Are Buddhists Religious And/Or Scientific?

[christiaan]

When Buddhisme would be a religion it would implement a buddhist is religious. To answer this question one has to be aware what is meant - what a person does mean by using these concepts - religion and religious.

When buddhists are scientific one has to be aware what is understood - what a person for him or herself means - when using the concepts science and scientific

[lungmi]

No one knows what is electricity, gravity, magnetism and so on.

We developed the science to dominate the symptoms of this and it works.

The Buddha developed the system to understand the Dhamma by his symptoms and it works.

[lungmi]

No one knows what is electricity, gravity, magnetism and so on.

We developed the science to dominate the symptoms of this and it works.

The Buddha developed the system to understand the Dhamma by his symptoms and it works.

,Religion means from latin I bind myself to .....God, Shiva .Allah.......

Buddhism as religion means: I bind myself to wisdom---- panna.

ready to understand?

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddhism is scientific in the sense that it prposes a hypothesis and suggested you experiment and see for yourself if it's true.

The teachings on the impermanent and essenseless nature of all things fits in nicely with scientific discoveries on the nature of matter I guess.

Also it doesn't have a creation myth, so doesn't have the obvious clash with the theory of evolution that most other religions have.

That's about all the connection with science as far as I can see.

Lumgi is correct about the meaning of the word religion but I'm not sure that's the modern day meaning. To most people an instituition with a structure, rites and rituals, and beliefs is a religion and Buddhism has elements of all those to various degrees. However none of those are really necessary to practise the path, but may have been necessary to preseve and pass on the teachings.

So I'd say Buddhist religion is a religion.

[christiaan]

No one knows what is electricity, gravity, magnetism and so on.

We developed the science to dominate the symptoms of this and it works.

The Buddha developed the system to understand the Dhamma by his symptoms and it works.

I would say these answers do not answer my question at all, since the question is not: Is science working?

I doubt it is correct to write no one knows what electricity, gravity and magnetism is. The fact that all of these 3 powers have different names means that we have come to know the specific characteristics of each of them and this is only because we have observed and questioned them and un-covered their characteristics, This means we have specific knowledge about these 3 powers. However this doesnot mean we know ALL of them.

I also do not think we came to science to dominate (?!) but to understand and to know.

Niels Bohr did not question atoms and quantummechanics to create an atom bomb and dominate but to learn to know, to understand atomic structures and quantummechanics.

This knowledge was USED by subjective powers.

Did we and do we develop science?

I think we do when we understand this developping as unwrapping or un-covering of answers/knowledge by the action of questioning.

I would say science is knowledge and the proces of gaining knowledge.

And in my observation Buddha did question and found 'answers' and so gained knowledge and by knowledge awareness

Did Buddha develop a system?

When Buddha did develop a system, I would say that system would have been developed based on knowledge gained by questioning.

But my question is not if Buddha did develop a system.

A 'system' that could have become a part of the world and so could be questioned by humans and by those questions to be known and by that become part of their knowledge.

The life of Buddha shows he was a scientist, a scientist at least with regard to a lot of aspects to the meaning of life, compassion and love.

He was part of the first scientists in the world, together with Greek philosophers.

Maybe Buddha also was a scientist with regard to aspects like the origin of the world but it is not known he questioned this and so we are not aware of any answers to questions he (could) have had.

[christiaan]

,Religion means from latin I bind myself to .....God, Shiva .Allah.......

Buddhism as religion means: I bind myself to wisdom---- panna.

ready to understand?

Someone could tell: religion means - from Latin - I bind myself to .......God, Jezus, Shiva, Allah......Buddha.

Islam as a religion (could ) means I bind myself to the wisdom of Mohammed as he brought into the world?

Christianity as a religion could also mean I bind myself to the wisdom of Jezus Christ as he brought into the world?

Buddhisme as a religion could also mean I bind myself to the widom of Buddha as he brought into the world?

ready to question?

