz, I'm about done chatting with you on any topic. But I will make one final post on this.
What you want to do bastardizes science. What you are trying do is no different than what the Born Again Christians are trying to do to evolution -- mixing science in doses and individual ingredients that they like to prove the theory of evolution is wrong, to support the Genesis version of creation, or to support their concept of creation-science or intelligent design.
It's all right for you or anyone to believe "x" about Buddhism or Christianity or Hinduism or _____________. It's not all right to posit that Buddhism (or any other religion) is congruent to science. This is an excellent example of why locals shouldn't be determining the curriculum -- particularly of science -- in public schools.
with regards to arguments about science etc and squabbling Vinlyn
Atisha when receiving instructions from Avadhutipa developed pride thinking he knew more about secret mantra than anyone in thr world has ever done.!!!!
that same night during his dream Dakinis came and showed him rare scriptures he had never seen before. the Dakinis asked Atisha what the scriptures meant but he had no idea ???
when he awoke Atishas pride was gone - ?
we have more to learn from people and ideas which we find displeasing than we do from those we love ???
ultimately science assumptions theories beliefs trainings xmas love wishes perons thoughts feelings all to be understood as emptiness just conventional ideas which are to be seen as part of the path ???? to Buddhahood at which time we shall understand all objects
All fixed views are bound for the trash heap. What we hold true for both science and mind will be laughed at in 100 years. For now this view, for me, is both liberating and I would say Truthful: dukka, annata and anicca-the great sea we dwell in, the very fabric of this life-at least in this persons worldview.
You'd think a bunch of Buddhists, asked if Buddhism works, would get a bunch of "Yes, it works or I wouldn't be a Buddhist" answers, wouldn't you? Instead we have to answer simple questions with, basically, "It's complicated. Depends on what you mean by works." I love you folks.
Just trying to clarify the question, @Cinorjer. "Is Enlightenment truly attainable" is a very different question from "Does Buddhism really help you feel better". I'm not even sure if the OP has a clear idea of what he's asking.
Besides, just above posting my "what do you mean by 'works' " query, I answered the Op's question pretty much in the same spirit as you did in your first sentence. As did a few others. So....what was your point, exactly?
You'd think a bunch of Buddhists, asked if Buddhism works, would get a bunch of "Yes, it works or I wouldn't be a Buddhist" answers, wouldn't you? Instead we have to answer simple questions with, basically, "It's complicated. Depends on what you mean by works." I love you folks.
Just trying to clarify the question, @Cinorjer. "Is Enlightenment truly attainable" is a very different question from "Does Buddhism really help you feel better". I'm not even sure if the OP has a clear idea of what he's asking.
Besides, just above posting my "what do you mean by 'works' " query, I answered the Op's question pretty much in the same spirit as you did in your first sentence. As did a few others. So....?
I wasn't being sarcastic. I really do love you folks, because you are honest enough to not give pat answers but try to wrestle with the tough questions, no matter where it takes you. I'd want it no other way.
I think a religion could potentially adhere to scientific views. I'm not saying that is the case now. HHDL (his holiness the Dali Lama said that if science proves Buddhism wrong then Buddhism would have to change.
I think a religion could potentially adhere to scientific views. I'm not saying that is the case now. HHDL (his holiness the Dali Lama said that if science proves Buddhism wrong then Buddhism would have to change.
Yes, I admired HHDL for saying that. And, he's right...it would have to change, but it's value would not be negated.
Can scientific beliefs do some of the 'job' of religion? Many find great support from spirituality. What would happen if 85% of people were not religious. I think meditation is such a support and it is a shame more don't try it.
I'm not sure what I am talking about as 'religion'. I don't want to get into that mess of views in the dictionary definition. I think in the context of science and religion it means maybe the supernatural. If that is true then maybe religion helps people open there minds to the urgency of samsara. Not that samsara can be proved and that statement is in a nutshell why science can't live up to religion.. You would have to throw the idea of samsara in the garbage.
Your priest, teacher, and/or religious doctrine told you of course.
