tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post5615235348164264154..comments2024-01-22T08:01:58.626-08:00Comments on Panexperientialism: Does Secular Buddhism entail rejection of Rebirth?Justinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-31087712196528929802011-11-26T16:52:07.197-08:002011-11-26T16:52:07.197-08:00Hi Charles
Thanks for the insightful comments.
I s...Hi Charles<br />Thanks for the insightful comments.<br />I suppose a Buddhism "consistent with modern science" to me is one that, firstly, is not contradicted by empricially verifiable facts and secondly, accords with principles of reasoning such as internal consistency, coherence, parsimony, simplicity etc.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-44424896571005938682011-11-24T21:20:17.562-08:002011-11-24T21:20:17.562-08:00OOps--sorry for the double post.
Charles Myr...OOps--sorry for the double post.<br /><br /><br /> Charles Myro--------Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-54098914443516128302011-11-24T21:18:42.808-08:002011-11-24T21:18:42.808-08:00Hi, Charles Myro here,
Agree with you, if you ...Hi, Charles Myro here,<br /><br /> Agree with you, if you are saying that there is nothing necessarily incompatible about the term secular and the belief in reincarnation. People will differ as to whether or not "Buddhist" and "non-believer in reincarnation" are compatible.<br /> If one simply is a sitter, a la Soto Zen, and otherwise has no belief in common with Soto Zen--I would say that no, one is not a Buddhist. But ultimately, it seems arbitrary. What if you have no belief in common but live in a Zen monastery? Seems arbitrary.<br /> But what if you are so scientistic you can never can agree that emptiness is form and form emptiness---a fundamental result of expeeriential Buddhist practice? What if you hold as dogma the doctrines of physics--and shun different belief?<br /> Are you a Buddhist then? Could you restate such a fundamental Zen<br />insight in scientific terms somehow? Science would surely reject such a thing. Why even call yourself a Buddhist in that case? I don't get it.<br /> If one is completely scientistic<br />one would not practice Buddhist meditation at all, it seems to me. <br /> Buddhism is a practice for direct seeing into fundamental reality--insights into reality are what it is aimed at. And ultimately<br />the reality goes past all form whatsoever---that is a fundamental<br />Buddhist tenet. Science does not hold that reality may be got at by such a method-- which it considers "sujective" and so invalid. But, I do know a couple of scientists (but only a couple out of many I know) who do sit Soto and have no problem holding the science view in the science lab and the Zen view in the meditation hall. As I say, ultimately the reality does go past it all. <br /> I have sat Soto for 20 years and<br />whether there is reincarnation or not--does not concern me, I just don't care. But I would say I am more Buddhist than anything.<br /> A Buddhism "consistent with modern science?" What does that mean? Again, if you adopted to the full the view of science--you might do meditation---but as a relaxation practice and nothing more. Now if you pursued such practice for years and had a fundamental insight into reality--as can happen----science would deny that you had anything but a mental fantasy. Is that the kind of "consistent" you've in mind?<br /> In my estimation, Batchelor, whose books I have read, has never had the fundamental insights accruing to Buddhis practice.<br /> There is the story of a fierce and entirely non-religious Indian bandit, one of whose intended victims persuaded him to begin the practice of mantra as pure technique outside a religious context---and after years of practive he achieved profound insight into the origin and nature of the world. Clearly the story illustrates that secularity is no<br />boundary to insight--- insight that may or may not utilize Vedantic or Buddhist or some other common form to be described. <br /> Buddhism provides such a common form.<br /> If Batchelor wants a truly secular and appreciative description of practice and depths of insight---let him take the example of Eckhardt Tolle. <br /> But Tolle is not scientific either. I am sure he knows, as a former philosophy grad, that <br />scientism would never recognize the value of his understanding and in fact hold it to be irrational---- so why should Tolle bother to be <br />consistent with it?<br /> It is nonsense to suggest that an activity which eschews all "subjective" methods of arriving at reality---could be compatible with the most subjective method.<br /> Let me turn Batchelor on his head and say we need a science "consistent" with the insights of Buddhism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-8954713589949978462011-11-24T21:09:11.243-08:002011-11-24T21:09:11.243-08:00hi, Charles Myro here.
Agree with you, if you a...hi, Charles Myro here.<br /><br /> Agree with you, if you are saying that there is nothing necessarily incompatible about the term "secular" and the belief in reincarnation. People will differ as to whether or not "Buddhist" and "non-believer in reincarnation" are compatible.<br /> If one simply is a sitter, a la Soto Zen, and otherwise has no belief in common with Soto Zen--I would say that no, one is not a Buddhist. But ultimately, it seems arbitrary. What if you have no belief in common but live in a Zen monastery? Seems arbitrary.<br /> But what if you are so scientistic you can never can agree that emptiness is form and form emptiness---a fundamental result of experiential Buddhist practice? What if you hold as dogma the doctrines of physics--and shun any different belief?<br />Are you a Buddhist then? <br /> Could you restate such a fundamental Zen<br />insight in scientific terms somehow? Surely science would deny the validity of such. Why even call yourself a Buddhist in that case? I don't get it.<br /> Buddhism is a practice for direct seeing into fundamental reality--insights into reality are what it is aimed at. And ultimately<br />the reality goes past all form whatsoever---that is a fundamental<br />Buddhist tenet. Science does not hold that reality may be got at by such a method-- which it considers "sujective" and so invalid. But, I do know a couple of scientists (but only a couple out of many I know) who do sit Soto and have no problem holding the science view in the science lab and the Zen view in the meditation hall. As I say, ultimately the reality does go past it all. <br /> I have sat Soto for 20 years and<br />whether there is reincarnation or not--does not concern me, I just don't care. But I would say I am more Buddhist than anything.<br /> A Buddhism "consistent with modern science?" What does that mean? Again, if you adopted to the full the view of science--you might do meditation---but as a relaxation practice and nothing more. Now if you pursued such practice for years and had a fundamental insight into reality--as can happen----science would deny that you had anything but a mental fantasy. Is that the kind of "consistent" you've in mind?<br /> In my estimation, Batchelor, whose books I have read, has not had the fundamental insights accruing to Buddhist practice.<br /> There is the story of a fierce and entirely non-religious Indian bandit, one of whose intended victims persuaded him to begin the practice of mantra as pure technique outside a religious context---and after years of practive he achieved profound insight into the origin and nature of the world. Clearly the story illustrates that secularity is no<br />boundary to insight--- insight that may or may not utilize Vedantic or Buddhist or some other common form to be described. <br /> Buddhism provides such a common form.<br /> If Batchelor wants a truly secular and appreciative description of practice and depths of insight---let him take the example of Eckhardt Tolle. <br /> But Tolle is not scientific either. I am sure he knows, as a former philosophy grad, that <br />scientism would never recognize the value of his understanding and in fact would call it irrational---- so why should Tolle bother to be <br />consistent with it?<br /> It is nonsense to suggest that an activity which eschews all "subjective" methods of arriving at reality---could be compatible with the most subjective method.<br /> Let me turn Batchelor On his head---what we need is <br />science "consistent" with the insights of Buddhism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-90040777849276221322011-10-27T10:33:24.764-07:002011-10-27T10:33:24.764-07:00Keep up the posts! I've developed a fascinati...Keep up the posts! I've developed a fascination for panexperientialism and your blog has been a very useful and interesting resource.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com