It cannot because if science could explain things like karma and rebirth then it would deprive religious authorities of their authority and the puppet strings would fall, putting an end to the whole puppet show.

Do expand on how Buddhism is more able to accomodate the discoveries of modern science. — baker

There's a lot of commentary on that. Basically I think Buddhism is quite open to scientific method, but not compatible with scientific materialism. The former is the way of discovering facts and principles about nature, the latter more a culturally-conditioned view about the nature of the world.

The Dalai Lama is known for his interest in science. His book Universe in a Single Atom is basically about philosophy of science. In it he says that if science empirically demonstrates the falsehood of some Buddhist dogma, then it will have to be modified. The overall principles have not, I think, been subject to that kind of challenge, but the traditional Buddhist cosmology of Mt Meru is certainly challenged by it. There has been a conference that has run for a number of years, Mind and Life, of which the Dalai Lama is chair, that explores the interface between Buddhist philosophy and science. There's quite a bit of interest from some physicists in the Buddhist philosophy of śūnyatā.

I'm just now reading a book on interpretations of physics, Helgoland by Carlo Rovelli. He refers to the Indian Buddhist philosopher, Nāgārjuna, as providing an explanatory framework which is compatible with his own philosophy of 'relationalism'. (I haven't finished it yet.)

But overall, the reason I made that remark is that I don't think Buddhism is necessarily grounded in a mythological narrative but on an insight into a fact about the nature of existence. There are many challenges on both sides but I don't see a deep incompatibility in principle with anything science has discovered.

I don't think Buddhism is necessarily grounded in a mythological narrative but on an insight into a fact about the nature of existence. — Wayfarer

What’s the insight into a fact about the nature of existence? If you cannot say then perhaps it is incompatible with science, and that would suggest Buddhism, like all religions, is necessarily based in unverifiable metaphysics.

Ehipassiko.

Did the Buddha ever think about what The Doctrine Of Impermanence (Anicca/Anitya), the cornerstone of Buddhism, meant for Buddhism? Does anicca/anitya apply to The Four Noble Truths? It should, right? Ergo, there's plenty of room in Buddhism for science and even other stuff to set up house.

"Accommodate" is an understatement:

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. — Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama

Ehipassiko. — Wayfarer

Exactamundo. :razz:

You have spent time with the Dalai Lama and have taught him the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. What was that like? Is he a good student?


He has a very clear scientific mind. He’s very analytic, very precise. I explained the superposition principle and entanglement and the randomness of measurement events, and he always asked the right questions. I invited him to visit a laboratory in Innsbruck, which has ion traps for individual atoms, and you can usually look at an atom there. I wanted to show this to the Dalai Lama because he didn’t believe in atoms. And interestingly, when he came it didn’t work. — From an Interview with Anton Zellinger

And interestingly, when he came it didn’t work. — From an Interview with Anton Zellinger

Good luck/Bad luck? Knowledge/Illusory Knowledge?

Did the Buddha ever think about what The Doctrine Of Impermanence (Anicca/Anitya), the cornerstone of Buddhism, meant for Buddhism? — TheMadFool

Yes, he said that at some point, his teachings will become lost.

Does anicca/anitya apply to The Four Noble Truths? It should, right?

If that were the case, then we'd be living in a chaotic universe, and in a chaotic universe enlightenment wouldn't be possible (since the attainment of enlightenment depends on there being cause and effect, reliably), and the whole project of looking for true happiness would be pointless. Upon realizing this, one would give up on it, and succomb to misery.

Ergo, there's plenty of room in Buddhism for science and even other stuff to set up house.

In which case, why still call it "Buddhism"?

"Accommodate" is an understatement:
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.
— Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama — 180 Proof

Why should a relatively small school within Buddhism and its most visible representative be considered representative of all Buddhism?


Although I do give the Dalai Lama credit for saying "certain claims in Buddhism". Heh. He could be referring to spelling mistakes, historical data, and culturological findings -- things that are indeed the domain of science. And mostly irrelevant to Buddhism.

There are many challenges on both sides but I don't see a deep incompatibility in principle with anything science has discovered. — Wayfarer

Do you think that the doctrine of paṭiccasamuppāda is compatible with science, or that science can demonstrate it to be wrong?

:roll:

The Dalai Lama is not the Buddha, nor is he the pope of Buddhism.