This isn't any different from what your high school physics teacher taught you. That teacher explained that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second (or something like that).
Allow me to explain, good Sir.
The most obvious difference, which somehow escaped your Buddhist/scientific notice, is that priests and religious teachers of differing faiths teach different things. Some teach about the eternal soul and others teach about emptiness, for instance. The equivalent in your example would be like some scientist teaching/believing that the speed of light was 185,000 miles per second, and other scientists teaching/believing that the speed of light was some other velocity. This would be a big problem is science, because the practical applications built on the incorrect velocity would fail.
Differing "truths" in religion don't matter. "Truths" in religion don't need to be true, they only need to be meaningful. This is why it doesn't bother anyone that there are other faiths which are vastly different, because on some level we know that religious truths don't need to be true. We just need meaning and religion addresses that need. Science addresses other needs, practical needs.
The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith. And for anyone from a culture where the dominant religions do place such demands on one's faith, this is one of Buddhism's most attractive features. We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism.
But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice.
That makes sense. That is how scientists operate anyway right? The guy who discovered germs for example. If he had absolutely no faith whatsoever that these invisible little things called germs existed, he would have most likely never even went looking for them. If he had never went looking for them, he never would have found them. The so called "scientists" that did have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the existence of these invisible little things were not the one doing the experiments. They were the people poking fun at the guy doing the experiments. They laughed at him! They thought he was a fool! They said "Look at this fool, he thinks these little invisible things exist even though there is no evidence that they do! What an idiot! LOL!" And these people called themselves scientists? Ha! That is what is LOL. Turns out, they were the ones who were the fools.
Want to know if it works? Test the hypotheses! Isn't that what scientists do? They devise a theory and they go test the theory? Do people want proof the theory is correct before they even go and try testing it? Why? Furthermore, is science even capable of proving or disproving the nature of a person's mind to the extent necessary? Does science even have the capability to empirically measure mental suffering to the extent necessary? Before one can even go any further, this question must be addressed. Before you ask "Has it been measured?" you must first ask the question "Do we have the capability to even measure it to begin with?" Seems to me that science has some catching up to do if it wants to try to do that.
To assume that science already does have the capability to effectively measure this, is a baseless assumption. One must first provide some support for this assumption if you are going to base conclusions on that assumption. According to logic and reason, a conclusion based on a baseless assumption, is itself, baseless.
Although, using Inductive reasoning, one could argue that it's highly probable that it works. Because it is readily observable and repeatable that practicing Buddhism can reduce greed, hate and ignorance a little bit. Actually, one could argue that this alone is proof that it works.
If it can reduce those a little bit, why can't it reduce those a little bit more? If it can reduce those a little bit more, why can't it reduce those a little bit more than that? If it can reduce those a little bit more than that, why can't it reduce those even more than that? If it can reduce those even more than that, why can't it reduce them a lot? If it can reduce them a lot, why can't it reduce them more than a lot? If it can reduce them more than a lot, then why can't it reduce them all the way?
Does a person really need proof that they can be reduced all the way, in order to attempt to reduce them just a little bit? If so, why?
If it can reduce those a little bit, why can't it reduce those a little bit more? If it can reduce those a little bit more, why can't it reduce those a little bit more than that? If it can reduce those a little bit more than that, why can't it reduce those even more than that? If it can reduce those even more than that, why can't it reduce them a lot? If it can reduce them a lot, why can't it reduce them more than a lot? If it can reduce them more than a lot, then why can't it reduce them all the way?
RE: discord arguments which may reflect root delusions ??? and attachment to Worldly concerns ??
Chandragarbha became so accomplished that on one occasion he developed pride,
thinking I probably know more about the secret mantra than anyone else in the world.
That night in his dreams Dakini’s came and showed him scriptures he had never seen before. They asked him what do these texts mean? But he had no idea.
