Buddhism and Science.

[Several]

52Midnight, I can simplify my earlier questions into this;

Is there any scientifically proven instances of mind affecting matter outside of the body?

[rockyysdt]

Is that from the Gita? Because it sounds almost like the creation myth of Amun from Egypt.

I think so.

It's the Rigveda.

Basically, in answer to Midnights need to scientifically analyze Nibbana/Awakening, I don't believe this is possible.

Better to stick to the physical.

The 8 Fold Path is within the physical (we can practice it).

The Metaphysical, if it exists will reveal itself.

Edited July 12, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Excellent. Rig Veda. I'll need to have a look at that.

I do agree with you, practice makes perfect, but there's no harm in determining a scientific approach. What is Abhidhamma after all? As Bravo pointed out (between abuses) the western world is turning to an increasingly rational methodology. They listen to the opinions of skeptics such as Dikkie Dawkins and Rikky Jervais. The comedian, and mr. Jervais, are exactly the right kind of people to make real practitioners keep our noses to the grindstone. To belabour the point, the behaviour of certain monks in the media is in part due to a lack of scrutiny.

The universe is one, seemingly comprised of many parts. In response our understanding has fractured into a plethora of disciplines which now argue amongst themselves as to the nature of it all. But the universe is still one, a single song. The truth should be evident in all disciplines enabling us to play that song like an orchestra.

For us who are here now the attainments can be had through practice, but for those who are to come after only the records of our experiences can guide them as we are directed by our predecessors. Creating harmony through cooperation of the disciplines not only sets a good example and helps both parties to grow, it may refine the method and enlighten the goals of all.

[KarenBravo]

As Bravo pointed out (between abuses)

Please show me one instance of my abusing anyone on this thread. You imply multiple abuses.

Are you not, as a monk, supposed to stick to truth?

Put up or shut-up.

Edited July 12, 2013 by KarenBravo

[Several]

As Bravo pointed out (between abuses)

Please show me one instance of my abusing anyone on this thread. You imply multiple abuses.

Are you not, as a monk, supposed to stick to truth?

Put up or shut-up.

You said you would lump me in with alien abductees after you misread what I posted, which I consider an insult. Telling me to shut up I also consider an insult. Hoping Buddhism will die out is insulting to a very large percentage of the entire country. I can't be bothered wading through all your other self-riteous posts to point out to you your lack of manners. Also your complete lack of authority precludes you ordering anyone to do anything. And that, madam, is the truth.

[KarenBravo]

Seems to me, anyone that disagrees with your specific point of view, you regard as abuse.

John Lennon in his song Imagine also hoped that all religion would end. Is that an abusive song? I also said that it was my opinion, an opinion shared by quite a lot of people that believe the world would be a better place without it.

With your above statement, you are abusing all people that claim to have been abducted by aliens.

I didn't tell you to shut-up. I said "put-up, or shut-up"; a rather well known colloquialism that originated in poker games.

Seems your manners could use improvement, too.

Very typical of religious people. Question any of their beliefs and they throw their teddy in the corner.

Maybe you should try and be less easily bruised as you're coming over as a whiny, little girl (that was some very mild abuse, but, you started it).

[52midnight]

> Is there any scientifically proven instances of mind affecting matter outside of the body?

There are many. However, you'll find that today's dominant technique of selective, plausible deniability has been employed for each of them. It's first important to realize that the Physical Realm is causally closed; it is a construct of consciousness that has been deliberately evolved so as to appear autonomous - complete within itself. I'm aware that this statement violates the academic ban on teleology, but we'll let that pass unless you're interested. We are here within it for a number purposes (teleology again) that, at this present evolutionary phase, cannot be achieved were the mind easily capable of directly influencing physical events.

I'll assume that you have some capability in deep "rupa" meditation. If you enter it with the seed thought of being in a world in which ones desires are immediately manifest as objective realities, and spend some time examining the experiential consequences, you'll quickly realize that today's world would never arise under such conditions. Technology would be completely redundant - no phones, cars, ships or planes, nor even hammers and nails, spears or swords. More importantly, there could be no "desire" as we know it, since any desire that arises subjectively - sc. "within ourselves" - is immediately reflected objectively - sc. "outside ourselves".

