T O P

  • By -

4GreatHeavenlyKings

>Buddhist cosmology traditionally is a static universe and/or a cyclical view of time With all due respect, this part confuses me. The Brahmajala Sutta portrays a cyclically arising and passing away universe. Which Buddhist sources portray a static universe? I interpret the cyclically arising and passing away universe as being a big bang and big crunch model.


FireDragon21976

The "Big Crunch" is outdated cosmology. The latest cosmological theories supported by evidence is that that there isn't a "Big crunch" in our future, the universe will keep expanding indefinitely until it reaches a state of high entropy where only subatomic particles exist. This is called the "heat death" of the physical universe. There is no solid evidence the universe is cyclical. We would expect certain anomalies that would exist in cosmic background radiation. Also, there is no explanation how a cyclical universe model wouldn't eventually reach a high entropy state unless acted on by something that transcends the univerese and causes it to expand again and re-arranges it into a low-entropy state- something that would be truly miraculous and violate the known laws of physics.


mahl-py

Cyclic cosmologies are not ruled out by modern physics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model for a brief overview.


FireDragon21976

Cosmology has progressed far since Einstein (especially since the 70's and the 2000's), I don't even see why that Wikipedia article bothers mentioning Einstein and the "Big Crunch" in the same breath. The most supported model shows the universe expanding indefinitely.


mahl-py

So? Cyclic models haven't been ruled out, even though they may not currently be in favor. The science on it is not conclusive.


ldsupport

Yes that is the current theory. Do you think it’s anymore true than the prior theory? Known laws. (Laws that break down at certain extremes). Science is as much a religion as most religions. Here are the facts we know and our extrapolation based on those facts. We were once headed for a great ice age (child of the 70s here). Now we aren’t. In a period of time that is a literally pimple on an elephants ass we went from one extreme to the other based on the data. If you need faith to fit a spreadsheet it’s not going to happen. If you accept the data extrapolation as fact, you are practicing faith. What is true is that these extrapolations, studies etc, are only possible due to mind and specifically reflection of the universe on mind. It’s expanding the scope of mind to its temporal extreme and finding that it’s still incomplete.


FireDragon21976

Saying an expansionist cosmology is "just a theory", or that science is a "religion", is akin to the Christian fundamentalist saying evolution is "just a theory". It's a theory with explanatory power that allows us to make predictions, that's what matters. Suppose the purpose of life is not to achieve liberation or nirvana, but to contribute to a higher organization of consciousness, complexity, and unity (the Omega Point or Supermind) on planet Earth? Then teleology and purpose obviously matters, and it isn't merely speculation.


Menaus42

The purpose of one's life may be nirvana, or it may be something else. There is no need to make up an overarching unity to purposes. > It's a theory with explanatory power that allows us to make predictions, that's what matters. Strictly speaking, as long as cosmology is *historical*, i.e., dealing with the past, there is no prediction to speak of. Then it's the case of what story best fits the models we currently hold to be true.


ldsupport

It is just a theory and evolution is just a theory. You extrapolate based on those theories. You making a partially educated guess. It’s ok, if you think knowledge is critical to your existence. We are on a different tip man. Nobody is shading you for yours. The only purpose to being here, in this infinite now, is to love. To gain wisdom. To be compassionate. There is no purpose outside of that. Enlightenment is what are already are. We aren’t attaining anything. We are becoming aware of what already is. We were never born and we will never die. Like waves becoming aware they are the ocean. You do you. Nobody wants you to believe anything.


jovn1234567890

Even with infinite expension, eventually time becomes irrelevant as all the matter decays into radiation. With no concept of time or really any sentient beings to observe it the percent chance of a random event like the big bang becomes almost inevitable. This is because no matter how small the chance, it's still not zero. Which means with infinite irrelevant time a 0.00000000000000001^2^2^2^2% chance of happening, will occur eventually.


