OK to disagree?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by Sanghamitta »

meindzai wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
meindzai wrote: * Is there some context either cultural or otherwise that I am missing here?

It doesn't mean that the teaching doesn't apply anymore, but that the when, how, who, and why need to be taken into consideration.
...and after that consideration?
:juggling:
If there is no possibility that the consideration will change your thoughts about the truthfulness or value of the statement, why consider?
I'm not sure I understand the question. The assumption is that my understanding is not clear, and I am trying to clarify it. If after those considerations I still do not understand, it the answer is "I don't understand." Often such things become clear later with further study or clarification through practice.

I see the choice between them as one of the crucial issues for Buddhism as it comes to the West and enters the modern world.
:namaste:

Kim
The west and the modern world may need to get over itself if it wants to have anything to do with Buddhism.

-M
True. ;) I suspect that The Dhamma will still be around when the " modern world " is a forgotten dream.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
adosa
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by adosa »

Or as the Dalai Lama says:
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
Makes sense to me,

adosa :smile:
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas" - Dhammapada 183
notself
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by notself »

adosa wrote:Or as the Dalai Lama says:
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
Makes sense to me,

adosa :smile:
Even the most precise scientific inquiry is colored by perception and assumption. The very instruments we use to examine reality create bias because we only measure those things we can imagine or perceive. Pure science is an approximation of the truth and is always subject to falsification.
Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by Kim OHara »

notself wrote: Even the most precise scientific inquiry is colored by perception and assumption. The very instruments we use to examine reality create bias because we only measure those things we can imagine or perceive. Pure science is an approximation of the truth and is always subject to falsification.
All true, Notself, but what does that mean to you in the context of this thread? What implications do you wish us to draw from it?
:thinking:

Kim
notself
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by notself »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
notself wrote: Even the most precise scientific inquiry is colored by perception and assumption. The very instruments we use to examine reality create bias because we only measure those things we can imagine or perceive. Pure science is an approximation of the truth and is always subject to falsification.
All true, Notself, but what does that mean to you in the context of this thread? What implications do you wish us to draw from it?
:thinking:

Kim
Making science the measure on truth in Buddhism can be a mistake. The quote "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." is from the Dalai Lama. I don't necessarily think that it is the job of science to prove or disprove Buddhism. If some scientific hypothesis or theory conflicts with Buddhim, I don't think Buddhism necessarily has to change. I think science need to look at its experimental evidence for possible error.
Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by PeterB »

notself wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
notself wrote: Even the most precise scientific inquiry is colored by perception and assumption. The very instruments we use to examine reality create bias because we only measure those things we can imagine or perceive. Pure science is an approximation of the truth and is always subject to falsification.
All true, Notself, but what does that mean to you in the context of this thread? What implications do you wish us to draw from it?
:thinking:

Kim
Making science the measure on truth in Buddhism can be a mistake. The quote "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." is from the Dalai Lama. I don't necessarily think that it is the job of science to prove or disprove Buddhism. If some scientific hypothesis or theory conflicts with Buddhim, I don't think Buddhism necessarily has to change. I think science need to look at its experimental evidence for possible error.
It also begs the question. What has the Dalai Lama got to do with anything from a Theravada perspective ? I'm sure he is a nice chap and all.
NB This is the General Theravada Forum.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by cooran »

Ben wrote:Hi Hunter
The Dhamma as it has been recorded in the Pali Canon is vast and profound. Many people struggle with some material within the Canon.
The Buddha said that one of the qualities of the Dhamma is 'ehi passiko', (must be seen for oneself). So if there is something that you have difficulty with, for the time being, 'put it to the side', and in time, through one's own penetration of the Dhamma from bhavana (mental cultivation) the nature of reality will be revealed to you.
metta

Ben
Thanks Ben! :goodpost:

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by Kim OHara »

PeterB wrote:
notself wrote: Making science the measure on truth in Buddhism can be a mistake. The quote "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." is from the Dalai Lama. I don't necessarily think that it is the job of science to prove or disprove Buddhism. If some scientific hypothesis or theory conflicts with Buddhim, I don't think Buddhism necessarily has to change. I think science need to look at its experimental evidence for possible error.
It also begs the question. What has the Dalai Lama got to do with anything from a Theravada perspective ? I'm sure he is a nice chap and all.
NB This is the General Theravada Forum.
Hi, everyone :hello:
Notself, you seem to be saying either that science must be wrong where it conflicts with Buddhism, or that we must expect to hold two incompatible 'truths' in our heads all the time; I don't think either option is viable.

Peter, I think the Dalai Lama's comments are absolutely to the point here. You don't have to accept him as your spiritual leader, but this issue is as relevant to Theravada as to Mahayana.
However, I think you are coincidentally right in suggesting that this is not the best forum to continue the discussion. When I get time to put my thoughts together, I'll post them to the Two Naked Buddhas thread which is explicitly about the relationship of the Dharma to modern western culture.

Meanwhile, readers may like to bear in mind these two questions when looking at other active threads:
• Would the original question have been needed if there were no conflict between the Dharma and our science-based culture?
• How essential to enlightenment is the issue?

My concern is always to help others, and in this context that means reducing the barriers between ordinary folks and the benefits of the teachings - without, I hasten to add, dumbing down the teachings in the process. :tongue:

:namaste:
Kim
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by meindzai »

I would have to say (not without a biased perspective) that Tibetan Buddhism makes a lot more claims about the physical world (energy, elements, healing, physiology and so forth) than does Theravada, and therefore the DL's statement is much more applicable to those kinds of teachings.

