Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
Ven Dr Sumana Siri Thero, The Chief Sangha Nayaka of the UK & Europe, Scotland Buddhist Vihara
What I think the Maha Thera is saying in short:
The shortcomings of 'scientism', human happiness and where science stops, Buddhism picks up, goes forward and beyond from there...
What do you think?
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
Science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known.
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. That a person — without abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Sounds pretty scientific to me. The systematic study of the "world" using only the body and mind to investigate the "world". Science of the mind."Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
Phena Sutta
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
-
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
Honestly, I think science needs Buddhism more than Buddhism needs science. Their theories have gotten more and more absurd in recent decades. So to lend some credence to their mythology they go hang out with the Dalai Lama and hope some respectability rubs off on them.
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
Would you care to explain what you mean by an "absurd theory"?davidbrainerd wrote:Honestly, I think science needs Buddhism more than Buddhism needs science. Their theories have gotten more and more absurd in recent decades. So to lend some credence to their mythology they go hang out with the Dalai Lama and hope some respectability rubs off on them.
Mike
-
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
String theory comes to mind. The vain search for the pantheon of subatomic particles they dreamed up, spent millions or billions building the LHC to find, and subsequently declare themselves to have found. (Of course they would say so, since they need a return on investment!) This is like believing a prophet of theistic religion that he saw his god...of course he did (especially if he was paid by a government to do so, like these 'scientists'), but nobody else did...so nobody can see the holy subatomic particles but those chosen by the world elite to be the new prophets of a new religion of scientism. Its special pleading. I will no more believe in their unscientific sub atomic particle pantheon than in the flying spaghetti monster.mikenz66 wrote:Would you care to explain what you mean by an "absurd theory"?davidbrainerd wrote:Honestly, I think science needs Buddhism more than Buddhism needs science. Their theories have gotten more and more absurd in recent decades. So to lend some credence to their mythology they go hang out with the Dalai Lama and hope some respectability rubs off on them.
Mike
Oh, and that "black holes" are just stars that pull in light rather than send it out, (due to being so big their gravity is too much, LOL.), or that black holes even exist outside Star Trek. Or that gravity is a particle, a graviton, and they think they've seen a "gravity wave."
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
Well, currently string theory seems to be unverifiable and unfalsifiable, so some would say it's not yet a scientific theory.
As for black holes and gravitational waves, the observations and calculations are in very good agreement. Just because these things are outside our normal experience doesn't make them absurd.
The quantum mechanics that describes the operation of the chips in your computer and the laser fibre amplifiers that make the modern internet work might also seem absurd, but it's the basis of much modern technology.
The Buddha's teaching is also counterintuitive ---- it is absurd?
Mike
As for black holes and gravitational waves, the observations and calculations are in very good agreement. Just because these things are outside our normal experience doesn't make them absurd.
The quantum mechanics that describes the operation of the chips in your computer and the laser fibre amplifiers that make the modern internet work might also seem absurd, but it's the basis of much modern technology.
The Buddha's teaching is also counterintuitive ---- it is absurd?
Mike
-
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
It relies on a source of knowledge not recognized by "science," i.e. meditation. Scientists are claiming to only be using external empirical means, yet they're ending up in what is clearly mysticism but of a materialist variety.mikenz66 wrote:Well, currently string theory seems to be unverifiable and unfalsifiable, so some would say it's not yet a scientific theory.
As for black holes and gravitational waves, the observations and calculations are in very good agreement. Just because these things are outside our normal experience doesn't make them absurd.
The quantum mechanics that describes the operation of the chips in your computer and the laser fibre amplifiers that make the modern internet work might also seem absurd, but it's the basis of much modern technology.
The Buddha's teaching is also counterintuitive ---- it is absurd?
Mike
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
This kind of mysticism?:they're ending up in what is clearly mysticism but of a materialist variety.
"Mysticism, the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them."....which I found at brittanica.com.
"Relilgious ecstasies"...wow....who would have thought!!!!.........
chownah
-
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
The ecstacy of the duping delight regarding how people buy things like string theory.(?) But actually I was using "mysticism" more in the sense of only verifiable by the mystic, who of course can't explain how anyone else can experience this, or makes it so complicated nobody else can, which is pretty much all the theoretic sciences do now days. Do you understand how to and have all the tools necessary to see a gravity wave? Didn't think so.chownah wrote:This kind of mysticism?:they're ending up in what is clearly mysticism but of a materialist variety.
"Mysticism, the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them."....which I found at brittanica.com.
"Relilgious ecstasies"...wow....who would have thought!!!!.........
chownah
In other words, Buddha's teaching is more scientific. The means to experience it yourself is open to all, and he explained it well enough to where you can follow his instructions. Scientists...nope; they keep it a good ole boys club.
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
Some parts of science are necessarily speculative. That's how science works - ideas are tested against experiments or observations. It doesn't make sense to pick on some particular theories that are under development and use that to claim that science is "mystical".
The way electrons and photons behave in semiconductors and lasers respectively may be accurately modelled by quantum mechanics, and, in fact, those devices were able to be built (engineered) because of that understanding. So quantum mechanics is far from mystical - it makes measurable predictions. In the future it may be proved to be inaccurate in some situations.
As for string theory, it is currently not possible to test any of its predictions. However, future advances may make it testable.
