Why More And More People Accepting Buddhism ?

[lungmi]

The Einstein quote, popular though it may be, is probably spurious. It's never been proven to exist and there are two versions of it. See Tricycle and other blogs/discussions about this.

I agree, but the meaning has a high plausibility. There are other statements which confirm this plausibility. Sorry, my books stay in Germany, I cannot quote correctly).

[lungmi]

Science is mainly concerned with objects, with the outerworld. There is an essential dualism between the subject, the scientist and the object, which makes science identifiable and verifiable for others so that things can be proven objectivly.

Religion is in essence a subjectiv experience, just like love or the experience of beauty or the experience of enlightenment. You can try to conceptualise the experience, explain it in words, but there is nothing to "prove" or "disprove". Others can only believe or not what you say. Idem dito I think rebirth and karma are subjectiv experiences. Asking for proves is asking the impossible.

Essential dualism is applicable in only a small part of what we call science . I follow the modern theory of cognition in science. You hear about chaos theory? The Buddhist Kamma-theory in the explanations of Tan P.A. Payutto converge with the chaos theory. Check it out.

[rockyysdt]

Science is mainly concerned with objects, with the outerworld. There is an essential dualism between the subject, the scientist and the object, which makes science identifiable and verifiable for others so that things can be proven objectivly.

Religion is in essence a subjectiv experience, just like love or the experience of beauty or the experience of enlightenment. You can try to conceptualise the experience, explain it in words, but there is nothing to "prove" or "disprove". Others can only believe or not what you say. Idem dito I think rebirth and karma are subjectiv experiences. Asking for proves is asking the impossible.

The difference between love and re birth/karma is that most of us have experienced love.

How many of us have experienced re birth/karma?

This is a very significant difference.

Personal experience vs theoretical belief.

In fact, those who are said to have reached enlightenment follow a code not to reveal their awakening.

You can walk up to anyone and ask, if they have experienced love and most will confirm this.

How many can tell you they have experienced re birth/karma?

This would include memories of former lives and links between previous transgressions and the consequential fruits of karma, not just misfortune and random suffering.

The only one who can confirm re birth/karma was the Buddha, but even he said not to accept his word but to experience them for oneself.

Edited December 25, 2010 by rockyysdt

[dutchguest]

@Rocky: Yes, their is the difference that most people have some experience of love and beauty and only a few of rebirth and karma (about rebirth and karma in this lifetime I think most people have some experience), but it remains your own unique experience that can not be repeated for scientific purposes.

The outside, the fysical side can be repeated, the inside, the spiritual side not: sex can be repeated experimentally (to a certain degree), love can not be evoked; sex is something you can do, love is something that happens to you.

@Lungmi: Yes, I also think east and west are coming closer in a globalising world. Meditation/buddhism and psychoanalysis have many things in common and are growing towards each other I think and also modern fysics sounds sometimes like eastern mystics, although I can understand the second better then the first. The talk about anti-matter and black holes could be brought in connection with emptiness and also with (re)birth and death. In black holes stars disappear and new stars are being born all the time.

[rockyysdt]

@Rocky: Yes, only a few of rebirth and karma (about rebirth and karma in this lifetime I think most people have some experience), but it remains your own unique experience that can not be repeated for scientific purposes.

Have you had some experience of re birth & karma in this lifetime?

[dutchguest]

Have you had some experience of re birth & karma in this lifetime?

A little bit off topic but that can't spoil the fun: Karma we – at least I- can experience all the time in my idea of it: when we do good, we feel good; when we do bad, we feel bad. May be we are not fully aware at the moment self, but find it out later. Litterally e.g. smoking and drinking alcohol have their repercussions, but also if you don't treat somebody well it is in my experience falling back on yourself. You reap what you sow.

That is why you have to try to look only at yourself and live according to your own principals rather independant of what others do, because karma is a consequence of your own actions. So you can keep your peace of mind.

About rebirth: Buddhadasa Bikkhu describes rebirth as happening all the time in your life when you overcome an attachment:

http://www.abuddhist...ion/NORELIG.HTM

Personally I think more in the way of feeling reborn, renewd after a deep meditation.

Meditation for me is going as deep as possible inside yourself by putting aside all kinds of external distractions, breaking with old habits, which have proven unsatisfactory. I don't believe so much in special techniques but try to integrate meditativeness with my ordinary live, but everybody has to do what suits him best of course.

So recently I have experienced again that during a massage you can relax sometimes into a state of deep meditation and feel reborn afterwards, especially if you are very tired at the start of the massage.

Also not -or very little- eating during one or two days and focussing on, witnessing your own feelings, on yourself without being distracted too much by social conventions or obligations. For me that means staying at home mainly, renounce old, automatic behavior patterns and you can reload the battery.

Also a sickness like flu or having to stay in bed a few days can be occasion where you can be reborn, because you have to break with old patterns and have all the time for yourself.

[dutchguest]

Also when you have a deep, dreamless sleep you can wake up and feel reborn. I think dreaming is a continuation at night of the activity of the mind during daytime. Becuase certain defences are falling away when you sleep also the unconscious part of the mind can manifest itself then. I have heard that enlightened persons don't dream at night.

With meditation you can diminish or stop the continuous talking of the mind and fall into a state of deep relaxation with an empty mind. So meditation is not something you can do, but something that happens to you under certain conditions.

[lungmi]

Have you had some experience of re birth & karma in this lifetime?

A little bit off topic but that can't spoil the fun: Karma we – at least I- can experience all the time in my idea of it: when we do good, we feel good; when we do bad, we feel bad. May be we are not fully aware at the moment self, but find it out later. Litterally e.g. smoking and drinking alcohol have their repercussions, but also if you don't treat somebody well it is in my experience falling back on yourself. You reap what you sow.

That is why you have to try to look only at yourself and live according to your own principals rather independant of what others do, because karma is a consequence of your own actions. So you can keep your peace of mind.

About rebirth: Buddhadasa Bikkhu describes rebirth as happening all the time in your life when you overcome an attachment:

http://www.abuddhist...ion/NORELIG.HTM

Personally I think more in the way of feeling reborn, renewd after a deep meditation.

Meditation for me is going as deep as possible inside yourself by putting aside all kinds of external distractions, breaking with old habits, which have proven unsatisfactory. I don't believe so much in special techniques but try to integrate meditativeness with my ordinary live, but everybody has to do what suits him best of course.

So recently I have experienced again that during a massage you can relax sometimes into a state of deep meditation and feel reborn afterwards, especially if you are very tired at the start of the massage.

Also not -or very little- eating during one or two days and focussing on, witnessing your own feelings, on yourself without being distracted too much by social conventions or obligations. For me that means staying at home mainly, renounce old, automatic behavior patterns and you can reload the battery.

Also a sickness like flu or having to stay in bed a few days can be occasion where you can be reborn, because you have to break with old patterns and have all the time for yourself.

Oh yeah! This is the point!

