Buddhism and developments of science.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Sovietnik
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: Buddhism and developments of science.

Post by Sovietnik »

Take a look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ro ... st-clerics
There have probably been more Catholic cleric-scientists over the past 1000 years than all Indian and Chinese scientists combined. And that's only if we don't count laymen scientists who since about 17th century dominate science and technology.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Buddhism and developments of science.

Post by pulga »

Sovietnik wrote:Take a look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ro ... st-clerics
There have probably been more Catholic cleric-scientists over the past 1000 years than all Indian and Chinese scientists combined. And that's only if we don't count laymen scientists who since about 17th century dominate science and technology.
It's a shame that the Jesuits have taken such a bad turn.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Buddhism and developments of science.

Post by Mkoll »

suttametta wrote:The oppression and destruction of peoples by technologically advanced nations is epidemic. I have very little respect for technology. We benefit from the side-effects of military rule; nothing more.
Shouldn't you have very little respect for how certain people have used technology rather than technology itself?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Moth
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and developments of science.

Post by Moth »

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. —Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya" (MN 63), Majjhima Nikaya
Science aims to understand the patterns of the world, so as to control them. Buddhism aims to understand the patterns of the mind, so as to transcend them. Buddhism ends with the cessation of suffering, but where does science end? How much can one uncover in one lifetime and for what purpose? When death comes, how will their knowledge of matter assist them?

This is not to say that I think science useless, I think it is very important on a mundane level. The scientific method of inquiry is also useful in the spiritual pursuit, and I believe the Buddha employed a version of this and encouraged his followers to do the same. However I think it is fruitless to compare science to Buddhism as they are two completely different things (and in my opinion, non-oppositional). What I find problematic is people taking science as religion itself, as science has nothing to say on the matter of the resolution of suffering. Thus, though one may know a great deal about how matter operates, they may remain clueless as to the consciousness they employ to do said knowning. Most importantly, they will have made little progress in the prospect of understanding and overcoming their subjective suffering, and this is, in my opinion, the more import goal.

As to your comment about the "western" cultures being more scientifically developed, I would ask why the "eastern" cultures have been more spiritually developed. I do not see scientific development as representing some kind of superiority, though many nationalists will take this as evidence of such. Sadly, many western civilizations have historically employed their mastery of the sciences to oppress and eradicate those "less developed" than their own, which in my opinion displays a more important deficiency. I do not mean to say this as a generalization, I too am a westerner. Perhaps I've been reading too many books about the Native American genocide...

Be well.
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
fig tree
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:25 am

Re: Buddhism and developments of science.

Post by fig tree »

My impression is that the science-friendly qualities of religion are often more an effect of the nature of the surrounding society than they are a cause.

Success in science seems to live in a symbiotic relationship with various other kinds of success in a society. Economic prosperity for example tends to help it a lot. Science in turn can give rise to technology which allows a society to make fuller use of the resources available to it. I also find the idea that science and democracy have in the long run a mutually helpful relationship very plausible. I had a neighbor who was a retired academic, and who had studied the reasons for economic success of societies. I never investigated his work but he once briefly explained that it seemed that societies in which the general public had been able to gain rights by playing elites off against each other had fared much better than ones in which some one power had been highly dominant.

I think that Christianity and Buddhism in their ideal forms are both good at getting along with science and egalitarian institutions, enough so to make a sound comparison difficult. The gap between the ideal and what we have in practice also serves to mask whatever virtues either one has in principle. Being taught to love your neighbor as yourself should inhibit one from lording it over them, but it seems in practice when the lords are in charge in a society, they manage to explain their dominance as being either God's will or the fruit of good karma, rather than a basic weakness of society. On the other hand, developing within a democratic surrounding society seems to have helped to cure Christianity in the West of many (although far from all) of its vices.

I consider freeing Buddhism from the delusions of one's surrounding society to be one of the fundamental challenges. In traditionally Buddhist societies where Buddhism is used to justify the status quo, we don't need just to go along with that. In the U.S., where Buddhism seems typically to be treated like a consumer good, we don't need just to go along with that either. We should prize those aspects of Buddhism that serve to strengthen our sense of solidarity with others and that encourage us to make an honest investigation of the world.

Fig Tree
Post Reply