[christiaan]

Buddhism is scientific in the sense that it prposes a hypothesis and suggested you experiment and see for yourself if it's true.

The teachings on the impermanent and essenseless nature of all things fits in nicely with scientific discoveries on the nature of matter I guess.

Also it doesn't have a creation myth, so doesn't have the obvious clash with the theory of evolution that most other religions have.

That's about all the connection with science as far as I can see.

Lumgi is correct about the meaning of the word religion but I'm not sure that's the modern day meaning. To most people an instituition with a structure, rites and rituals, and beliefs is a religion and Buddhism has elements of all those to various degrees. However none of those are really necessary to practise the path, but may have been necessary to preseve and pass on the teachings.

So I'd say Buddhist religion is a religion.

The question is more : Are Buddhists scientific, not do they have hypothesis for experimenting. A hypothese is not a question but a proposed explanation, in fact maybe even a proposed answer a priori .

Wikipedia: An hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.

Out of my view of the essence of science my question is: Do buddhists (nowadays) question?

As far as I know - and so I like to know more - Buddhists do not question the origin of the world, autism, clearvoyance, the origin of certain diseases, new ways of agriculture, travelling into space, ways to solve actual poverty, and so on. It is not about why or why not Buddhist ask questions but do they ask questions, do they, in an autonomous way, gain (Buddhist?) knowledge by asking questions about the origin of the world, autism, clearvoyance, and so on, and so on?

With regard to the creation of the world, by the answers I got on this forum, Buddhist have no creation myth but also have no creation explanation so in fact they have nothing in relation to the origin of the world since BUDDHA did not showed he questioned this and so gave no knowledge about this by giving answers. .

That could show the connection to a scientific? attitude.

When there is no explanation it fits in everywhere

[endure]

With regard to the creation of the world, by the answers I got on this forum, Buddhist have no creation myth but also have no creation explanation so in fact they have nothing in relation to the origin of the world since BUDDHA did not showed he questioned this and so gave no knowledge about this by giving answers. .

That could show the connection to a scientific? attitude.

When there is no explanation it fits in everywhere

Why do you need to know how the world was formed in order to lead your life in a good manner? What has one to do with the other?

[Brucenkhamen]

The question is more : Are Buddhists scientific, not do they have hypothesis for experimenting. A hypothese is not a question but a proposed explanation, in fact maybe even a proposed answer a priori .

Scientists use hypothisese, Buddhist practitioners use hypothesese, if you fail to see a similarity I'm not going to explain it again. Of course that doesn't make Buddhism as a whole scientific, I never claimed it did.

Out of my view of the essence of science my question is: Do buddhists (nowadays) question?

As far as I know - and so I like to know more - Buddhists do not question the origin of the world, autism, clearvoyance, the origin of certain diseases, new ways of agriculture, travelling into space, ways to solve actual poverty, and so on. It is not about why or why not Buddhist ask questions but do they ask questions, do they, in an autonomous way, gain (Buddhist?) knowledge by asking questions about the origin of the world, autism, clearvoyance, and so on, and so on?

Well thats a different question isn't it?

Of course some Buddhists ask questions, some ask a lot, take Rocky for example.

However if you ask a question on the conceptual level you'll get an answer on the conceptual level, it may be a good representation of reality it may not, but it won't be reality itself.

I don't think Buddhism encourages asking questions on the conceptual level beyond what is needed to get your practise up and running, practise is designed to answer questions on the experiential level not the conceptual level. Practise itself is a question.

If you ask me the question "What is the capital of Hungary?" I can answer this very quickly on the conceptual level, however I've never been to Budapest, I don't know what it's like, I've never experienced it.

Buddhism seeks to answer questions on an experiential level, like being in Budapest not just reading about it in a book, and this is one of the reasons you are finding your quest to get answers on the conceptual level so frustrating here.

