Buddhism and science are coherent ?

[rockyysdt]

Your wrong that many people are ignorant, they have free will and choice to choose there belief structure

How can a conditioned person have free will.

Yes, they get to choose, but a major part of their thought process which guides their choice was environmentally implanted.

If you were raised by parents totally alien to yours, I'm sure your views and choices would not align with those you currently display.

We are all conditioned in ways we did not choose nor consent to. We ended up adopting these views/beliefs with the belief that they are ours.

Edited August 18, 2015 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Spirituality is basically consciousness and awareness.

I associate this with the Buddhas advice that "self is self's own refuge".

It means that the very self that anyone grasps at and clings to as his own essence must be taken as his refuge until he is through with it (that is, free himself from self attachment), and no longer has self or needs to depend on self.

The following extract from Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's Anatta, describes that even consciousness is not self.

Buddhism does not embody the eternal-soul view, as the religion does not accept a permanent self.

Buddhism is not an annihilation doctrine, as it maintains that things arising from causes and contributory factors depend on the causes and factors, and that the state existing without causes and factors is eternal.

Buddhism is not nihilistic because it accepts existence of things in one of the two states, that which is uncertain and impermanent characterizes the conditioned things, and that which is certain and permanent characterizes the unconditioned.

Buddhism, accepts the existence of things in one of two states: one state continually arising, ceasing, and changing, and the other state having neither origination nor cessation and being unchangeable.

The Buddha then explained how a monk developed Jhana (trance), starting from the first level up to Akiflcaflflayalana Ihtina (trance in the realm of nothingness).

Then he explained and exemplified each level separately.

For example, when a monk had attained the first jhana, his consciousness of feeling or thought disappeared and that of delight (piti) and joy (sukha) born out of Solitude appeared instead.

This was how consciousness appeared and disappeared under the power of Jhiina development.

So how could one say that consciousness had no causes and factors for its appearance and disappearance?

In the second jhana, the consciousness of thought conception (vitakka) and discursive thinking (viciira) disappeared, and that of joy born out of concentration (samiidhi) appeared instead.

In the third jhana, the consciousness of delight disappeared and only that of joy born out of equanimity appeared.

In the fourth jhana, the consciousness of joy disappeared and only that of indifferent feeling, which was purified by equanimity, appeared.

In the formless iikiisiinanciiyalana jhana (absorption in the realm of unbounded space), the consciousness of corporeality disappeared and only that void of form remained.

In the vinniinanciiyatana jhana (absorption in the realm of boundless consciousness), the consciousness void of form disappeared but that of clear perception or that of the act of consciousness appeared.

In the iikincanfliiyatana jhana (absorption in the realm of nothingness), the consciousness of the act of consciousness disappeared but that of nothingness appeared instead.

Finally, in the sanfliivedayitanirodha, which is the last level of jhana, the consciousness of nothingness also disappeared, and no new consciousness appeared.

Therefore, the complete cessation of consciousness existed continually in such a state.

During the time, we could not say that there was consciousness, for the person has no feeling at all. But we could neither say that there was no consciousness, for the person could be conscious again after he came out of the jhana.

Neither Could he be declared dead ~or could he be declared not dead. This is the complete cessation of sannii or consciousness which could be caused to occur by human's control, power, or action.

The meaning of this part of the story is that arising and ceasing of sannii or consciousness are neither caused by self's entering or exiting the body nor by the working of a powerful person; neither are they caused by power of a god nor are they without causes and contributory factors.

In terms of scientific input, I have personally attained the first jhana, and many will attest to having attained higher levels.

One also has the practice of "Anapanasiti" with which they can progress through these states in order to gain personal insights and to prove for themselves.

Edited August 18, 2015 by rockyysdt

[only1]

Let's not go so far off-topic and let us be honest and sincere.

Please stick to your opinions(if any) on the relationship between science and Buddhism or other religions but don't get Buddhism and other "almighty creator god" religion mixed up.

Bear in mind that science and logic have not debunk any claims or beliefs in Buddhism and the beliefs of Gods in most religions.

Science and logic only debunked the claims of Christianity and Islam, especially on the creator and almighty concept. Eg no reason for a creator god to create 2 similar religions to fight and no logic that everyone from the same ancestor could end up with so many races and religions. They are debunked by both science and logic. I can name more reasons but that is not my aim in this thread.

Before I go further to explain where science and Buddhism are coherent, this basic understanding and which I elaborated in my last comment must be understood.

I emphasize again,

1. Don't mix up all gods or religions. The belief of the one almighty creator god concept is different from say...Hinduism or Chinese gods.

2. Don't mix up Buddhism with other religions for the purpose of this thread. Here, I only wish to talk about the Buddhistic part of science or the scientific part of Buddhism, which you may call it later.

Please go back to my last question in my last comment and see if you are agreeable first before you are so sure or accuse me of "no further answers or explaination" to OP.

[rockyysdt]

Basically, Only, you wrote many words to say very little.

Maybe I can agree or disagree with you if you were more concise.

