Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Kare
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Kare »

Lazy_eye wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote: Here's a question I've wondered about. Assuming there is such a need for adaptation, which tradition is better poised to adapt? Theravada or Mahayana?

Many people would say Theravada is quite analytical, rational and compatible with science -- to a degree. It is also more stubbornly orthodox and bound by the authority of millenia-old texts. So when problem areas arise, such as the ones Alex mentioned, it can be hard to work around them.

Mahayana, it seems to me, presents almost the opposite scenario. With its pantheon of Buddhas and bodhisattvas and its many devotional practices, it seems inherently less rational in its outlook. It is also more heterodox compared to Theravada and thus (theoretically) more flexible. Since the legitimacy of Mahayana sutras is questionable and the canon is so diverse, reinterpretation presents less of a problem. And indeed Mahayana has generated a wide variety of sects and schools. (For exactly this reason, I find it a bit odd and even amusing when folks like B. Allan Wallace start playing dharma cop -- as though their own tradition wasn't a significant departure).

So what's better, from the science-minded perspective -- the more rational but rigid Theravada, or the more adaptable but less rational Mahayana? I am oversimplifying of course, but hope you can see my point.
From my point of view the different Mahayana schools have already seen a lot of different adaptions that may have been the right thing at the time and place where they were made. But they are not necessarily the kind of adaptions that we need. If we start with the Mahayana, we then have to work our way backwards through the adaptions, unraveling the detours and deadapt the Dhamma before we can start contemplating what flavor of the Dhamma that may be right for ourselves. Better then to start with the Theravada, which is closer to the historical point of departure. On the other hand we can learn a lot from seeing how the different Mahayana schools adapted the Dhamma and broke away from the rigid orthodoxy - and some of those adaptions might even work for us - as long as we remember that each of those adaptions are results of a specific time and culture.

I am a great fan of Batchelor. When I read his books, I found much that resonated with thoughts I already had. My own flavor of the Dhamma would be a mix of Theravada, Zen, humanism and science. I do not say that this is the only right flavor. Others have to make their own choices.
Mettāya,
Kåre
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by kirk5a »

Lazy_eye wrote:So what's better, from the science-minded perspective -- the more rational but rigid Theravada, or the more adaptable but less rational Mahayana? I am oversimplifying of course, but hope you can see my point.
I don't really see how science comes into play, as a practical matter. If we're following the Buddha's instructions, it's really got zilch to do with whatever science says about neurons, planets, the universe, quantum physics, electromagnetic phenomena, DNA, evolution, global warming... whatever.

Abstain from all evil, to cultivate good, and to purify one's mind. Those are timeless, a-sectarian, culturally universal principles. It's the clinging to one's own personal, cultural, views, speculative hypotheses and other assorted "adaptations" that can get in the way of that. Not the other way around.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Kim OHara »

Kare wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote: Here's a question I've wondered about. Assuming there is such a need for adaptation, which tradition is better poised to adapt? Theravada or Mahayana?

Many people would say Theravada is quite analytical, rational and compatible with science -- to a degree. It is also more stubbornly orthodox and bound by the authority of millenia-old texts. So when problem areas arise, such as the ones Alex mentioned, it can be hard to work around them.

Mahayana, it seems to me, presents almost the opposite scenario. With its pantheon of Buddhas and bodhisattvas and its many devotional practices, it seems inherently less rational in its outlook. It is also more heterodox compared to Theravada and thus (theoretically) more flexible. Since the legitimacy of Mahayana sutras is questionable and the canon is so diverse, reinterpretation presents less of a problem. And indeed Mahayana has generated a wide variety of sects and schools. (For exactly this reason, I find it a bit odd and even amusing when folks like B. Allan Wallace start playing dharma cop -- as though their own tradition wasn't a significant departure).

