What's at stake as the Dharma goes modern

[zavk]

An essay that reflects on the key questions facing the development of the Dhamma in contemporary times by situating these questions within the analytical framework articulated by sociologist Charles Taylor, whose work represents an important voice in current scholarly debates about our 'secular age'.

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whats-s ... n?page=0,0

An excerpt from the concluding section:

Certainly we cannot turn the clock back. There is no returning to a presecular world. We must reckon with our secular scientific background. What, then, is the way forward?

There are no easy answers. We might begin, however, by confronting our biases—indeed, our chauvinisms: our presumption that science has got it all figured out; that the modern worldview is a triumph over all past forms of understanding; and that today we are closer to a truer understanding of ourselves and our world than people of any other place and time. We need to start examining the immanent frame’s background assumptions, which constrain our sense of the possible. As we hold each assumption up for examination—as we pull it from the background and into the foreground and subject it to analysis—something curious happens. In a certain sense it loses its power over us—its status as “the way things are”—and becomes one possible way among many ways that things could be.

Examining and even questioning the foundational assumptions of secular and scientific materialism doesn’t mean we stop doing science or stop living in a technological world. Rather, it means we begin to see our worldview as a worldview, to appreciate how it, too, came to be constituted on the basis of a number of sleights of hand and is, as a result, no more universal or final or resting on solid ground than the worldviews of our medieval Western or traditional Buddhist predecessors. Like their worldviews, ours is a set of conventions. We can then understand that this is what it means to have a worldview: the human form of life operates within a vast web of implicit background understandings that limit what can count as valid beliefs and experiences.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

The Dhamma is Timeless and Never Changes

‘To associate with the wise, even only on one occasion is of great advantage;
to associate with the foolish even on many occasions is of no benefit.’

‘One should associate with the wise and listen to their teaching;
one who does will become noble-minded,
no harm comes from learning the teaching of the wise.’

‘The splendid royal chariots, once so beautiful, grow old and decay,
but the teaching of the wise is ageless and never changes,
this is what the wise talk about among themselves.’

‘The sky is very far from the earth, and the earth is very far from the heavens,
but farther apart than these are the teaching of the wise and the teaching of the foolish.’

[Alex123]

Hello Zavk,

The sad thing is that it is possible in that quote you gave to replace Dhamma with any other religion and nothing would be different.

If current evidence contradicts some teachings, do we reject the current evidence or reject those teachings?

With best wishes,

Alex

[Kim O'Hara]

Hi, zavk,
I haven't read the essay (yet), but I like the quote - especially

We need to start examining the immanent frame’s background assumptions, which constrain our sense of the possible. As we hold each assumption up for examination—as we pull it from the background and into the foreground and subject it to analysis—something curious happens. In a certain sense it loses its power over us—its status as “the way things are”—and becomes one possible way among many ways that things could be.

Hi, Alex,
You're right in saying "it is possible in that quote you gave to replace Dhamma with any other religion", but that doesn't invalidate either the dhamma or Taylor's statement.
I think we have to be intellectually and morally honest - always. If that means acknowledging that science doesn't know everything, fine; if it means acknowledging that parts of Christianity are valuable, fine; if it means acknowledging that ancient Indian cosmological knowledge wasn't as good as ours is now, that has to be fine as well.


Kim

[Alex123]

You're right in saying "it is possible in that quote you gave to replace Dhamma with any other religion", but that doesn't invalidate either the dhamma or Taylor's statement.

You are right as long as "Science isn't omniscient thus [add any belief] is true solely because of that" or "Modern science can't disprove [add any belief] thus that belief is true solely because of that" isn't used.

[DAWN]

I don't understand when peoples, and buddhist peoples to, said that science is somethink 'bad' or have 'wrong view', it's dosnt like that.
Science study dhammas, but by other side like we do, and calls the fenomenas by others words, but the fenomenas, the mehanizms, still the same.

