Is Buddhism scientific?

[Ryokan]

JetLeg, are you a Buddhist? Of what denomination?

 

[TuftedPuffin]

What the buddha is advocating is simply a rational approach to faith so that people will not be taken advantage of by charlatans or misguided into committing genocide or whatever

If only it worked...Boddhisatvas (sp?), anyone?:

 

[TuftedPuffin]

JetLeg, are you a Buddhist? Of what denomination?

Considering his thread about how much he loves the Dalai Lama, I'd say Tibetan Buddhist.

 

[Ryokan]

Considering his thread about how much he loves the Dalai Lama, I'd say Tibetan Buddhist.

Not neccesarily. New Age pseudo-Buddhists are often quite fond of the Dalai Lama.

 

[JetLeg]

Not neccesarily. New Age pseudo-Buddhists are often quite fond of the Dalai Lama.

Ryokan, what do you mean by a pseudo-buddhist? A buddhist is defined as a person that follows the buddha, that's the definition.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Ryokan, what do you mean by a pseudo-buddhist? A buddhist is defined as a person that follows the buddha, that's the definition.

I would imagine a pseudo-Buddhist is someone who says they follow the Buddha, but has no clue what that actually means.

 

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, what do you mean by a pseudo-buddhist? A buddhist is defined as a person that follows the buddha, that's the definition.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The biggest sect of Buddhism is Pure Land Buddhism, and they don't follow the Buddha. And what about Zen?

I would imagine a pseudo-Buddhist is someone who says they follow the Buddha, but has no clue what that actually means.

Exactly.

 

[JetLeg]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The biggest sect of Buddhism is Pure Land Buddhism, and they don't follow the Buddha. And what about Zen?

Exactly.

After all, it is a matter of definition. It is common to define some words by their ethymology. For example atheist comes from a-theos, so one wouldn't call that a christian. So, I guess the ethymological meaning of buddhist, is one who follows the teaching of the Buddha. You can use the word buddhist, and mean a pink elephant by that, but why should you?

 

[Ryokan]

After all, it is a matter of definition. It is common to define some words by their ethymology. For example atheist comes from a-theos, so one wouldn't call that a christian. So, I guess the ethymological meaning of buddhist, is one who follows the teaching of the Buddha. You can use the word buddhist, and mean a pink elephant by that, but why should you?

I would rather define it as one who seeks Buddhahood, i.e. enlightenment. That way, we get all of Buddhism with us, not just those denominations and sects that follow the teachings of Gautama Buddha.

 

[JetLeg]

I would rather define it as one who seeks Buddhahood, i.e. enlightenment. That way, we get all of Buddhism with us, not just those denominations and sects that follow the teachings of Gautama Buddha.

To define it this way, you have to define enlightenment, and how do you define that?


Besides the problems with defining it, different schools, have different ideas of what enlightenment is.

 

[Mojo]

There is the example of the burning monk, Thich Quang Duc: He set himself on fire, but did not make a sound or a single movement as he burned to death.

Astonishing self control, an inability to feel pain, or pharmacological help, yes. Supernatural or paranormal abilities, no.

I think I've read somewhere that severe burns like this are not as painful as you might imagine, because the nerve endings that produce pain are rapidly destroyed by the heat. I can't find anything quite on-point on the web (plenty about after-care, indicating that severe burns may not be accompanied by severe pain for this reason, but nothing about while the injury is actually occurring). Would anyone who actually knows about this care to comment?

 

[Dancing David]

Don't you all think that this shows supernatural \ paranormal abilities?

(A pity he is not available to get the million dollars )

No.

 

[Dancing David]

After all, it is a matter of definition. It is common to define some words by their ethymology. For example atheist comes from a-theos, so one wouldn't call that a christian. So, I guess the ethymological meaning of buddhist, is one who follows the teaching of the Buddha. You can use the word buddhist, and mean a pink elephant by that, but why should you?

If you call yourself a buddhist you are a buddhist.

 

[Dancing David]

To define it this way, you have to define enlightenment, and how do you define that?


Besides the problems with defining it, different schools, have different ideas of what enlightenment is.

Th alleged historical buddha said quite bit about it.

Understanding of annatta, impermanence and the darmha. The lack of clinging ,attachment, fear of the loss of the pleasurable, avoidance and fear of the unpleasant.