With regard to the creation of the world, by the answers I got on this forum, Buddhist have no creation myth but also have no creation explanation so in fact they have nothing in relation to the origin of the world since BUDDHA did not showed he questioned this and so gave no knowledge about this by giving answers. .

Yes, you are correct it has none because it's not relavent. Do you think it should have a creation explanation? If so why? Should Pilates have a creation explanation? Should Macrame?

[Naam]

No one knows what is electricity, gravity, magnetism and so on.

We developed the science to dominate the symptoms of this and it works.

The Buddha developed the system to understand the Dhamma by his symptoms and it works.

...perhaps for you

[lungmi]

Stanislaw Lem, the famous SF writer and scientist, said that all research for the Origin of the Universe is in an insolvable dialemme, because with every answer more questions arise.

For the Buddha the question for a Creator was a metaphysical speculation, a question created by ignorance and logically false. Ask for something extruding the fact that you never will have an answer. What follows is the Creation of a Creator in your mind, in your believing.

[lungmi]

No one knows what is electricity, gravity, magnetism and so on.

We developed the science to dominate the symptoms of this and it works.

The Buddha developed the system to understand the Dhamma by his symptoms and it works.

...perhaps for you

Yes, I'm lucky.

Check it out and it works for you too.

[lungmi]

Buddhism is scientific in the sense that it prposes a hypothesis and suggested you experiment and see for yourself if it's true.

The teachings on the impermanent and essenseless nature of all things fits in nicely with scientific discoveries on the nature of matter I guess.

Also it doesn't have a creation myth, so doesn't have the obvious clash with the theory of evolution that most other religions have.

That's about all the connection with science as far as I can see.

Lumgi is correct about the meaning of the word religion but I'm not sure that's the modern day meaning. To most people an instituition with a structure, rites and rituals, and beliefs is a religion and Buddhism has elements of all those to various degrees. However none of those are really necessary to practise the path, but may have been necessary to preseve and pass on the teachings.

So I'd say Buddhist religion is a religion.

Buddhism is science, philosophy, art of living, tradition and religion.

The assimilation power of Buddhism by the ingenious tolerance gives a place for everyone in the hope to develop at a higher level for understanding.

[christiaan]

With regard to the creation of the world, by the answers I got on this forum, Buddhist have no creation myth but also have no creation explanation so in fact they have nothing in relation to the origin of the world since BUDDHA did not showed he questioned this and so gave no knowledge about this by giving answers. .

That could show the connection to a scientific? attitude.

When there is no explanation it fits in everywhere

Why do you need to know how the world was formed in order to lead your life in a good manner? What has one to do with the other?

The connection is: Being a human.

It is a specific human quality to ask questions

Only humans can do and every healthy human does.

Without questions on any level we can not gain knowledge and we need knowledge for continueing our life - in some proper way - .

A human who likes to know in an objective way doesnot choose to handle questions and knowledge in a subjective way.

Why does someone like to know Christianity, Islam or Buddhism and then stop questioning the world he or she lives in?

If someone, questioning life, meets Buddhism, why does this person stop questioning once in this Buddhism????

Because he or she did found the complete truth in Christianity, Islam or Buddhism????

How can anyone find objective truth in any religion, philosophy or science when the origin of the questions is subjective?

I would say subjective questions lead to subjective answers and so to subjective knowledge.

On the other hand, what is enlightment?

Let us say: In Buddhism enlightenment is when a Buddhist discovers the truth about life.

Whatever way a Buddhist, or any other person, is reaching enlighment, when the truth about life is discovered I would say also the truth about the origin of the world is discovered, Karma of the enlightened and other people is discovered, the origin and treatment of autism and other abnormal 'medical' states would have been discovered, the right way of agriculture, clearvoyance, the need for travelling into space, the way social communities and economies should have to be structured, this all would have been discovered.

But as far as I can see, since Buddha, within Buddhism.......... no new discoveries,despite Anagami's and Aharants.

