Buddhism

[hallenrm]

I’m afraid the Buddha would not have been pleased with your characterizing him as either a Scientist or a Philosopher, for the former were not yet invented (scientist being a term coined in the nineteenth-century), and the latter he held to be unwholesome at best, for they trafficked in theories and suppositions, just as do the scientists of today.

 

The term scientist is a concept, and concepts once accepted are timeless. They are not limited by the time of their invention. Just think it over, energy and atom are concepts just like the term scientists, didn't energy exist before physicsts started using the term?

 

Anyway, your arguments are appealing!!:hihi:

[ronthepon]

I agree with hallenrm, although buddha was not a marked 'scientist', he was performing what scientists do.

'experimenting'

 

He did search in himself for answers to his questions, and he may have found them.

The important thing is that others have verified his observations in different ways.

 

And though buddhism is a religion, it appears to be the closest to science.

[IDMclean]

Siddartha spent allot of time in contemplation (Einstein, Isaac Newton, Neils Bohr) and tested many different belief structures, wandering form indulgence to asceticism discovering eventually that neither lead him to fulfillment, The enlightenment of Siddartha, the becoming of the Buddha, did not happen until late in his psycho-sociological experiments. His enlightenment came of his understanding of the middle-path, that extremes were with their merit but required moderation, modulation.

 

It's refrain, not Thou shalt not, because one must walk a balance, that is not to say that one can not indulge, but that to indulge is to temp walking off of the path.

 

I don't believe that Siddartha, as the Buddha, would be displeased with me, as that would lead to my suffering, part of the path is moderation and relief of suffering, both of yourself and others. Compassion is one of the core tenets of Buddhism, if I am not mistaken.

 

Siddartha observed, long before physics, that the world was made up of small pieces, like miniature grains of sand, to small to see with the eye.

 

Siddartha is a scientist, because what he did was careful observation, and mindful awareness of your surroundings. These are marks of a scientist.

 

I would like to note that their is actually multiple divisions within Buddhism, and I personally per scribe to the so called "Core" Buddhism that is actually more akin to a philosophy than a religion. Siddartha denied the gods, it was one of the things that made for a number of religious sects to officially label Buddhist as Atheist, he also denied the Soul as a separate entity.

 

Anatta

The Buddhist term Anātman (Sanskrit) or Anatta (Pāli अनत्त) is an adjective that specifies the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence; eg. "none of these skhandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)". What is normally thought of as the "Self" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas") which give rise to unhappiness if clung to as though this temporary assemblage formed some kind of immutable and enduring Soul ("atman"). The non-doctrinal commentarial "anatta" doctrine attempts to encourage the Buddhist practitioner to detach him/herself from this misplaced clinging to what is mistakenly regarded as his or her Self, and from such detachment (aided by moral living and meditation) the way to Nirvana is able successfully to be traversed. All occurrences of anatta in Sutra contextually appear as: "A is anatta (not-Self), B is anatta, etc."

 

A variant understanding of the doctrine (as enunciated by the Buddha in the Mahayana "Tathagatagarbha" scriptures) insists that the five "skandhas" (impermanent constituent elements of the mundane body and mind of each being) are indeed "not the Self" ("anatta"/"anatman"), since they are doomed to mutation and dissolution, but that in contrast to this ephemeral "mundane self", the eternal Buddha-Principle ("Buddha-dhatu") deep within each being is the supramundane True Self - although this realisation is only fully gained on reaching Awakening ("bodhi").

 

Anatta is one of the Three Seals of Buddhist doctrines and is an important element of wisdom through the apophatic technique used to experience Nirvana, the other two being Dukkha and Anicca.

 

It was professed that the gods were a part of samara, and that to achieve Nirvana one must surrender their attachment to the gods and by proxy to samara.

 

That one's desire to believe in, and to please the gods was a sign of Dukkha.