:yawn:

:yawn: — 180 Proof

:up:

Do you think that the doctrine of paṭiccasamuppāda is compatible with science, or that science can demonstrate it to be wrong? — baker

Science is concerned with third-person observables. Dependent origination is something that has to be understood in the first person. It’s the ‘insight’ of ‘insight meditation’.

It really depends on your conception of the scope of science. If you believe that anything that is knowable, anything that is real, has to somehow come under the scope of science, then of course you have conflict. But if your understanding of science is that science is a particular way of doing things—a particular way of knowing that includes a particular methodology—then some aspects of reality may fall into this category and some aspects may not.

….. For practicing Buddhists, why would you need third-person proof to show that your own practice is helping you? In the end, when it comes to spiritual practice, you are your own best proof. Individual practitioners can understand from their own personal experience that practice is helping them to be more understanding, to be more open, to be more at home with others, or to have a greater sense of ease. From my point of view, these effects are much more powerful as a source of motivation than a scientific study that uses a scanner to show that when you meditate, things happen in your brain. Why would that help you? — Thupten Jinpa

Did the Buddha ever think about what The Doctrine Of Impermanence (Anicca/Anitya), the cornerstone of Buddhism, meant for Buddhism?
— TheMadFool
Yes, he said that at some point, his teachings will become lost.

Does anicca/anitya apply to The Four Noble Truths? It should, right?
If that were the case, then we'd be living in a chaotic universe, and in a chaotic universe enlightenment wouldn't be possible (since the attainment of enlightenment depends on there being cause and effect, reliably), and the whole project of looking for true happiness would be pointless. Upon realizing this, one would give up on it, and succomb to misery.

Ergo, there's plenty of room in Buddhism for science and even other stuff to set up house.
In which case, why still call it "Buddhism"? — baker

@Wayfarer, I seek your counsel.

Indeed, causality is central to buddhism as it is in other religions. The law of karma (moral causation) along with reincarnation provides a pretty good explanatory framework for a lot of otherwise inexplicable events we encounter in life which we've come to love and hate as luck, good and bad respectively. Of the mundane, what goes around comes around, too obvious to state.

What this means, in the most basic sense, is there is no chance, no randomness. Everything happens for a reason or

There are no accidents. — Master Oogway (Kungfu Panda)

I wonder how that fits into the biological concept of random genetic mutation as a driving force behind evolution. Looks like buddhism isn't as science-friendly as I thought it was.

Don’t have time to respond right now but start with this.

I’ll add more later.

Don’t have time to respond right now but start with this.

I’ll add more later. — Wayfarer

Thanks. My take on karma is that it determines the circumstances of our birth and life till the very end, all things that depend on it - which is a lot (parental care, access to education, money for basic comforts, the religion you're born into, whether you'll ever encounter philosophy, will you have the resources to do philosophy?, and so on) - but that, if you'll notice, also includes, quite unfortunately it seems, your exposure to buddhism and knowledge free will, key components, I reckon, of your ability to respond appropriately, in a manner that you don't make matters worse karmically speaking, to your circumstances, good/bad.

Much like...

In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. — Thanissaro Bikkhu

What I said above is what I gleaned from the article you provided a link to but also includes some thoughts shared by a mahayana buddhist monk I happened to meet. There's a harmony of views that I feel should be stated.

Buddhism, contextualized in the free will- determinism debate, makes it amply clear that the past does determine the present but depending on one's karma, one can gain knowledge of one's free will and also buddhism; armed with these two, we can think/speak/act in ways that'll improve the conditions of our next life, a positive feeback loop begins to take shape and before you know it, you're having tea with the buddha in nirvana land.

However, what about chance or randomness? Known as luck, there doesn't seem to be any room for it in buddhism's karmic causality.

There's a lot of commentary on that. Basically I think Buddhism is quite open to scientific method, but not compatible with scientific materialism — Wayfarer

Bingo!

However, what about chance or randomness? Known as luck, there doesn't seem to be any room for it in buddhism's karmic causality. — TheMadFool

There's always an element of chance. Not everything is fixed by karma, because reality is not fixed.

Buddhism, contextualized in the free will- determinism debate, makes it amply clear that the past does determine the present but depending on one's karma, one can gain knowledge of one's free will and also buddhism; armed with these two, we can think/speak/act in ways that'll improve the conditions of our next life, a positive feeback loop begins to take shape — TheMadFool

:ok:

Where the idea of karma becomes negative, is when it is used to assign blame or rationalise misfortune. Reflection on karma should always be positive, that the right intention produces a positive result. Blaming everything on karma, or saying something terrible happened to someone because 'it's their karma' easily becomes fatalism and superstition. It is not a compassionate attitude.

