Forgive me for my awkward commenting technqiue again, it will not allow me to post comments the normal way again :(.
At this point we may be tired of the Dalai Lama, but this article published in the New York Times in 2005 is quite interesting. I believe this is expounded upon in his work "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality."
Here are some big points:
1. "Science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and understanding of reality"
I believe this is often taken for granted, as scientific "discovery" is of such great importance due to financial backing, contributors, etc. and as for Buddhism - which is a religion - the "understanding reality" concept is often lost in a blinding faith theory. Perhaps I am simply cynical about religion, but I found this idea to be quite refreshing. I appreciate that such a revered spiritual leader embraces both scientific and religious study, but does not claim either to be infallible.
2.Meditation as studied by neurologists
Meditation is thought to alter brain function, and can be linking to happiness, attention, as well as perhaps increased empathy.
- "The goal of taking methods out of the traditional context is to studying potential benefits and share them with those who may find them helpful."
3. There are ethical considerations which need to be considered as we face scientific advancement
The Dalai Lama proposes a "secular ethics," which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.
The idea here is that moral thinking has not kept up with society and scientific discovery, but in the same breath one may say the same of many religions. The Dalai Lama advocates for "deeper dialogue" between science and society. This is a concern for human existence itself.
In his final words, "Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity."
The Dalai Lama also points to the central motivation in a larger cultural and religious context. Are we truly mindful of our own motivation? Is it a lust for power, praise, or eternal life after death? Most would probably agree that the fact that more and more businesses are making a great return to focus on ethical practices is a good thing. But what about science and religion? Is this possible? There certainly are ethical standards irregardless of religion, but we will never be able to separate the cultural relativism and traditional norms that construct and maintain each society's ethical core.
These questions will probably never be answered, but I believe in many ways they are central to our understanding of the world around us and in many ways our happiness. We must decide if something is done for the betterment of humanity - if that is even our goal - and in order to challenge norms we must be willing to go against what has become ingrained as scientific advancement and religious fervor.
Comment begins here:I'm not quite sure if this has anything to do with the comment, but I can not shake off my own cynicism of the very idea of "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," a statement made by the Dalai Lama. For what purpose or what gain would that achieve? And is it possible? According to George Johnson, author of the article “'The Universe in a Single Atom': Reason and Faith”, not so much. He says, “when it comes to questions about life and its origins, this would-be man of science begins to waver. Though he professes to accept evolutionary theory, he recoils at one of its most basic tenets: that the mutations that provide the raw material for natural selection occur at random. Look deeply enough, he suggests, and the randomness will turn out to be complexity in disguise - "hidden causality," the Buddha's smile. There you have it, Eastern religion's version of intelligent design. He also opposes physical explanations for consciousness, invoking instead the existence of some kind of irreducible mind stuff, an idea rejected long ago by mainstream science,” (George Johnson). He goes on to conclude about a protest on the Dalai Lama's “science of meditation, is known for "hyperbolic claims, limited research and compromised scientific rigor,” (George Johnson). He also says “Inviting a holy man to address a scientific conference may be leaving the back door ajar for ghosts.”
But besides all that, what is left when you take the faith out of a faith? There is nothing wrong with trying to validate beliefs, but if you are going to leave it to an objective standard, faith becomes obsolete. It must then go through the scientific rigorous process and what is left is honestly nothing but a few lucky guesses that survive the process (if any) and ethical values which aren't even limited to any religion; ultimately, just another philosophy-devoid of spirituality, subjectivity, warmth, community/culture, ritual, faith, replaced with cold hard facts and ethical values (which would seem out of place as it has nothing to do with science). It's like Christians taking all of the supernatural out of Christianity-no god, no divinity of Jesus, no resurrection, no biblical stories, no ritual, no church, just scientific theories and ethical values (which would probably change to, as they would have no base or justification). I'm not trying to define religion here, but I can just take a few science classes, learn some ethical values from somewhere, and I guess I'm a born again Christian? Maybe a Muslim?Jewish? Buddhists? I honestly don't know, I just feel that when you try to mesh ultimately two separate ideals together, they kind of cancel each other out.
What makes a faith beautiful, exotic, and faith based, is the supernatural. It's what makes it alluring to some and a turn off to others. An emotional, subjective, and spiritual experience as opposed to an objective, neutral, and natural one. What is there to gain in objectifying it? Credibility? To prove one faith is right and all the others are wrong once and for all? To convert everyone over to one side? Then what?
When you take any religion and concentrate all your efforts in trying to prove it has all the answers and its more accurate than anything else, you have ultimately lost sight of the original purpose and are missing out on something that can be truly beneficial. All you are left with is a political struggle that goes nowhere, but travels an eternity through time.