 

Dukkha happens to be a real important one to me, growing up my father insisted that I worship the vision of the Christian god and that I follow all the tenets of the bible, lest I be forfeit to a pit of eternal suffering.

 

Hard as I might I have sinned by the tenets of the bible and am by it's decrees damned. This hurt me for a long time, it was a deep seat of Dukkha within my being. It was only when I gave up my attachment to adhering to the dogmas of that faith that I could accept that by those laws I would end up in the fires of hell.

 

I came to terms with that I can only live my life and be as I am, I can only do my best in the here and the now. I can only be the best person HERE and NOW. For me there is no afterlife, no reincarnation, I live here on this path in the Here and the now, I can feel the sweat on my brow and hear the world around me and I know it is.

 

I know that if I do well, if I help as many as I can then that is enough and I need not worry about the eternal salvation of my soul as my soul is part of the impermanent self and when I die that is the end of my journey, that is the end of my path, irregardless of my deeds.

[Jehu]

I agree with hallenrm, although buddha was not a marked 'scientist', he was performing what scientists do.

'experimenting'

 

He did search in himself for answers to his questions, and he may have found them.

The important thing is that others have verified his observations in different ways.

 

And though buddhism is a religion, it appears to be the closest to science.

 

The term, “scientist”, as I understand it, was coined so as to differentiate those “natural philosophers” who were engaged in the special sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry, etc.), and whom were operating within the guidelines of a “scientific methodology”, from those philosophers who, especially in the past, had not done so (e.g., alchemists). A more important distinction, however, was that the philosopher of natural science was principally concerned with describing the laws which governed the interaction of those things which constituted the fundamental elements of their science (e.g., space, time, matter, energy, and motion, in physical sciences), and not with the nature of those elements. The Buddha, in contrast, had not the slightest interest in such relationships, for he say clearly that they were all illusory. His one and only aim was to free all sentient beings from the suffering that arises out of holding an erroneous world-view. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, he never engaged in experimentation or any other “scientific method”, but put his entire faith in the power of deductive reasoning, and consequently, rejected all inductive inferences.

 

Regards, Jehu

[IDMclean]

You hold one piece of the truth, Siddartha did not perform science in the mein of a physical scientist, but rather in the mein of a Social scientist.

 

I understand that he didn't perform exact scientific method, however I will point out that he predates most all of that. Siddartha is said to have walked the earth back in between 563 BCE and 483 BCE.

 

Like I said in an earlier post, he is IMHO one of the first psycho-sociologist.

[Jehu]

Siddartha spent allot of time in contemplation (Einstein, Isaac Newton, Neils Bohr) and tested many different belief structures, wandering form indulgence to asceticism discovering eventually that neither lead him to fulfillment, The enlightenment of Siddartha, the becoming of the Buddha, did not happen until late in his psycho-sociological experiments. His enlightenment came of his understanding of the middle-path, that extremes were with their merit but required moderation, modulation.

 

As you say, the Buddha engaged in many practices, each of which was claimed, by its adherents, to be the one true way to the cessation of suffering, however, to characterize this as his having “tested many different belief structures”, makes it sound as if he were shopping for a religion. What he was in fact doing, was developing the mental skills that would be necessary if he was to penetrate to the very nature of things. Neither can his efforts be characterized as “psycho-sociological experiments”, for the term, “experiment”, as it relates to the sciences, is undertaken in order to test an hypothesis, and he simple didn’t have one to test. The practices the Buddha undertook were more akin to the practices of an athlete in training, only it was his mind that the Buddha was developing, and not his muscles.

 

I don't believe that Siddartha, as the Buddha, would be displeased with me, as that would lead to my suffering, part of the path is moderation and relief of suffering, both of yourself and others. Compassion is one of the core tenets of Buddhism, if I am not mistaken.

