The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #86829   Message #1619735
Posted By: *daylia*
04-Dec-05 - 08:18 AM
Thread Name: No invisible means of support
Subject: RE: No invisible means of support
All people need and want to reduce and avoid the inevitable miseries of life, and to be happy. If religious beliefs and affiliations (or lack thereof) reduce people's misery and support happiness, health, kindness and peacefulness, who in their right mind would throw the first stone?

I've explored a few different religious and quasi-religious traditions besides the brand of Christianity I was born into. And I've found that each and every one of these paths (and yes, even including   *gasp* Christianity!) offers a most valuable source of insights, truth and "life-management" skills and techniques. I incorporate whatever works from those traditions into my daily lifestyle / world-view, and leave the rest behind.   I cannot identify or affiliate myself with any particular group for long. Religions box me in, and I'm just plain miserable if denied the freedom to explore and change and grow.

Ditto for science. Science is vital and fascinating and indispensable, but only a few scientists can or will "think outside the box" that particular paradigm presents, at least publically! Just like only a few Christians or atheists etc can or will think outside their "box" of choice.

In this respect, I see no difference between science, atheism and religion.

I was reading yesterday about how the Dalai Lama addressed the Society for Neuroscience in Washington DC last week. He's been working with neuroscientists for the last twenty years, investigating the effects of Buddhist-style meditation on human brain development/capacity and psychology (ie emotional, social states).

Interesting to note that hundreds of scientists protested the Dalai Lama's invitation to speak at the College, on the grounds that he is not a scientist but a "religious" (and therefore laughable) political leader. How could anyone known the world over as the "14th incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion" have anything valuable to contribute to science or human knowledge? Why should he merit a place among the "gods" of the hallowed Halls of Science?

Interesting too that a large percentage of the protesters were Chinese, accusing him of using his work with Society for Neuroscience as a platform to promote his Tibetan political agenda.   And it's also interesting that in spite of the protests, thousands of neuroscientists and students showed up to hear him, and gave him standing ovations.

But most interesting, imo, is what the Dalai Lama had to say about Buddhism and science at that talk ...

"...If you blindly accept, you don't reach reality. Buddha said many things, but always encouraged empirical investigation, using your mind to see reality. It then developed in Buddhist tradition as a custom to examine his words and find those that contradict empirical evidence, and interpret them as less definitive.

...if the Buddha was writing now, he would write them differently, based on empirical evidence, science, and investigation...

Scientists are by definition, by and large, "openminded, objective, in the same tradition". In the Sanskrit tradition of Buddhism, if the "Buddhist finds traditions that contradict the evidence, then those parts of the tradition need to be rejected, or interpreted differently." The tradition believes there is a "liberty to change that which contradicts reality."

When I first wanted to talk to scientists, an older monk gave me the advice, "be careful. Scientists are killers of religion" - but I thought, scientists are also trying to find reality, and with an open mind. In the same way as we are .... ancient authors are viewed with 100% respect, but I told my colleagues that if we compared [these texts] to modern science, some would be contradictory.

Therefore, the Buddhist tradition, which respects empirical experience, requires us to view these texts with understanding, with the knowledge that these texts would be written differently today. I hope those senior colleagues don't view me as a rebellious Buddhist," he finished with a wicked grin."

Oh, it will be so good to see a day when scientists and religious fundamentalists of whatever stripe are this courageous, hopeful and "rebellious"!