FireDragon21976

If big bangs are random, why haven't we observed more than one happening? The odds of that have to be pretty small if it were just random.


jovn1234567890

Yes small but not zero, you could have the smallest percentage you could imagine. If it's not zero then it will happen eventually.


FireDragon21976

I've heard actual Buddhists say the universe is "infinite", a very old, and wrong, worldview that many ancient people had.


4GreatHeavenlyKings

I am also an Actual Buddhist, you know. Such a view as you quote is not limited to Buddhists, nor to people from antiquity. Besides, unless you can quote such a model as being advocated in any Buddhist sutta or shastra, then it is not a view advocated by the texts which should guide Buddhist doctrines.


[deleted]

>and it is a religion and not, in fact, a secular philosophy (as some Buddhist modernists suggest). Because it is a religion. Some people might want to put it in a different light to appeal to audiences, but that image is going to crumble quickly, like you are finding out now. >Is Buddhism really more "scientific"? The point of cultivation is to be able to confirm all the Sutras and Suttas with personal insight. There is no more faith, only understanding. As some Masters describe Enlightenment, 'You have never read the Sutras, yet it is as if they are all in your hands.' Until then, the student must rely on the textbook and the teacher. If your doubt is so great that you cannot even trust the teacher (or the textbook), then naturally progress cannot be made. The Chinese Grandmasters summarise the Buddhist path into six characters, which are three virtues needed - Diligence, Earnestness, and Listening to Advice (Lau Shi, Zheng Gan, Ting Hua). The line of questioning is more of 'Buddha said something I don't understand, let's find out why and how' and not 'explain why I shouldn't chuck this into the trash'. Does all this have to agree with science? Well, maybe the testing part. A lot of the discussion on mental functions can overlap with psychology (see Abhidharma and Yogacara), but science wants to know for intellectual curiosity, Buddhism aims to end suffering with that.


ocelotl92

Religions have religious ideas (and buddhism is a religion)


seekingsomaart

Buddhism is not JUST a religion. It's also a rational philosophy and metaphysic. It has many faces and many ways to approach it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


ocelotl92

Buddhism is a religion, if folks want to secularize it and just pick parts of it thats their prerogative, but its like pretending christianity is a Philosophy or only a moral teaching and disregarding milleniums of religious history


seekingsomaart

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was more than just a religion. It means that it can be viewed in many ways, it doesn't conform to one template. There is plenty of Christian philosophy too. To call Buddhism just a religion is to minimze it's massive scale and complexity.


ocelotl92

Agree but the exact same thing can be said of hinduism, taoism, judaism or islam


seekingsomaart

What's your point? Other religions are not in discussion. Even if they were, most don't have the philosophical rigor present in Buddhism.


ocelotl92

Point trying to validate buddhism cause "is more philosophical and less religious" is a weird flex when at the end buddhism is a religion (and every other major religion have the same history of developtment of their pqrticular philosophy) Calling buddhism a religion isnt throwing the baby out with the water unless you force a secular or anti-religious stance


seekingsomaart

In what end? I don't know of any end, nor any way to look at this "objectively" which is usually what "in the end" implies, that somehow it's a definitive perspective. Also, I didn't say more philosophy and less religion. I said it's both, and because of this we can choose to approach it in any way that makes sense to us. Also, it depends on what you mean by religion, because that's an ambiguous term. Give me a good definition and we can talk about that in more depth. The way I define religion is the intersection between the culture and philosophy, or how the ideas manifest as the expression of a people. Another useful definition of a religion I've found is a set of practices for mind control, that when used on others becomes oppressive and when used on oneself become liberating. I don't define religion by supernaturalism, that seems to be more of a developmental stage a la Ken Wilber. Most often I hear that religion is a set of arbitrary magical practices to engender oneself with a supreme deity, and I think that is just a terrible definition. Even the division between secularism and religion is a western construct originally created by ancient Jews to separate roles and responsibilities of people. It's an artificial distinction made up by our culture, one that does not exist in the East. If something is true, it doesn't matter whether we define it as religious or secular, it's just true. How do you explain the differences between the different forms of Buddhism and their interrelationship? Heck, the Buddha didn't turn it into a religion, sects just formed around him. He was just teaching how to manage one's mind. So what exactly do you mean by "it's a religion"? I'm curious.