When he awoke, his pride was gone however rational debates and arguments can also be viewed as part of the path
The great Buddhist monastic universities of Nalanda and Vikramashila in India each developed their own discourse styles.
once Chandragarbha had attained deep realizations when non Buddhists debated with him and were defeated they would convert to Buddhism ??? debate argument and tolerance are part of Buddhism and so is the non virtuous action of holding wrong views ( 10 non virtuous actions)
it may be useful to be concientious when commenting to ensure that post or actions are based on compassion and virtuous states of minds rather than non virtuous
But personally, if some alternative medicine treatment works for me, I don't care if it's been proven or tested or measured, or whatever. I'm just happy that I feel a lot better. And if I recommend it to others, and they come back thanking me and are relieved of their symptoms (i.e. suffering), who cares about the rest of it?
That's fine. But don't kid yourself it is science.
But for science, "It works for me" is not an answer. It's a subjective statement that proves nothing and a mistake in logic that still allows nonsense like copper bracelets to be sold for arthritis relief. Something is either true or it isn't. It either has the same affect on everyone, given a set of variables, or not. If I look through a telescope and see canals on Mars, that doesn't mean it's all right for me to believe there are canals on Mars even though other people tell me they don't see it. It's either true or it isn't and my personal experience is irrelevant.
So "It works for me" isn't a scientific answer. But it is an answer. We're talking about the mind here, after all. Ask any ten psychologists what makes the mind what it is, and get ten different answers.
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
Science is - or at least tries as hard as possible to be - objective. It does that in many ways, using a variety of techniques which you are free to google as "scientific method". But your personal subjective experience is in no way 'science'.
All fixed views are bound for the trash heap. What we hold true for both science and mind will be laughed at in 100 years.
Science is not fixed. It evolves. That is its strength over dogma. This insight does not prove you know 'better' though, or can simply decide what is true or not and have any authority in doing so. We are all trapped in the same moment of time.
But personally, if some alternative medicine treatment works for me, I don't care if it's been proven or tested or measured, or whatever. I'm just happy that I feel a lot better. And if I recommend it to others, and they come back thanking me and are relieved of their symptoms (i.e. suffering), who cares about the rest of it?
That's fine. But don't kid yourself it is science.
I never said it was science. It's someone else that's yammering on about science. All I said is: if it works for me, and others report good results, then, who cares about science? That was my point. Science will eventually catch up with some of these alternative methods, anyway.
The effects and stages can and have been experienced through a tradition of dharma mind yogis. I would suggest that Buddhism has many of the qualities of a 'soft science' such as sociology or 'psychology'. Similar stages, often veiled and adulterated beyond recognition are found in religions far from their source of wisdom/verification. This is why the dharma is so valuable. The tradition of 'mystic' scientists', the refuge of the sangha is present for our evaluation and for 'scientific' verification of key practices. Buddhism is not hard science but as a method, as an inspiration it is closer to the scientific method than anything I know . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
I think an essential point of Buddhism is that you don't depend on scientists - you become a scientist yourself!
Science is - or at least tries as hard as possible to be - objective. It does that in many ways, using a variety of techniques which you are free to google as "scientific method". But your personal subjective experience is in no way 'science'.
All fixed views are bound for the trash heap. What we hold true for both science and mind will be laughed at in 100 years.
Science is not fixed. It evolves. That is its strength over dogma. This insight does not prove you know 'better' though, or can simply decide what is true or not and have any authority in doing so. We are all trapped in the same moment of time.
I can say what is true for me, in this moment in time. Earlier I didn't mean to imply that if one holds a belief it is fact, I may believe I can fly....... But if one holds a belief it colors ones world view. I f one holds beliefs to be so, it most certainly dictates how one interacts in the world. Your ideas about yourself and the world may be utter non-sense but for you they are the truth at least for now. The vast majority holds to the idea that there is a thing called the self, I would call it non-sense. Truth is subjective, facts are not. BTW who decides what is true? I had a thought that the only difference between what is considered normal and insane lies in the grandiosity of the stories we tell ourselves and believe. In the end their just stories, but stories that can profoundly affect us and those around us.