But...since I am open for any knowledge I am welcoming knowledge about new Buddhist discoveries in the past 2500 years time.

I am not subjective towards any question or knowledge, at least I strive not to be.

[christiaan]

The question is more : Are Buddhists scientific, not do they have hypothesis for experimenting. A hypothese is not a question but a proposed explanation, in fact maybe even a proposed answer a priori .

Scientists use hypothisese, Buddhist practitioners use hypothesese, if you fail to see a similarity I'm not going to explain it again. Of course that doesn't make Buddhism as a whole scientific, I never claimed it did.

Out of my view of the essence of science my question is: Do buddhists (nowadays) question?

As far as I know - and so I like to know more - Buddhists do not question the origin of the world, autism, clearvoyance, the origin of certain diseases, new ways of agriculture, travelling into space, ways to solve actual poverty, and so on. It is not about why or why not Buddhist ask questions but do they ask questions, do they, in an autonomous way, gain (Buddhist?) knowledge by asking questions about the origin of the world, autism, clearvoyance, and so on, and so on?

Well thats a different question isn't it?

Of course some Buddhists ask questions, some ask a lot, take Rocky for example.

However if you ask a question on the conceptual level you'll get an answer on the conceptual level, it may be a good representation of reality it may not, but it won't be reality itself.

I don't think Buddhism encourages asking questions on the conceptual level beyond what is needed to get your practise up and running, practise is designed to answer questions on the experiential level not the conceptual level. Practise itself is a question.

If you ask me the question "What is the capital of Hungary?" I can answer this very quickly on the conceptual level, however I've never been to Budapest, I don't know what it's like, I've never experienced it.

Buddhism seeks to answer questions on an experiential level, like being in Budapest not just reading about it in a book, and this is one of the reasons you are finding your quest to get answers on the conceptual level so frustrating here.

With regard to the creation of the world, by the answers I got on this forum, Buddhist have no creation myth but also have no creation explanation so in fact they have nothing in relation to the origin of the world since BUDDHA did not showed he questioned this and so gave no knowledge about this by giving answers. .

Yes, you are correct it has none because it's not relavent. Do you think it should have a creation explanation? If so why? Should Pilates have a creation explanation? Should Macrame?

As I wrote before, I did not ask if Buddhist use hypothesis as scientist do, (a certain similarity towards the use of hypothesis), I asked if Buddhists ask questions - (as good scientist do without being selective or restrictive out of any religious or scientific dogma) - and I have no problem to explain this question over and over again.

When Rocky is a Buddhist asking questions, questions about subjects as like I wrote about, I suppose he will inform me when he choose to do so.

I would welcome any new answers leading to more insight and awareness.

I will not go into 'conceptual' idea's at this point but will aproach by experience.

When I go to the dentist because my teeth hurt terrible, I ask my dentist can you help me and how will you help me? Then he will help me with all the knowledge out of the scientifical questions that lead to the dental science of modern times.

When one of the people in the small community, where I live in, sees ghosts (a 'buddhist' ), I like to know the truth about this 'seeing'.

When I see the quality of food in modern supermarkets I like to know the way heathy food is grown.

All experiences, questions out of experiences, no concepts.

When I am in a dialogue where people discuss about the origin of the world and even fight about it, I like to know the truth about the origin of the world.

I like to know all I like to know since I know there is a certain truth related to every experience in life, even when this truth is a transcending or transforming one.

I like to know and I like to know how I can know.

So all these questions are out of the experience and not out of reading books.

And all the questions I have and all the answers I find give me happiness and strength of life, so I am never frustrated with regard to questions and knowledge.

To say some questions are not relevant can only be subjective as I explained in my last contribution before this one.

In the case of the origin of the world the relevance of the question - nowadays - is subjective, since we all know there is a truth of origin of the world and only knowing the truth of the origin of the world can tell it is relevant or irrelevant to know.

We cannot know on forehand.

