Biocentrism: Anthropic Principle on Steroids

Baloney Detection Kit

Good reading, Joe. Thanks.

---

by: mroaks @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 05:28:04 AM CST

What about faith?

OK, yes, I am suspicious of those who claim that Buddhism is science, or science proves Buddhism, or whatever assertion portrays the efficacy of Buddhist teaching and practice as somehow empirically provable.

We've all heard some version of this, right? Example: "Chanting namu-myoho-renge-kyo puts you in rhythm with the universe." As if there is a rhythm of the universe, and chanting is a way to synch up with it, like adjusting one's personal clock to accord with a big cosmic clock in the sky.

It's nice to think it's so easy. Just a matter of uttering daimoku and SLAM-BAM you're on the sunny side of the universe.

Mroaks, that video you posted is really good -- a nice crash course in self-defensive skepticism.

But. Still. I don't practice Buddhism because of any scientific (or pseudo-scientific) claim made about its efficacy. I take it on faith that chanting somehow "works" in my life. I have extremely subjective experiences that have "proven" to me that chanting is something worthwhile. But I can't claim this is universally true, or that my experiences stand up to scientific inquiry.

No one is saying that religion has to conform to scientific principles, of course. (As many have pointed out, the conflation of science and religion can be disastrous, especially when it influences public policy.) For me -- for my practice to enrich and, in many ways, guide my life -- it doesn't have to be scientific in the least. It's the realm of faith.

Faith. Not "loony belief" or "blind obedience." For me, faith is a general optimism and lightness of heart around the questions of why am I here? what does it matter? it's all going to end soon, so why bother? life is suffering, so what can be done?

It's faith in the unseen, unprovable, improbable fundamental goodness at the root of all phenomena.

For me, that's what makes Buddhism a religion -- it requires a leap of faith. No?

---

by: deardenver @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 17:18:02 PM CST

Redefining Faith

that's what makes Buddhism a religion -- it requires a leap of faith. No?

No. Not according to Chapter 4 of the Lotus Sutra, sometimes entitled Belief and Understanding. Unless you want to define Buddhism like most religious beliefs, unprovable, unfounded, and beyond the realm of daily life and common sense. Then, yes.

The famous "leap" that Kant supposedly postulated has always stuck me as incongruous with itself. Firstly, unless prodded to do so from some external source, no one would ever leap to an abstruse system of belief, over a chasm of incredulousness, from a life based on experience.

As a child you trip and sometimes skin your knee. Also your hands when trying to brace yourself from the embrace of gravity. This practical experience is not lost on a rational being and when age rears it's inevitable head and one finds oneself doing something not too different from Monty Python's Department of Funny Walks in an attempt to keep from injuring oneself when tripping over that invisible crack in the parking lot.

Unless, of course, you have taken a "leap of faith" towards the Cult Of Falling Up. This is a group, a small one, that believes that
the strong nuclear force no longer applies to the true believer (no repelling on falling) and on judgement day all the followers will ascend when stepping off the roofs of their houses. There is no practical reason to believe this except faith, which is not practical and what makes faith, faith.

But that is not what Chapter 4 in the Lotus Sutra describes in parable. A father, the Buddha or mentor, bemoans the fact that his son, the prodigal son or disciple, has left and he has no one to leave his life's work to, thus devaluing the meaning of his life, which is dependent upon heritage. (There is a can of worms to be opened here in a later discussion) One day his son wanders back, but is low in self esteem to say the least. His father hires him to clean excrement. Over a period of years, fifty or so, the son finally learns to believe in himself and realizes that he is worthy to be the inheritor of this man's estate, who he now learns is his father. This belief in one's self, which is internal, comes from a bond of trust, which is external, through daily diligence. This is not a leap of faith. This is forged in experience. Just like life. The metaphor is: believe in yourself and you will understand. That is, trust in yourself will reveal meaning. Yes, both the sources of motivation are external. But the paradigms are very different. One is asking for belief without proof, and one is based upon trust through experience.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 23:24:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Prodigal son parable

Excellent points all around.