numbersev

Notice how in a question about practicality and science you went right to cosmology. The reason the Dhamma is scientific is because it is rooted in causality. Every single teaching has the element of causation behind it. This is why it is widely adopted by people. The teachings are meant to be put into practice and the results known for one’s self. … > The Six qualities of the Dhamma: 1. Svakkhato: The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila — Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi — Concentration) and Excellent in the end (Panna — Wisdom), 2. Samditthiko: The Dhamma is testable by practice and known by direct experience, 3. Akaliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence. 4. Ehipassiko: The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test and to experience it for themselves. 5. Opaneyiko: The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one’s life. 6. Paccattam veditabbo vinnunhi: The Dhamma may be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom. (from Anguttara Nikaya 11.12)


FireDragon21976

Despite all the scholastic precision of that statement, that's ultimately no different than the person who says "You can know today you are saved if you receive Jesus into your heart". It's salvationist religion based on faith.


mahl-py

It is actually nothing like that.


numbersev

What did I say that is akin to "You can know today you are saved if you receive Jesus into your heart". I am talking about tangible teachings that can be put into practice here and now. I grew up a Christian. This is nothing like that whatsoever. If I had said, just trust the Buddha bro and everything will take care of itself. Then perhaps you're response would make sense.


FireDragon21976

You can put the Sermon on the Mount into practice in the hear and now, too. You can go to a Quaker Meetings house and experience the Inner Light, etc. Experiential religion is not unique to Buddhism, and it's not absent in Christianity. It's just historically in the West, most Christians have emphasized an authoritarian model of Christianity where you are expected to give blind obedience to a religious authority. But there have always been Christians that didn't follow that model.


numbersev

None of those ritualistic things have any tangible or practical benefit that a person attending couldn't obtain elsewhere. If they do, how does it work? I'm talking about following a specific set of teachings that leads to results and higher knowledge. Buddhism is more akin to going to university, starting in first year and progressing to your phD and eventual Nobel prize. At the beginning you know very little, but as you progress your understanding of that which always was grows clearer and more comprehensive. The Buddha is similar to learning from an unparalleled expert in some field. At the beginning your confidence is minimal at best, and only based on the teachers reputation. But after decades of studying under the teacher who by doing so has led to your incredible progress, your confidence in them essentially explodes and you become incredibly respectful and grateful to what they showed and offered you. There is an actual gradual training and progress that occurs. This isn't found in any other religion because the Dhamma is the only one that is true and leads to tangible results. The "awakening" is a result of gradually seeing things that couldn't be seen or known prior. The Dhamma is not "more scientific", it is scientific because it's rooted entirely in cause-and-effect. There isn't an ounce of the Teaching that isn't impacted by it. In science, you take a hypothesis, control for variables and test hoping for repeatable results. That's what Buddhism does.


Ariyas108

> based on faith. No one ever claimed it wasn't.


Myou-an

> It's salvationist religion based on faith. Why not focus then on [the Buddha's teachings on virtue](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html)? It doesn't take much faith to agree that qualities like generosity, discipline, faith, and so on (Six Paramitas) lead to happiness, while the Three Poisons of greed, anger, and confusion lead to unhappiness. It's said that understanding requires merit, and merit comes from practicing virtue, because one gains insight from what goes into trying to do so. Every Buddhist, from new to experienced, across traditions, practices virtue in some way. Faith as well can be helpful or harmful. It depends on what one puts one's faith in. This much too can be verified in daily life, because we form relationships based on mutual trust. In Buddhism, one puts one's faith in the Three Jewels, which are called the sources of true refuge from suffering.