We use metaphors to discribe dhamma interactions
They use mathematics formulas to discribe the same dhamma interactions

Buddhism is a quantum physic in practice, we use the sames quantum mecanisms in our practice, but The Buddha talks about it 2500 ago, and studying dhammas by external way (like the science) have some limites, whereas mind has not that kind of limits, so we can study dhammas more effectively, right here and now.

Science and Buddha Dhamma is not enemy teachings, it's complementary teachings. The problem of science is that it dont makes moral conclusions.

PS Before meeting Buddha Dhamma, I trying to study and understand quantum physic and quantum interactions, but i don't understand what it's can bring in our lives of living beings, and fortunatly i meet Dhamma, and understood how we can do that, how we can live The Right life, 'right' means 'in agreement with the law that lead all phenomenas', in agreement with The Dhamma.

I'am firmly and fully convicted that
Religius peoples have to study science trough the window of his religion
And scientific peoples have to study religions trough the science window

[daverupa]

Creationism, for example, is fundamentally flawed. That this comes from a literal interpretation of a religious text is something that, as Bill Nye once said, ultimately renders a view of the world which is inherently contradictory, overly complex, untenable - just utterly deficient.

Dhamma practitioners of all stripes tend to pride themselves (!) on the observability of the Dhamma, the here-and-now-ness of it, and the practicality of the goal.

The answer is not, as the OP article suggests, to "teach the controversy"; the question is whether or not there is any actual conflict, and if so where is it, and does it matter? Put another way, what is problematically religious within Buddhism, in the sense that creationism is within Xianity, and what is not?

[zavk]

Hi all

It's always a bit of a risk to quote an excerpt from any text. Rather than read the bit I quoted in isolation, please also look into the entire essay. In any event, to pick up on some of the points raised so far. The essay does NOT (nor would I) suggest that science or the Buddhism-science dialogue is 'wrong' or 'bad'. As the short quoted bit states clearly: 'Examining and even questioning the foundational assumptions of secular and scientific materialism doesn’t mean we stop doing science or stop living in a technological world.'

What it points to, rather, is the need to also be mindful of the background assumptions—the specific cultual, intellectual, and historical conditions—influencing the way we interpret the Dhamma. Any mode of thinking is shaped by background assumptions and historically specific conditionings. Insofar as we are working at the level of mundane reality, what this implies is that how we go about seeking 'evidence' is always performed from a situated position—and this is something that we learn from the Dhamma as well with the notion of 'conventional truth'.

To be mindful of the situated-ness of our engagement with the Dhamma and cultivate awareness of the implicit background assumptions that we are not typically aware of (and this is precisely what makes assumptions 'assumptions': that we take them as self-evident, as given, when they may not necessarily be so)—such an exercise does not imply that any attempts to evaluate the Buddha's with modern understanding is futile. It does not preclude the usefulness of inquiries such as the question of:

'whether or not there is any actual conflict, and if so where is it, and does it matter? Put another way, what is problematically religious within Buddhism?'

But if, alongside such inquiries, we also cultivate mindfulness of background assumptions, perhaps we might begin to recognise how such questions are situated within and shaped by specific historical conditions. In other words, we might begin to see that such questions are dependently arisen. For example, in exploring 'what is problematically religious within Buddhism?' such a question already begins with the assumption that 'the religious' is inherently 'problematic' and necessarily at odds with 'Buddhism'.

Certainly, there are many problems with organised religion, not to mention how 'religious' habits could lead to unwholesomeness—these MUST be interrogated; I do not contest this. However, what I wish to ask is: how sensitive is this line of questioning to its background assumptions about 'the religious'? The idea that 'the religious' is inherently problematic requires prior assumptions that posit oppositional binaries between the sacred/secular, religion/philosophy, faith/knowledge, belief/reason, etc. But the way we understand these oppositions are shaped by a specific Eurocentric cultural and intellectual history. This is a historical fact. Now, to be clear, these conceptual oppositions can be helpful in guiding our inquiries in certain ways. But I think it needs to also be asked: are such conceptual oppositions native to the Dhamma? My view is that they are not, though this is not to say that it would be 'wrong' to consider them alongside Dhammic understandings. Indeed, what inspires me so much about the Dhamma is that it can accomodate such conceptual oppositions but at the same time challenges us to confront our attachment to them and to go beyond them.