So what's better, from the science-minded perspective -- the more rational but rigid Theravada, or the more adaptable but less rational Mahayana? I am oversimplifying of course, but hope you can see my point.
From my point of view the different Mahayana schools have already seen a lot of different adaptions that may have been the right thing at the time and place where they were made. But they are not necessarily the kind of adaptions that we need. If we start with the Mahayana, we then have to work our way backwards through the adaptions, unraveling the detours and deadapt the Dhamma before we can start contemplating what flavor of the Dhamma that may be right for ourselves. Better then to start with the Theravada, which is closer to the historical point of departure. On the other hand we can learn a lot from seeing how the different Mahayana schools adapted the Dhamma and broke away from the rigid orthodoxy - and some of those adaptions might even work for us - as long as we remember that each of those adaptions are results of a specific time and culture.

I am a great fan of Batchelor. When I read his books, I found much that resonated with thoughts I already had. My own flavor of the Dhamma would be a mix of Theravada, Zen, humanism and science. I do not say that this is the only right flavor. Others have to make their own choices.
Something went astray with the "quote" function here, Kare (I didn't say any of what you have quoted) but other than that I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Kim OHara »

kirk5a wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:So what's better, from the science-minded perspective -- the more rational but rigid Theravada, or the more adaptable but less rational Mahayana? I am oversimplifying of course, but hope you can see my point.
I don't really see how science comes into play, as a practical matter. If we're following the Buddha's instructions, it's really got zilch to do with whatever science says about neurons, planets, the universe, quantum physics, electromagnetic phenomena, DNA, evolution, global warming... whatever.
Hi, Kirk,
Science comes into it when religious teachers demand that every word of their sacred text be accepted as literal, infallible and unalterable truth. If science tells us the round earth goes around the sun, and religion says it is a disc resting on the back of four giant elephants riding on the back of a turtle :tongue: , only one can be correct. HHDL has gone on record as saying that in such a case, the Buddhist scripture must be abandoned, and I agree completely.
It doesn't have much to do with the path to liberation but science does have to be acknowledged and fitted into the worldview of each religion.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Lazy_eye »

Also, Theravada has long been concerned with these questions. I don't have the reference handy but I read an essay awhile back (by Donald Lopez, maybe?) that showed that Theravadin teachers seem particularly anxious to demonstrate the compatibility of Dhamma and science. It seems to be part of the way the Theravada tradition defines itself. Possibly because of the modernization movements that occurred in Thailand, for instance, during the 19th and 20th centuries.

I find this is less the case in Mahayana and (especially) Vajrayana.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by kirk5a »

Kim O'Hara wrote: Science comes into it when religious teachers demand that every word of their sacred text be accepted as literal, infallible and unalterable truth.
Well I have yet to see a Buddhist teacher make such a demand.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by tiltbillings »

kirk5a wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote: Science comes into it when religious teachers demand that every word of their sacred text be accepted as literal, infallible and unalterable truth.
Well I have yet to see a Buddhist teacher make such a demand.
I know of one teacher that would hold such a position, though it seems that some followers certainly do.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Nyana »

Lazy_eye wrote:Here's a question I've wondered about. Assuming there is such a need for adaptation, which tradition is better poised to adapt? Theravada or Mahayana?

Many people would say Theravada is quite analytical, rational and compatible with science -- to a degree. It is also more stubbornly orthodox and bound by the authority of millenia-old texts. So when problem areas arise, such as the ones Alex mentioned, it can be hard to work around them.

Mahayana, it seems to me, presents almost the opposite scenario. With its pantheon of Buddhas and bodhisattvas and its many devotional practices, it seems inherently less rational in its outlook. It is also more heterodox compared to Theravada and thus (theoretically) more flexible. Since the legitimacy of Mahayana sutras is questionable and the canon is so diverse, reinterpretation presents less of a problem. And indeed Mahayana has generated a wide variety of sects and schools. (For exactly this reason, I find it a bit odd and even amusing when folks like B. Allan Wallace start playing dharma cop -- as though their own tradition wasn't a significant departure).