[lungmi]

To give my last statement to the topic a long letter for good-hearted people . Very long text, but some Christiaans had the right to post too. Thank you, moderators. (no irony)

Religion and Science

By Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto

From common beginnings to separation

It is commonly asserted that religion arose from the fear of danger, particularly natural dangers, such as lightning, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes. These dangers have threatened human beings throughout the ages. Ancient man, ignorant of the workings of nature, could not understand the causes of these natural forces. Terrified at the threat they presented, he began to search for answers. This quest precipitated an interest in the nature that surrounded man, and a desire to find some solutions to his problems.

This awareness of danger is the common origin of both religion and science. The desire for security was the motivating force for the birth of religion. Together with the fear of danger arose a sense of wonder at the marvels of nature, which led to the desire to know its truths. This was no idle curiosity: human beings were forced to find out about nature in order to address the dangers which threatened them. Thus the aspiration to be free of danger, which was based on fear, indirectly led to the desire to know nature's truths, which gave birth to science. Religion was born from the desire to escape danger, and science was born from the desire to know nature's truths.

History tells us that the earliest forms of scientific research, in such cultures as in Egypt and Mesopotamia, were in fact conducted by priests. They were the first people to take an interest in nature and to devote time to finding solutions to the dangers that threatened them.

However, the common origin of science and religion is also the point at which they parted. The reason they parted lies within the nature of truth itself. The natural dangers which threaten humanity are immediate concerns, matters of life and death. The threat is tangible and urgent. Do what you will, we must have an answer right now. Because all people are faced equally with the same dangers, answers must be relevant to the whole of society. In such a situation, it is necessary to come up with answers which can be acted upon immediately, answers which put an end to the urgent demands for security. When an answer appears that is acceptable, it is institutionalized as religion.

The practical answers thus provided may take forms, such as mystic ceremonies, which to the modern eye would seem absurd, but even so, they are something which can be acted upon immediately. For the mainstream of society, this is what becomes religion.

Now there are others who take the time to gradually collect facts, experiment and analyze. These people, through observation and experiment, arrive at a different set of answers. This is what is known as "science," the knowledge that comes from gradual and systematic observation.

Here religion and science diverge. One answer serves as a remedy for an immediate need, for the masses, and, relying heavily on faith and belief, lacks systematic observation. This is religion. Religion, then, is tied to faith. Science, on the other hand, is a discipline of gradual and systematic investigation. It is not concerned with finding immediate answers, and is available only to the few who are so inclined, not the whole of society. The systematic observation of natural facts has been carried on through the ages by interested parties, and the resulting institution has become known as "science."

At this juncture we have one clear distinction between religion and science: religion is for the masses, whereas science is for a select few. It may be questioned how religion manages to maintain uniformity in the letter and the practice of its teachings. This is achieved through faith. Religion has its roots in faith, and uses faith to preserve its teaching. Religion provides an unchanging belief system, a dogma, which must be adhered to and upheld, one that is unquestionable.

Science is accessible to those who are capable of understanding it, the thinkers. Its essence is preserved through verifiable truths and valid methods of experimentation. Science thus preserves and propagates its truths through wisdom, or, more specifically, the scientific method.

Religion seeks to convey an all-embracing, absolute truth, an answer which addresses an immediate need. It might be more accurate to say that the answer thus provided is what becomes known as religion, rather than that religion provides the answer. There is no institution of religion, as such, which comes up with these answers. It is rather that the answers proposed by humanity have become institutionalized as religion.

In one sense, religion seeks to provide one absolute answer to the fundamental questions of life, covering all levels, from the highest to the lowest. Science, on the other hand, attempts to observe truth from its individual manifestations, piece by piece. It is a collection of piecemeal facts which are hoped will gradually lead to an overall picture.

Even though science, too, wants general principles, its general principles are conditional. They are confined to specific situations and conditions, and are only part of the overall, or fundamental, truth. We could say that religion gives a total answer, science a piecemeal one.

Owing to the limitations of both science and religion, there arose a third group which, too, aspired to find answers to the fundamental questions of life and the universe. They were dissatisfied with religion because, although it gave such an answer, it was not one that appealed to reason. Science, on the other hand, although providing answers that were verifiable and appealed to reason, had not yet come up with any absolute answers. Scientific research had still not reached the fundamental level of reality. This third group did not want to wait for science's answers, so they attempted to find answers to those fundamental questions through reasoned analysis, without the need for verification. This system of thought became another science, known as philosophy.

We could compare these three disciplines, using the fundamental questions of nature as a measuring stick, in this way:

1. Science: is still in the process of verification and observation and is yet to come up with an answer.

2. Philosophy: attempts to give an answer pending verification by using reasoned analysis.

3. Religion: provides an absolute answer which needs no verification.

Both science and philosophy appeared after religion, and both attempt to give clearer answers. However, both of them fail to give answers that are satisfactory and fulfilling for everyday life, and that is why religion still exists and answers a need through faith.

Because religion offers this comprehensive and immediate truth, an answer that is suitable for the masses, but which at the same time is not verifiable through any of the five senses, it must hinge on faith. And because these answers are unverified, they will be constantly changing. At one time one kind of answer is given: people don't know whether it is true or not, because it can't be verified. If they believe it they accept it. At a later time a new answer is given. Nobody knows whether this new answer is true or not either -- it, too, can't be verified. It boils down to preference. Some prefer the older belief, some the newer one. Religions, built as they are on faith, vary in accordance with that faith. For this reason we can see at any one time many different religions. This is because an all-embracing, absolute answer cannot be verified, it rests on belief. When a new answer arises there may be some who believe that, but others won't, and all the answers are equally unverifiable.

In contrast, science answers slowly and methodically, verifying each point as it goes. It solves problems rationally. At any given time there is only one science. It is often said, "There are many religions, but only one science." However, from a historical perspective it can be said that there are many sciences, because science doesn't give a total view of truth. Theories about the nature of the universe vary from time to time. For example, at one time science favored the Ptolemaic universe, which portrayed an earth-centered model. Then came the Copernican System, with the heliocentric solar system, and then there were the Cartesian and Newtonian systems, and now we have the universe of the new physics. Science's picture of reality has been constantly changing. Nature, or the universe, according to the modern theories of physics, whether the quantum or relativity theories, is completely different from the universe in the time of Newton. In this sense there have been many sciences.

It is not only from the historical perspective that there have been many sciences. In the present age there also seem to be many sciences existing together. There are scientists who now say that the time has come for science to reappraise some of its basic premises. They reject some of the old scientific premises and talk of a "new physics" and a "new science."

Science deals with the outside world, which is measured by the five senses. Here religion differs yet again. It not only looks at the outside world, but also the human being, the one who is observing. While science concerns itself solely with the objects of observation, religion concerns itself with the observer, the one who is using these five sense bases. Thus, religion is not confined to data observable through the five senses, but is directly related to the level of development of each individual. The way religion is perceived is directly related to the level of mental development of the perceiver, which gives it an added level of complexity.

In any case, as far as religion goes, even though it lays emphasis on the human being, it does so only insofar as the human being is experiencing a problem, and that problem needs to be dealt with. When looking for the causes of that problem, however, most religions look, like science, to the external environment. In this respect, most religions are similar to science: they look to the external natural world as the source of problems or suffering.