These are the conditions under which many of the "higher spiritual beings" exist, hence our inability to understand their psychology, so to speak, much less their interests and purposes, although continued investigation along the lines I've indicated can give fascinating insights here. It's also necessary to differentiate clearly between the Psychic Realms and the Spiritual Realms. Simply put, the former are those relating to the mind and the emotions, whereas the latter are those aspects of consciousness that exist outside, across, or beyond time (there being no single English word that conveys my exact meaning). Most of what is deemed "spiritual", both in popular and much traditional literature, is merely psychic.

Having said this, you could first turn to the '90s report by Jessica Utts, a respected statistician, entitled "An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning."

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

You'd also find interesting"Psychic discoveries behind the Iron Curtain" by Ostrander and Schroeder:

http://www.amazon.com/PSI-Psychic-Discoveries-Behind-Curtain/dp/0349126704

... and "Reborn in the West" by Mackenzie:

http://www.amazon.com/Reborn-West-The-Reincarnation-Masters/dp/1569248044

You'll notice that all of these are by women, who have a natural advantage over men as regards psychic phenomena for reasons I'll bypass here. You could also consult a biography of Daniel Dunglas Home.

But if you want the "scientific hardware" type of thing, you need only investigate the initial experiments done by Hal Puthoff with Ingo Swann, a very talented psychic, with a magnetometer. They gave birth to the US military's program of "Remote Viewing" in the '70s, amongst other things. The literature is extensive, and you'll be wise to read the early originals before the later dismissals of them. If your interest is sincere, you'll not be wanting me to "prove" any of this; you'll insist on making up your own mind.

> Midnights need to scientifically analyze Nibbana/Awakening

I'd be interested to know which of my statements you've misconstrued in order to arrive at this invention.

Edited July 12, 2013 by 52midnight

[camerata]

Thank you 52midnight for bringing us back on topic. Any more off-topic posts or posts containing personal remarks will be deleted.

[Several]

Heh. Fair enough.

[Several]

Seems to me, anyone that disagrees with your specific point of view, you regard as abuse.

 

John Lennon in his song Imagine also hoped that all religion would end. Is that an abusive song? I also said that it was my opinion, an opinion shared by quite a lot of people that believe the world would be a better place without it.

 

With your above statement, you are abusing all people that claim to have been abducted by aliens.

 

I didn't tell you to shut-up. I said "put-up, or shut-up"; a rather well known colloquialism that originated in poker games.

 

Seems your manners could use improvement, too.

 

Very typical of religious people. Question any of their beliefs and they throw their teddy in the corner.

 

Maybe you should try and be less easily bruised as you're coming over as a whiny, little girl (that was some very mild abuse, but, you started it).

Ah, if only you knew. Hilarious.

Ironically, this is also a microcosm of the wider world. Disciplines and ideologies bumping heads and misunderstanding each other. You are an educated and well informed person within your field desiring that humanity is freed from superstition. Kudos. You are, I am also guessing, employed in a field which is of benefit to society. I percieve myself to be in the same position. Science and Buddhism are both, ideally, concerned with getting at the truth. This indicates travelling towards it rather than being there already, so for lack of actual personal knowledge of ultimate truth we are forced to surmise what that truth might be and which method is most effective to get there.

But rather than pursuing our own ways and comparing our experiences for the greater good, our energy is wasted on bickering and ad hominem assaults far too often. This is seemingly caused by various authors and well known personalities promoting their ideas at the expense of others. This can be seen form either view from R. Dawkins to D. Chopra. I have a tendancy to attack positions I deem unproductive to the evolution of consciousness, even when I am wrong. Too many Kung <deleted> movies in my youth. Nobody's perfect.

