What is your opinion of this? Dalai Lama said...
The Dalai Lama wrote “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”What is your opinion of this?
Below answer quoted from Head Priest Of Shingyo Temple, Rev. Dr. Muko Takei
(1) I agree with his statement, "We should still take time to contemplate statements made by spiritual teachers before accepting them as truth." The Buddha taught us important "know-how" to look at various issues correctly. He gave us the Middle path (Our basic position), the four noble truths (thinking approaches), and the noble eightfold path (the guideline for right actions). So, he expected all of his people to take time to think correctly. Rev. Chris's suggestion is truly following Pre-sectarian Buddhist approach.
(2) I also agree with his scientific argument about the physical and mental benefits of meditation in general. While Shingyo Temple will offer the certificate in meditation in near future, the program is offered based on not only spiritual viewpoint but also "non-traditional" medical viewpoint. Indeed, some of the Buddha's teachings and practice (including non pre-sectarian Buddhist teachings and practice) have been scientifically or empirically proven.
(3) Rev. C said, "As pre-sectarian Buddhists we are required to have faith in the Buddha's teachings as demonstrated by the triple gem of Buddhism but our practice also serves to validate this faith through our everyday living and practice. We can experience the truth of the core teachings of Buddhism in our lives such as the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Science may disprove smaller less important elements of Buddhist mythology or even cosmology and if so I think we can adjust our views accordingly." I will take this statement with my spiritual happiness as I observed his maturity of the Buddha's intention. Good to have him as a member of Shingyo Temple.
(4) Lastly, I agree with the statement, "the Buddha encouraged his disciples to be curious and ask questions, and discouraged blind faith without investigation." That is why we are here in Shingyo Temple, correct? We will learn and apply if it will work for us. The starting point is our true faith to the Buddha's original teachings. If we will modify in order to make the Buddha's teachings and practice more effective in our everyday life, the Buddha would be so happy with us. How can anybody think that the Buddha will be upset as his teachings and practice are not directly used??? Then, this will also give us the reason why people with ears will come to us to find the Buddha's expectations and teachings to attain the final salvation.
What do you think?
by relau
What do you think?
What is there to think about? Why should one accept something that is proven to be false if proof of such falseness exists?
Will it make Gautama Buddha any less wise? Does it make Buddhism false? In my opinion, No is the answer for both questions.
Gautama Buddha taught humans about truth as best He could, giving examples and understanding suitable for people of that age and time. He cannot teach Quantum Physics to people 2,500 years ago. Not because concept of Quantum Physics doesn't exist but because humans are incapable of understanding such complex concept. Therefore, truth must be told according to ways and methods which people can understand at that time.
If new evidence are found and proven, one must have proper Mentality to accept the Truth and continue with their journey forward.
While I do not know Dalai Lama personally, I believe he could use the same logic that I will use here as a pre-sectarian Buddhist.
At least, for pre-sectarian Buddhists, there are two existences (to be subjects for scientific reasoning) in the entire world. One is substance and the other is non-substance. According to the Buddha, the only substance is the nothingness as it will never change its status. Therefore, anything else will be non-substance as it will change its status continuously.
The Buddha logically supported the point with the three subjects: body, mind, and consciousness. One will have the three subjects when one is alive. One's body and mind as non-substance will change constantly. Therefore, body and mind will not only create sufferings but also be subjects to be suffered. Then, consciousness is a true notice (without emotions or thoughts or anything), which means one's consciousness will not change as the status of noticing (fully awake) will not change. Therefore, one's consciousness is substance or identical to the nothingness. In this sense, one's consciousness will not create suffering. It will, therefore, not be a subject to be suffered. As one's consciousness is identical to the nothingness, consciousnesses of other people will be identical to the nothingness (The nothingness has only one status: fully awake without suffering.). Then, as our consciousness will be identical, the nothingness will become the true integration of our consciousness and the only substance. The Buddha called such integration nirvana.
So, if we are pre-sectarian Buddhists, we will correctly understand that the statement of Dalai Lama was talking about scientific approaches or the value of scientific proofs in non-substance. If a school of Buddhism believed that water is oil, the school should give up on the belief as science can prove that water is not oil. As long as we are alive, we have body and mind. Therefore, we have to live in the world of coexistence of substance and non-substance by honoring scientific results as much as we can. Such acceptance of scientific facts will also be a proof of our tolerance based on our position in the middle path. In fact, the scientific approach is quite similar to our approach with the Four Noble Truths (logical, relativistic, systematic, and applicable). I think the Buddha was a scientific person after all.
Now, the only problem is that the substance may not be proven by science as science cannot prove non-existing fact or phenomenon (the nothingness). Does this mean that the Buddhism has conflict with science? Does this also mean that the Buddhism should refuse scientific proofs? No, not at all.
The Buddha was scientific and knew "scientific approach" to observe, think, understand, and explain the situation in very scientific way. The Buddha's logic was, "If the science can prove existence or natural rules of non-substance, the science can have hope to prove existence of substance or the nothingness. In fact, from scientific logic, the substance (the nothingness) will scientifically exist and be proven as the opposite status of the non-substance. He did not need to wait until some scientists can prove it as he knew it will exist logically and scientifically.
That is why the Buddha's teachings are so true and realistic to us. In other words, the pre-sectarian Buddhism has been beyond the modern science for 2500 years. At least, pre-sectarian Buddhist does not have any problem or conflict with "scientific challenges" to our faith in the Buddha's teachings.
I believe that Dalai Lama understood this point when he made the comment. I will humbly suggest all members of Shingyo Temple to "talk with the Buddha" sometimes to see his insightful ideas and considerations in his teachings for people of the Buddha. Let me express sincere appreciation to his merciful considerations for all of us.
May the Buddha be with us all.
Gassho. by relau
While I do not know Dalai Lama personally, I believe he could use the same logic that I will use here as a pre-sectarian Buddhist.
You don't know Dalai Llama but you can be his mouth-piece and make a huge sermon on his name. {:1_550:}
Deh ... there is only one question here - Do you want to accept (scientifically proven truth) or not? Yes or No. Don't make a big mole hill out of one small situation. {:1_550:}
Pages:
[1]