The End Of Science Is Just The Start Of Buddhism
For Buddhism, Science is Not a Killer of Religion Last Monday I spent an hour listening to His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama speak on the issue of science and Buddhism. The occasion was a private luncheon for friends, donors, and faculty of the Emory-Tibet Science Initiative, a project aimed at incorporating modern science into the curriculum. Start with practicing simple mindfulness techniques. In time, these can deepen into proper 'meditation' sessions. In a sense, this is the beginning AND end of Buddhism. Eventually you will also develop wisdom (hint: it's all about impermanence) and compassion (hint: it feels good to be nice). Budda boom - you're a Buddha!
Nice job with this. I have been seeing western Buddhism as a sort of fusion of a Secular Humanist World View with the cultivation, concentration, and mindfulness practices taught by the Buddha.Nichiren Buddhism, on the other hand, as I see it, replaced the original Vedic world view with an implicit Shintoism. So, I think what we see is ritual taking on significance as a means of invoking immanent divinities for protection from harm?Another thing, I agree that visual imagery can be an effective way to communicate Buddhist teachings. Conceptualization has limits, and can cause people’s eyes to glaze over. I have taken up digital photography as a means of conveying the bliss, constancy, truth, and beauty I see in ordinary things.Sound, such as in the form of devotional music and chanting, can be another means of expressing Buddhism. I have one other thought, this one on Buddhism and Secular Humanism.
I tend to agree with the basic tenets of secular humanism in a general sort of way. I guess the one thing that bothers me is “the politics” — which is usually aligned in a certain direction.One example: I like the idea of promoting tolerance, however this tends to be rather one sided, and I am somewhat perplexed as to why. There is a visceral caution about stereotyping or offending certain groups, but no compunction about angrily lashing out at others, one in particular.The Buddhist terms for tolerance/ forbearance. Patience, both the Indic and the Chinese translations, mean to patiently endure things that offend/stress us, or otherwise diverge from what we deem acceptable limits. In a religious sense, it especially means patience with things that do not necessarily deserve patience.The English word tolerance means the same thing. I have noticed than when advocates of tolerance wish to be inconsistent; they substitute the synonym condone. As in — I’ll tolerate x, but I refuse to condone y.Anyway, I think Buddhism has something to offer everyone, regardless of their political affiliations.
By aligning with one side or another, we might alienate the exact people we want to, and can, reach.Those are just some thoughts I have right now, and I reserve the right to contradict myself later on. Rev.Very good read. Thank you for posting this. This is an issue I’ve ruminated over extensively for a long time.I am curious as to why you did not consider Zhiyi. Admittedly, my familiarity with Zhiyi is through translations and secondary studies.
With that caveat out of the wayI think he has a lot to offer for the task you address here. Applying his ideas – Four Siddhantas, methods of reading the Sutra (“Causal Situation (reading the text more or less literally), Root and Trace (determining the hidden identities of the protagonists), Doctrinal Category (analyzing a passage in terms of Tiantai Classification of Teachings), and Contemplation of Mind. The last consists of a purely metaphorical reading of the text, in which each figure and situation represents some aspect of the practitioner’s own mind.” Ziporyn, Evil and/or/as the Good, p. 184.), Opening the Provisional to Reveal the Real I think Zhiyi offers an excellent theoretical framework to approach the questions you raise here.
Michael,Great article. After filtering out whatever cultural barnacles that have attached itself to my particular Buddhist practice or world view, then studying as much as my capabilities provided me, I found my Buddhism more and more secular in nature. So much so that Buddhism, instead of being something I practiced or adhered to, became the place I came from.
The End Of Science Is Just The Start Of Buddhism Love
There are a great many lessons about the human condition to be gleaned from religious texts. But it seems that as a species we tend to intuitively reduce something like a contextually profound metaphor into a literal absolute formality.
I forget who said it but if you want to make an atheist out of a Christian, have them actually read the entire bible instead of just the parts that confirm what you already believe.Thanks again for the article. “Its practice of choice is seated meditation as drawn primarily from the Zen, Tibetan Buddhist, and Theravada traditions, three of the four Buddhist worlds in which most Beat/Hip-era seekers were eventually drawn. The fourth was Soka Gakkai, which, despite its early core of countercultural adherents, socially engaged orientation, and diversity, is not generally seen to be a part of this mainstream due, apparently, to its Nichiren chanting practice and its political engagement in postwar Japan.”In my experience, the Gakkai also attracted some who were not really part of the counterculture, who were more fly-over country types and not as secular humanist or post-modernist in their world view. There was a time when I hoped Nichiren Buddhism might have a broader appeal on traditional Main Street, but it appears, for now, that the mainstream churches are meeting the spiritual needs there. Interesting article.Very interesting.I question, however, the utility of making Buddhism appealing to those whose ideas are, in the end, inherently antithetical to it. The twentieth century saw this tactic on a grand scale, when religious figures would have been better served challenging the basic premises of naturalism instead of assuming that it is somehow more reasonable.Materialism assumes a host of metaphysical principles which are neither a priori knowable nor a posteriori demonstrable. Additionally, its adherents and proselytizers routinely commit gross logical fallacies.
One might well question the merit of assuming from the start that materialism’s claims of being “rational” or “factual” hold any water at all.