What this means, in the most basic sense, is there is no chance, no randomness. Everything happens for a reason or

There are no accidents.
— Master Oogway (Kungfu Panda) — TheMadFool

Yeah, no. I really don't buy that. Innocent people fall victim to accidents and diseases, I never like to say that it's because of karma. More important is how you help them, and on how they are able to respond to tragedy or disaster. On the other hand, people sometimes 'get what is coming', also. But being dogmatic about it is never a help.

Karma is a very deep subject, I would never claim any kind of expertise about it. But it seems to me the most obvious and natural ethical principle in existence. It's even described in the New Testament, 'as you sow, so shall you reap'. I can't see how that is not a fundamental truth. But theorising about it or trying to second-guess its working is rarely helpful. As a wise friend of mine said, sometimes your karma runs over your dogma. :wink:

There's always an element of chance. Not everything is fixed by karma, because reality is not fixed. — Wayfarer

Where the idea of karma becomes negative, is when it is used to assign blame or rationalise misfortune. Reflection on karma should always be positive, that the right intention produces a positive result. Blaming anything on karma, or saying something happened to someone because of their karma, easily becomes fatalism and superstition. It is not a compassionate attitude. — Wayfarer

I maybe wrong of course but, if there's a chance factor in all this, even the best laid out plans for nirvana that span many future lives would be a waste of time. I could, god forbid, lead a life of debauchery, even order genocide and torture, in most horrible ways possible, and, by a stroke of luck, become enlightened. Nirvana, then, is nothing more than a game of die - about lucky people, not good people.

even the best laid out plans for nirvana that span many future lives would be a waste of time. — TheMadFool

Of course. If you think that Nirvāṇa can be won by some contrivance then you are indeed wasting your time, and indeed many of these discussion are likely the same.

Let’s just point out that the whole purpose of the Buddhist path is not gaining something - Nirvāṇa is not like ‘winning the jackpot’ or having everything go your way. Consider what the Buddha gained by setting out on his path - nothing whatever. Instead he gave up a comfortable living, wife and child in exchange for a begging bowl. In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says ‘I have attained supreme enlightenment, and gained nothing by it.’ It’s a hard saying, but true.

Of course. If you think that Nirvāṇa can be won by some contrivance then you are indeed wasting your time, and indeed many of these discussion are likely the same.

Let’s just point out that the whole purpose of the Buddhist path is not gaining something - Nirvāṇa is not like ‘winning the jackpot’ or having everything go your way. Consider what the Buddha gained by setting out on his path - nothing whatever. Instead he gave up a comfortable living, wife and child in exchange for a begging bowl. In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says ‘I have attained supreme enlightenment, and gained nothing by it.’ It’s a hard saying, but true. — Wayfarer

So, there's no difference between an evil person and (say) a bodhisattva - the difference in their deeds, one cruel, the other kind, means nothing and even if it did, that can be easily compensated for/reduced to naught by the vagaries of chance. The buddha then wasn't a good guy, he was just one helluva lucky dude. Something's off, no? You're contradicting the law of karma but you already knew that.

Thanks. My take on karma is that it determines the circumstances of our birth and life till the very end, all things that depend on it - which is a lot (parental care, access to education, money for basic comforts, the religion you're born into, whether you'll ever encounter philosophy, will you have the resources to do philosophy?, and so on) - but that, if you'll notice, also includes, quite unfortunately it seems, your exposure to buddhism and knowledge free will, key components, I reckon, of your ability to respond appropriately, in a manner that you don't make matters worse karmically speaking, to your circumstances, good/bad. — TheMadFool

People who aren't karmically predisposed to worry about karma don't lose sleep over karma, so the above concern is moot.

However, I sense from this post of yours and from some others that your concern is about something else as well. It seems you hold that "all men were created equal" and when you consider that Buddhism doesn't hold such a belief in the equality of all men (or humans), this causes you unease. Is this so?

Also, it seems to tie in with another idea you expressed elsewhere, namely, that religions are obligated to convert people.

However, what about chance or randomness? Known as luck, there doesn't seem to be any room for it in buddhism's karmic causality.

No, because it's irrelevant to effort, and Right Effort is what matters

What this means, in the most basic sense, is there is no chance, no randomness. Everything happens for a reason or

There are no accidents.
— Master Oogway (Kungfu Panda)

I wonder how that fits into the biological concept of random genetic mutation as a driving force behind evolution. — TheMadFool

In Buddhist terms, genetic mutations, too, are not random. But they are irrelevant to the project of seeking enlightenment.