And, as for gravity waves, no one person has the knowledge of all of the experiment and theory. Same goes for a passenger jet...
Mike
The way electrons and photons behave in semiconductors and lasers respectively may be accurately modelled by quantum mechanics, and, in fact, those devices were able to be built (engineered) because of that understanding. So quantum mechanics is far from mystical - it makes measurable predictions. In the future it may be proved to be inaccurate in some situations.
As for string theory, it is currently not possible to test any of its predictions. However, future advances may make it testable.
And, as for gravity waves, no one person has the knowledge of all of the experiment and theory. Same goes for a passenger jet...
Mike
-
- Posts: 10172
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
The first two factors of enlightenment are mindfulness and investigation ( observation and analysis ), and then we have teachings like the 4 truths and 3 marks ( theories to be tested ).
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Tue Sep 06, 2016 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
You think scientists become ecstatic through duping people?davidbrainerd wrote:The ecstacy of the duping delight regarding how people buy things like string theory.(?) But actually I was using "mysticism" more in the sense of only verifiable by the mystic, who of course can't explain how anyone else can experience this, or makes it so complicated nobody else can, which is pretty much all the theoretic sciences do now days. Do you understand how to and have all the tools necessary to see a gravity wave? Didn't think so.chownah wrote:This kind of mysticism?:they're ending up in what is clearly mysticism but of a materialist variety.
"Mysticism, the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them."....which I found at brittanica.com.
"Relilgious ecstasies"...wow....who would have thought!!!!.........
chownah
In other words, Buddha's teaching is more scientific. The means to experience it yourself is open to all, and he explained it well enough to where you can follow his instructions. Scientists...nope; they keep it a good ole boys club.
You think that the data used to verify science is only available to scientists? If you can not verify their conclusions after looking at the data don't blame the scientists....it is probably because you never took the time to develop the skills....you could do that you know...or at least perhaps you could...at least you do have the opportunity to try to develop those skills...the skills required are not a secret.
You think that scientists make it complicated so that noone will understand it?
You think the tools to understand gravity waves can not be accessed by the general public?
You think buddha's teaching is more scientific?
You think that scientists have a closed club with membership restricted?
Can you support any of your claims?
chownah
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
You're missing the point. For the ordinary person, modern science is largely a matter of faith, much like a religion. That is, an ordinary person has no means and no scope to know for themselves the vast majority of the claims that scientists make; an ordinary person simply has to take them on faith.chownah wrote:You think scientists become ecstatic through duping people?
You think that the data used to verify science is only available to scientists? If you can not verify their conclusions after looking at the data don't blame the scientists....it is probably because you never took the time to develop the skills....you could do that you know...or at least perhaps you could...at least you do have the opportunity to try to develop those skills...the skills required are not a secret.
You think that scientists make it complicated so that noone will understand it?
You think the tools to understand gravity waves can not be accessed by the general public?
You think buddha's teaching is more scientific?
You think that scientists have a closed club with membership restricted?
Can you support any of your claims?
And even if one becomes a scentist oneself, one still has a very small range of expertise, and has to take the rest of scientific claims on faith.
John Hardwig wrote a seminal paper on epistemic dependence, definitely worth reading.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
This isn't what is mystical about science.mikenz66 wrote:Some parts of science are necessarily speculative. That's how science works - ideas are tested against experiments or observations. It doesn't make sense to pick on some particular theories that are under development and use that to claim that science is "mystical".
To an ordinary person like myself, there is, in terms of applied epistemology, no difference between the claim, say, "Jesus is the Lord and Savior of all humanity" and the claim, say, "The half-life of Caesium-137 is 30.17 years." I have to take both on faith. I have no personal knowledge of Jesus, and neither do I have any personal knowledge of Caesium-137. Sure, I can read about both of them in various books and have people tell me about them -- but this is all. And while theoretically, I could explore a number of claims, given that both religion and science make vast numbers of claims, I have no hope to ever even explore a tiny fraction of them, what to speak of actually testing them or getting personal knowledge of them.
This is how science is mystical.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
-
- Posts: 10172
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Why Buddhism Need Not Be Scientific?
But it is possible to educate yourself about science, and the better you understand it the better placed you are to objectively assess the "claims" that scientists make. The same is not true of religious claims, you usually end up wading through a load of convoluted theology which goes nowhere.binocular wrote:You're missing the point. For the ordinary person, modern science is largely a matter of faith, much like a religion. That is, an ordinary person has no means and no scope to know for themselves the vast majority of the claims that scientists make; an ordinary person simply has to take them on faith.chownah wrote:You think scientists become ecstatic through duping people?
You think that the data used to verify science is only available to scientists? If you can not verify their conclusions after looking at the data don't blame the scientists....it is probably because you never took the time to develop the skills....you could do that you know...or at least perhaps you could...at least you do have the opportunity to try to develop those skills...the skills required are not a secret.
You think that scientists make it complicated so that noone will understand it?
You think the tools to understand gravity waves can not be accessed by the general public?
You think buddha's teaching is more scientific?
You think that scientists have a closed club with membership restricted?
Can you support any of your claims?
And even if one becomes a scentist oneself, one still has a very small range of expertise, and has to take the rest of scientific claims on faith.
Buddha save me from new-agers!