In my view, there's nothing wrong with holding beliefs that cannot be proven. The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are true and scientific.
In my view, there's nothing wrong with holding beliefs that cannot be proven. The problem is in thinking that because one believes them they are true and scientific.
The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round... the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, all through the town. :coffee:
I would agree, but when we start dealing with terms like "truth" as it related to fact, context is everything.
Truth is one of those words that has a number of definition. For example, Truth can be a "transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality ". That definition places truth firmly in the realm of the subjective. It can also mean "of being in accord with fact or reality". Ok, that's a bit more objective.
Is one definition right and the other wrong? No. Can't be.
BTW who decides what is true?
It depends. If we taken the first definition I cite, then we can only decide for ourselves or side with sources we trust.
If it's the latter, then it must accord with facts.
If the matter is of a transcendant, spiritual nature, then we can apply the first definition of truth. If it becomes a matter of fact we go with the second. Again, context is everything. Fact can be truth, but truth isn't always fact.
Comments
It's a big heterogeneous thing. A religion contains practices (from meditation to rituals, workout-like prostrations, and so on), ethics, dietary rules (well for Chinese Monks), a lifestyle (esp for monks), a lot of book reading (which counts as education if you read enough books. Education, exercise, diet, lifestyle all have measurable effects.
Specific Practices.
Meditation. One type is supposed to make your brain stronger, better able to concentrate, less susceptible to distractions, better executive function, less anxiety.
And the other kind of meditation is analytical, trying to figure out what the world really is. I suppose you could ask people if they had an insight and if they think they have figured out who they really are and what the world really is (i.e. insights into anatman, emptyness) and see if there were positive benefits to that. I'm not sure how this would get funded & checked in an environment where the experimenters would be willing to consider that metaphysical insights were worthless (or valuable). [There was a guy who weighted a dying person at the moment of death to try to get the weight of a soul. I'm sure that guy really wanted to get positive results and if I remember correctly, he reported something like 1/4 of a lb]
Ethics. Institutionalist economist found positive relationships between religion and economic conditions-- i.e. if people are ethical for religious reasons-- not just for fear of the cops or if they're atheists because they read Kant & understood any of him--, business deals get done safely, crime is less of a problem.
The vinaya is a whole lifestyle-- it is so radically different than lay life that I would be astounded to find that there was no measurable difference between monks and lay followers-- they eat differently, sleep differently, mentally focus their minds on different things. And among monks, there are different kinds of monasteries, different
Filtering out the specific causes and effects would be a challenging project.
The idea is to investigate deeply and intimately. Is there something to see when you look deeply and intimately at yourself and the world? Who else but yourself could tell you?
My teacher refers to Buddhism as a "Science of Mind".
This makes sense in that our's is a Mahamudra lineage. Mahamudra is all about the true nature of mind. Our practice is how we investigate, research and prove this.
We may not have nice, white, lab coats, but still follow priciples of research used in hard science.
May I assume you don't have a professional background in science?
Assumptions are like beliefs, wouldn't you say?
What constitutes "science"?
In my case the teacher/Guru posits a theorem - "the nature of mind is" ..... (sometimes called "pointing out"). The teacher instructs the student in how realization of the pointing out is reached. The student uses the teacher's instruction to replicate the findings. After a time. the student may add self-found techniques to augment the teacher's instruction. The student reports back to the teacher with his own findings (which may appear different from the teacher's). The teacher may acknowledge success or may send the student back to continue. May give additional instruction. This continues until success is reached.
The methodology includes meditation. Meditation is used to observe the mind's movement in ever-increasing detail until the true nature of mind is found.
There's even peer review. Other teachers may be consulted as well as more senior practitioners.
How is this different from what you call science?
you did ask this: And I answred that you may assume what you like.
Now if you want to know what kind of science background I have ----
I workd 5+ years as a field archaeologist and and in accessioning labs for two major USFS offices in the midwest. Among my duties was cataloging specimens/artifacts, reviewing and collating reports & field notes, and preparing samples for outside analysis (c14 mostly).