People who aren't karmically predisposed to worry about karma don't lose sleep over karma, so the above concern is moot. — baker

How? It seems all the more important, given how karma works, to, in this present life, take measures through good deeds to ensure our next life is as good or even better which includes getting the opportunity to learn buddhism and reacquaint ourselves with karma.

However, I sense from this post of yours and from some others that your concern is about something else as well. It seems you hold that "all men were created equal" and when you consider that Buddhism doesn't hold such a belief in the equality of all men (or humans), this causes you unease. Is this so? — baker

If karma is real, any ability/disability, any advantage/disadvantage we possess/experience is an effect of our actions in a past life. We have to come to terms with that at the soonest. However, buddhism doesn't leave us without any means to remedy/improve our condition - it also informs us that we can, in this life, do good in order that our next life is better than this, the present.

There's always an element of chance. — Wayfarer

In the process of the complete cessation of suffering?
Do you have a canonical reference for that?

Where the idea of karma becomes negative, is when it is used to assign blame or rationalise misfortune.

This is a folk belief in karma, Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls it "karmaism".
The stronger argument against karmaism (other than that it lacks compassion) is that, according to doctrine, only a sufficiently advanced person can discern the exact workings of karma in regard to a particular situation (while everyone else would become mad and vexed if they were to conjecture about it). When people who are not thusly attained are making bold pronouncements about someone's karma, they are thus wrong on account of speaking beyond their competence (and mad and vexed).

Reflection on karma should always be positive, that the right intention produces a positive result.

A part of the fourth brahmavihara, upekkhā (equanimity) is precisely a reflection on karma (such as when in the chant it is said "I am the owner of my karma, heir to my karma" and so on).

Yeah, no. I really don't buy that. Innocent people fall victim to accidents and diseases, I never like to say that it's because of karma.

I'm a bit rusty on that, and I don't have my old notes anymore, but I do still remember that it's part of doctrine that not everything that happens to a person is due to their fault (their "bad karma").

More important is how you help them, and on how they are able to respond to tragedy or disaster. On the other hand, people sometimes 'get what is coming', also. But being dogmatic about it is never a help.

Actually, being dogmatic here does help -- provided one learns what the doctrine actually teaches (as opposed to what the folk beliefs and one's fears are).

The Buddha says here that hard karmic determinism ("all is caused by what was done in the past") is wrong view.

But theorising about it or trying to second-guess its working is rarely helpful. As a wise friend of mine said, sometimes your karma runs over your dogma

Hence the admonition about the unconjecturables.

Let’s just point out that the whole purpose of the Buddhist path is not gaining something - Nirvāṇa is not like ‘winning the jackpot’ or having everything go your way. Consider what the Buddha gained by setting out on his path - nothing whatever. Instead he gave up a comfortable living, wife and child in exchange for a begging bowl. In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says ‘I have attained supreme enlightenment, and gained nothing by it.’ It’s a hard saying, but true. — Wayfarer

And a saying not found in the Pali Canon.

How? It seems all the more important, given how karma works, to, in this present life, take measures through good deeds to ensure our next life is as good or even better which includes getting the opportunity to learn buddhism and reacquaint ourselves with karma. — TheMadFool

I have the impression that you think of Buddhist teachings as having the same coercive, commanding, universally binding nature as those in Christianity.

If karma is real, any ability/disability, any advantage/disadvantage we possess/experience is an effect of our actions in a past life.

No, see my post above. Hard karmic determinism is wrong view.

However, buddhism doesn't leave us without any means to remedy/improve our condition - it also informs us that we can, in this life, do good in order that our next life is better than this, the present. — TheMadFool

Not only that, it teaches that (with some exceptions), we can attain enlightenment in this lifetime, we're not automatically doomed to work hard and wait for a future lifetime.

I maybe wrong of course but, if there's a chance factor in all this, even the best laid out plans for nirvana that span many future lives would be a waste of time. I could, god forbid, lead a life of debauchery, even order genocide and torture, in most horrible ways possible, and, by a stroke of luck, become enlightened. Nirvana, then, is nothing more than a game of die - about lucky people, not good people. — TheMadFool

This is not what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches.

That you have concerns about the implications of luck and concerns about nirvana depending on luck is one thing, but what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches is another thing, and they should clearly be kept separate.