And so my question was not : does it have a creation explanation, but the question was formulated with regard to the origin of the world.

The question, at least for me, is just asking for the truth related to the origin of the world,

The question is: " What is the truth about the origin of the world" and not can we decide to give, build, develop, construct, its truth or 'explanation'.

The truth is within the phenomenon, the truth is the phenomenon.

Enlightenment is........ living within this truth....... and not outside in concepts.

And so there is the truth about the origin and life of Pilates, and the truth about the orign and characteristics of Macrame.

[christiaan]

Buddhism is scientific in the sense that it prposes a hypothesis and suggested you experiment and see for yourself if it's true.

The teachings on the impermanent and essenseless nature of all things fits in nicely with scientific discoveries on the nature of matter I guess.

Also it doesn't have a creation myth, so doesn't have the obvious clash with the theory of evolution that most other religions have.

That's about all the connection with science as far as I can see.

Lumgi is correct about the meaning of the word religion but I'm not sure that's the modern day meaning. To most people an instituition with a structure, rites and rituals, and beliefs is a religion and Buddhism has elements of all those to various degrees. However none of those are really necessary to practise the path, but may have been necessary to preseve and pass on the teachings.

So I'd say Buddhist religion is a religion.

Buddhism is science, philosophy, art of living, tradition and religion.

The assimilation power of Buddhism by the ingenious tolerance gives a place for everyone in the hope to develop at a higher level for understanding.

I wonder if this is true, this also could be just a wonderfull concept, by my observation and experience I would not describe Buddhism this way, so I question.

But once again my question was not: what is Buddhism, but: Are Buddhists Religious And/Or Scientific?

[Brucenkhamen]

I asked if Buddhists ask questions - (as good scientist do without being selective or restrictive out of any religious or scientific dogma) - and I have no problem to explain this question over and over again.

If you re-read your original post you'll see that this is not the case. Either way I've answered both questions, two for the price of one and that's always a good deal. This is a free service, a simple thank you would suffice.

So to summarise while Buddhist practice has some similarity to science in terms of them both using hypotheses I don't think that that means we can say Buddhism is scientific. Of course the religious side of Buddhism is plain to see.

Also though Buddhist practice encourages a questioning approach to experience it doesn't encourage the asking of the kind of questions you like to ask, nor the expectation of the kind of answers you like to expect, so the answer to that question is also no.

To say some questions are not relevant can only be subjective as I explained in my last contribution before this one.

Of course the question would be relevant if this were a "lets speculate about the origins of the universe" forum, but it's not, hence the question is irrelevant.

[AYJAYDEE]

until you define what you mean by religion, your question cant be answered

No one knows what is electricity, gravity, magnetism and so on.

We developed the science to dominate the symptoms of this and it works.

The Buddha developed the system to understand the Dhamma by his symptoms and it works.

I would say these answers do not answer my question at all, since the question is not: Is science working?

I doubt it is correct to write no one knows what electricity, gravity and magnetism is. The fact that all of these 3 powers have different names means that we have come to know the specific characteristics of each of them and this is only because we have observed and questioned them and un-covered their characteristics, This means we have specific knowledge about these 3 powers. However this doesnot mean we know ALL of them.

I also do not think we came to science to dominate (?!) but to understand and to know.

Niels Bohr did not question atoms and quantummechanics to create an atom bomb and dominate but to learn to know, to understand atomic structures and quantummechanics.

This knowledge was USED by subjective powers.

Did we and do we develop science?

I think we do when we understand this developping as unwrapping or un-covering of answers/knowledge by the action of questioning.

I would say science is knowledge and the proces of gaining knowledge.

And in my observation Buddha did question and found 'answers' and so gained knowledge and by knowledge awareness

Did Buddha develop a system?

When Buddha did develop a system, I would say that system would have been developed based on knowledge gained by questioning.

But my question is not if Buddha did develop a system.