I think I know what science is.
I do not know how one can isolate anything from the rest of existence's effects to produce the measurements you seek.
You can either dip your toe in the waters of a Buddhist practice to experience it or you can intellectualize about the worth of such an experience. It all depends on what YOU value most.
The clinical trials of the long term efficacy of Buddhist practices are easy enough to track down but really compare poorly against what your own wet toe can show you.
before I become and Buddhist I was an heroin addict using around £100 per day, it was during my final recovery from this addiction that I came across an advert for Buddhist class in a local newspaper, which apprehensively I attended. I was curious but ignorant about Buddhism however for years I had been waking up needing to use a drug just to reduce withdrawal effects and thinking my life has to be more meaningful than this. At the same time I was coming towards the end of my treatment for addiction and due to what occurred at an appointment at the treatment centre and the drug workers negative attitude I decided to enroll on a counselling course not knowing that counselling had any connection to psychology. if I had known due to having learning difficulties I would not have been motivated to attend due to lack of confidence in my abilities.
Anyway start date for counselling course came and nervously I attended. it was run by an elderly female who was teaching basic counselling skills and NLP. she explained the theories frameworks and skills needed and have they were to be taught over the next 30 weeks.
the class were introduced to ideas of Carl Rogers and Virginia Satire. In reference to Carl Rogers she told how he had been an evangelical missionary working for american church group who had been appointed to convert Buddhists in Thailand into Christians around 1930s after six month being on placement he converted to Buddhism.
From his conversion he developed Person Centred Counselling which is the basis of all counselling/psycho-therapeutic relationships. Rogers advocated 3 core conditions empathy congruence and unconditional positive regard. which he said only Buddha and Jesus had these true qualities.Rogers philosophies are now applied to medical, nursing and social care, community empowerment and mediation.
Not only did I continue with my counselling course I also continued to attend Dharma centres and practiced all Hinayana instructions I was given as best I could. Having successfully completed the first year of the counselling degree I was eligible to start the second year.
The second year included combining skills and core conditions advocated by Carl Rogers with a theorectical approach Gestalt - Cognitive Behavioral - behavioural or psychodynamic where our choices.
I was also very fortunate to receive training and instruction from Gerrard Egan a modern day counselling guru !! after three years of attending I gain a degree in Counselling and commenced work as a counsellor. I then had an opportunity to start and degree in social worker which after 7 years of training obtained a degree and post graduation qualifications in. I am currently studying for a bachelor of laws LLB.
It is said that dyslexics have a multitude of abilities and that dyslexic will make connections where non dyslexic are unable to for example Einstien's theories of relativity( Einstien was dyslexic)
In regards to Buddhism and Clinical Psychology and medicine I have found that 2500 years ago Buddha was teaching about gross subtle and very subtle minds -
Sigmund Freud taught about the Id the ego and the superego in my conventional understanding Freuds ideas are same as Buddhas.
In respect to Gestalt therapy developed by Fritz Perls again it was an approach based on Zen cones and Humanistic Psychology developed by Carl Rogers is based on Buddhas teachings.
In 2009 I read teachings given by Dharmakirti and Dignapa about understanding the mind. I found no differance in these teachings ancient teachings to the ideas of Cognitive Behavoural therapy currently the most widely used and researched form of counselling/psychotherapy.
last Behvioural therapy founded by Pavlov advocates use of meditation as as form of relaxation.
All these approaches mirror what Buddha taught, people do gain benefit from them and therefore the teachings of Buddha which it can be said has influenced how people are care for, helped and enabled/empowered, treated and that fact that all approaches are used to today have been empiricallly researched and the fact that ideas are uased in mediation whih is employed by couples diverocing to engaging with the taliban suggests Buddhism does work not only for Dharma practioners but for non buddhists and the world.
In light of these facts it is essential that the benefits of Buddhism are properly researched however Buddhism or any spiritual pychological path will only work if people make it work for them if they put the effort in and no counsellor Guru spiritual guide Bodhisattva or holy being from any faith can help them unless they help themselves.