Religion's search for truth is in order to solve the human problem, while science's search for truth is in order to satisfy the thirst for knowledge. For most religions, which are compelled to have ready answers, the causes of problems, whether internal or external, are seen as existing behind that natural world, in the form of spirits, deities, gods or other supernatural forces. For external disturbances, such as lightning, earthquakes and so on, sacrifices and prayers are prescribed. For internal disturbances, such as sickness, mental disease or hysteria, mediums or spirit healers perform mystic ceremonies. Meanwhile science, not being compelled to find any immediate remedies, slowly and systematically goes about its search for data.

The natural religions, Buddhism in particular, have a special interest in the human condition, but they do not see the source of problems entirely in the external world. Buddhism looks for the source of problems within the entire process of causes and conditions -- including those within the human being, such as wrong ways of thinking -- be they internal or external, material or immaterial, physical or mental.

Among ordinary religions, there are many that teach the treatment of problems by appropriate means, through morality or ethics, which seems to indicate an understanding of the internal factors contributing to them, but this is not necessarily the case. In fact, such practice is often done not with real understanding of these factors, but out of obedience to some external, supernatural force. The relationship is one between mankind and an external power. Ethical behavior in these religions is usually done in order to avoid punishment, or to gain favors or blessings, rather than through awareness of the factors occurring in the natural processes.

Religions, many and varied at the one time, address the needs of different levels of people. At any one time society consists of many different levels of virtue and understanding, thus the need for many religions, answering many different levels of need.

In the past, scientific truths were verifiable through the five senses, but this is no longer the case. With the passage of time it has become necessary to develop instruments, such as the telescope and the microscope, to extend the capabilities of these senses. Nowadays even those instruments have reached their limits, making it necessary to develop even more complex instruments and test hypotheses with mathematics. Mathematical languages and computers are the newest instruments of verification.

Science's development of increasingly complex means of verification has caused it to become a highly specialized field, accessible to very few people. It has become impossible for the average man to observe the truths of science, because the instruments are not available to him.

Religion, on the other hand, belongs to the masses. It is available for the average man, who is free to accept or reject it without the need for proof. Although it is true that some religions, like science, reserve their truths for a select few, the priests or monks, and even reserve the right to spiritual attainments, this is more a result of manipulations by certain individuals than the nature of religions themselves. In the natural religions, such as Buddhism, there is no such distinction or exclusion, because nature is its own master. How can truth be monopolized? Each individual has a right to understand and attain the truths of nature, depending on intelligence and discernment.

Note that there are two kinds of inability to verify truths. One is through an inability to access the instruments of verification, while the other is because such truths cannot be verified through the means being used. In the present time science is experiencing problems on both counts, especially when attempting to make a statement of ultimate truth, or delving into the realm of the mind.

If the scope of science is not broadened, it will arrive at a dead end. In science there is a very strong aspiration to answer the fundamental and ultimate questions of the universe, but we never seem to get near them. Just as scientific research seems to be getting on the verge of an answer, the truth seems to slip beyond reach once more.

A clarity that is not free of confusion

In addition to the new science and the classical science, or the new physics and the classical physics, we have one science for the specialists and one for the average man. Many of the concepts spoken of in science are completely beyond the ability of the average man to visualize. Not only can he not verify them for himself, he can't even grasp the concepts in question. And this applies not only to the average man: some of the concepts of science are even beyond the ability of most scientists to visualize! One can only take their word for it.

Let us take an example. According to science, light is at once a wave and a particle. Scientists were trying to define the nature of light itself: it's a particle, right? One group said, "Yes, that's right. It's a particle, a stream of photons." But another group said, "No, light is a wave." In the end it seems that it is both a particle and a wave. But what's that? It has to be proven with mathematics. This kind of thing is beyond the grasp of the ordinary human mind.

Let's look at some more examples: astronomers tell us that there are black holes scattered throughout the universe. These are stars with such extremely high gravitational pulls that even light cannot escape them, they are absolutely dark. Now what does the average man make of that? Something that even light cannot escape from?! Now they say that in these black holes both matter and energy are compacted to such terrific densities that nothing on this earth of ours can compare. As an illustration, they say that if all the empty space were somehow pressed out of a skyscraper, like the Empire State Building, 102 stories high, its mass and energy could be compacted into the size of a needle! A skyscraper! Now what is the man in the street going to make of that?

Scientists say that this is how a black hole is. In fact it's even stranger, because, apart from being the size of a needle, at the same time it would still weigh as much as the original Empire State Building. It's inconceivable -- all we can do is believe them. We've trusted the scientists for so long, we give them the benefit of the doubt. But deep inside we're all wondering, "Huh? How is that possible?"

Science is not yet able to provide an explanation of the totality of life and the world, it is still engaged in the process of collecting and verifying pieces of data. It can still not explain many of the basic questions of the universe, such as the nature, or even existence, of the basic particle.

Science has gone beyond the point where it can be proven with the five senses. Hypotheses are proven through mathematics, which is then interpreted by physicists. The truth is reduced to algebraic equations, which are not in themselves the truth, and don't really clarify the truth in a convincing way. Mathematical symbols have become the new objects of faith. They are interpreted without a direct awareness of reality, which is very nearly the condition that Sir Arthur Eddington spoke of. Sir Arthur Eddington was an English scientist, credited with being the first person to devise a way to prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity, on account of which he was knighted. He said:

"Science is incapable of leading mankind directly to the truth, or reality as such, it can only lead him to a shadow world of symbols."[2]

Even observable phenomena are not a certainty. Scientists use the scientific method as a means of testing their observations. The main factors of this method are observation and experiment, which must be done until there is no longer room for doubt. But, even then, the matter is not closed, because of the limitations of the experimental method and the instruments used.

Let's take as an example Newton's Law of Gravitation. This was a universally accepted truth, a Law, until Einstein came along and said it was not entirely correct. On the subatomic level, the Law of Gravity no longer applies. In Newton's time, however, there were no instruments to observe the subatomic level. Mankind had to wait until the twentieth century and the arrival of Einstein, using mathematical equations and reasoning, to perceive this truth. So we must be careful. You cannot ultimately believe even experimentation.

I am reminded of the story of the chicken and Farmer Brown. Every morning that the chicken sees Farmer Brown, Farmer Brown is carrying some food for him. He sees this every single morning, so it follows that whenever he sees Farmer Brown the chicken gets fed. Chicken sees Farmer Brown = gets fed ... this is the equation. But there comes a morning when the chicken sees Farmer Brown and doesn't get fed, because Farmer Brown isn't carrying food in his hand, he's carrying a knife. The equation "Chicken sees Farmer Brown = gets fed" becomes "Chicken sees Farmer Brown = gets throat cut." So it seems that even verification based on repeated observation cannot be completely trusted, it's still not a foregone conclusion.