A 'system' that could have become a part of the world and so could be questioned by humans and by those questions to be known and by that become part of their knowledge.

The life of Buddha shows he was a scientist, a scientist at least with regard to a lot of aspects to the meaning of life, compassion and love.

He was part of the first scientists in the world, together with Greek philosophers.

Maybe Buddha also was a scientist with regard to aspects like the origin of the world but it is not known he questioned this and so we are not aware of any answers to questions he (could) have had.

[AYJAYDEE]

the world had an origin?? how do you know this?

.

[AYJAYDEE]

if other beings live life without the ability to ask questions, why is it necessary for humans to do so in order to live life?

With regard to the creation of the world, by the answers I got on this forum, Buddhist have no creation myth but also have no creation explanation so in fact they have nothing in relation to the origin of the world since BUDDHA did not showed he questioned this and so gave no knowledge about this by giving answers. .

That could show the connection to a scientific? attitude.

When there is no explanation it fits in everywhere

Why do you need to know how the world was formed in order to lead your life in a good manner? What has one to do with the other?

The connection is: Being a human.

It is a specific human quality to ask questions

Only humans can do and every healthy human does.

Without questions on any level we can not gain knowledge and we need knowledge for continueing our life - in some proper way - .

A human who likes to know in an objective way doesnot choose to handle questions and knowledge in a subjective way.

Why does someone like to know Christianity, Islam or Buddhism and then stop questioning the world he or she lives in?

If someone, questioning life, meets Buddhism, why does this person stop questioning once in this Buddhism????

Because he or she did found the complete truth in Christianity, Islam or Buddhism????

How can anyone find objective truth in any religion, philosophy or science when the origin of the questions is subjective?

I would say subjective questions lead to subjective answers and so to subjective knowledge.

On the other hand, what is enlightment?

Let us say: In Buddhism enlightenment is when a Buddhist discovers the truth about life.

Whatever way a Buddhist, or any other person, is reaching enlighment, when the truth about life is discovered I would say also the truth about the origin of the world is discovered, Karma of the enlightened and other people is discovered, the origin and treatment of autism and other abnormal 'medical' states would have been discovered, the right way of agriculture, clearvoyance, the need for travelling into space, the way social communities and economies should have to be structured, this all would have been discovered.

But as far as I can see, since Buddha, within Buddhism.......... no new discoveries,despite Anagami's and Aharants.

But...since I am open for any knowledge I am welcoming knowledge about new Buddhist discoveries in the past 2500 years time.

I am not subjective towards any question or knowledge, at least I strive not to be.

[AYJAYDEE]

and the answqe is some buddhists are religious and some are scientific. some are neither.

Buddhism is scientific in the sense that it prposes a hypothesis and suggested you experiment and see for yourself if it's true.

The teachings on the impermanent and essenseless nature of all things fits in nicely with scientific discoveries on the nature of matter I guess.

Also it doesn't have a creation myth, so doesn't have the obvious clash with the theory of evolution that most other religions have.

That's about all the connection with science as far as I can see.

Lumgi is correct about the meaning of the word religion but I'm not sure that's the modern day meaning. To most people an instituition with a structure, rites and rituals, and beliefs is a religion and Buddhism has elements of all those to various degrees. However none of those are really necessary to practise the path, but may have been necessary to preseve and pass on the teachings.

So I'd say Buddhist religion is a religion.

Buddhism is science, philosophy, art of living, tradition and religion.

The assimilation power of Buddhism by the ingenious tolerance gives a place for everyone in the hope to develop at a higher level for understanding.

I wonder if this is true, this also could be just a wonderfull concept, by my observation and experience I would not describe Buddhism this way, so I question.

But once again my question was not: what is Buddhism, but: Are Buddhists Religious And/Or Scientific?

[christiaan]

I asked if Buddhists ask questions - (as good scientist do without being selective or restrictive out of any religious or scientific dogma) - and I have no problem to explain this question over and over again.