 

Please Sir, we did not mean to imply that the Buddha would be displeased with you, but only that he might be saddened by the various interpretations that have been given to his doctrine. In truth, the Buddha would have viewed you and I with nothing but benevolence and compassion, for he would have recognized that you and I are identical with himself, but in a previous incarnations.

 

Siddartha observed, long before physics, that the world was made up of small pieces, like miniature grains of sand, to small to see with the eye.

 

It is true that the Buddha realized the particulate nature of all things, but he did not do so by observation, but by deductive reasoning alone. Had he established the fact by means of observation, this would have resulted in merely and inductive inference, a generalization, and not a law. What’s more, it is inferences and generalization that are the marks of a scientist.

 

Siddartha is a scientist, because what he did was careful observation, and mindful awareness of your surroundings. These are marks of a scientist.

 

As you say, the Buddha’s “doctrine of emptiness” is a philosophical doctrine, a metaphysics of the first order. That which we call Buddhism in the west, is known only as the Buddhadharma (The Law) in the east. Any religion, no matter where it arises, is only a conveyance for its doctrine, and Buddhism is no different in this respect. By this we mean that it is not the religion that is important, but that which the religion safeguards for the future. Unfortunately, all to often, the messenger becomes more important than the message, and then sadly the message is degraded and finally lost.

 

I would like to note that their is actually multiple divisions within Buddhism, and I personally per scribe to the so called "Core" Buddhism that is actually more akin to a philosophy than a religion. Siddartha denied the gods, it was one of the things that made for a number of religious sects to officially label Buddhist as Atheist, he also denied the Soul as a separate entity.

 

There is a self which, like the self in a dream, is but an illusion, and so dissolves upon one’s awakening. There is, however, another self which, unlike the dream self, is not an illusion, and does not disappear upon awakening. When the illusory self awakens the dream ceases, but when the real self awakens, the dream goes on. The cycle of birth, maturation, aging, and death, along with all of the suffering that they entail, are but a dream, and have no true substance whatsoever. Only the dreamer is real, and since the dreamer was never born, neither can the dreamer ever die.

 

Regards, Jehu

 

By the way, the term “Buddha” is merely an appellation meaning “He who is awake.”, and is no more meant to elevate him than are his other appellations such as, “Siddhartha”, which means “He who is successful in all his objectives”. In truth, we don’t know what his name was, nor is it truly important.

[Jehu]

I'm afraid I will have to concede this point, for I know of no logical argument that will combat an opinion, be it a humble one or otherwise.

 

Regards, Jehu

[IDMclean]

When the young Prince Siddhartha Gautama was still a baby, an ascetic named Kaladevala went into the heaven of the Thirty-three gods and predicted that the young prince would become the Buddha. As the boy reached the age of 16, his father arranged his marriage to Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā), a cousin of the same age. In time, she gave birth to a son, Rahula. Gautama spent 29 years of his life as a prince in Kapilavastu, a place situated now in Nepal. Although his father ensured that Gautama was provided with everything he could want or need, Gautama was troubled and dissatisfied.

 

The Great Departure

 

In venturing outside of his palace, Gautama saw an old crippled man (old age), a diseased man (illness), a decaying corpse (death), and an ascetic. These four scenes are referred to as the four sights. Gautama was inspired by these sights - he sought to overcome old age, illness, and death by living the life of an ascetic. Gautama soon left his home, his possessions, and his entire family at age 29, to take up the lonely life of a wandering monk.

 

Abandoning his inheritance, he dedicated his life to learning how to overcome suffering. He meditated with two Brahmin hermits, and, although he achieved high levels of meditative consciousness, he was still not satisfied with his path.

 

Gautama then chose the robes of a mendicant monk and headed to north-east India. He began his training in the ascetic life and practicing vigorous techniques of physical and mental austerity. Gautama proved quite adept at these practices, and was able to surpass even his teachers.