Towards a unity of science and religion

Science is of little direct use to the masses. The function through which science should really help the people is in the field of understanding, but the role it in effect plays is by and large through technology, which does not improve understanding by any means. In what direction does technology assist humanity? Mostly in consumption, often nourishing greed, aversion, or delusion. Television is invented, and so we are able to watch that. But when people watch television they don't look at things which are going to increase their understanding and intelligence, they prefer to look at things which make them more indulgent and heedless. We have communications technology, but rather than using it for developing wisdom and discernment, it is too often used to encourage delusion.

Science takes no responsibility for the uses its knowledge is put to, leaving technology to help the masses. Technology, however, doesn't always help; sometimes it is downright harmful. As I said, instead of becoming a tool to create benefit, it becomes a tool for seeking personal gain. Thus, science leaves the people in the hands of religion. Who can you blame? One may ask, "Why does religion make people so gullible?" but then it can be countered, "Why does science abandon the people to religion?"

Very few people have access to the more profound levels of science. All most people can do is believe it, they can't really know it. Nowadays science has become more and more a matter of faith, not knowledge, which puts it on much the same standing as most religions.

When science is finally able to arrive at the truth, to answer mankind's ultimate questions, it will be perfected. Many religions will no longer be sustainable. Conversely, a religion which points to the highest truth, to reality, will be in a position to unify with science. At that time science and religion will have reached another meeting point, their last one, where religion becomes science and science becomes religion, the division between the two gone forever.

Too little, too late

The real-life problems in society are in need of an immediate answer or remedy -- now, in this present life. As individuals we are only on this earth for a limited time. The situations threatening us give no time for procrastination.

Even though science is capable of providing many efficient ways of answering our problems, it is hampered by being "too little, too late." By being "too little," I mean that the knowledge of science is insufficient to solve the fundamental problems of life. It cannot make people good, it cannot make them happy, it cannot show them how to rectify bad habits, it cannot heal suffering, sadness, anger, sorrow, depression and so on. It can't even solve social problems.

Scientists may counter that science has helped in many ways. People with insomnia, depression and mental problems are all helped by drugs. Science is of great benefit in these areas. It must be conceded that applied science and technology in the medical fields have helped vast numbers of people. People with severe mental problems are indeed helped to some degree by science, and scientists may even believe that in the future it will be possible to make people happy through the use of drugs. Whenever you feel unhappy, just pop a capsule and the suffering is gone ... but this is no longer medicine, it is hedonism. Scientists may conduct research into the nature of the brain, ascertain which particular chemicals are secreted when certain emotions, such as happiness, are experienced, isolate the chemical agent and synthesize it. Then, whenever people have a feeling of depression or sadness, they can take this drug and be immediately relieved. With chemicals like this as freely available as food, people will always be happy, and never again have to experience depression.

But then again, reflecting on the dangers of chemicals, there are enough problems in the world already with food additives and pesticides, without adding any more. However, this is not the most important point. Even more important is the perspective of values, or quality of life. The objective of religion is to lead people to freedom. Freedom means the ability to be happy without the need for external agents, to be more and more independently happy and less and less dependent on externals, to develop a life free of enslavement to a mass of external trappings. But the use of drugs forces people to lay their happiness and their fate more and more into the hands of externals, making them less and less able to live with themselves.

In causing people to depend increasingly on externals, science is not unlike the ancient religions, which led people to invest their fate in the gods with sacrifices and supplications. In both cases, the happiness and suffering of human beings is offered up into the hands of external agents, and in essence they equally destroy man's independence.

This is what I mean by "too little." Science on its own is not capable of solving mankind's problems. To use Buddhist terminology, we could say that science and technology do not encourage people to have good behavior (sila), do not encourage quality in the mind, or inner well-being (samadhi) and they suffer from "funnel vision," in that they seek to amass data, but they do not provide us with the knowledge of how to lead a happy life (pañña).[*]

The second objection to science is that it is "too late." Scientific truth is not whole or complete, it is not yet able to give us definitive and final answers, and there is no indication of when it will be able to do so. Scientific knowledge is constantly changing. At one time the truth is thought to be one way, later on it is found to be otherwise. If we had to sit and wait for science to come up with a final answer to the nature of the universe, we would all die first without ever finding out how to conduct our lives.

Scientists are always looking for a general principle, but they can only arrive at "sub-principles," only pieces of the overall picture. In the meantime, while we are waiting for science's explanation of fundamental truth, we are using it, through technology, to enhance our lives and pander to our desires. For the moment, it is technology that is actually giving concrete results rather than science itself. But technology cannot answer mankind's fundamental questions. For an answer to the truth (or non-truth) of the natural world, mankind must first rely on religion, using science only for the convenience offered through technological progress. This is the situation at the present time.

Religion is still present in this world because mankind is still waiting for a complete and absolute answer, one that is right for the situation and which is immediately practicable. Because such answers cannot be verified, and because science cannot verify them, most people are forced to resort to belief.

Although science has made such great advances, all it has done is expand the perceivable limits of the material world. In terms of answering mankind's fundamental questions and showing man's proper relationship and position in the world, science seems to have been running in circles and made no real progress.

Not above blunders

It is not only in the field of pure science that the problem of mistakes arises from time to time. Within the field of applied science and technology, mistakes are common. They are usually not wrongdoings as such, but blunders that arise out of ignorance, oversight or lack of circumspection.

Take for example the drug chloramphenicol. At one time this drug was very widespread. It was reputed to be a wonder drug, it seemed to cure everything. Whenever you were sick, all you had to do was just go and buy some chloramphenicol, they sold it everywhere. Later on, after about ten years, it was discovered that this drug would gradually build up in the body and cause bone marrow to cease production of blood corpuscles, and many people had died of leukemia.

Then there was the case of DDT. At one time it was thought that with DDT, our problems with the insect world were over-ants, mosquitoes ... all gone. People thought that they could eradicate these creatures and no longer have to be bothered by them. Many years later it was found that DDT was carcinogenic, an insidious substance which could prove fatal even to humans. What's more, while the humans were suffering ill effects from the drug, the insect population was becoming immune to it. In time it has become less effective as an insecticide, and is now more likely to kill the human beings. Many countries have banned the use of DDT, but Thailand is still using it, even now.

Then there was the case of thalidomide. Thalidomide was a pain killer and tranquillizer which was highly praised by the medical profession. It was reputed to have passed the most rigorous tests, and was trusted so highly that it was announced as an exceptionally safe drug. It was so lauded that even the developed countries, which are normally very cautious about drugs and medicines, allowed the drug to be bought without a prescription. It was sold for about five years, up until 1961, at which time it was found that this drug, when taken by pregnant women, caused deformities in babies. Before the danger was realized and the drug recalled from the market, about 8,000 children were born deformed.

Let's take one more example, the case of CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons). This group of chemicals is widely used in refrigerators, air conditioners and "pressure-pack" spray cans, and they have been used for a long time with complete confidence. By the time we knew what was going on, these chemicals had risen up into the upper levels of the atmosphere and caused gaps in the ozone layer, causing great concern among scientists and environmentalists the world over. And so a new piece of knowledge arises -- what we thought was a good thing turns out to be not so good after all.