So, if such conceptual oppositions are not native to the Dhamma, then it needs to be asked: When we explore such questions as 'what is problematically religious about Buddhism?', how much space are we allowing for the timeless wisdon of the Dhamma to surprise us? If we do not cultivate awareness of the situated-ness and historically conditioned nature of our interpretive frameworks, would we be subordinating the Dhamma under the authority of a set of outlooks that present themselves as 'neutral' and 'universal' when they are in fact situated, historically conditioned, dependently arisen? Accordingly, when we engage in science-Buddhism dialogue, or whatever else we bring into conversation with the Dhamma, are we engaging in an exchange or takeover?

In my opinion, we have a responsibility to the Dhamma to explore or at least keep these questions in mind, as we continue to attune Buddhism to our contemporary circumstances.

[daverupa]

such a question already begins with the assumption that 'the religious' is inherently 'problematic' and necessarily at odds with 'Buddhism'.

So, creationism is the example. It is not an assumption to say that this renders an irredeemably skewed view of life's development on this planet, given what is scientifically known. So there is an immediate and overt contradiction, not an assumption of one. It is observable right there in the competing claims, and is not fueled by a religion-v-science dichotomy; creationism and the backbone of the life sciences - evolution - are simply incompatible. Therefore, creationism is problematically (because flawed) religious (because based on such a text).

This question is not informed by such a thing as "science is obviously at odds with religion...". It is prompted by the abject failure of creationism in the face of a stronger explanation. So the phrase "problematically religious" has caused some warning bells, but it's just a phrase referring to this sort of issue. Getting lost in a mire of ideological dialogue is to miss this point. Depending on context, we might just as well say "problematically cultural" (female circumcision; whaling), and so forth.

You can even drop the second word, and stick with simply "problematic". It isn't about whether science can prove this or that aspect of ones favored worldview, it's about what science has demonstrated as against competing explanatory claims for the same thing.

Is there anything like that in the Dhamma, in the first place?

[Sam Vara]

zavk,

The article is deep and subtle. I am a bit hampered by not having read Taylor's work, but thinking that I know something of it through seeing its influence in lots of articles and discussions, and seeing some of the ideas prefigured in earlier writings. (The ideas are redolent of Barfield's Saving the Appearances, and Anthony Giddens' work on modernity.)

At the moment, I don't have any particularly interesting thoughts to share. But seeds have been planted, and I can feel that they are beneficial. So rather than saying anything useful about the article, I would just like to express my thanks to you for sharing it.

[Kim O'Hara]

It isn't about whether science can prove this or that aspect of ones favored worldview, it's about what science has demonstrated as against competing explanatory claims for the same thing.

Is there anything like that in the Dhamma, in the first place?

Hi, Dave,
How one answers that question depends almost entirely on one's worldview, aka assumptions ... bringing the discussion neatly full circle.
Perhaps examination of those assumptions should get a higher priority, as Taylor suggests.


Kim

[Alex123]

Hello Kim, all,

Hi, Dave,
How one answers that question depends almost entirely on one's worldview, aka assumptions ... bringing the discussion neatly full circle.
Perhaps examination of those assumptions should get a higher priority, as Taylor suggests.


Kim

Sorry to but in. Here is my opinion. My "assumption" is that evidence counts and Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

Difference between religion and science is this:
Religion believes that it's holy book (each religion has its own) is unalterable final truth that can never be improved or questioned.
Science accepts new facts and evidence to improve knowledge of the world.

[Kim O'Hara]

Hello Kim, all,

Hi, Dave,
How one answers that question depends almost entirely on one's worldview, aka assumptions ... bringing the discussion neatly full circle.
Perhaps examination of those assumptions should get a higher priority, as Taylor suggests.


Kim

Sorry to but in. Here is my opinion. My "assumption" is that evidence counts and Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

Difference between religion and science is this:
Religion believes that it's holy book (each religion has its own) is unalterable final truth that can never be improved or questioned.
Science accepts new facts and evidence to improve knowledge of the world.