Joe, I believe you are overlooking a salient aspect of the parable. It is the father rather than the son who makes a leap of faith. All real-world evidence to the contrary, the father has faith that his wastrel son, given an opportunity, will persevere and prove himself to be decent and capable.

I have always valued this parable as a message to not abandon our faith in the enlightened potential of others, regardless of how foolish or hurtful their behavior has been. To trust in the Buddha nature of others does require a leap of faith, I'm afraid; rarely is it obvious.

I believe it is also valid to see this parable as the story of a man gaining faith in himself over many years, as you describe.

However, if one is to dismiss faith as "belief without proof," I do not understand. "Belief without proof" is well supported by the parable cited here, from the perspective of the father.

Specifically with regard to Nichiren Buddhism, what proof exists that daimoku summarizes the essence of the Lotus? What proof exists that the Gohonzon is a mandala for manifesting Buddhahood? There is no proof. These are articles of faith.

Do I misunderstand your point?  

---

by: auntie @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 00:07:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Prodigal Progenitor

I'm so glad you reminded me. Your speaking towards subjectivity, I believe.

However, if one is to dismiss faith as "belief without proof," I do not understand. "Belief without proof" is well supported by the parable cited here, from the perspective of the father.

I'm not "dismissing" faith as belief without proof. That is what I have been taught faith is in my Judaic/Christian upbringing. I'm trying to re-define it according to the Lotus Sutra. And I do not see "Belief without proof" supported by this parable, but exactly the opposite.

To trust in the Buddha nature of others does require a leap of faith, I'm afraid; rarely is it obvious.

Is that because you cannot see it in yourself and see, like the father did, that there is no difference between the father and the son? That's not a leap. That's not faith (as re-defined). That's hope in the potential of the son that the father absolutely knows is in his son because it is in himself.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 00:57:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Prodigal Progenitor

I hope that last statement didn't come off as self righteous as it re-read.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:31:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We disagree

Joe, we do disagree, but perhaps it is a matter of our phrasing more than a substantive disagreement.

I had to ask myself whether I cannot see my own Buddha nature and therefore cannot see it in others. I will have to put this question aside for further consideration. My answer now is that I do not know.

I am aware, however, that I have a conscience. Some people do not, according to psychology. I am aware that trusting others to do the right thing or counting on them to not disappoint is often a risky proposition.

You wrote that there is no separation between the father and the son, and that this view is not a leap. Indeed, the concept of the interchangeability of self and other has been postulated by Buddhism, but remains theoretical.

As I said, I trust that our disagreement is semantic. You wrote of "hope in the potential of the son." I agree that the father has hope in the potential of his son. In my lexicon, the words faith and hope are closely related.  

---

by: auntie @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 14:05:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Faith, not fact

I appreciate that you're trying to find a definition of Lotus-Sutra-centered faith that accords, somehow, with scientific method. But it ain't gonna happen.

Even if you define faith as "really strong personal conviction beyond all doubt based on personal experience and deep understanding," how is that more scientific?

For example, anyone can say, "I know Buddha nature exists in all people because I have a really strong personal conviction blah blah blah and deep understanding."

How does that make it more convincing or objectively true? It's no different than saying, "I have faith that Buddha nature exists in all people."

Until scientists in labs across the world are able to find and verify Buddha nature, the concept remains a belief in which some people have faith.

And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with admitting that others see it differently -- simply don't believe in Buddha nature, for example? What's wrong with admitting uncertainty about it yourself? All of this is appropriately within the realm of faith.

Trying to prove to yourself or to others the absolute factual veracity of your beliefs is dogmatism, not faith.

Faith is central to Nichiren's teachings (and I have faith that his teachings accord with the Lotus Sutra, including chapter four.) You can Google the gosho quotes yourself, but his references to faith are plentiful...

"Many hear about and accept this sutra, but few continue their faith in the face of great obstacles. To accept is easy; to continue is difficult. But Buddhahood lies in continuing faith. Those who embrace this sutra should be prepared to meet difficulties."