The emergence and development of science has undoubtedly helped to improve understanding and the human intellect, about this there is no argument. But at the same time, if we look closely we will see that it has also caused human intelligence and understanding to decline. Previously, when science was just beginning to develop, people were very impressed with its achievements. There was a great deal of excitement over the discoveries and technological achievements of science, and people put all their hopes into science and technology. All of nature's mysteries were going to be revealed, and science would lead humanity into an age of perfect happiness. Those who wholeheartedly trusted science began to doubt religions and the answers provided by them, and many people lost faith entirely and discarded religion.

Unfortunately, the truth dealt with by science is only a partial one. It deals only with the physical world. Science has no answers to the questions dealing with internal human problems, the answers for which mankind had previously turned to religion. This renunciation of religion in modern times would not be such a big loss if by religion we simply meant the institutional forms of religion, but it means that the part of religion which deals with solving internal human problems has also been discarded. With science taking no interest in these matters, and people ignoring them, there arises a break in the stream of knowledge. The answers which had previously been provided by religions have been ignored, and mankind's mental and spiritual growth has been retarded and even, in some areas, gone into decline.

The nature of the world, life and human problems, will not allow mankind to ignore the need for religion. Fundamental, practical and immediate answers are still as much in demand as ever before. When science is seen to be incapable of providing an answer to this need, and when human beings tire of their fascination with science, they may come to their senses and remember this fundamental need within. They may then turn once more to religion for their answers. But because the stream of mental development has been interrupted, or set back, their searching will be very erratic, and a fresh start may have to be made. Indications of this can be seen in some of the religious developments in highly developed countries, where there has been a persistence of religious superstition and gullibility in spite of being surrounded by a high level of scientific sophistication.

However that may be, science is not without its merits and blessings in leading to better understanding within religious circles. The active role religion, especially in its institutional forms, has taken on occasion in suppressing the development of human intelligence is well known. Some religions have clung blindly to absurd beliefs and practices, even in the face of their own fundamental principles.

The development of science and its attitudes and methods has had some measure of good influence on religions and religious attitudes in society. At the very least, it has prodded religions to reevaluate some of their teachings and attitudes. It has also served as a gauge with which to appraise the answers offered by different religions.

However, from the point of view of the masses, especially in countries in which outlooks and methods have been heavily influenced by science, science does not seem to have had a significantly beneficial effect on life-styles and mental well-being. Science itself is of not much interest to most people. While they look at science favorably, their belief in it is really no different from the beliefs of former generations in magical forces and the occult. It is naive, not based on knowledge. This is "scientism." When most people think of science, they look straight past it at technology, which they look on as a means for gratifying their desires. For that reason, the development of science has had little ennobling influence on the knowledge, understanding, or attitudes of society.

On the brighter side, people seem to be getting over their excitement about science and are beginning to look at their needs in relation to religion. Many religions are addressing these needs on different levels. At the same time, some members of scientific circles are becoming aware of the limitations of orthodox science, and are expanding the horizons of their research to include more religious perspectives, which suggests the possibility of a fully-developed science merging with a fully-developed religion, together to lead humanity to reality, peace, and a life free of foolish attachments.

On the other hand, it may be that science is trying to prove what religion has already predicted. While humanity cannot wait for an answer, we must provide one of some kind, and this answer has become religion. As long as the answer is not proven, we must accept it, while science slowly and methodically tests it out. In this scenario, science is that effort on the part of humanity to prove the truths (or non-truths) of religion. Looking at it in this way, the two fields harmonize; having arisen from a common origin, they eventually merge once more.

As time goes on, the limits of the scientific method will once again be felt. Science will be unable to prove the truths presented by religion. A number of leading scientists are now beginning to realize that this final, ultimate truth spoken of by religion is beyond the reach of science at any point in time.

[kropotkin]

Science deals only with the fysical world? euhhh.... Freud? Russel? Psychology - Sociology?

To me, there are 3 sources of inspiration: atheism - humanism - free thinking - i wish i could add buddhism.

Atheism is of course the easy one, i am a 100% atheist, i do not have doubts about that.

Humanism and free thinking... i try to.... but i am only human..... i aim for it, but will never reach it.

Buddhism? A big disappointment to me - Valuable ideas about non-materialism and inner peace // but when i look around me.....

[camerata]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted. Despite the rambling OP, the topic is why people are accepting Buddhism (which may or may not be because it is scientific).

[camerata]

Humanism and free thinking... i try to.... but i am only human..... i aim for it, but will never reach it.

Buddhism? A big disappointment to me - Valuable ideas about non-materialism and inner peace // but when i look around me.....

So, you aspire to be a (perfect?) humanist but never can be because you are only human. That's exactly the situation most Buddhists find themselves in. The only "perfect" Buddhist is an arahant. The rest of us just do our best.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who converts to Buddhism will have a harder time following the teachings perfectly than following whatever system they used to practise.

[kropotkin]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted. Despite the rambling OP, the topic is why people are accepting Buddhism (which may or may not be because it is scientific).

buddhism may be scientific??

some parts of buddhism are of course scientifically acceptable and even very inspirational - some parts....

but one could ask: what is it that attracks new (and old) followers, the scientifically acceptable part, or the new age / superstitious part?

could you please tell me what is in your opinion 'reasonable' and what is 'superstition' in popular buddhism?

and to answer a question you asked me elsewhere, YES i am interested in buddhism - but most buddhist do not stimulate my interest in buddhism....

[camerata]

but one could ask: what is it that attracts new (and old) followers, the scientifically acceptable part, or the new age / superstitious part?

I'd say it's impossible to give a generic answer because the different types of Buddhism all attract followers, and individuals have different reasons. Nichiren/Soka Gakkai features a lot of chanting and community spirit, for example, whereas Zen's attraction is the lack of reliance on texts and beliefs. Different strokes for different folks.

I think what attracts a lot of people to Buddhism is the fact that the core teachings are logical in the sense that mental cultivation is psychology, and psychology is based on logic while not actually being a true science. Also, a lot of people come to Buddhism because it has a good rep for stress relief.

could you please tell me what is in your opinion 'reasonable' and what is 'superstition' in popular buddhism?

I don't see how that is relevant here because converts typically don't adopt "popular" Buddhism as practised in Asia and are not attracted to it. In Thailand, they are usually attracted to one or the other of the various reform movements. But all you have to do is look at the definition of "superstition" and see if it fits the practices of whatever version of popular Buddhism you're interested in.

[rockyysdt]

Have you had some experience of re birth & karma in this lifetime?

A little bit off topic but that can't spoil the fun

Very much on topic DG.

Things which cause people not to accept Buddhism can reveal what causes others to be accepting of it.

Your interpretation of events in terms of Buddhist belief facilitate your accepting of Buddhism.

: Karma we – at least I- can experience all the time in my idea of it: when we do good, we feel good; when we do bad, we feel bad. May be we are not fully aware at the moment self, but find it out later. Litterally e.g. smoking and drinking alcohol have their repercussions, but also if you don't treat somebody well it is in my experience falling back on yourself. You reap what you sow.