There is no scientific proof of karma and Re birth as such things are states which can only be experienced through personal insights.

How can I sell you my insights as facts?

Edited August 18, 2015 by rockyysdt

[only1]

rock,

I may have said very little but why should I say more if you can't even follow that very little ?

Little I said but they make sense.

Look here, if there are already scientific proof, why should I start this thread ?From the day Buddha first got enlightened until today, there are no scientific proof too but some of his followers are open enough to listen.

I am sure Enstein told his discovery to some people who might not have agreed with him too.

Remember, all scientific discoveries are done by someone, not god or ghost.

[rockyysdt]

Thanks Only.

Put down to my lack of understanding.

Rather than debate in this way couldn't you have simply articulated what you want agreement with?

[AlexRRR]

No i dont agree with you only1 many do not belive in karma ghosts etc,

Posted Today, 14:11

AlexRRR, on 18 Aug 2015 - 12:16, said:

Your wrong that many people are ignorant, they have free will and choice to choose there belief structure

How can a conditioned person have free will.

Yes, they get to choose, but a major part of their thought process which guides their choice was environmentally implanted.

If you were raised by parents totally alien to yours, I'm sure your views and choices would not align with those you currently display.

We are all conditioned in ways we did not choose nor consent to. We ended up adopting these views/beliefs with the belief that they are ours.

Because thats where there at at that particular junction in time even yourself, if you could be critical of me then be critical of yourself if u understand what i mean.

We come into the world naked we learn everything some keep learning, i dont follow the religion that was forced upon me as a child so im not like my parents but sure i have been shaped and so have you and every one else in here.

[rockyysdt]

Agreed Alex.

I am also conditioned.

Humans naively believe that, that which is conditioned, and is impermanent is their soul.

There is no permanent self.

Practice allows us to let go of attachment.

To see what actually is.

Edited August 18, 2015 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

2. Don't mix up Buddhism with other religions for the purpose of this thread. Here, I only wish to talk about the Buddhistic part of science or the scientific part of Buddhism, which you may call it later.

You need go no further than the Kalama Sutta to get an answer to your question. I think most of us are impressed and very grateful for the benefits of modern science, but it seems to me that relatively few of us appreciate and understand the nature and the fundamental processes of the scientific method, which rely upon repeated, controlled and varying experiments to either confirm or refute a hypothesis.

This lack of understanding of the basis of the scientific methodology can present a huge problem in relation to major social and political issues, such as the current issue of anthropogenic climate change, on which issue, those who express a justified skepticism are branded as 'deniers', as though the science is settled and the conclusions are certain. The claimed certainty about the dire effects of increased CO2 levels are akin to a religious fervour.

For the benefit of those who haven't read the Kalama Sutta, which is a talk delivered by the Buddha to a clan of people called the Kalamas, who inhabited the village of Kesaputta in northern India, here it is below.

The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon

1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.

2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.

3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.

4. Do not believe in something because you think a God has inspired it.

5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.

6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.

7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.

8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.

What I find remarkable about this Sutta is that it essentially lays the groundwork for the application of the scientific method, as far back as 2,500 years. Every good, modern day scientist should adopt the attitude expressed in this Sutta, in my opinion.

However, in case there is any confusion, I should add that the translation of this Sutta is perhaps not ideal. I assume that all these instructions to 'not believe' in a particular thing have the qualifying word 'merely', which should be at least implied. It would not be wise to instruct one's children not to believe what the teacher tells you, full stop.

On the issue of 'logic and inference' in point #7, it might seem odd, or non-scientific, to advise against accepting logic alone. However, my understanding is that logic is not infallible. There are certain logical, mathematical constructs which can lead to absurdity, but don't ask me to give you examples.

There are also phenomena such as 'quantum weirdness' which seem to defy common logic, yet appear to be true in accordance with experiments and the application of the scientific method.

[IMA_FARANG]

How much time to you have to discuss the topic.?

On some Buddhist discussion forums there are latterly hundreds of posts discussing this topic.

Both pro and con.

Let's just say there are Buddhist groups who accept it and other groups who don't ..... and basically all shades of opinion in between.

[rockyysdt]

I think the purpose is to maximise the number of hits and replies before "nothing" is eventually revealed.

[VincentRJ]

How much time to you have to discuss the topic.?

For the rest of my life of course, although not continuously, you understand.

On some Buddhist discussion forums there are latterly hundreds of posts discussing this topic.Both pro and con.

Let's just say there are Buddhist groups who accept it and other groups who don't ..... and basically all shades of opinion in between.

Sounds like the same situation with almost every topic that people discuss. Everyone has an opinion. Why do people discuss anything? Speaking for myself, a discussion helps me to clarify my own thoughts on an issue, as well as providing me with the opportunity to learn of a new perspective, a different way of looking at an issue and/or new facts relating to the issue.

[only1]

I have read all comments. Am busy planning for a trip to visit temples in Thailand but will surely comment further later.

I see someone mentioned this topic has been discussed before. Can someone help to give me the link? I wish to read then before continuing, no point starting a redundant thread.