Finally Buddha teaches about inner mind /buddha mind dyslexics are gifted with an acute sense of intuition dyslexic gut feeling. as a counsellor we were taught to understand psychodynamics of relationships and unconciouss levels of communication and develop an internal supervisor - internal supervisors are based on feelings experienced when engaging with another person enable empathy - to understand if a person is being congruent or deceitful - I have learned that Dyslexic gut feelings internal supervisors are one of the same and fortunately to my own and benefit of the people I have supported these feeling have opened windows up for understanding and enabling clients and at all times these feelings have been correct - when I meditate on events with clients use of internal supervisor dyslexic gut feelings which are free from ideas of defense mechanisms inferiority complexes possessed by clients and my clinical imputations and assessments of them I have come to understand that internal supervisor dyslexic gut feelings reflects my Buddha nature which sees things for what they really are without it I would have been lost and no help to any person.
I have alos been told by a uncle of a former girlfriend who is a catholic priest that he was taught that the true way to being a Christian is through Buddhism based on the fact Buddhist is used extensively in psychology caring professions mediation which connected to law and dispute resolution I state that it is reasonable to argue that Buddhism does work for students of it and non students and believers and those who are ignorant about Buddhism.
Or maybe it was a college physics professor doing the teaching. Did you use the university's physics lab to test if the speed of light was just as the prof taught you or did you make a note for study so you could regurgitate it on the final?
Or any number of things we are taught in our lives that we don't lift a finger to verify and simply accept it on faith that we're being told the truth.
Boy, there's some sound thinking for you!
What you want to do bastardizes science. What you are trying do is no different than what the Born Again Christians are trying to do to evolution -- mixing science in doses and individual ingredients that they like to prove the theory of evolution is wrong, to support the Genesis version of creation, or to support their concept of creation-science or intelligent design.
It's all right for you or anyone to believe "x" about Buddhism or Christianity or Hinduism or _____________. It's not all right to posit that Buddhism (or any other religion) is congruent to science. This is an excellent example of why locals shouldn't be determining the curriculum -- particularly of science -- in public schools.
there is also this link
Atisha when receiving instructions from Avadhutipa developed pride thinking he knew more about secret mantra than anyone in thr world has ever done.!!!!
that same night during his dream Dakinis came and showed him rare scriptures he had never seen before. the Dakinis asked Atisha what the scriptures meant but he had no idea ???
when he awoke Atishas pride was gone - ?
we have more to learn from people and ideas which we find displeasing than we do from those we love ???
For now this view, for me, is both liberating and I would say Truthful: dukka, annata and anicca-the great sea we dwell in, the very fabric of this life-at least in this persons worldview.
Besides, just above posting my "what do you mean by 'works' " query, I answered the Op's question pretty much in the same spirit as you did in your first sentence. As did a few others. So....what was your point, exactly?
Merry Christmas!
I'm not sure what I am talking about as 'religion'. I don't want to get into that mess of views in the dictionary definition. I think in the context of science and religion it means maybe the supernatural. If that is true then maybe religion helps people open there minds to the urgency of samsara. Not that samsara can be proved and that statement is in a nutshell why science can't live up to religion.. You would have to throw the idea of samsara in the garbage.
The most obvious difference, which somehow escaped your Buddhist/scientific notice, is that priests and religious teachers of differing faiths teach different things. Some teach about the eternal soul and others teach about emptiness, for instance. The equivalent in your example would be like some scientist teaching/believing that the speed of light was 185,000 miles per second, and other scientists teaching/believing that the speed of light was some other velocity. This would be a big problem is science, because the practical applications built on the incorrect velocity would fail.
Differing "truths" in religion don't matter. "Truths" in religion don't need to be true, they only need to be meaningful. This is why it doesn't bother anyone that there are other faiths which are vastly different, because on some level we know that religious truths don't need to be true. We just need meaning and religion addresses that need. Science addresses other needs, practical needs.