That is why you have to try to look only at yourself and live according to your own principals rather independent of what others do, because karma is a consequence of your own actions. So you can keep your peace of mind.

It all depends on the model you use to view your world.

If you believe in kharma, you can easily subscribe your good feelings to the action of kharma in your daily life.

Scientifically speaking, research reveals that people who are charitable and generally help others are found to feel good, and generally have a lower incidence of depression and are much happier in their lives.

Further it was found that giving and helping others directly stimulated the mesolimbic system of the brain, an area which is also stimulated by sex, & gambling

If you believe in kharma over time you will attribute your positive feelings resulting from giving to kharma when in actual fact it's the result of chemical stimulation in the brain.

re birh: Buddhadasa Bikkhu describes rebirth as happening all the time in your life when you overcome an attachment:

http://www.abuddhist...ion/NORELIG.HTM

Personally I think more in the way of feeling reborn, renewed after a deep meditation.

Meditation for me is going as deep as possible inside yourself by putting aside all kinds of external distractions, breaking with old habits, which have proven unsatisfactory. I don't believe so much in special techniques but try to integrate meditativeness with my ordinary live, but everybody has to do what suits him best of course.

So recently I have experienced again that during a massage you can relax sometimes into a state of deep meditation and feel reborn afterwards, especially if you are very tired at the start of the massage.

Also not -or very little- eating during one or two days and focussing on, witnessing your own feelings, on yourself without being distracted too much by social conventions or obligations. For me that means staying at home mainly, renounce old, automatic behavior patterns and you can reload the battery.

Also a sickness like flu or having to stay in bed a few days can be occasion where you can be reborn, because you have to break with old patterns and have all the time for yourself.

Doesn't this come down to interpretation of ones feelings to fit into a belief?

I've heard of stories from Christians who after having communion with God (prayer) feel washed and cleansed.

Simplicity in the mind assists with deep relaxation.

Yoga has taught me (through personal experience) that the mind and body are very much interconnected.

When the mind is still, the body is relaxed. When the body is relaxed the mind is still.

Conversely, when the mind is in turmoil, the body is tense, & when the body is tense the mind becomes active.

During sitting meditation involving initial global physical relaxation (muscle groups), the teacher indicated that if you find your mind becomes active, review your body and you will find tension . Simply let go of the tension where you find it and your mind will begin to settle again.

Isn't it more to to do with the physical interaction of mind and body rather than the process of re birth?

Re Birth being a process in which a force, fashioned by accumulated kharma, and activated after the death of an impermanent & conditioned entity (you and me), which results in the re birth of another impermanent & conditioned entity & fashioned by the nature of the specific accumulated kharma involved.

Edited December 27, 2010 by rockyysdt

[dutchguest]

Science deals only with the fysical world? euhhh.... Freud? Russel? Psychology - Sociology?

I think you can say that the science of nature is the only real science. Nature is the only thing that really exist. The Buddhist dhamma is essentially concerned with the laws of nature, with the proces of cause and effect.

Psychology and sociology you can describe as relative sciences. They not have a certain studyobject that really exists, that you can see, point at, keep in your hand, experience with the senses. Psychology is dealing with the mind and sociology with society.

Buddhism tries to transcend the mind and the social conditionings to "see things as they are", without the filters that are the product of education and conditioning. So Buddhism goes a step further then western psychology that does not go beyond the mind and necessarely goes around in circles (the mind studying the mind).

[dutchguest]

Doesn't this come down to interpretation of ones feelings to fit into a belief?

I take myself and my own experiences and ideas of truth as starting point and whether or not they are in accordance with any beliefsystem or old scriptures is secondary and rather irrelevant to me. But I think with that approach I am quite in accordance with the words and the intentions of the Buddha. May be not so much in accordance with the ideas of many Buddhists. It may come down to a more western approach of Buddhism compared to the beliefsystems of people who are born and bread in Buddhist countries. The angle of incidence is totally different.

So if words like karma and rebirth will have any significance to you, they must somehow fit in your own world of experience. Else everything stays abstract. It will stay borrowed knowledge and experience, not your own. So I have described in how far those words mean something to me. This does not exclude the possibility that their is a karmic rebirth after your fysical death, but, just like Buddhadhasa bikkhu, I see more in an interpretation that ("in dammatalk") death and rebirth relate to spiritual, mental processes.

[rockyysdt]

I take myself and my own experiences and ideas of truth as starting point and whether or not they are in accordance with any beliefsystem or old scriptures is secondary and rather irrelevant to me. But I think with that approach I am quite in accordance with the words and the intentions of the Buddha. May be not so much in accordance with the ideas of many Buddhists. It may come down to a more western approach of Buddhism compared to the beliefsystems of people who are born and bread in Buddhist countries. The angle of incidence is totally different.

So if words like karma and rebirth will have any significance to you, they must somehow fit in your own world of experience. Else everything stays abstract. It will stay borrowed knowledge and experience, not your own. So I have described in how far those words mean something to me. This does not exclude the possibility that their is a karmic rebirth after your fysical death, but, just like Buddhadhasa bikkhu, I see more in an interpretation that ("in dammatalk") death and rebirth relate to spiritual, mental processes.

By posing such questions and challenging views, this is my conditioned and impermanent self trying to make sense of my Buddhist journey.

I realize that it's pointless to try to rationalize our path, other than to eliminate the obvious in order to ensure we don't end up wasting life down a false path.

[lungmi]

Doesn't this come down to interpretation of ones feelings to fit into a belief?

I take myself and my own experiences and ideas of truth as starting point and whether or not they are in accordance with any beliefsystem or old scriptures is secondary and rather irrelevant to me. But I think with that approach I am quite in accordance with the words and the intentions of the Buddha. May be not so much in accordance with the ideas of many Buddhists. It may come down to a more western approach of Buddhism compared to the beliefsystems of people who are born and bread in Buddhist countries. The angle of incidence is totally different.

So if words like karma and rebirth will have any significance to you, they must somehow fit in your own world of experience. Else everything stays abstract. It will stay borrowed knowledge and experience, not your own. So I have described in how far those words mean something to me. This does not exclude the possibility that their is a karmic rebirth after your fysical death, but, just like Buddhadhasa bikkhu, I see more in an interpretation that ("in dammatalk") death and rebirth relate to spiritual, mental processes.

Dutchquest, I agree, you understand the essentials. My experience when I came to Thailand were the books (Tan Buddhadasa) . 21 years ago I ordained in Wat Umong (Chiang Mai), a branch wat of Suan Mokh as baby monk with the support of friends of Chiang Mai Univerity. Outside the formal instructions (basic vinaya) I had never meditation training, no Buddha teaching, nothing. They let me do. Morning chanting, wonderful, alms going, wonderful, even with bleeding feet, walking meditation (5 minutes instruction), wonderful, evening chanting, wonderful. After for weeks as baby monk I gave back the yellow robe (only the robe). But the highest Buddha Teaching gave me an old woman during the alms going. The neediest of the needy gave me an old orange in my alm bowl. With my books I understood already the meaning of DANA, but the best teacher for DANA was this old woman. I understood her teaching. I came back to Wat Umong, I learnt nuad bo rarn, acupuncture I learnt already and worked 10 years with handicapped people. This old woman showed me the way to understand my duty: to do the best for me and society (Tan Buddhadasa). Now, retired from Germany, I do my duty as traditional doctor in a mountain-wat with hilltribe people. With all my academic knowledge about Buddhism I never would have been able to see my way without the teaching of this old lady.