The main gist of Theravada isn't concerned much with the physical world, which science is limited to. In other words, science can only talk about the aggregate of form. It can say nothing of feelings, perceptiosn, impulses, consciousness, which are nama ("name" or "mentality"). Science can say nothing about dukkha, kamma, enlightenment factors, and a host of other teachings that are essential in Theravada.

-M
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
meindzai wrote:The main gist of Theravada isn't concerned much with the physical world...
Verily so. In the Rohitassa Sutta the Buddha states:

"In this very one-fathom long body along with its perceptions and thoughts, do I proclaim the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world."

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
notself
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by notself »

Kim O'Hara
notself wrote: Making science the measure on truth in Buddhism can be a mistake. The quote "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." is from the Dalai Lama. I don't necessarily think that it is the job of science to prove or disprove Buddhism. If some scientific hypothesis or theory conflicts with Buddhim, I don't think Buddhism necessarily has to change. I think science need to look at its experimental evidence for possible error.
Hi, everyone :hello:
Notself, you seem to be saying either that science must be wrong where it conflicts with Buddhism, or that we must expect to hold two incompatible 'truths' in our heads all the time; I don't think either option is viable.
I did not say that, You are mistaken in your reading of my comments. What I said was scientific theory changes; can be overturned by new information; can be modified by new analysis. The message of the Buddha does not change.
Meanwhile, readers may like to bear in mind these two questions when looking at other active threads:
• Would the original question have been needed if there were no conflict between the Dharma and our science-based culture?
• How essential to enlightenment is the issue?
Please give specific examples and links where there is a scientific study that conflicts or refutes Buddhist teachings. I don't think you can come up with one. Why do I think that? Science depends on funding and interest. At the present time, for example, there is no interest or funding to investigate rebirth. Science is interested in the study of the brain/mind and there is funding for research. Here are several links where science examines the affect meditation on the brain.

http://www.livescience.com/health/07062 ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 204236.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8317" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04 ... tummo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he is indeed the noblest victor who conquers himself. ---Dhp 103
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by PeterB »

I think Kim O Hara that you are projecting your own dilemma, your own conflicted ideas onto the world. If we want to know about DNA or the structure of metal we go to science. If we want to transcend suffering we go to the Dhamma. There is no conflict. That is not to say that your dilemma, your need to find an accomodation for yourself, is not authentic or important to you.. Its just that it might not be shared as widely as you seem to imply.
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by meindzai »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
How essential to enlightenment is the issue?
Important question. If we go based on the Suttas, then there would seem to be less and less people getting enlightened as time goes by - despite an increase in our knowledge of science.

Enlightenment is about a state of mind, or an attitude, or a perspective. Imagine the Buddha sitting there under the Bodhi tree. One second he's an unawakened Bodhisatta - the next minute he is the Buddha. A spectacular event with no physical manifestations of anykind. He's just sitting there. What difference could science possibly make?

-M
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by Kim OHara »

PeterB wrote:I think Kim O Hara that you are projecting your own dilemma, your own conflicted ideas onto the world. ... That is not to say that your dilemma, your need to find an accomodation for yourself, is not authentic or important to you.. Its just that it might not be shared as widely as you seem to imply.
Hi, Peter, Meindzai,
I don't actually have a dilemma or conflicted idea. I am perfectly comfortable, relaxed, happy and contented with my own understanding of science and of the dhamma. :smile: (OK, I know I should spend more time meditating and less time on Dhamma Wheel, but that's a separate issue.)
But I see on the board here, and even more in the community I live in, lots of people who do have problems in this area. I asked you to look at the board to see them popping up, remember?
PeterB wrote:If we want to know about DNA or the structure of metal we go to science. If we want to transcend suffering we go to the Dhamma.
Absolutely.
PeterB wrote:There is no conflict.
Most of the time there is no conflict. But every time there is a conflict - 'hell realms' comes to mind because it seems to be one of the most active current threads - the conflict turns some people away from the dhamma.
I have been a teacher for more than half my life and I can't help seeing things from that perspective. One of the most basic principles of good teaching practice is that you don't set up unnecessary obstacles between the learner and the subject.
That's where I'm coming from. Does that make my concerns clearer?

:namaste:
Kim
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by PeterB »

It clarifies that they are your concerns. It not possible to extrapolate from that some kind of crisis in the establishment of The Dhamma in the west. To seek clarification for yourself is quite right and proper. To assume that you have identified a widespread issue for western Buddhists is another issue altogether. I think most western Buddhists have in fact reached or are reaching or will reach their own accomodation with science.
As to topics like the Hell realms it is my experience that the longer we spend on the cushion the more these issues resolve themselves. As we penetrate more deeply into the various aspects of the Dhamma as a result of developing insight, the essential cohesiveness of The Buddha's Dhamma reveals itself, and what was difficult is seen in its wider context. A subtle interaction of elements that have their origin in the event under the Bo Tree.
In short I think that you are conflating the personal with the communal. Another thought that strikes me is that although my considered view is that the Theravada represents the Buddhas teaching in its most clear and unaltered form, it is not the only view. Jundo Cohen over at ZFI for example thinks that modern western views of Buddhism are an improvement on the original. I disagree completely, but some might feel more comfortable with that. Its what works for us.
Post Reply