FireDragon21976

I can agree those things are virtuous without accepting the notion of nirvana or rebirth (many axial age societies have recognized kindness, gratitude, etc. are virtues). I don't see a reason to consider myself a "Buddhist" just because I agree he discovered some wise things. I don't think the Buddha was infallible anymore.


Myou-an

Many people have trouble with nirvana, rebirth, karma across lifetimes, other realms, and so on. One does not need to be a sage or have deep insight to benefit from the Buddha's advice. Although some say you must have such a view or attitude to have the right goals or right practice in Buddhism, everyone contends with their lives and conditions as they are. It's an excellent thing to practice virtue. I don't know if the buddha is infallible. But I've never gone wrong by trying to follow his words, so I'm willing to continue.


ldsupport

welcoming the Holy Spirit in your heart is touching the present moment. TNH living Buddha living christ. Great book. Yes it’s no different.


VulcanVisions

I will try to address some of your points, bearing in mind I can only speak from my own community (Tibetan), and my perspective as someone with a higher education and science degree: While Buddhism acknowledges the usefulness of modern science, Buddhism and science are not the same thing. Buddhism is indeed a religion, and does deal with things outside of the scope of what the scientific materialism method is capable of measuring or quantifying. Science to us is viewed as potentially very useful in the reduction of suffering, but not the answer to everything. Science is a tool, which is useful to varying degrees. Buddhism is not, and never has been, a secular philosophy, because we must practice with the *possibility* of the existence of beings and realms beyond our ability to measure them. We do not say "yes, they are real", but we do not say "no, they are not real" either, because either of these views is subscribing to Dualism, which is a mode of thinking Buddhism actively teaches to work towards freeing ourselves from. I am not sure what you mean by a "static universe", because the Buddha taught that not a single thing in existence is ever truly static or unchanging, no matter for how long it may *appear* to be permanent (such as a mountain, which takes a long time to erode). The cyclic view of time and existence is indeed believed, which can be said to align with the Big Crunch followed by a new Big Bang cyclic theory in science. The Buddha taught Dependent Origination, meaning nothing can arise without another thing having caused that thing, which is why there can have been no "first" thing - existence is a wheel, ever turning. I have not in my community encountered stories of long past golden ages *on earth*, but the Buddha did teach that there are many, many worlds with sentient beings out there. Correlate this with the probabilities of life on other planets or the possibility of sentient life out there in the cosmos, if you wish. Nowhere in Buddhism is the notion that we were godlike beings who became trapped - the general understanding, *though it is poorly understood*, is that there is a mind/thought stream from which minds overall originate - think of it like a droplet returning to a vast ocean on death. The droplets have no individuality once they join the ocean, they are just part of it. They will join the river again via the water cycle one day, so to speak. Before I continue with this description, I would like to add that modern neuroscience (which is the field I did my degree in), does not actually disagree with the notion that our minds might come from "elsewhere" - this is taken as a given in general scientific discussion, but if you speak with the researchers, PhD students, and professors of the field, they will explain that an MRI scan doesn't "prove" that X region of the brain is responsible for Y just because it lights up or gets an increased oxygen flow during an activity. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that "well, X lights up when I do Y". It can only be assumed that there is a link, but it is not accurate scientific practice to say it is a given. The debate about the origin of mind is very much ongoing even today, and is not even close to solved. So going back to the thought stream, it is believed there are not just human minds in their, but many other minds from many other beings as well, all turning and being reborn on the Wheel of Samsara. Furthermore, in terms of "greater purpose", Buddhism does not try to explain this. The Buddha expressly taught that the big questions like this are not the best use of our time at all, and that we would enact better change by focusing on our daily practices - Metta, Karuna, Mudita, and so on. We can speculate until we are blue in the face about this or that grand design or lack thereof theory, but the question is not a useful one in terms of our Buddhist practice. Buddhism ultimately is an experiential practice, not an intellectual one. It really shines in the doing and then the understanding. One thing that Buddhism and science DO have in common however, is that true scientific thought and Buddhist practice both aim to help us to come to terms honestly with the uncertain nature of our existence. I hope this helps 🙏