However, through practice outlined by the Buddha I have found, so far, that everything he directs us to do to end suffering works. As have millions before me. I am sure the effects of this practice are scientifically verifiable. When Buddhism reached China and Japan it was decided that it was rather 'top heavy' by the Taoist influenced teachers and the end reasult is the stripped- down but still effective Zen methods of today. I can see no reason why Scientific and Buddhist methods cannot assist each other. Eg, science can measure that which is most effective in meditation and tell us when we're on the right track or simply half-asleep. Buddhism can help scientists control emotional responses, such as the difference between gaining results for truth or for ego.

To put it back in our microcosm; Sorry Karen. Can you help me find my teddy?

[rockyysdt]

Hi S.

Sadly, after reviewing knowledge gained including the experiences of other travelers, I'm coming to a conclusion that I won't be getting very far.

The interminable obstacles heaped in our way along with a diminishing life expectancy appear impassible

I look to Monks, who are full time practitioners, for their views on this.

In keeping on topic.

Endowed with the fruits of practice is one way having the tools to prove Buddhism scientifically.

In your experience is Buddhism "worth pursuing" vs "probability of success"?

Also how are you traveling and have you gained deep insight?

Edited July 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Hi Rocky. It isn't for me to claim any achievements in insight, but for teachers to gauge any perceptible progress. I am less angry which is achievement enough, believe me. I would urge you not to give up. By doubting yourself you may in fact be subconsciously reinforcing the idea that 'it cannot be accomplished'. Please try to remain open to the possibility of sudden realisation. We have all the pieces, allow the order to manifest itself.

Is it worth trying? Well if not this, then what else? I would rather die with a smile in the sun halfway up a mountain than with a tear in the shadows at its base.

[camerata]

The book Stepping Out of Self-Deception is very good at explaining how our ego and conditioning can subtly subvert our spiritual path by taking it over. Insisting that it must be "scientific" is just one of the ego's tricks.

"Allowing the sense-of-self to direct its own awakening is the most common mistake made in spiritual practice." - Rodney Smith

[rockyysdt]

The book Stepping Out of Self-Deception is very good at explaining how our ego and conditioning can subtly subvert our spiritual path by taking it over. Insisting that it must be "scientific" is just one of the ego's tricks.

"Allowing the sense-of-self to direct its own awakening is the most common mistake made in spiritual practice." - Rodney Smith

Thanks C.

This is one example of the strength of the Sangha.

I'll work towards reading R Smiths work.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky. It isn't for me to claim any achievements in insight, but for teachers to gauge any perceptible progress. I am less angry which is achievement enough, believe me. I would urge you not to give up. By doubting yourself you may in fact be subconsciously reinforcing the idea that 'it cannot be accomplished'. Please try to remain open to the possibility of sudden realisation. We have all the pieces, allow the order to manifest itself.

Is it worth trying? Well if not this, then what else? I would rather die with a smile in the sun halfway up a mountain than with a tear in the shadows at its base.

An insight I've gleaned is that changing to Buddhism now appears like merely changing conditioning.

Instead of wearing the conditioning I had, I now carry a new ego/persona/image, that of a Buddhist.

Apart from this, and trapped with a host of other conditioning I feel that all I have is another masquerade.

Can this also consume a Monk.

Instead of increasing ones awareness, can a Monk end up being trapped in conditioning, that of a different image rather than truly awakening?

An image which deludes.

An image which can give one a false sense of where they are.

An image which when viewed with ones conditioning makes one feel even less worthy than the general population.

Edited July 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Absolutely. But an advantage to changung positions is that it makes it easier to identify that which does not change, and it challenges the habit of being who you believed yourself to be making the persona easier to discard.

[camerata]

The notion that practice can't work or the fruits can't be had because of conditioning is just another trick of the ego. The premise of dhamma practice is that we are all mired in defilements and conditioning from the get-go, and practice is the best way to deal with them. Practice can seem kind of mechanical initially, but "as we practice, so will we become." This is why we need some confidence/trust in the Buddha when we start... but then up pops the ego again saying, "You fool! This is blind faith. This is not rational. This is not scientific. There is no proof it will work!!"

It's no wonder Doubt is one of the Five Hindrances.

