Religion in a Scientific Age?

Delivered....nope not yet, although there will be a demonstrator unit in NZ very soon (hopefully).....

We are getting a bit off topic - unless we consider this the "Church of Naim" - and we are but disciples striving to live acording to the word of Julian.

You're right. The dogma on this forum is best left for the Hifi room. (All-Naim system anyone...?)

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:
... the "Church of Naim" ...

Don't know about that, but there is the "Church of John Coltrane" in San Francisco.

A Love Supreme.

I am sure there has been spelling mistakes in some scriptures....

In the Naim of the father, the son...etc

Do not take thy Naim in vain....

Oh and the most obvious one....Celebrate not celibate...

Anyone seriously interested in the topic of the original post should read Walter Lippmann's "A Preface to Morals", available online in its entirety (for free) here . You won't believe it was originally published in 1929.

quote:

The difficulty of reconciling popular religion with science is far deeper than that of reconciling Genesis with Darwin, or any statement of fact in the Bible with any discovery by scientists. It is the difficulty of reconciling the human desire for a certain kind of universe with a method of explaining the world which is absolutely neutral in its intention.

Thanks - haven't heard of this book, or its author, but it looks interesting. Not sure about his political views, although I sympathise with his apparent frustration at the public's inability to engage thoughtfully in the democratic process. Where's a benevolent despot when you need one?!

Aha! Back on topic again! Good! The link is most interesting as it seems a sort of study rather than a polemic! I shall have to print it off though as I cannot read CRT for long!

Thanks for that! Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Hi Acad

Sorry I missed your post and skipped straight to Deane! Yes, my comment was aimed at Capra, and his ilk, so apologies if it came across as dismissive. I have a book on Nagarjuna - a commentary on his work on emptiness, published by OUP. It's clearly a work of great philosophical rigour, though I suspect that it's conclusions are accessible only to someone with experience of meditative practice. It's not a light read, and I fear that I will never be able to give it the attention it deserves. I'm still a little sceptical of the prospects for marrying the two notions of emptiness, as they seem to occur at two different, incompatible levels - macro & phenomenological in the case of meditative experience, micro and non-phenomenological in the case of quantum mechanics.

Droo,

There is no problem here – what you call macro and phenomenological is (if I understand your use of the terms correctly)the illusory appearance to an individuated mind of a seeming reality which is a result of the functioning of the the universal quantum ground of Mind (the ground consciousness in Buddhism). Even though we experience the world at the macro level as being solid etc, our analysis reveals this to be an illusion. The Madhyamaka makes the distinction between conventional reality and ultimate reality as being like two sides of the same coin. Exactly so is the relationship between the two aspects you have distinguished. There are not two emptinesses. Its all one so to speak. Enlightenment relies on the union of the two truths - ultimate truth and conventional truth - their inner nature are one and the same.

quote:

Still, I'd be interested to read your work

It is not my work although I have done an enormous amount of research which is included and on my advice the book has been re-written (twice)indeed the author and I have agonised over sentence. I think it true to say that the book in its present form (95% complete)is very different to the book as I read it for the first time 3 years ago and the changes are based on my influence however the book as a whole is still very much the work of the author and he does a far better job than I could have.

quote:

A couple of good quotes in your follow-up post - if hardly representative of (current!) scientific orthodoxy.

Very true but I could post a great many more quotes which would show that scientific orthodoxy is not so far away from the Madhyamaka position as you may think. As little as 3 years ago the gap between science and the Buddhist view was still quite wide and we had to bridge the gap from our side but now barely a week goes by without some new book being published that bridges the gap from the side of science and all these books have to be read and evaluated and it is exhausting work and thus my friend's book grows a new chapter every few weeks and I never have time do anything but read read read.

quote:

though I suspect that it's conclusions are accessible only to someone with experience of meditative practice

Although I think this is not necessarily so I think the 'conclusions' are very much more accessible to someone who has meditated on emptiness and certainly to anyone who has actually experienced the Clearlight Mind. The jump from wallowing in 'inherent existence' and understanding ultimate reality which is the lack of inherent existence is a big jump and the mind (ideally)benefits from being conditioned first. Nagarjuna's stanzas are very dense and need to be unpacked by extensive commentary which needs to be carefully reflected on preferably in the context of formal study with a qualified teacher and a stable meditation practice. The effort would be well rewarded imo.

quote:

........Clearlight Mind. The jump from wallowing in 'inherent existence' and understanding ultimate reality which is the lack of inherent existence is a big jump and the mind (ideally)benefits from being conditioned first. Nagarjuna's stanzas are very dense and need to be unpacked by extensive commentary which needs to be carefully reflected on preferably in the blah, blah......