It's good that you know what your assumptions are, Alex - many people don't even get that far, and without getting that far they can never examine them, test them, or compare them with other frameworks.
You can do that, and I think it is something you should do. I'm not saying that because I disagree with you, btw, because I agree with you about 90%. However, have you thought about the strengths and weaknesses of 'religious' vs 'scientific' worldviews, or the questions they are each best at answering? If religion can be blind to evidence (and I agree, it can), science has deliberately blinded itself to motivation and ethics but isn't even aware of that blindness, let alone able to admit to it.
And so on ...


Kim

[daverupa]

We might go on for a long time in this way; but nevermind this dichotomy of science vs. religion. Where is there an aspect of the Dhamma which requires explanations which are contradicted by a scientific explanation? Are there any at all?

[Kim O'Hara]

We might go on for a long time in this way; but nevermind this dichotomy of science vs. religion. Where is there an aspect of the Dhamma which requires explanations which are contradicted by a scientific explanation? Are there any at all?

Hi, Dave,
If you are looking for Buddhist teachings which are in direct opposition to scientific knowledge, the biggie is cosmology.
If you are looking for Buddhist teachings which are unsupported by scientific knowledge and often rejected by science-oriented people for that reason, open any book of the suttas at random and you will find something within a page or so: rebirth, obviously; ghosts, devas, hell-realms, ...


Kim

[polarbuddha101]

If religion can be blind to evidence (and I agree, it can), science has deliberately blinded itself to motivation and ethics but isn't even aware of that blindness, let alone able to admit to it.
And so on ...


Kim

science:a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

science isn't blind to ethics, ethics simply is not part of science (in a strict sense, obviously ethical issues come up in scientific fields of study but it is the human beings, the scientists, not the subject "science" that contain any ethical obligation, duty, or imperative which may seek to limit the boundaries of acceptable methods of gaining knowledge) . scientists may be concerned about ethics but science, the definition of science, is not concerned with ethics or motivation. human beings are motivated to learn and many are motivated to live by some sort of ethical code whether that code is well formulated or vague. so to infer an inherent weakness in science that religion does not have is to ignore the parameters of meaning that the english language has given to the term science and therefore it seems to me that the above quoted proposition is fallacious.

I only seek to clarify meaning, once that is done, truly valuable conversations may be had. If one seeks to make statements about modern society disregarding ethics or proper motivation due to influence from a purely scientific worldview (which states nothing about ethics and describes motivation as a function of evolution) and that that has led to societal problems then that's fine, but science is not to blame, what's to blame (if anything) is a disregard for ethics in our world society which may or may not be larger than it was in scientifically unenlightened times. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, a subject too often relegated by many to the category of "mostly useless"

anyway, I hope my point came across. I have quite a few bones to pick with the article in the OP but I don't feel the motivation at this time to illuminate my thoughts. Perhaps later I will.

with goodwill,
Andrew

[daverupa]

If you are looking for Buddhist teachings which are in direct opposition to scientific knowledge, the biggie is cosmology.
If you are looking for Buddhist teachings which are unsupported by scientific knowledge and often rejected by science-oriented people for that reason, open any book of the suttas at random and you will find something within a page or so: rebirth, obviously; ghosts, devas, hell-realms, ...

The unsupported stuff can receive an agnostic attitude without trouble, it seems to me, and the cosmology can be entirely jettisoned, can't it? I see nothing about the Dhamma, yet... "Buddhist teachings" isn't very precise... after all, are these things really "teachings"? Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see these things as at all relevant.

[DAWN]

Hello Kim, all,

Hi, Dave,
How one answers that question depends almost entirely on one's worldview, aka assumptions ... bringing the discussion neatly full circle.
Perhaps examination of those assumptions should get a higher priority, as Taylor suggests.


Kim

Sorry to but in. Here is my opinion. My "assumption" is that evidence counts and Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

Difference between religion and science is this:
Religion believes that it's holy book (each religion has its own) is unalterable final truth that can never be improved or questioned.
Science accepts new facts and evidence to improve knowledge of the world.