If you re-read your original post you'll see that this is not the case. Either way I've answered both questions, two for the price of one and that's always a good deal. This is a free service, a simple thank you would suffice.

So to summarise while Buddhist practice has some similarity to science in terms of them both using hypotheses I don't think that that means we can say Buddhism is scientific. Of course the religious side of Buddhism is plain to see.

Also though Buddhist practice encourages a questioning approach to experience it doesn't encourage the asking of the kind of questions you like to ask, nor the expectation of the kind of answers you like to expect, so the answer to that question is also no.

To say some questions are not relevant can only be subjective as I explained in my last contribution before this one.

Of course the question would be relevant if this were a "lets speculate about the origins of the universe" forum, but it's not, hence the question is irrelevant.

This is a forum about Buddhism. And in Buddhism and on this forum the origin of the world has been discussed. So it is a relevant question. To write it is irrelevant is subjective and just some concept.

But I am ok with your answers as I can understand it tells that some questions are correct to deal with and other questions are not correct to deal with.

It helps to get more insight in Buddhism as it is nowadays.

My topic question was not related to giving what kind of answers to questions but just to find out if Buddhists - question - are scientific.

At this moment itis very interesting to see some people write Buddhism is scientific, other people write it is not, some people write Buddhism is religious some write it is not.

[christiaan]

AYJAYDEE:

if other beings live life without the ability to ask questions, why is it necessary for humans to do so in order to live life

Christiaan:

As far as I understand by the life of Buddha: to end suffering and enter a state of enlightenment ?????

[sabaijai]

The job of science is poisoned-arrow analysis. The job of Buddhism is poisoned-arrow removal.

In Theravada Buddhism paramattha dhamma are the only realities. All else is concept.

Although science appears to have a broader scope, in the end, confirmation of scientific knowledge is never 100 percent as there is no unified epistemology even among scientists.

We know which questions the Buddha himself allegedly felt were irrelevant. They are the ones answered with "This question tends not to edification."

http://www.as.miami.edu/phi/bio/Buddha/questions.htm

[lungmi]

The job of science is poisoned-arrow analysis. The job of Buddhism is poisoned-arrow removal.

In Theravada Buddhism paramattha dhamma are the only realities. All else is concept.

Although science appears to have a broader scope, in the end, confirmation of scientific knowledge is never 100 percent as there is no unified epistemology even among scientists.

We know which questions the Buddha himself allegedly felt were irrelevant. They are the ones answered with "This question tends not to edification."

http://www.as.miami....a/questions.htm

Oh yes, The Buddha gives the best answer by his own words. ------ and we struggle to explain.........

[lungmi]

The job of science is poisoned-arrow analysis. The job of Buddhism is poisoned-arrow removal.

In Theravada Buddhism paramattha dhamma are the only realities. All else is concept.

Although science appears to have a broader scope, in the end, confirmation of scientific knowledge is never 100 percent as there is no unified epistemology even among scientists.

We know which questions the Buddha himself allegedly felt were irrelevant. They are the ones answered with "This question tends not to edification."

http://www.as.miami....a/questions.htm

Oh yes, The Buddha gives the best answer by his own words. ------ and we struggle to explain.........

Christiaan, before you post more of your questions about Buddhism you have a link to study.

When your honest study is successfull, you are welcome back in the TV forum.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/index.htm

[lungmi]

George Devereux ,Ethnopsychoanalysis Researcher, said about problems with ethnology research. When you stay with aborigines and you understand them, you never will

have the idea to describe it scientifically, when you describe them scientifically you stop to understand them.

Another example from him > The research of what is an orgasme (Masterson etc) describes some symptoms, but not what is an orgasm.

People who had an orgasm never will describe it, people who describe never had.

Awakening.................................................................................................................................?

[lungmi]

George Devereux ,Ethnopsychoanalysis Researcher, said about problems with ethnology research. When you stay with aborigines and you understand them, you never will

have the idea to describe it scientifically, when you describe them scientifically you stop to understand them.