And your point is...?

Ian

....reminds me of...the Matrix....

People start to realise that the reality they thought was real was in fact someone elses reality...

quote:

Originally posted by ianmacd:

quote:

........Clearlight Mind. The jump from wallowing in 'inherent existence' and understanding ultimate reality which is the lack of inherent existence is a big jump and the mind (ideally)benefits from being conditioned first. Nagarjuna's stanzas are very dense and need to be unpacked by extensive commentary which needs to be carefully reflected on preferably in the blah, blah......

And your point is...?

Ian

Evident to an intelligent mind. What is yours?

Acad - thanks for the detailed reply; I understand where you're coming from (even if certain forum members don't!), and don't find anything to strongly disagree with in what you say. I appreciate your use of inverted commas when referring to Nagarjuna's 'conclusions'.

I am still sitting on the fence on the whole issue.

Clearly neither science nor regligion has all the answers. Even the best of their ideas have to be explained so that people like me, who are too dim to understand it straight off, can possibly comprehend it.

I tend to an increasingly moderate view, that I could not care less what people believe so long as it does not give them a feeling of certain [and unjustified] superiority over non-believers or comprehenders!

Once this "superior" mind set creeps in, at the least we get evangelism, and at worst evil interpretations are used to justify alsorts of mayhem, even if trhis is not usually a mainstream response. This applies to both science and religion unfortunately.

I am inclined to think that a healthy "metaphoric" dose of salt should be taken with it, whether science or religion, in very many cases! One has to examine the motivations behind each case in the first place, and decide if there is any possibility of good coming of it!

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
There is no problem here – what you call macro and phenomenological is (if I understand your use of the terms correctly)the illusory appearance to an individuated mind of a seeming reality which is a result of the functioning of the the universal quantum ground of Mind (the ground consciousness in Buddhism). Even though we experience the world at the macro level as being solid etc, our analysis reveals this to be an illusion. The Madhyamaka makes the distinction between conventional reality and ultimate reality as being like two sides of the same coin. Exactly so is the relationship between the two aspects you have distinguished. There are not two emptinesses. Its all one so to speak. Enlightenment relies on the union of the two truths - ultimate truth and conventional truth - their inner nature are one and the same.

Hello Acad

There is an awful lot packed into this paragraph. I would like to understand this better. Could I ask you to define for me your understanding of "the ground consciousness".

Best wishes from Ears.

Hello Ears,

I will write something ground consciousness later (the sun is shining and I want to enjoy while it lasts).

In the meantime you may like to read a couple of essays by B. Alan Wallace - they are the first two articles on this link

I think the pdf version is far easier to read than the html.

Another book you may find interesting is Buddhism and Science
Also you may like to look at Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge (take a look at the review)


I know you have read Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind by the same author as all of the above but for anyone else interested the author's qualifications are: B. Alan Wallace, founder and director of the Institute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Consciousness (Santa Barbara Institute has many board members who are eminent physicists and even Christian theologians such as Rev. Anthony Freeman who wrote the interesting book God in Us: A Case for Christian Humanism - for which he was dismissed from his parish) he studied physics as an undergraduate at Amherst College and received his Ph.D. in religious studies from Stanford University. Wallace trained for many years as a monk in Buddhist monasteries in India and Switzerland and has taught Buddhist theory and practice in Europe and America since 1976. He also served as interpreter for numerous Tibetan scholars and contemplatives, including the Dalai Lama. His other published works include Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind, The Bridge of Quiescence: Experiencing Buddhist Meditation, and The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness.

Hello Acad

Many thanks for the links. There's plenty there for me to study, so enjoy the sunshine while it lasts.

All the best from Ears

Not wishing to dismiss any religion, but it seems to me that seeking to explain reality in the mystical/religious sense or even the scientific one, and then requiring a big commentary to "explain it" for those too dense [like me] to understand it, makes the comprehension, in any case, an "Act Of Faith."

I am not into any acts of faith, beyond believing in the goodness of a handful of trusted friends. That of course has its own risks, as one can be disappointed by friends as well, but I remain convinced of the goodness that humans can show, though this goodness is so far from universal that I would say that there are perhaps as few as one person in twenty who is trustworthy, and perhaps one in a hundred of these will ever become great friends. Perhaps we are lucky if we find five great friends in a lifetime.