 

However, he found no answer to his questions. Leaving behind his caring teachers, he and a small group of close companions set out to take their austerities even further. Gautama attempted to find enlightenment through complete deprivation of worldly goods, including food, and became a complete ascetic. After nearly starving himself to death (some sources claim that he nearly drowned), Gautama began to reconsider his path. Then, he remembered a moment in childhood in which he had been watching his father start the season's plowing, and he had fallen into a naturally concentrated and focused state which was blissful and refreshing.

 

He asked Questions, all along the way he asked questions. In this he is a scientist, as it is the purpose of a scientist to come to know the questions to ask, and then through methods test and either prove or disprove there answers to these questions. One does not absolutely need a hypothesis for discovery. It is helpful to have one, but some of the greatest discoveries in history were discovered without hypothesis. Some are inherently known.

 

According to one of the stories in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1), a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons, immediately after his Enlightenment, the Buddha was wondering whether or not he should teach the Dharma. He was concerned that, as human beings were overpowered by greed, hatred and delusion, they would not be able to see the true dharma which was subtle, deep and hard to understand. However, a divine spirit, Brahma Sahampati, interceded and asked that he teach the dharma to the world, as "there will be those who will understand the Dharma". With his great compassion, the Buddha agreed to become a teacher.

 

I have heard another version of this story, that elaborated that Siddartha had a choice, that he could in his enlightment cease his cycle and end his re-incarnations. His choice however was ultimately, according to many sects, to continue his cycle, to remain within Samsara and assist those still here in the ceasation of their suffering.

 

I have been discussing many of these ideas in another thread, so I'll include the link.

only one god created entire universe

[Jehu]

If one need only to ask questions to be considered a scientist, then every child is a scientist. What’s more, the sort of questions that the Buddha asked were metaphysical in nature, like who we are and why we are here, and not the kind of questions any self-respecting scientist today would bother themselves with. It is not the preview of the sciences to discover the nature of reality, but merely to describe its workings, their aim being to thereby control it. I ask you, honestly, what has science done to make the world a better place? Has it eliminated hunger, poverty, fear? Has science put and end to wars, or has it simply made wars more gruesome? Has it done anything to unite those people who are separated by nothing but more than their beliefs and opinions? Please Sir, let us all be done with the scientists, for they will never find the truth in their theories or suppositions.

 

It is true that the Buddha could have chosen to forgo all the difficulties associated with trying to transmit the doctrine of emptiness, but then he would never have achieved perfect enlightenment, for Buddhahood may only be achieved by those who have abandoned any notion of the individual self, in favour of the collective whole that is the true reality. Awakening, you see, is only the first stage in the evolution of the awakening being (Bodhisattva), and a path that we are all destined to walk, for awakeness (i.e., cognitive awareness) is our very nature.

 

Regards, Jehu

[IDMclean]

Indeed, children are some of the greatest scientist, they have some of the sharpest minds. They set out in life to learn of it all and then how to control it.

 

Science has done much for society and the individual. Your description of a scientist seems to be oriented in the direction of a physical scientist, I speak of a Social and/or psychologicial scientist.

 

If you don't believe that Science has done anything for you or your home planet, or the society of which you live in then you should concider finding a nice patch of nature and settle down on it, without tools of any kind. true fundementalism, surrender all comforts and all aids. No house, cause that is technology, a product of science. No sanitation, cause that is technology and a product of science. No computer or internet. No car, or grocery mart, no malls, air conditioning, colthing, nothing. just you naked in the forest, hunting and gathering, without tools. For technology is the child of applied science.

 

If you don't like Mathematics then don't use cars, cause they only work reliably because they are tested (science) and held to standards(engineering) of statistical (mathematics) acceptability (philosophy, and ethics).

 

I'm all for many things, however primordialism is not one of them. I maintian that society has gotten better and better as time goes on, and as long as we do not blow ourselves up we will be able to meet and greet others awaiting amongst the stars.