Здравствуйте Алекс,
Hello Alex,

When a scientific theoretician (the one who believe) have any assumption, he asking a scientist (the one who know), who build a machine to asking a nature(dhammas) directly, if this assumption is right.
When a religious (the one who believe) man have any assumption, he asking a practitioner (the one who know) who can asking a nature (dhammas) directly, if this assumption is right.

So for a religious man, his Holy Book, is like a LHC for a scientific theoreticien.

I dont want to be a shovininst, but the our LHC, The Bouddha, was a greatest LHC of all time, first of all, because 2500 years ago he was talking about the things that scientist started to understand just now, secondly beacause he could explain the quantum phisic to peoples who lives 2500 years ago, wheras the scientifist cant explain that to them selves...

Anyway, modern peoples, who accept all that science say, shuld study the science to get a higher conviction that The Bouddha Dhamma is the Truth.

[Kim O'Hara]

If you are looking for Buddhist teachings which are in direct opposition to scientific knowledge, the biggie is cosmology.
If you are looking for Buddhist teachings which are unsupported by scientific knowledge and often rejected by science-oriented people for that reason, open any book of the suttas at random and you will find something within a page or so: rebirth, obviously; ghosts, devas, hell-realms, ...

The unsupported stuff can receive an agnostic attitude without trouble, it seems to me, and the cosmology can be entirely jettisoned, can't it? I see nothing about the Dhamma, yet... "Buddhist teachings" isn't very precise... after all, are these things really "teachings"? Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see these things as at all relevant.

Hi, Dave,
The phrase use used was 'the Dhamma'. I said 'Buddhist teachings' instead because I think that is a reasonable equivalent. If you don't, and don't agree with my statements because of that, I think you will have to tell me/us what you mean by 'the Dhamma.'

Either way, you seem perfectly willing to reject large chunks of the teachings which have been passed down to us. Is that correct? If you are, why are you willing to do so? And what does that tell us - and you - about your worldview?

As I said to Alex, I am not highlighting this because I disagree with you (I am in general agreement with you) but because I think it is useful, even necessary, to know why we choose certain things to believe in.


Kim

[Kim O'Hara]

If religion can be blind to evidence (and I agree, it can), science has deliberately blinded itself to motivation and ethics but isn't even aware of that blindness, let alone able to admit to it.
And so on ...


Kim

science:a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

science isn't blind to ethics, ethics simply is not part of science (in a strict sense, obviously ethical issues come up in scientific fields of study but it is the human beings, the scientists, not the subject "science" that contain any ethical obligation, duty, or imperative which may seek to limit the boundaries of acceptable methods of gaining knowledge) . scientists may be concerned about ethics but science, the definition of science, is not concerned with ethics or motivation. human beings are motivated to learn and many are motivated to live by some sort of ethical code whether that code is well formulated or vague. so to infer an inherent weakness in science that religion does not have is to ignore the parameters of meaning that the english language has given to the term science and therefore it seems to me that the above quoted proposition is fallacious.

I only seek to clarify meaning, once that is done, truly valuable conversations may be had. If one seeks to make statements about modern society disregarding ethics or proper motivation due to influence from a purely scientific worldview (which states nothing about ethics and describes motivation as a function of evolution) and that that has led to societal problems then that's fine, but science is not to blame, what's to blame (if anything) is a disregard for ethics in our world society which may or may not be larger than it was in scientifically unenlightened times. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, a subject too often relegated by many to the category of "mostly useless"

anyway, I hope my point came across. I have quite a few bones to pick with the article in the OP but I don't feel the motivation at this time to illuminate my thoughts. Perhaps later I will.

with goodwill,
Andrew

Hi, Andrew,
I stand by what I said. It's another way of saying, as you did, that, "ethics simply is not part of science," or, "science, the definition of science, is not concerned with ethics or motivation."
I could go a bit further than you and say, "science deliberately excludes ethics and morality from its field of view." Would you agree with that? It means the same thing.


Kim