For me Mystical aspects are well enough fed by music, which fortunately requires no act of faith to be uplifted by it. There is no baggage with music, because pure music has no universal meaning, in that the messgae is only for the undividual. In this sense I am thinking of "pure music which has no words," as there is no possible or explainable agenda to it. No meaning, no propoganda value, and no reason to go to it apart from the effect it has in uplifting the undividual person, or on occasion a whole audience. Essentially this is unexplainable, but at the minimum, totally morally neutral. I think it can be better than that though.

I suspect we tend to love music which uplifts us as individuals, so we take the possitive from it. In that sense it also has a possitive aspect, which must be a good thing in that no harm results to third parties, and even the real possibly of a benefit if it makes us nicer people, who then go on to behave more humainly, and morally fairly as a result. Music can make us look outwards, and become better people. This is the only value it can have from a moral standpoint...

ATB from Fredrik

Fredrik,

The Buddhist writer Nagarjuna whom Droo and I mentioned earlier wrote in condensed stanzas as an aide to memory. The 'root text' was written in order to be memorised verbatim by any teacher and the greater meaning could then be unpacked for the student who could memorise the root text too. No faith required - just a good memory and an understanding of the meaning.

Here is an example of Nagarjuna's style (which I recite from memory)

'A different thing depends upon a different thing for its difference.

without a different thing, a different thing would not be different'

It continues for several lines which I won't bore you with but it is irrefutable when the exact meaning is understood despite the fact that at first glance it is a tad abstruse. There is no mystical element here, indeed there is not much of anything mystical in any of his writings just a relentless and systematic dissection of the illusion of an inherent reality using faultless pristine reasoning.

Very little of Buddhism requires any degree of act of faith - it was and is meant as practical advice and stands or falls on its ability to deliver a partial or complete cessation of suffering to those who put the teachings into practice - the only faith required is the faith that a particular practice might actually work if adopted in the first place which it undoubtedly does. If one meditates on compassion regularly one becomes more compassionate - this is beyond any possible debate. Likewise with the baulk of Buddhist practices.

There is only one area where an act of faith is required and this is with Tantra where faith in holy beings is prerequisite but this is a very advanced practice for adepts and initiates who would have previously received so much benefit from the simpler practices that their initial act of faith would be a very small step indeed.

Extending your musical metaphor I would say that for many adopting a higher Buddhist practice is like you finding a CD of some Bach you have never previously heard - you buy it ON FAITH based on your previous experience of Bach.

Fredrik

Acad is spot on - no faith required in Buddhism - except, perhaps the faith to keep on meditating when nothing appears to be happening. But then, I imagine this to be little different from the faith one needs to keep practising a musical instrument, when the difficulties appear to be insuperable, and one seems to be getting nowhere. It's no coincidence that meditation, and adherence to Buddhist principles generally, is commonly refered to as "practice".

I don't know if acad would agree with this, but understanding the writings of Nagarajuna is not essential to achieving the practical benefits and insights Buddhism promises. Just as well, as I have a Ph.D in philosophy, and struggle to follow his work. Individual stanzas make perfect sense, but their point is not always so obvious, nor is the meaning of a set of verses, considered together. My advice to anyone considering this path would be not to worry about "esoteric" texts to begin with, but to concentrate on establishing a solid meditation practice. I suspect I also differ from acad in not being keen on the idea of "holy beings" - at least if these are supposed to exist in a world beyond this one.

As for mysticism... there is nothing weird or mystical about meditation per se - forget all those images of shaven headed monks in colourful robes chanting. At it's simplest meditation is just paying attention to what's happening right now - beginners often start by counting breaths, which starts to strip away the mental static that accompanies our every thought and action in the normal run of events. It sounds simple, but the results are not - as I said in my very first post, one begins to see how it might be possible to experience the world in a way that's uncoloured by our own egoistic needs and beliefs - a way which I believe to be analogous to the disinterested pleasure one can take in great art (including music).

For the record, I dont call myself a Buddhist, but have meditated, on and off, for about fifteen years, outside of any organised or institutional religious context. I've no desire to make a convert of anyone here, as I'm hardly a convert myself!

Dear Droo and Acad,

This is not a dismissal of Buddhism, but I really tend to find that life has pressing immediate crises that require attention or else such practical problems as keeping a roof over my head would not be addressed. I don't think any amount of meditating is going produce the rent or whatever. In that way I am rooted in the reality that is daily life, and regard any "higher" reality as a luxury that will be afforded when the daily grind gets easier. It was ever thus, and my escape route was always in the high mysticism of pure music. Nor explainable, but potent.