For the next year I wish you: Become calm, cool, clean, clear. I will try the same.

lung mi (mai pen farang, mai pen Thai, pen lung mi)

[dutchguest]

For the next year I wish you: Become calm, cool, clean, clear. I will try the same.

lung mi (mai pen farang, mai pen Thai, pen lung mi)

Thanks, you and the rest of the forum also the best wishes.

mai pen dutchquest, mai pen rai

[Xangsamhua]

The Einstein quote, popular though it may be, is probably spurious. It's never been proven to exist and there are two versions of it. See Tricycle and other blogs/discussions about this.

I agree, but the meaning has a high plausibility. There are other statements which confirm this plausibility. Sorry, my books stay in Germany, I cannot quote correctly).

I think Camerata is quite right to point out the spurious provenance of the "Einstein" quote. Bogus quotes are a major problem in the google age. They are often attributed to iconic people to lend authority to a particular point of view; hence they are manipulative and, simply, false information and/or instruction. It's always worth checking the source of quotes, stories, news items, etc that appear on the net or circulate through email.

I don't think Buddhists are given to use bogus quotes manipulatively because they're not usually so desperate to win arguments or convert people, and my grumbling is certainly not directed against Lungmi, who has used a (probably) bogus quote that appears all over the net and could quite reasonably be assumed to be authentic.

I don't think I'm being pedantic. As a teacher, teacher of teachers and education manager for 45 years I am very sensitive to people being led astray by not checking their sources and then leading others astray as a result. Attribution of fictional, spurious or plagiarized quotes to an iconic figure, when done intentionally, is usually done knowingly to manipulate people. When done unintentionally it is usually done to give weight to an argument that that argument lacks without it.

I repeat though that I am not directing my remarks at Lungmi, and apologize if it seems that way.

[camerata]

This particular quote is well known because esangha.com had it on their home page until an atheist ex-Buddhist turned up and demanded they prove it was genuine or delete it. He quickly got himself banned for obnoxious behaviour but I don't know if they ever stopped using it. I just remember a lot of comments such as, "Well, Einstein could have said something like that..."

It was kind of interesting because the atheist was maintaining that once they knew it had no proven source, they would be breaking the 4th Precept by using it.

[Xangsamhua]

This particular quote is well known because esangha.com had it on their home page until an atheist ex-Buddhist turned up and demanded they prove it was genuine or delete it. He quickly got himself banned for obnoxious behaviour but I don't know if they ever stopped using it. I just remember a lot of comments such as, "Well, Einstein could have said something like that..."

It was kind of interesting because the atheist was maintaining that once they knew it had no proven source, they would be breaking the 4th Precept by using it.

I'm with the atheist.

[phetaroi]

I think Camerata is quite right to point out the spurious provenance of the "Einstein" quote. Bogus quotes are a major problem in the google age. They are often attributed to iconic people to lend authority to a particular point of view; hence they are manipulative and, simply, false information and/or instruction. It's always worth checking the source of quotes, stories, news items, etc that appear on the net or circulate through email.

I don't think Buddhists are given to use bogus quotes manipulatively because they're not usually so desperate to win arguments or convert people, and my grumbling is certainly not directed against Lungmi, who has used a (probably) bogus quote that appears all over the net and could quite reasonably be assumed to be authentic.

I don't think I'm being pedantic. As a teacher, teacher of teachers and education manager for 45 years I am very sensitive to people being led astray by not checking their sources and then leading others astray as a result. Attribution of fictional, spurious or plagiarized quotes to an iconic figure, when done intentionally, is usually done knowingly to manipulate people. When done unintentionally it is usually done to give weight to an argument that that argument lacks without it.

I repeat though that I am not directing my remarks at Lungmi, and apologize if it seems that way.

First, I'm surprised...sounds like you and I had/have somewhat similar careers in education.

I guess I've always looked at using a quote during a debate (or argument) a little differently. In this particular instance, I could care less whether Einstein has some particular belief about Buddhism or any other topic, unless I'm discussing physics. At most, his personal opinions are of passing interest to me. On the other hand, I could care less what the Dalai Lama thinks about physics, but I'll listen/read what he says about Buddhism and religion.

[lungmi]

The Einstein quote, popular though it may be, is probably spurious. It's never been proven to exist and there are two versions of it. See Tricycle and other blogs/discussions about this.

I agree, but the meaning has a high plausibility. There are other statements which confirm this plausibility. Sorry, my books stay in Germany, I cannot quote correctly).

I think Camerata is quite right to point out the spurious provenance of the "Einstein" quote. Bogus quotes are a major problem in the google age. They are often attributed to iconic people to lend authority to a particular point of view; hence they are manipulative and, simply, false information and/or instruction. It's always worth checking the source of quotes, stories, news items, etc that appear on the net or circulate through email.

I don't think Buddhists are given to use bogus quotes manipulatively because they're not usually so desperate to win arguments or convert people, and my grumbling is certainly not directed against Lungmi, who has used a (probably) bogus quote that appears all over the net and could quite reasonably be assumed to be authentic.

a discussion

I don't think I'm being pedantic. As a teacher, teacher of teachers and education manager for 45 years I am very sensitive to people being led astray by not checking their sources and then leading others astray as a result. Attribution of fictional, spurious or plagiarized quotes to an iconic figure, when done intentionally, is usually done knowingly to manipulate people. When done unintentionally it is usually done to give weight to an argument that that argument lacks without it.

I repeat though that I am not directing my remarks at Lungmi, and apologize if it seems that way.

Absolutely no problem. As a teacher, teacher of teachers and education manager for 35 years I understand. I only was upset, that in the discussion of "science" half educated posters could blame Buddhism for lack of science.

I'm pedantic too. I have many translations of the Dhamapada in different languages , The French of the Dhamma Study Group Gretz is the best. For every verse there are footnotes how to translate the pali in another way. Scientifical acces. The English language is full of Christian connotations. Enlightenment, no > Awakening.

Buddha: The blessed One. ------ God bless the Queen. UK. etc.

I would like to start a serious discussion about language problems in the Buddhist forum.

lungmi (jiradhammo)

[derekgraddy]

Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy? What's the difference anyway? Also, is there a difference between Thai Buddhism vs. any other Buddhism.? thanks

Edited December 31, 2010 by derekgraddy

[rockyysdt]

Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy? What's the difference anyway?

We are conditioned & impermanent & there is nothing inside (soul) which can be Re Born.

when we die it's all over for our ego, or illusion, the one which we call "l"or "me".