 

[Dancing David]

I think I've read somewhere that severe burns like this are not as painful as you might imagine, because the nerve endings that produce pain are rapidly destroyed by the heat. I can't find anything quite on-point on the web (plenty about after-care, indicating that severe burns may not be accompanied by severe pain for this reason, but nothing about while the injury is actually occurring). Would anyone who actually knows about this care to comment?

There is considerable comment here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83480

 

[Tricky]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Four Noble Truths:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. There is suffering.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. Suffering is caused by desire.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. It is possible to cease desire and thereby end suffering.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. The way to cease desiring is the noble eight-fold path (consisting of [/FONT]wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline).

At least some of the "four noble truths" are BS.

Suffering may becaused by desire, but it is only one of many sources of suffering. Suffering, a whole lot of it, is caused by physical pain. It doesn't matter what, if anything, you desire.

Also, it is not possible to end desire. Hunger is a desire for food. You can't convince yourself not to be hungry if your body needs food.

The "noble truths" are simply pap and no amount of science can show them to be true.

 

[JetLeg]

No, what the buddha said actually is that all dukkha is called by trshna. These are pali terms that don't correspond simply to suffering and desire.

When buddhist teachers explan dukkha, they explain it as mental suffering. More specifically, unecessary mental suffering. The source of it is not realizing anatta \ emptyness, according to the different schools.

It is not so simple, one needs to study more before he can criticize :

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...duction_four_noble_truth.html?query=suffering

 

[Nosaj]

Tricky,

Suffering may becaused by desire, but it is only one of many sources of suffering. Suffering, a whole lot of it, is caused by physical pain. It doesn't matter what, if anything, you desire.

Also, it is not possible to end desire. Hunger is a desire for food. You can't convince yourself not to be hungry if your body needs food.

The "noble truths" are simply pap and no amount of science can show them to be true.

While I agree that Buddhism as a whole in not scientific per se, I believe your critique of the Four Noble Truths demonstrates many common misconceptions in regard to Buddhist doctrines and philosophy. For example, the Pali word dukkha, often translated as "suffering", is philosophically complex. The Buddha detailed three types of suffering—dukkha-dukkha (suffering due physical pain and mental anguish), viparinama-dukkha (suffering that results from change), and sankhara-dukkha (suffering due to fabrication). That is why, in regard to the First Noble Truth, suffering is defined as birth, aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain grief, despair, associating with the unloved, separation from the loved, not getting what one wants, and in particular, the five aggregates of clinging (SN 56.11).

The Second Noble Truth focuses on the cause or origination of suffering. The origination of suffering is tahna (craving), which literally means "thirst" in Pali. More specifically, it is the craving that “leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for annihilation” that is the underlying cause for suffering (SN 56.11). Craving is likened to an arrow that pierces the heart, and ignorance is likened to a poison that spreads its toxins through desire, passion and ill will (MN 105). Also, I think that using the term "desire" in the place of "craving" is a bit misleading. For one reason, there are two kinds of desire (chanda) in Buddhist philosphy, desire as a defilement and desire as a part of the path.

The Third Noble Truth focuses on the cessation of suffering. The cessation of suffering is nibbana. According to Nyanatiloka Thera’s Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, nibbana literally means “extinction, to cease blowing, to become extinguished.” Nibbana is the state of final deliverance, the extinction of craving (AN 10.60), the extinguishing of lust, the extinguishing of hatred, and the extinguishing of delusion (SN 38.1). That does not mean, however, that a person will not feel physical pain or discomfort, but it does mean that such feelings will no longer cause mental suffering, emotional distress, et cetera. In fact, there are many places in the Canon where the Buddha mentions his own physical pains and ailments. This is also made clear in the simile of the dart found in SN 36.6:

An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling?

"When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling.

"Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare.

"But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one.

"Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare.

"This, O monks, is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling." (source)

Jason

 

[Nosaj]

Moderators,

In case there are any worries, the sutta translation posted above does not violate the JREF Forum rules. If one were to follow the link provided, one would see that this translation is, "For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such."

Best wishes,

Jason

 

[TuftedPuffin]

I would rather define it as one who seeks Buddhahood, i.e. enlightenment. That way, we get all of Buddhism with us, not just those denominations and sects that follow the teachings of Gautama Buddha.

True. Otherwise, certain Hindus who believe that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu would be considered Buddhist.