As Acad knows I did an experiment with meditative listening, only to find that my listening was already meditative, though there is no doubt in my mind that the process took the level of meditation in listening a stage further [without further effort at meditating first, with the result that I am less concerned than ever about aspects of replay for exasmple!], but the act of decidedly meditating in the approach to listening is not a prerequisite for the listening to be a 100 per cent activity by now for me. I can miss the phone when listening, which indicates a certain level of absorption. Sometimes I cannot find myself lost in the music.

If anything is to be useful it must make us look outwards, to be considerate and kind to others:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

....

I suspect we tend to love music, which uplifts us as individuals, so we take the positive from it. In that sense it also has a positive aspect, which must be a good thing in that no harm results to third parties, and even the real possibly of a benefit if it makes us nicer people, who then go on to behave more humanely, and morally fairly as a result. Music can make us look outwards, and become better people. This is the only value it can have from a moral standpoint...

In this way I think that music can bring out a generosity that is inherent, but probably only if it is inherent in the individual.

In other words, just as we as individuals paint a sort of personal meaning onto pure music, I think this very act allows us to become ourselves, and if there are positive aspects in ourselves, then this is made the clearer, and others become the beneficiaries. Music does not, in my view, make an evil person a kind person, but it may liberate the kindness in a person if this already exists, and this will be beneficial in the outward looking generosity of personality, which is essential for decent human life.


Of course the religious route will actually possibly have this benefit to a much greater degree, because religions have a moral standpoint that is at least partially definable.

In this way, I look at it and wonder how much harm has come about where individuals corrupt the concepts in their religion, and think that the vehicle for self-improvement that it should be can therefore easily be corrupted in some cases, though this can hardly have been the intention of the founders of the religions concerned. It is this aspect that makes me doubtful of any religion being my chosen tool to battle through life!

Perhaps I am a proper heathen!

Thanks for your considered replies.

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Hi Fredrik - all fair enough, but please don't make the mistake of viewing meditation as essentially inward directed - it can look both inward and outward, and ultimately undermines the basis of that distinction anyway. On whether meditation helps to pay the rent, etc, I like this Buddhist parable very much:

A man once came to see the Buddha because he heard that the Buddha knew how to solve problems. The man had more trouble than he could handle and so he knelt and begged, "Lord, my life is nothing but conflict and sorrow. Help me to find peace."

The Buddha smiled. "Tell me what is wrong, my brother."

"I'm a farmer," said the man, "and a good one. I enjoy farming. But there is always trouble with the weather. Sometimes it doesn't rain enough and my crops die, and my family nearly starves. Other times it rains too much and my crops die, and my family nearly starves. No matter what I do, my livelihood brings me nothing but anxiety."

The Buddha listened quietly as the man continued.

"I have a wife and two children. I love them all, but sometimes being a husband and father is nothing but headaches! My wife nags me so much that if I lived to be a hundred I couldn't figure out all that she wants from me! And my children! They eat my food and spend my money, but they don't respect me or the land. They sit around, useless and greedy."

The Buddha nodded.

"And then there are my neighbors! This one steals my water; that one moves his fence onto my property. Another one drives his cattle across my field. And the worst of the lot has an idiot son who wants my precious daughter. I can't work my crops without having to argue with one of them about something."

The man went on this way, carefully cataloging all his troubles. After an hour or so he was nearly in tears, too agitated to speak. He bowed his head and waited for the Enlightened One to speak the words that would would end his suffering.

The Buddha said, "I'm sorry, brother. I cannot help you."

The man was incredulous."What do you mean, you can't help me?" And then, disgusted, he sneered, "What use are you if you can't even tell a simple farmer how to improve his life?" He stood up to leave.

The Buddha answered, "It's true that I can't help you. And I don't think anyone else can, either. But perhaps I can tell you how to get help from the one person who can help you... yourself."

The farmer sat down and listened.

"You," said the Buddha, "and everybody else who is born into this world of Samsara have been given Eighty-Three problems. You deal with them as best you can. Whether you merely survive them or whether you constructively work to solve them, you find that no sooner do you handle one problem, but another one instantly arises to take its place. That's how life is."

The farmer considered this. "Yes," he said. "but can we solve all Eighty-Three problems in this lifetime?"