We can draw a rough analogy with psychiatry. Where psychiatry seeks to change people with abnormal levels of suffering into people with normal suffering, Dhamma develops people with any level of suffering into people with no suffering. Psychiatry is not a science and the results can't be exactly or reliably replicated, but it's clear some people get real benefits from it. It can't be dismissed simply because science can't verify the results (yet).

[rockyysdt]

Absolutely. But an advantage to changung positions is that it makes it easier to identify that which does not change, and it challenges the habit of being who you believed yourself to be making the persona easier to discard.

Thinking about it you're right.

Weak as it is, my mindfulness gives me an observation of the personas I walk with.

Each is fashioned to either enhance my image, or to avoid aversion.

I watch conditioning controlling my behavior, including elements which I abhor.

Somehow I'm still trapped.

[rockyysdt]

The notion that practice can't work or the fruits can't be had because of conditioning is just another trick of the ego. The premise of dhamma practice is that we are all mired in defilements and conditioning from the get-go, and practice is the best way to deal with them. Practice can seem kind of mechanical initially, but "as we practice, so will we become." This is why we need some confidence/trust in the Buddha when we start... but then up pops the ego again saying, "You fool! This is blind faith. This is not rational. This is not scientific. There is no proof it will work!!"

It's no wonder Doubt is one of the Five Hindrances.

We can draw a rough analogy with psychiatry. Where psychiatry seeks to change people with abnormal levels of suffering into people with normal suffering, Dhamma develops people with any level of suffering into people with no suffering. Psychiatry is not a science and the results can't be exactly or reliably replicated, but it's clear some people get real benefits from it. It can't be dismissed simply because science can't verify the results (yet).

One measure I use to gauge such fruits is through the words of other travelers.

Much is wholesome but there appears quite strong color/conditioning amongst long time travelers.

Is the interpretation of my observations another doubt?

Why aren't the others progressing to minimum levels.

Communication of all kinds amongst humans has so many positives.

Digital communication is so immensely powerful we can reach across the globe.

Some how I think back to the retreats I attend.

One of a number of rules is to be "silent" (no unnecessary communication).

Designed to curb the ego.

The insight being that our mind wants to retain control.

It uses any devices to remain in charge.

Faced with complete removal of stimulation (including food due to "food reflection"), my mind began to refile through my memory banks.

Over a long retreat my mind reviewed almost all my memories in order to remain in control.

Is this one of our failings to quality practice?

Should we curb all unnecessary communication to suppress or reduce the ego?

Edited July 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I think a lot of people get to a certain level of practice - where they see some benefits - and then start cruising. Not everyone keeps on going until they make sotapanna.

What you describe in meditation seems to be pretty normal. I find that first my mind gives me the stuff I've been preoccupied with during the day, then it comes up with doubts such as "Did I lock the door? and finally it presents me with long-forgotten memories from the past. It'll do anything to put-off being still.

[Several]

It sounds counter-intuitive but Martial discipline helps to progress quicker. Bear with me. Now, I'm not talking about aggression or harm. More like Aikido, except the opponent is the ego. If we approach defeating our ego from a philosophical perspective then we have all the time in the world. Returning to scriptures, questioning teachers, watching the clock rather than the subject during meditation, the luxury of complaining about lack of progress. We hope that over time we'll accrue ability and we gauge progress by comparison to others.

This is fine at first, but eventually the training wheels must come off. If your ego was a regular opponent who, like Kato in the Pink Panther movies, attacked you at unexpected moments how well do you think you would fare in combat if you opened a book or wander off to clarify some obscure point with a superior before you react?

The maneuvers of ego are immediate and must be dealt with immediately. The attitude of 'having time' to improve means you will run out of it. There is no time, only now. One reason Gotama was successful was due to his being from a warrior caste. Death became a reality and it drove him forward.

Learn the techniques, study the suttas, internalise them beyond mere ideas and pursue the goal with ruthless determination. Anything else will fall short of the mark.

[camerata]

I came across this today:

"The apparent resemblance of the language of quantum physics and of sutras is just that—an appearance. My training as a quantum physicist gives me no special insight into Buddhist practice. For that, daily life and ordinary mind are where the real work begins." - Brad Marston

http://www.tricycle.com/columns/the-science-enlightenment-quarks-1-bootstraps-0

[ChrisB87]

Buddhism IS very scientific. Not believing in any deity to worship and supplicate and think causes things to happen out of punishment or whim.