This makes Buddhism stand out from religions.

With religions you must have faith exclusively, which is said to come with a promise of life after death, something which soothes ego.

Buddhism on the other hand requires effort, & through an unfolding self experience, offers profound change in this life .

Edited December 31, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

I will not go into the question if Budhism is actually growing, and if so, how.

Muslim claims Islam is or has been growing fast in the last decennia, and one seldom hear people say aloud the growth of a religion is connected to the birth of children inside the religion of their parents.

It would be more interesting to loook more closely to some other facts.

When one would look at Siddahrtha Gautama, Jezus and Mohammed, to name just a few, we can be quite sure they had some very deep personal experiences and out of this direct knowledge.

As far as I am informed there is about no one who ever had the same -total quality of - experience as Buddha, Jezus or Muhammed, independently. (But how to be sure about this? How can we be aware this is or is not the case?) So to say: without being part of the religion before.

For we have to realise Buddha was not a Buddhist but Buddha, Jezus was no and not became to be a Christian, but Christ, Mohammed did not became a muslim or Mohammedan he was Mohammed.

Out of the individual experiences of these human individuals, religions were derived, organised and directed by other humans without having the 'experience' themself.

Then out of these 'religions' cultures grow.

So the actual experience as described becomes at the end culture by religion.

At the end the culture 'forms' becomes more important as the actual 'formless' experience where it derived from. (the culture of a country or population is quite similar with the ego of a person)

This whole proces is a proces of devaluation of the actual (spiritual) experience and to some extend even a corruption of it.

I would say Thailand is one of the clearest examples showing this proces.

In the devaluation of the actual experience, these experiences, in an abstract devaluated form become digestible for the mass and so they can become 'popular'.

In my opinion Buddhism becomes popular becos in its devaluated and abstract form it has become very suitable for the desire of modern humans to be 'spiritually' self involved and egocentric.

This is to my opinion a further devaluation of the experiences of Buddha.

So one could also say that when a religion is growing this is not just a positive development but could also be a negative one since it shows the devaluation and the dilution of the actual experiences, the origin of the religion.

So, as I wrote before, to my opinion all religions will disappear in future as being a significant factor of societies.

After it will become popular it will die, and religions die from the iniside out.

Trevor Ling, outstanding scholar of Buddhism and pioneer in the development of religious studies in British universities from the 1960s, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of East Asian Philosophies being Proffesor and publisher of several books about the subject of religion, did write about this development as I quoted above.

[lungmi]

I will not go into the question if Budhism is actually growing, and if so, how.

Muslim claims Islam is or has been growing fast in the last decennia, and one seldom hear people say aloud the growth of a religion is connected to the birth of children inside the religion of their parents.

It would be more interesting to loook more closely to some other facts.

When one would look at Siddahrtha Gautama, Jezus and Mohammed, to name just a few, we can be quite sure they had some very deep personal experiences and out of this direct knowledge.

As far as I am informed there is about no one who ever had the same -total quality of - experience as Buddha, Jezus or Muhammed, independently. (But how to be sure about this? How can we be aware this is or is not the case?) So to say: without being part of the religion before.

For we have to realise Buddha was not a Buddhist but Buddha, Jezus was no and not became to be a Christian, but Christ, Mohammed did not became a muslim or Mohammedan he was Mohammed.

Out of the individual experiences of these human individuals, religions were derived, organised and directed by other humans without having the 'experience' themself.

Then out of these 'religions' cultures grow.

So the actual experience as described becomes at the end culture by religion.

At the end the culture 'forms' becomes more important as the actual 'formless' experience where it derived from. (the culture of a country or population is quite similar with the ego of a person)

This whole proces is a proces of devaluation of the actual (spiritual) experience and to some extend even a corruption of it.

I would say Thailand is one of the clearest examples showing this proces.

In the devaluation of the actual experience, these experiences, in an abstract devaluated form become digestible for the mass and so they can become 'popular'.

In my opinion Buddhism becomes popular becos in its devaluated and abstract form it has become very suitable for the desire of modern humans to be 'spiritually' self involved and egocentric.

This is to my opinion a further devaluation of the experiences of Buddha.

So one could also say that when a religion is growing this is not just a positive development but could also be a negative one since it shows the devaluation and the dilution of the actual experiences, the origin of the religion.

So, as I wrote before, to my opinion all religions will disappear in future as being a significant factor of societies.

After it will become popular it will die, and religions die from the iniside out.

Trevor Ling, outstanding scholar of Buddhism and pioneer in the development of religious studies in British universities from the 1960s, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of East Asian Philosophies being Proffesor and publisher of several books about the subject of religion, did write about this development as I quoted above.

The new center for this kind of studies Trevor Ling made is here>

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/thrs/buddhist-centre/projects/bdr/overview/

my son is member of the team.

[RJfromUSA]

nothing much that i can add here

except to say im in agreement

the philosophy and psychology taught by buddah has helped me to understand the following:

the past is gone for ever and thinking about the past changes nothing

all we really have is the present moment and we should live to the fullest and give our full attention to this moment

a revered buddhist monk said that when he goes to bed at night he turns his cup over because he thinks there will be no tomorrow

if u do good things in life then good will be returned to you (karma)

through meditation and listening to the pure mind within us attachments in our mind will not be welcome and will go away

be an observer but not a judge

as to reincarnation or the before and after life?

i dont know

and is not important to me

HAVE A GREAT DAY!!

"POW"

Thanks for the reply and yes I agree with you those aspects of Buddhism have been uproven by science but it's not proven wrong by science too.(unike some claims of other religion).

I think in times to come, science will be able to prove whether they are true or false. Meanwhile everyone can only think about it based on some logic and happenings.

I think I have some answers to some of those 4 on how the Lord Buddha got his theories. I have been researching it for years from a scientific approach and come to some uinderstanding. Let me think how to put it up here so that others can understand what I am trying to say.

In order for science to prove something, it must be something "seeable", "measurable", "accountable", "experimentable" and most importantly "repeatable" and "constant".

At this moment, scientific equipment has not reached such ability to perform yet. So spirits and souls, for example, cannot be seen, thus, cannot be proven.

Maybe Buddhism is far ahead of time.

I think another reason why people are following Buddhism is the fact that teachings and behaviours of Buddhism are reasonable, logic and nothing(in it) claimed has been proven false or fake. This is most important. When people has problems following its Path and understanding one's problem, they can solve their problems. This is something people cannot learn in school or other religions.

Although not disproven, khamma, re birth, enlightenment & nirvana are only one possibility of what the ultimate truth might constitute.

Until proven such things can only be thought of as beliefs.

The proven aspects of Buddhism, such as mindfulness, meditation, right view & right speech are what makes Buddhism a noble philosophy.

The esoteric aspects mentioned above lead people to view Buddhism as a religion.

I don't know why people are turning to Buddhism.

I personally started with meditation and deep relaxation as a way of overcoming anxiety.

This exposed me to Buddhism and I seemed to have naturally progress.

The Buddha invited us to try it for ourselves.

In the absence of viable alternative I'm giving it a go.