Looky! More science

http://news.yale.edu/2011/11/21/tuning-out-how-brains-benefit-meditation

I think maybe I've wandered so far off the reservation that I have no idea what you think of this, Chris-- care to say something?

[and then maybe I'll hazard something of my own...]

Hmm-- my take was that people who have been claiming that 'science' is the real religion of our time and place are being offered a volunteer. You do know that Maharshi represents Vedanta/Indian thought, not Buddhism, right? And that, in the evolution of Buddhism, a great importance was given to countering 'the Four Root Downfalls' [of which AE and RM are demonstrating 'eternalism'/fatalism/predestination: the notion that everything happens for a reason or in a determinate way].

It is such a stripped-to-the-essentials presentation, that it makes me understand the appeal of these sorts of circular arguments-- as a stay against uncertainty, or chaos, or confusion. That funny human trait of feeling like we have to cut the phenomenal world down to size-- even though, in our most transcendent moments, what awes us is its vastness. And our recognition that we CAN'T reduce it to some little conceptual clockwork. We MUST try, being what we are-- and it feels so good when we stop, as we must, at least now and again.

While you two are at it, could you please explain Karma?

I'm sorry, Chris. I am more surprised than I might be, that so few fellow dharma enthusiasts share my conviction that the differences between Advaita and Buddhism matter. Or that buddhadharma, not science, is the gold standard for explaining human life beyond physical mechanics. I was startled to be told that you agree with GW's reasoning; to me it is transparently a case of the logical fallacy, 'post hoc, non propter hoc' -- things that follow in sequence can't be assumed to be caused by what precedes them.

Shargrol, funny! But also, bang on: that is the heart of the difference between Indian spiritual thought and that part of Buddhism I find interesting, useful, and insightful: I have been taught, and find it helpful, to see 'karma' as one's default setting of 'perception and response'; it tends to produce a predictable set of consequences. But, as Ngak'chang Rinpoche said in that article I linked, the sequence can be worked with: that's what practice is for. It's only inevitable absent change.

But that sequence of cause and effect isn't Fate, based on past actions in this, or prior, lives. I'm no Sanskrit scholar, but I'm told that 'karma' simply means 'action.' So it seems easy to see how it would lend itself to adoption as an exotic version of 'predestination' for the emerging form of religion in the modern West. The thing that seems most surprising to me is that there is such enthusiasm for ideas that essentially renew the old chains of belief in fate, inevitability, powerlessness. Just tweaking the justification for how and by what we are bound. "God/the Devil made me do it; karma made me do it; neurobiology made me do it."

I gather I've been naive to have thought that we all want nothing more than a revolution.

I'm having one of those 'Uh-oh! I've put my foot in it now.' moments.

I am hoping that, while I'm making it clear that I disagree with various views, I don't regard myself as licensed to be disagreeable as I pick apart the distinctions. I trust you all feel free to point out errors in this regard.

Not to provide too much suspense in the discussion, but more from me will have to wait 'til I'm back home from work...

If I, in general, am coming off dogmatic or heavy-handed-- I'm perhaps overenthusiastic about my own view of these matters, that I've been tinkering with for lo, these many years.

I've been reading a lot of Jung recently and this discussion brought up an interesting, Jung inspired idea for me:

What if everything is NOT predetermined but the real choice happens unconsciously? The experience of that, from the POV of consciousness, is that there is no choice, there is only this. In other words, no conscious agency. With meditation we get to see that more clearly and the sense of no agency replaces the 'fake' sense of agency created by the ego. This sense of no agency, however, is not the whole story.

Eran.

I like that Eran.

What I am seeing contrasted in this conversation are two positions: one, everything is either known already or eventually knowable, and we can have a pat description of how things work altogether, in principle.

The other position I would express like this: the known and unknown are like infinite sets, with the former included within the latter; by analogy, the known is to the unknown as odd integers are to real numbers. The implication is not only that the known is always less than the unknown, but that the known are themselves also unknown anyway, so there [emptiness, yeah?]

Therefore, no matter how much we know, there will always be infinitely more unknown. Therefore, we can never have a pat description of how reality works. Therefore, when some sub-culture, like religious fundamentalists or folks who believe in modern variants of fundamentalism in science, politics or economics, begin to give the impression they do or can know it all.... my eyes begin to glaze over and I go play guitar

For me I find there is a vast difference between the kind of science one hears about in TED talks or on cool public TV shows about the amazing nature of the universe...and the more common way in which science is brought into discussions of spirituality.

The latter, which is what I more usually run into and tend to wincingly assume a bit when "science" comes up in the context of Buddhism/dharma/spirituality/etc. seems to tend to be about:

a) trying to reduce the rather awesome, beautiful complexity of consciousness and experience into something that can be neatly boxed up and brought under control by the power of technology - best yet if it can be replicated by a machine and downloaded as an app.

b) dismissing the validity of any personal spiritual experience/practice/etc that hasn't been run through MRIs, lab tests, and "proof" that it's real and important - anything else is just silliness.

Both of the above are not interested in things like mystery, not understanding, awe, joy, beauty, unconditional love, ethics and other aspects of practice that to me are vitally important.