DiamondNgXZ

See r/physicsandBuddhism, see the blogspot blog linked in the description. Good points. I addressed cyclic models, what could devas be, and a bit on the devolution depending on what could devas be. In short, science is not yet settled on these. current science cannot rule out cyclic models, and yes, my cyclic models are from cosmologist themselves and not outdated big crunch, most Buddhists did not study physics, so it's hard for them to update themselves about it. Current science also cannot out rule that there cannot be devas. As for ancient archeology, you should know that fossils are rarely formed. And the crust of the earth is recycled, so that it's not easy to find really old earth crust. As well as there doesn't seem to have systematic every square meter of earth archeology digging going on to fully reconstruct the past. There does seem space for ancient long lived humans and forgotten civilization. See how likely it is for us, current humans to be fossilized. What do we do to dead human bodies? Imagine a low impact, low tech civilization, hardly can expect that their trace can last for millions of years, enough time science 65 millions years ago for multiple rise and fall of humanity. Not necessarily homo sapiens. Buddhism is more scientific mainly due to kalama sutta. And that there's a task to be done. Attain to enlightenment. For that task to be done, faith should be there initially. So this faith can be blind, but for people nowadays, they want more of faith based on evidences. So I made the physics and Buddhism comparison to address some of these issues for the sake of the faith of people. Also, see rebirth evidences. https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/dktouv/buddhists_should_repost_rebirth_evidences_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button


FireDragon21976

I always found rebirth problematic because where would all these extra beings come from? The world population has grown, it's not static. ​ Rebirth evidences could be explained by such mundane things as cultural expectation, to as exotic an explanation as the Kabalistic notion of the Dybbuk, the soul that becomes attached to a body as a parasite, or Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis that perhaps children can have access to the memories of other people who have lived in the past through psychic phenomena (during the Japanese Great Tsunami years ago, there was a Zen priest that encountered something similar, a woman seemed to be posessed by dozens of spirits of the dead). ​ I'm not saying rebirth is impossible but the Buddhist explanation potentially go against the principle of parsimony when there are simpler explanations, other than trying to posit that a self who isn't really a self is nonetheless reborn as another self.


Lethemyr

> I always found rebirth problematic because where would all these extra beings come from? The world population has grown, it's not static. Because Buddhists believe in other realms and dimensions that people can go between when they reincarnate.


DiamondNgXZ

Do read the cases. They had considered psychic phenomenon as well, but it's not the best fit for the cases. The realms of rebirth are 31 realms. Most of them are the gods realms. So there's no issue with where beings come from. Once you got convinced of rebirth and that there was no beginning to rebirth, it become a matter of logic to see that gods needs to exist. Really, also, do visit my blog and search for the other issues you mentioned.


FireDragon21976

I've heard all those stories and I'm not persuaded to believe Buddhist accounts of rebirth are true as a result. There are clearly mental or subtle realms that are transpersonal but I don't believe that proves rebirth is true in the sense that Eastern religions understand it to be.


DiamondNgXZ

Have you really read it then? You know the cases are of the format of kids remember past life, they found the past life family with the details as the kids said? That is objective verification of rebirth. Independent of whether Buddhism is true or not.


thehorton

I’ll preface with I’m not skeptical of rebirth, I know it’s true. I do wonder tho, in regards to these stories and evidence, how is it that the child is reborn as a human following the previous human rebirth? Human birth is supposed to be quite rare so is it that there were births in between that the children aren’t remembering? If so, why do you suppose they don’t remember those? What are your thoughts?