You understand?
Rest of article is pretty good
Want to know if it works? Test the hypotheses! Isn't that what scientists do? They devise a theory and they go test the theory? Do people want proof the theory is correct before they even go and try testing it? Why? Furthermore, is science even capable of proving or disproving the nature of a person's mind to the extent necessary? Does science even have the capability to empirically measure mental suffering to the extent necessary? Before one can even go any further, this question must be addressed. Before you ask "Has it been measured?" you must first ask the question "Do we have the capability to even measure it to begin with?" Seems to me that science has some catching up to do if it wants to try to do that.
To assume that science already does have the capability to effectively measure this, is a baseless assumption. One must first provide some support for this assumption if you are going to base conclusions on that assumption. According to logic and reason, a conclusion based on a baseless assumption, is itself, baseless.
Although, using Inductive reasoning, one could argue that it's highly probable that it works. Because it is readily observable and repeatable that practicing Buddhism can reduce greed, hate and ignorance a little bit. Actually, one could argue that this alone is proof that it works.
If it can reduce those a little bit, why can't it reduce those a little bit more? If it can reduce those a little bit more, why can't it reduce those a little bit more than that? If it can reduce those a little bit more than that, why can't it reduce those even more than that? If it can reduce those even more than that, why can't it reduce them a lot? If it can reduce them a lot, why can't it reduce them more than a lot? If it can reduce them more than a lot, then why can't it reduce them all the way?
Does a person really need proof that they can be reduced all the way, in order to attempt to reduce them just a little bit? If so, why?
:om:
:buck:
. . . and it ain't even rocket science . . .
and now back to the working models . . . :wave:
Makes me think that for many, Buddhism is just another view to hold onto, another set of ideas to support the self...
Chandragarbha became so accomplished that on one occasion he developed pride,
thinking I probably know more about the secret mantra than anyone else in the world.
That night in his dreams Dakini’s came and showed him scriptures he had never seen before. They asked him what do these texts mean? But he had no idea.
When he awoke, his pride was gone however rational debates and arguments can also be viewed as part of the path
The great Buddhist monastic universities of Nalanda and Vikramashila in India each developed their own discourse styles.
once Chandragarbha had attained deep realizations when non Buddhists debated with him and were defeated they would convert to Buddhism ??? debate argument and tolerance are part of Buddhism and so is the non virtuous action of holding wrong views ( 10 non virtuous actions)
it may be useful to be concientious when commenting to ensure that post or actions are based on compassion and virtuous states of minds rather than non virtuous
Similar stages, often veiled and adulterated beyond recognition are found in religions far from their source of wisdom/verification. This is why the dharma is so valuable. The tradition of 'mystic' scientists', the refuge of the sangha is present for our evaluation and for 'scientific' verification of key practices. Buddhism is not hard science but as a method, as an inspiration it is closer to the scientific method than anything I know . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
But if one holds a belief it colors ones world view. I f one holds beliefs to be so, it most certainly dictates how one interacts in the world. Your ideas about yourself and the world may be utter non-sense but for you they are the truth at least for now. The vast majority holds to the idea that there is a thing called the self, I would call it non-sense. Truth is subjective, facts are not.
BTW who decides what is true?
I had a thought that the only difference between what is considered normal and insane lies in the grandiosity of the stories we tell ourselves and believe.
In the end their just stories, but stories that can profoundly affect us and those around us.
Fact?
Truth is one of those words that has a number of definition. For example, Truth can be a "transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality ". That definition places truth firmly in the realm of the subjective. It can also mean "of being in accord with fact or reality". Ok, that's a bit more objective.
Is one definition right and the other wrong? No. Can't be.
It depends. If we taken the first definition I cite, then we can only decide for ourselves or side with sources we trust.
If it's the latter, then it must accord with facts.
If the matter is of a transcendant, spiritual nature, then we can apply the first definition of truth. If it becomes a matter of fact we go with the second. Again, context is everything. Fact can be truth, but truth isn't always fact.