I think that's in huge contrast to the kind of tone and understanding I get from the aforementioned cool,
cutting edge investigations of the nature of the universe type stuff, which is very interesting and often quite beautiful.

Therefore, no matter how much we know, there will always be infinitely more unknown. Therefore, we can never have a pat description of how reality works. Therefore, when some sub-culture, like religious fundamentalists or folks who believe in modern variants of fundamentalism in science, politics or economics, begin to give the impression they do or can know it all.... my eyes begin to glaze over and I go play guitar



-jake

I like that.

I share your enthusiasm for exploration, Chris, and I agree that the version of Buddhism that I prefer, as well as the version of science that I find worthwhile, takes that approach. But.

The link you provided does not model careful, rigorous inquiry: it demonstrates a sort of broad-brush, fill-in-the-blanks hurry to show that religion and science are the same. I'm certainly not angry or offended by this; but I'm neither impressed nor convinced. [And maybe the excerpt is so short as to not be a fair representation of Weber's view.] But, responding to that video, I think that generally everybody loses when things that serve different functions are de-differentiated. Religion is about feeling a part of a greater whole, a larger order; science is about KNOWING just how something works. The domain of religion is largely subjective; the domain of science is said to be objective.

If I'm not at pains to defend science, it's because it seems to me to have made itself the unquestioned dominant meme, and to be defining everything in its own terms. I don't think my mind is closed about science, so much as that I'm articulating a divergent preference for styles of inquiry, what is considered interesting or meaningful to investigate, what are the important questions, and what constitutes a satisfactory answer. From what I understand, 'pure' science is less unlike the subjective sciences of the Asian wisdom traditions, than technology [pharmaceuticals is a major case in point, along with bioengineering and the applied sciences that have birthed atomic 'energy']

I don't think that our differences need annoy or alienate us; I don't think they need to be 'resolved', or that one of us has to convince the other. I think we can help one another and the other readers and participants by articulating our views as well as we can-- not to rid ourselves of differences, but to make them useful.

Funny Eran should mention Jung-- I watched 'A Dangerous Method' the other night; what interested me the most was the depiction of the differences between Jung and Freud. And, much like our discussion here, a lot of it had to do with divergent 'ways of knowing', and each man's expectations of what would result from following the implications of each way: the intuitive/mythopoetic; or the 'medical science' model. The denouement of the movie was very sad; I hope better of our conversation.

Interesting: I encountered a reference to this book [on the website of a British astrologer addressing the subject of 'Astrology and Chaos Theory'--!!] and it seems germane: http://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Postmodernism-Understanding-Complex-Systems/dp/0415152879#reader_0415152879

"... the study of complex dynamic systems has uncovered a fundamental flaw in the analytical system. A complex system is not constituted merely by the sum of its components, but also by the intricate relationships between these components."

I would add what may appear elsewhere in the book-- the relationships are not static, either!-- the whole dang thing is in motion and the relationships changing.

For those willing to 'go there,' the astrology lecture is here: http://www.bernadettebrady.com/lectures/lecturePage.htm

I think you're all operating with a view of science and scientists that is terribly inaccurate. I grew up around science and scientists and they, those people, including the ones who raised me (my father), those ones I went to school with (U of C) and who live in my neighborhood now (Fermilab, Argonne Nat'l Lab), are not as is being portrayed. Science is inquiry, not engineering. Science, like Buddhism, is concerned with discovery, not closed minded belief.
My perception is that almost every time science becomes a topic on these boards instead of looking for synergy (which is typically why I post this stuff, silly me) we seem to go immediately to the notion that one or the other must be right and the other wrong. I think that's misguided, especially in regard to the relationship between Buddhism and science.
I'm saddened and frankly a bit put off by some of the comments here today. I'm especially bothered by the idea that what I linked to and what I posted here is some kind of fundamentalism.
So... back to your regularly scheduled message board.



-cmarti

Chris, I think there's some really important context in what you said in your first paragraph, at least as it relates to my experience. I have never been around science-as-inquiry in a personal way like you have. In fact, where I grew up "science" was a catch-all term that easily incorporated the makers of scary chemicals in our food, whatever mystery toxin was causing cancer that week, the makers of the Cold War missiles, etc. That in itself is a close-minded attitude, but I've never been around (in a personal day to day way) science-as-inquiry-with-an-open-mind as opposed to this popular (as in common/folk) understanding of science as something that engineers the sometimes cool but often dangerous technologies in our modern world. As you pointed out offline, that's not science, that's engineering (at which good engineers probably feel their hearts sink, as they get lumped in the bad category!!).

This conversation, coming around to what you even *mean* by science, is productive (from my perspective) and eye-opening.

I find the video, btw, supports how I experience things to seem to be. But what makes *me* sad is when I assume that a video like that exists and is passed around because it's not *enough* that Buddhism or personal experience sheds light on reality. But perhaps another way to look at it is that Dr. Weber and you are both joyfully expressing your enthusiasm for an inquiry into consciousness that expresses your own experiences in fresh and relevant language.

Any time I have a disdainful thought about something is a good time to pay closer attention to where that's coming from and whether it's really true.

On that note, does anyone ever really take in how utterly tiny we are?
How big a fuss we make about our little world and how much we imagine
the whole universe revolves around our flickering sparks of life, which
last but an instant?