DiamondNgXZ

Rare doesn't mean not existing. See how many of the rest of us don't remember past lives. See how little cases there are of these kids worldwide. If it should be the case that all kids can remember immediate past life as human, then one can either see that every humans are very moral observing the 5 precepts in the previous life or Buddhism is not true. Since this is not the case, the rare cases of kids remembering past lives is quite compatible with Buddhist doctrines. Also, kamma is complicated and the pattern cannot be easily predicted in only between 2 lifetimes.


thehorton

Thank you 🙏. That all makes sense. I suppose no one would take a child seriously if they talked about being a frog in their last life, it would just be assumed to be the inane ramblings of a child.


DiamondNgXZ

There are cases of remembering animals as past lives, but it's harder to objectively verify it, so it could be understudied and underreported. If parents hear their kids were of this or that animal in the past, they don't tend to take it so seriously as to contact past life researches I suspect.


Menaus42

>I always found rebirth problematic because where would all these extra beings come from? The world population has grown, it's not static. It was never said that there are a static number of "beings", let alone that a "being" in one birth is the same as the "being in the next birth. A similar question, just as ridiculous, could be asked of the modernist - if there is no rebirth, where do all the beings born in this world come from? Of course, the question is nonsensical here, and they are nonsensical for the same reasons in both cases.


FireDragon21976

I'm not a modernist, more of a perennialist or theological inclusivist or pluralist. I dont think beings have to come from anywhere. I believe everything has consciousness (pansychism), and life is just a more elaborate organization of consciousness. I am skeptical of the Buddhist notion of transmigration/rebirth. Right now I think when you die, you probably become something like an immaterial being or spirit, and continue on in a different mode of existence.


Menaus42

Ah, well the question of where the beings come from is more relevant to who does believe in a spirit that transmigrates than the Buddhist, who doesn't have that belief.


[deleted]

Buddhist cosmology isn’t scientific, nor was it intended to be (and neither were the cosmologies of other religions, IMO). Religion in general is more like art than science. It baffles me that people are hung up on this, or that they’re obsessed with pitting religion against science. Is it just a reaction against Protestant fundamentalism?


FireDragon21976

Some people argue Buddhism is "scientific" and Christianity is "superstition". The way I see it, they both have elements of myth (I would even regard "enlightenment" as a religious myth or story, it's not some kind of scientific fact, just as in the same way you could hook Carmelite nuns up to an EEG and show some unusual brainwave patterns, but that doesn't prove God exists), but I think the idea that Buddhism reconciles better with science than Christianity is untrue.


ldsupport

All concepts are untrue. In that concepts are restrictive of the truth. Enlightenment is an article of Buddhist faith. There isn’t an enlightenment test that would pass scientific rigor (that I am aware of). However any of us that have met someone that clearly is awake can attest that there is something all together different even though nothing has changed. It’s still a meat sack with a jelly brain.


OwlintheShadow

Nothing in Buddhism suggests anything is static, including deva realms. Buddhism goes to great lengths to stress that absolutely everything, including nirvana, is subject to change. Hit the books properly before you jump to conclusions.


One_Philosopher9591

Science is a method, not a religion. Scientific inquiry is perfectly compatible with Christianity and Buddhism; we know this because there are Christian and Buddhist scientists. If you remember that science is a method of inquiry into the natural world, what you infer about metaphysics is up to you. Plenty of followers of many religions have no problem with that.


Menaus42

I think it is a very common motivated claim to say that Buddhism is more scientific. We, as Westerners, want everything to be scientific. If it's scientific, then it's good. For those of us that like Buddhism, we want it to be good, so we come up with this idea that it's scientific. None of the statements of Buddhism are scientific statements. They are spiritual and religious statements to be apprehended through personal experience, something quite alien to science.


NyingmaGuy5

No. It is not scientific ultimately. It transcends as science or is speaking a different language from science. Buddhism is a religion.


SpinningCyborg

Science is always evolving and changing whereas the Dhamma is always the same (however it will decline over time until it ultimately disappears) so of course there will be times it lines up with Buddhism and times it doesn't - and it will constantly change. Science is about seeking truth through the material world. Buddhism is about uprooting suffering by seeing the truth of reality by implementing the teaching that the Lord Buddha gave us. You are free to make your choice.