 

Scientific Method

Science

Metaphysics

 

Psychology

(Gk: psyche, soul or mind + logos, speech) is an academic and applied field involving the study of the mind, brain, and behavior, both human and nonhuman. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including problems of individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental illness.

 

:shrug: have fun

[Racoon]

Buddhism isn't about arguing...

 

You simply are..

Jehu has made some very fine points. :shrug:

[IDMclean]

Indeed, I apologize for my uncompromising nature, I don't take well to my few scared cows being ridiculed. Sadly I can not claim to be anymore than a Satori individual. I can not claim Nirvana.

 

I enjoy a good debate or Argument, I forget that some don't appreciate it as much as I do. Anyway my intention is to simply expand the visions people have of given concepts.

 

All is change.

All is unsatisfactory.

All is impermanent.

[Jehu]

I enjoy a good debate or Argument, I forget that some don't appreciate it as much as I do. Anyway my intention is to simply expand the visions people have of given concepts.

 

I also enjoy a spirited debate, but I prefer one that is founded on logic rather than rhetoric. For as Raccoon so aptly put it, “Buddhism is not about arguing”, unless of course one means a logical argument, for logical debate has a long and respected history in all of the wisdom traditions. It is not much wonder that we feel the need to defend our theories and beliefs, for the Buddha indicated, in his formulation know as “The Five Aggregates”, that the potency of our personalities (ego-selves) lies is our “preferences”, that is to say, in those ideas, objects, activities, etc., that we find pleasing. These preferences are who we think we are. This is why the first thing we usually do when we meet someone new, is to compare our preferences. We tell each other what we like to eat, read, wear, do, listen to, etc. These, however, are only things, and being things, they are subject to continuous change and eventual cessation, they are not who we truly are. Consequently, it is only when we are prepared to let go of our preferences that true discourse can take place, for then we are able to perceive the truth of a statement, even if that statement is contrary to what we have always been told. This is what the Buddha was practicing. He was making his mind supple so that it might be capable of seeing the Truth.

 

Regards, Jehu

[dagaz]

I do not call myself a buddhist, however I do practice Vipassana meditation - in the tradition of S.N. Goenka. For anyone unfamiliar, this has no religious overtones and instead concentrates only on the core practice of sila (morality), samadhi (mastery of the mind) and panna (wisdom).

 

I have sat a number of ten day retreats in this tradition and each day there is an evening discource in which Goenka illustrates the practice, often using parables from the Buddha's life and teachings. However, he often qualifies this by saying:

 

Do not accept something just because your religion or tradition says so,

Do not accept something just because your teacher or the scriptures says so,

Only when you experience it for yourself, then only you accept it.

[IDMclean]

Do not accept something just because your religion or tradition says so,

Do not accept something just because your teacher or the scriptures says so,

Only when you experience it for yourself, then only you accept it.

 

Absolutely beautiful. I ask, is that consistent when you invert it?

 

Accept something when it is of another tradition

Accept something when it is of a teacher or scripture

When you do not experience it for yourself, then only you can disregard it.

 

It is not form extreames that one comes to understand the path, it is from the middle vantage point that one comes to understand the pebble underfoot.

 

It is from balance that one comes to understand the end of the journey, it is from the extreame vantage point that one comes to understand the person upon the pebble.

[dagaz]

Absolutely beautiful. I ask, is that consistent when you invert it?

 

Accept something when it is of another tradition

Accept something when it is of a teacher or scripture

When you do not experience it for yourself, then only you can disregard it.

 

I'm not quite so sure about the inverted statement, the whole point of the original is to try and get beyond blind acceptance. I guess what you are trying to say is something like:

 

Accept that someone from a different religion or tradition may have different beliefs from you,

Accept that someone following a different teacher or scripture may have different beliefs from you,

Accept that some people choose to believe what they believe out of blind faith, without experiencing it for themselves.

[IDMclean]

Well I am meaning the opposite test, such that you test both for true and false on each assumetion.