"Ah, said the Buddha, "that's the trouble. Once solved, they don't stay solved. They keep coming back, sometimes in different places and sometimes with different people."

"Then, will I never be happy? Will these Eighty-Three problems hound me even to the grave?" Suddenly the farmer was angry. "What kind of teaching is this? What am I to do now?"

"Well," said the Buddha, "You can solve the Eighty-Fourth problem."

"Oh, wonderful!" said the man sarcastically. "Now I have Eighty-FOUR problems! And what might that problem be?"

"The Eighty-Fourth problem," replied the Buddha, "is the desire not to have any problems."

"The Eighty-Fourth problem," replied the Buddha, "is the desire not to have any problems."

Dear Droo,

Now I think we are getting to the nub of it, perhaps!

I have devised ways of avoiding many problems in life. Never borrowing means not worrying about payback. Generally spending little means not having to earn too much, which may be impossible to earn of course depending how skilled or intelligent you are. Being kindly even to people you don't know means they quite often are less rude back than they might have been!

You get the picture.

But there are certain problems which I cannot deny I would prefer not to have, which will not evapourate, and have to be worked at in the same way the Dutch have to maintain their dykes to stop the sea coming in. On that level I no longer have any problems that would not be solved by winning the Lottery!

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

Hi Droo,

[QUOTE] I don't know if acad would agree with this, but understanding the writings of Nagarajuna is not essential to achieving the practical benefits and insights Buddhism promises.

I agree.

quote:

Just as well, as I have a Ph.D in philosophy,

Great. What was your thesis about? What do you do now?

quote:

My advice to anyone considering this path would be not to worry about "esoteric" texts to begin with, but to concentrate on establishing a solid meditation practice.

Mine too.

quote:

I suspect I also differ from acad in not being keen on the idea of "holy beings" - at least if these are supposed to exist in a world beyond this one.

Ah yes, holy beings, Buddhas, deities etc. Their function is (as you know)to 'bestow blessings' according to the Mahayana (one of the two main branches of Buddhism). This area is problematic to many (myself included)and is not in any way mandatory for anyone to believe in unless tyey practice tantra. Interestingly the Tibetan word for blessings is best translated as 'mind transformation' and I am happier with this - I can readily understand my mind being transformed(by my mind)in dependence on the faith I generate in a deity rather than receiving some kind of beneficial mystical radio signal from another being - however such faith does function, of that I am sure. It may be that meditating on a deity functions to tune in to a type of signal - if you dont tune in you dont get the required 'station'. Maybe there are Buddhas out there radiating signals just waiting for us to tune in or align ourselves or maybe this is just a 'Noble Lie' to get us to tune in as the mind of a 'Buddha' is in fact just the same as our own purified root mind (also called the primordial buddha or indestructible mind). It may be that Great spiritual teachers leave a powerful trace or path in the ground consciousness (analogous to the quantum ground)and what the disciple does is map their mind to it until they are inseparable - its a resonance thing perhaps. This is an interesting area to speculate upon. I have practiced tantra, even the highest level and I am convinced it is powerful stuff.

quote:

As for mysticism... there is nothing weird or mystical about meditation per se

True.

In Buddhism, I also struggle with the notion of re-incarnation, which seems to pre-suppose the possibility of a separate soul, not deriving its existence from the biological chemistry of the organism supporting the brain. I simply cannot accept "as an act of faith" the notion of mind/body dualism! When the chemistry fails and I die, that is the end of the matter in my view, and a healthy view in breeding responisbility for one's actions as one goes along.

Mind/body dualism is a big stumbling block for any religion to begin to be credible for me!

This leads me to think that we must take daily responsible for our actions, and that this responsibility is to those whose lives are immediately affected by our actions and also those who might be affected by our actions after our deaths, but nobody and nothing [mystical or supernatural] else, in my view.

Such questions are usually skirted by musings on the nature of what is reality, or the forgiveness of sins by an unseen higher authority and so forth. I can easily accept that others don't share my essentially utilitarian view, but have yet to see a convincing reason why I should hold a different view myself!

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Here is a nice one to ponder. A table and a bowl of water.

I cannot push my hand through the table surface, but I can push my hand through the surface of the water in the bowl. This indicates to me that the table is solid and the water is liquid.

Is this a reflection of reality, or only my responding to my own senses which may arguably be flawed?

My utilitarian view suggests that it is the former, and applying Occam's Razor, I can see no reason to look for a more complex answer...

ATB from Fredrik