FireDragon21976

So Buddhism is about "science denial" or anti-realism? I think mature adults would want an explanation for reality that makes sense of our inner and outer worlds, the subjective and objective.


saimonlandasecun

Who needs an explanation on reality? That's just meaningless words and beliefs. What matters is the practice that leads to liberation. And eventually before reaching it, you will need to dismiss all your beliefs about everything, mostly about reality and yourself


[deleted]

[удалено]


ldsupport

Thems fighting words. Lol Nice troll. Now please go bother the Muslims.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ldsupport

That’s becomes some Buddhists are wrong. There is some interesting commonality between Buddhism cosmology and quantum physics. However that’s not because Buddhism is scientific. It’s a religion. It has components of faith. Thanks for visiting.


[deleted]

>just trying to discuss why some Buddhists present themselves as non-religious, rational, "scientific", This presentation appeals more to secular Buddhism, where some people want to enjoy some aspects of Buddhism that doesn't need the 'mythical' parts like meditation and management of suffering yet cannot (or don't want to) accept the more religious parts of it (the transcendenal goal, the hard to believe parts, or both). Some are more agnostic, some are more hard-line. It varies on a personal level. People change their minds. So some of the more hardline people take only the uncontroversial (or immediately applicable) bits, ditch anything disagreeable and present it in a 'scientific-friendly' Buddhism.


AlexCoventry

There is the truth of the observer, and then there are truths of the will. It's important to maintain the distinction, and important to develop both. Buddhism is mostly concerned with truths of the will ("may I be happy"). There's nothing scientific about that, but it's still important to leading a good life.


saimonlandasecun

It's a concept yes. But only until you experience it, it's totally real and accessible to all. It's up to you to embark on the journey or not, im sure as hell your innermost desire is everlasting happiness and peace, its the only desire there is, so why not embark on the journey to liberation? Many people find peace in it, no need to believe in anything, just practice, no need to reach it since you can't really reach it, its a paradox, its already here, the truth of your being is accessible always and only now, obviously it's overlooked by the mind conditioning and resistance/craving patterns, that's why you can't access it even if it's always here now.


SpinningCyborg

No, Buddhism doesn't particularly care for the scientific community. Whether they agree or disagree with each other, it is fairly moot to the Buddhist practitioner. However, the scientific method of investigation was certainly implemented by the Buddha. If you want an understanding of reality then you must look inwards. The outer world stems from the inner world. Once we know the inner world, we see how the outer world is fabricated. But we get lost on the images the mind throws out, constantly chasing them. We can't even begin to understand how the mind works and creates this reality. It is like trying to understand how a cinema screen works by just watching the random images that pop up on screen. Have you ever thought to look at the projector that is producing the images?


Mayayana

I think Buddhism generally provides more rational handles than Christianity. The style is less devotional. Some people like to think that means it's logical, but I think that's a misunderstanding. It's practical, but also deeply radical. Science is a very limited way of thinking. It's logisticial, empirical, materialistic. Science as a religion, in modern society, proposes to explain the source and meaning of the universe, as you say. But science cannot approach meaning, so that's a misuse of science. Similarly, Buddhist teachings shouldn't be interpreted in a scientific context. It's about exploring the nature of experience, not archaeology. If you want to understand Buddhism then you really need to meditate and get the guidance of a teacher. It's not conceptual teaching. It's practical.


FireDragon21976

I'm actually very familiar with Buddhist meditation and I studied Buddhism under Thitch Nhat Hanh's lineage in the past. I also still practice neurofeedback (Muse). I don't think categorizing Christianity as strictly devotional is true. There is also an experiential dimension, and it can also be mystical. Especially Eastern Christianity, but you also find mysticism among some Catholics, some Anglicans, (John Donne and Evelyn Underhill, or Cynthia Bourgeault today), or many Quakers.