Buddha didn't start a religion, but simply taught the Dhamma, which is natural laws applying to all beings.

The most important being karma, a natural law which has it effect, just like gravity, whether you believe in it, understand it, know about it , or not.

Rubbish. Buddhism is not scientific.

Science is predicated by observation, experiments, repeatability and peer review.

Buddhism has in common with every other religion the idea of faith. Belief without proof.

What the Buddha teaches is scientific, but what most (so-called) Buddhists of the world practice, of course, isn't.

Try Vipassana meditation, you will find that it is the exact definition you gave for science: (objective) observation (of the body), experimental, repetitive, and there has been plenty of peer review among practitioners, although its not recommended, nor considered necessary)

If you are interested, i will give you a link to a non-profit worldwide organization, which offers free 10 day retreats (you may donate)

[lungmi]

Buddhism is science and beyond...

[chrisartist]

Your post is a complete cop-out.

Where is the proof of your assertions? There is none..

The words science and Buddhism should never be used in the same sentence.

Your assertions are beliefs, not facts. i.e. Faith.

Science (apart from mathematics and formal logic) is not in the business of proof. Science investigates the empirical world and no statement whatsoever about the empirical world can be proven. Rather, science is in the business of coming to consensus about what the empirical world contains and explaining why the things that are posited to exist behave as they do. Consensus is achieved via observed confirmation of hypotheses via tests or, in some cases, a large amount of anecdotal evidence from reliable sources.

The key elements are the formation of hypotheses and the conducting of tests to see whether or not events that are predicted by inference from the hypotheses occur (confirmation) or do not occur (falsification.) This is a very simplified account, but is correct in its broad import.

Increasingly in science, particularly in medical science, self-reporting of personal experience is coming to be seen as a valid form of evidence.

The evidence for claims made by the Buddha comes in the form of self-reports of personal experience. The Buddha said that if you want to follow in his footsteps, you should do what he says and you will observe the results that he has observed with respect to himself. In Buddhism, the faith element comes in when you are invited to believe that if you do what the Buddha says, certain things will happen. This is an empirical claim. it is the same as proposing and testing a scientific hypothesis.

How do you test Buddhist claims? There is an easy way to do this. You can do it yourself, without even getting too deep into Buddhism.

1) Simply take the five Buddhist lay precepts: do not kill human beings (or any other being, if you want to go deeper), do not commit sexual misconduct (usually interpreted as no having sex with another person's partner, no causal sex and no lying with prostitutes, but there are deeper versions as you go deeper into Buddhism), do not speak badly (no lying, no deceiving, no speaking to divide opinion, no speaking harshly or maliciously), no taking what is not given freely, and no taking intoxicating substances (no alcohol, no nicotine, no hard drugs).

2) Keep these precepts for at least one year and write a full journal for an hour every day.

3) At the end of the year, compare your journal entries at the beginning and the end, and reflect upon your start state and end state.

[On beliefs, facts and faith:

A belief is a cognitive representation of a state of affairs in the world. Beliefs can be true or false and supported to varying degrees by evidence. Faith in something comprises beliefs that, in the nature of things, cannot be supported by evidence. Knowledge is a belief that has received sufficient justification in the form of reasons or a reliable causal process of belief formation. What is called scientific "knowledge" might not actually be knowledge. The beliefs that comprise scientific theories are ones that have achieved consensus among a community of experts, which may later turn out to be false (as, for example, did Newtonian dynamics.)

Science depends on faith to the same extent that Buddhism does, neither more nor less: in science, one has faith that following certain methods of forming beliefs will get you to the right answers, whereas in Buddhism, one has faith that in following the practices recommended by the Buddha, you will experience what he has experienced in the way of stages alog the Buddhist path.]