Another example from him > The research of what is an orgasme (Masterson etc) describes some symptoms, but not what is an orgasm.

People who had an orgasm never will describe it, people who describe never had.

Awakening.................................................................................................................................?

[Brucenkhamen]

At this moment itis very interesting to see some people write Buddhism is scientific, other people write it is not, some people write Buddhism is religious some write it is not.

The only person really pushing the Buddhism is scientific line as far as I've noticed is Healthcaretaker, you can believe him if you want to.

I think the main reason the Buddhism is scientific line comes about is because compared with most other religions one of the things that attracts people to Buddhism is that it has relatively less reason to clash with science.

[christiaan]

The job of science is poisoned-arrow analysis. The job of Buddhism is poisoned-arrow removal.

In Theravada Buddhism paramattha dhamma are the only realities. All else is concept.

Although science appears to have a broader scope, in the end, confirmation of scientific knowledge is never 100 percent as there is no unified epistemology even among scientists.

We know which questions the Buddha himself allegedly felt were irrelevant. They are the ones answered with "This question tends not to edification."

http://www.as.miami....a/questions.htm

Oh yes, The Buddha gives the best answer by his own words. ------ and we struggle to explain.........

The job of humanity is to do the arrow analysis and the arrow removal at the same time.

This job is to stop this 'duality' and make it a single job.

The poisoned arrow sample is a metaphor but we should look at it closely nowadays.

As the sample might be correct, I however am not hit by a poisoned arrow.

I am sure many Buddhists would disagree but they do not know my I, they mainly have a concept about me.

The caracteristic of the poisoned arrow wound is the speed by wich someone has to decide to make the best choice at the moment, and ofcourse when someone is hit, by a fast killing poisenmd arrow, the best choice is to first call for a treatment.

But I see no speed involved in making a decission to do just 1 thing. In reality time is not involved.

Life is showing this since about all people on earth continue to be sick and even to become more sick , but at the same time people are taking care their ' health' in the best possible way.

When I observe what is to read and to learn about nowadays Buddhists, most of them, like many ordinary people, die in suffering, ......as Buddhists would say.

Going back to the poisoned arrow , it seems they - Buddhist - most of the time do not analyse but look for a treatment, a treatment that doesnot cure them, at least not in the actual moment.

As I understood even Buddha lived many many lives before becomming a Buddha.

Does it mean Buddha, and there have not been thousands or millions of Buddha's, was hit by poisoned arrows all the time in his previous lifes?

Becos in suffering one is reborn over and over again only when ending suffering one will not be reborn as Buddha will never again will be reborn.

I am not aware there was a lot of selfreflecting thinking before the time of Buddha, I would say questioning thinking before the time of Buddha, and exactly when the time of thinking started, - cos also in Greece at that time the human thinking arose in history, exactly at that time in history The Boddhisatva, being Siddharta Gautama, became enlightened out of living with his questions.

By observing and questioning human life as it was at that time in history , Buddha came to discover the way, the method, also called the Buddhist system, that made enlightenment for him a fact.

So I wonder:

Are you all aware this system, this method, was not discovered by enlightenment, but before enlightenment???

In other words, are you aware that before you go to Budapest , before you can actualy experience Budapest being a city in Hungary, you have to know the way to get to Budapest?????

And how can you know otherwise as: by asking, by questioning.

And as long as you are questioning and as long as you are asking you probably are still not in Budapest.

And when you start walking, doing the practice of walking, without questioning, and so without knowing, you never can reach Budapest by awareness but only by coincidence......when you ever will get there.

Just take Buddhisme as a possible treatment to some 'physical accident like a poisned arrow happening, how do you know to find a treatment when you do not ask for it, how do you know the best treatment, the best doctor, when you do not question treatments ???

So therefore was my question:

Are Buddhist religious and/or scientific?