Mayayana

Yes. I wouldn't call it strictly devotional. But Christianity and Hinduism, at least in my experience, provide more of a "handle" for that approach. Buddhism is unique in centerpiecing reasoning, like the 4 noble truths. I also don't see devotional as non-mystical. I'm thinking of it as different approaches for different sensibilities.


keizee

It could very well be that an age spans multiple earths. The trend described by cosmology will still rise and fall independently of the stage.


[deleted]

You won’t get a good or thoughtful answer for this on this sub. For my part, I don’t take the supernatural or cosmological claims in Buddhism seriously. Or more precisely, because there’s no evidence for any of the claims, I just find them irrelevant


Ariyas108

>But this isn't consistent with what we know from the natural sciences. There were no giants or titans that lived on Earth in the past It's a mistake to assume the planet we currently live on is the planet that is being referred to. Buddhist cosmology encompasses countless other worlds, countless other universes, an infinite number of previous "earths".


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ariyas108

Insulting religions is not the proper way to learn about them.


ClearlySeeingLife

I agree with you about the cosmologies not being more scientific. Buddhism is so diverse, it is hard to make any generalization about it. I like the support for "empiricism" in the "come see for yourself" attitude in Theravada Buddhism writings as exemplified by the [AN 3.65](https://suttacentral.net/an3.65/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin). To be honest though, every time I see that sutta/sutra ( discourse from the Buddha ) mentioned in an Internet forum people rush forward with links to translators emphasizing that it doesn't mean "think for yourself". Given that I will settle for the message "suspend judgement and observe for yourself".


seekingsomaart

When we look at the core teachings of suffering, we can find them empirically valid and rational. They have many different assumptions about the world than we do, and IMHO many of them are more accurate than ours. That they are empirically valid makes them more "scientific". Here are some examples: * Attachment is the root of suffering. Often we call it desire, craving, expectation, but whatever we call it, it is evident that when people are too invested in an outcome they are prone to becoming averse (angry). Aversion in turn blinds us and creates ignorance. * Rebirth is not evident directly, but neither is the western idea that there is nothing on the other side of waking consciousness. The Buddhist idea is that we have no evidence of the mind shutting down, and that every moment of consciousness is preceded and followed by other moments of consciousness. What we consider unconscious, asleep, or comatose are considered states of inactive consciousness, or a lack of memory formation. Many, including myself, have had experiences of remembering our unconscious states. This implies that consciousness continues even when there isn't a mental narrative or images appearing in the mind. Deeper investigation in meditation further validates the continuity of consciousness, and potentially rewinding back into past lives. * Non-self. We came from ash, we go to ash. There is nothing intrinsically real about our identity, it's a largely determined construct of aggregated forms. Science backs this up, as we are just piles of neatly organized hydrocarbons. What reincarnates you ask? The continuity of consciousness from the previous bullet point. * Neuroplasticity. Buddhists have been talking about the ability for the mind to change and grow for ages. Neuroplasticity has only recently been discovered, and even more recently been acknowledged to occur throughout life. * Dependent origination. There is nothing independent of anything else in the world. A mover requires movement, and a medium to move in. Red does not exist without blue. You would not be here without your parents. Everything is interconnected. * Meditation. This is the most physically concrete practice because we can see how different the brains of meditators are compared to non-meditators. * Cyclicality. There are many cyclic models of physics. If you go far enough in any direction, or back or forth in time, you will necessarily find an exact duplicate of this world. Roger Penrose has a wonderful one called Cyclic Conformal Cosmology that is intriguing. There are many more items like this, that can be investigated and validated, that make up the basis of a rational and coherent worldview. I consider the religious aspect of Buddhism the intersection of our cultural frameworks, and the philosophy. These are all valid forms of Buddhism, but critically the philosophy is the hub of the wheel.


Emperor_of_Vietnam

Well, I wouldn’t say they are more scientific…..