Edited August 25, 2013 by chrisartist

[chrisartist]

I came across this today:

"The apparent resemblance of the language of quantum physics and of sutras is just that—an appearance. My training as a quantum physicist gives me no special insight into Buddhist practice. For that, daily life and ordinary mind are where the real work begins." - Brad Marston

http://www.tricycle.com/columns/the-science-enlightenment-quarks-1-bootstraps-0

Training as a quantum physicist will not give any special insight into Buddhist practice. It might, however, given sufficient progress along the Buddhist path, promote insight into Buddhist right view, i.e. it may promote cognitive understanding. Yet this willonly come once one has progressed far enough understand what the Buddha says comes after the four jhanas, about the base of infinite consciousness, the base of nothingness, the base of infinite space, the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and the signless concentration of mind. At this level, one who understands the foundations of quantum physics (as opposed to one who can merely do the maths) and an advanced Buddhist practitioner will have much of common interest to discuss.

Brad Marston is making early steps on the Buddhist journey; that's not a criticism, it's just that his stage on the Path explains why he finds no connection between quantum physics and Buddhist insight.

[rockyysdt]

It sounds counter-intuitive but Martial discipline helps to progress quicker. Bear with me. Now, I'm not talking about aggression or harm. More like Aikido, except the opponent is the ego. If we approach defeating our ego from a philosophical perspective then we have all the time in the world. Returning to scriptures, questioning teachers, watching the clock rather than the subject during meditation, the luxury of complaining about lack of progress. We hope that over time we'll accrue ability and we gauge progress by comparison to others.

This is fine at first, but eventually the training wheels must come off. If your ego was a regular opponent who, like Kato in the Pink Panther movies, attacked you at unexpected moments how well do you think you would fare in combat if you opened a book or wander off to clarify some obscure point with a superior before you react?

The maneuvers of ego are immediate and must be dealt with immediately. The attitude of 'having time' to improve means you will run out of it. There is no time, only now. One reason Gotama was successful was due to his being from a warrior caste. Death became a reality and it drove him forward.

Learn the techniques, study the suttas, internalise them beyond mere ideas and pursue the goal with ruthless determination. Anything else will fall short of the mark.

In terms of science, there needs to be more research.

Such things as the observation of the mind and body of those who practice awareness and concentration.

Science has already uncovered some data in these areas.

Bringing science on board is all about funding and promoting such studies.

In terms of the speed to which one can become aware of the split second workings of our ego, I thought regular, diligent, long sessions of "concentration", coupled with regular, diligent, practice of continuous "awareness", with diligent keeping of the precepts and ethical conduct are the vehicles towards attaining such speed and insight.

Hands up those who have dedicated every moment of their lives to "concentration", & "awareness"?

How many of us fail, not only on a daily basis, but practically every minute to keep the most basic Ethical Conduct?

As you said Sev: "Learn the techniques, study the suttas, internalise them beyond mere ideas and pursue the goal with ruthless determination. Anything else will fall short of the mark".

Perhaps this is why most will never "Awaken".

NB: Do it diligently but don't fall into the trap of becoming attached to ruthlessness.

Edited August 26, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Ruthlessness isn't an attachment. In pure form it is beyond love and hate, is completely detached, is not biased. It is in fact a perfect equanimity.

Perhaps Buddhism should be compared to engineering rather than science. Engineers use science but must provide working, real-world results. Buddhism is about real experience rather than theory, after all.

[chrisartist]

Perhaps Buddhism should be compared to engineering rather than science. Engineers use science but must provide working, real-world results. Buddhism is about real experience rather than theory, after all.

There are two aspects to Buddhist doctrine: theory and practice. The Four Noble Truths and the Formula for Dependent Origination (which glosses the second Noble Truth) have the status of scientific hypotheses that can be confirmed or falsified by practice. The practice provides results and the results provide confirmation, if the procedures the the Buddha recommends are followed.

[Several]

Science could be great but currently, well, isn't. The vast majority of scientific pronouncements are abusive, ad hominem attacks or simply incorrect interpretation of results. Or falsified. Etc.

Though I enjoy genuine scientific discoveries I feel it should be downgraded in importance as it only deals with mundane measureable material manifestations. You can't compare it to Buddhism as an equal, it can advise Buddhism on some aspects.