So what's better, from the science-minded perspective -- the more rational but rigid Theravada, or the more adaptable but less rational Mahayana? I am oversimplifying of course, but hope you can see my point.
This seems to me to be a pretty inaccurate dichotomy that you're attempting to establish here. The traditional Theravāda worldview and cosmology has much in common with the traditional Mahāyāna worldview(s), and in TIbetan traditions at least, the Sarvāstivāda cosmology is widely taught in Tibetan monastic colleges, which is every bit as "orthodox" as Theravāda cosmology. I'd also question your characterization that one tradition is more rational and the others less rational. Mahāyāna traditions have well developed systems of logic and epistemology, etc. As for compatibility with science, HH the Dalai Lama and senior Tibetan and Western students have initiated and engaged in Mind & Life Conferences with cognitive scientists, psychologists, physicists, and philosophers for the past three decades.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Kim OHara »

tiltbillings wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote: Science comes into it when religious teachers demand that every word of their sacred text be accepted as literal, infallible and unalterable truth.
Well I have yet to see a Buddhist teacher make such a demand.
I know of one teacher that would hold such a position, though it seems that some followers certainly do.
It's less common in Buddhism than in the monotheistic faiths - which is one reason I'm here instead of on the equivalent Xtian board :smile: - but it does happen. Check out http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=12472 over on our sister site for a classic example of rigidly orthodox ... I won't use the "f" word and I won't call it thinking :tongue:
However, if the great rebirth thread is anything to go by, many of us are continually renegotiating our attitude to rebirth, which is not supported by any evidence strong enough to satisfy science but is fairly central to the dhamma, so science wants to reject it but many of us want to hang on to it. :juggling:

:namaste:
Kim
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Reductor »

Kim O'Hara wrote:However, if the great rebirth thread is anything to go by, many of us are continually renegotiating our attitude to rebirth, which is not supported by any evidence strong enough to satisfy science but is fairly central to the dhamma, so science wants to reject it but many of us want to hang on to it. :juggling:
If science wants to reject it, I'd say science should instead be agnostic about it - that and God/gods. As it is, there are many reasons to doubt these things, but no sure way to disprove them.

From my perspective, its fine to say "I don't believe in rebirth, but I cannot disprove it." It's not fine to say "There is no such thing as rebirth". The first allows you to be rational without trying to drive the world into your camp, the other makes a claim which is much too big for evidence to support.
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Kusala »

Thank you, mikenz66. Sorry for the repost...
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
User avatar
Kare
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Kare »

Kim O'Hara wrote: Something went astray with the "quote" function here, Kare (I didn't say any of what you have quoted) but other than that I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
:namaste:
Kim
My apologies for making a mess of the quotes. :toilet:
Mettāya,
Kåre
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Buckwheat »

kirk5a wrote:I don't really see how science comes into play, as a practical matter. If we're following the Buddha's instructions, it's really got zilch to do with whatever science says about neurons, planets, the universe, quantum physics, electromagnetic phenomena, DNA, evolution, global warming... whatever.
What about contemplating rupa and the elements?

And from an entirely different direction, one who is heedful must contemplate the consequences of their actions, so a study of how our behavior affects change to the environment could be seen as an aspect of heedfulness.

For a third point, many studies of science could fall under generosity, goodwill, or compassion, as most science has potentially positive applications, such as reduced hunger and other forms of suffering.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Alex123 »

Reductor wrote:If science wants to reject it, I'd say science should instead be agnostic about it - that and God/gods. As it is, there are many reasons to doubt these things, but no sure way to disprove them.
Science should also be agnostic about Jehovah, Allah, brain-in-a-vat, or the flying spaghetti monster on a tea pot...

Some consider that without ability to disprove and/or verify the theory, it is not valid scientific theory - and I can see why.
Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

Post by Ben »

Alex123 wrote:
Reductor wrote:If science wants to reject it, I'd say science should instead be agnostic about it - that and God/gods. As it is, there are many reasons to doubt these things, but no sure way to disprove them.
Science should also be agnostic about Jehovah, Allah, brain-in-a-vat, or the flying spaghetti monster on a tea pot...
It is.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Locked