In other words, even when the shit is hitting the fan and it feels like your practice isn't helping, keep the faith.

"To 'sustain faith' means to cherish namu-myoho-renge-kyo, the teaching by which all Buddhas throughout past, present and future attain enlightenment...The Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai stated, 'One accepts out of the power of faith and continues because of the power of prayer.'"

Hmm. Nothing there about proof-positive certainty.

"The votary of the Lotus Sutra is the Buddha of eternal life; no wonder his practice is hindered, just as the pine tree's branches are bent or broken. From now on, you should always remember the words, 'It is difficult to sustain faith in this sutra.'"

Of course it's difficult to sustain faith--because there is room for doubt.

"Today there are people who have faith in the Lotus Sutra. The belief of some is like fire while that of others is like water. When the former listen to the teachings, their passion flares up like fire, but as time goes on, they tend to discard their faith. To have faith like water means to believe continuously without ever regressing. Since you pay frequent visits to me regardless of the difficulties, your belief is comparable to flowing water. It is worthy of great respect!"

The list goes on and on...perhaps most famously with Nichiren's statement:

"The Gohonzon is found in faith alone. As the sutra states, 'Only with faith can one enter Buddhahood.'"

Again, faith in Nichiren Buddhism is not synonymous with dogmatic certainty or scientific fact. Rather, faith is prone to be slippery, elusive, changing--deepening or lessening, burning or flowing, depending on the practitioner.

Faith, as envisioned in Nichiren Buddhism, is personal, mystical and of paramount importance. Hence, it's a religion, not a scientific formula, nor a mere philosophical wank.

---

by: deardenver @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 04:46:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Faith, not fact

I appreciate that you're trying to find a definition of Lotus-Sutra-centered faith that accords, somehow, with scientific method. But it ain't gonna happen.

Don't I know it. And I don't even want to do that because then that would become "Scientism". And so far after 35 years all my proof has been subjective and that ain't science either. And yet here I continue in the face of my subjective conundrum. But that is not faith I'm displaying. And I am not leaping over anything without reason because I have proof and I am using reason to overcome doubt.

I also take caution reading a translation of what someone today is trying to infer what Nichiren is meaning, or the Lotus Sutra, without taking into consideration his zeitgeist. But I do not see, as you said, that dispelling doubt in an effort to continue involves a leap called faith because I do not recognize what this process is as the same faith as defined by my zeitgeist.

Faith, as envisioned in Nichiren Buddhism, is personal, mystical and of paramount importance. Hence, it's a religion, not a scientific formula, nor a mere philosophical wank.

Hope you don't think I'm a wanker.

Mystical: transcending human understanding.

Mystic: a person who seeks by contemplation or self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

I do not see what happens in the dynamic between the father and the son as an intellectual process, nor do I see it as what is commonly referred to as faith or mystical. (I'm cracking up at my own mini insight: if I can get to to agree with me, then it's not just subjective anymore.)

Anyway, that's for the dialogue.

 

---

by: joeisuzu @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:27:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mysticism

Ok, I think I'm starting to get what you're saying. You're objecting to an emphasis on mysticism --the word, the concept--in Buddhism because people usually use that word to justify magical thinking, anti-intellectualism, and a host of goofy ideas.

Yeah, that's true, and it's too bad. Because mysticism is a part of Nichiren Buddhism. That's what myoho is, right In Nichiren's words:

What then does myo signify? It is simply the mysterious nature of our life from moment to moment, which the mind cannot comprehend or words express.

When we look into our own mind at any moment, we perceive neither color nor form to verify that it exists. Yet we still cannot say that it does not exist, for many differing thoughts continually occur. The mind cannot be considered either to exist or not to exist.

Life is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both. It is the mystic entity of the Middle Way that is the ultimate reality.

Some Nichiren practitioners claim that Buddhism is pure reason, totally logical, not mystical at all. But I think they're just flat wrong. I'd go so far as to say that any attempt to remove mysticism from Nichiren Buddhism would totally gut the teaching and render it pointless.

Mystic though he was, Nichiren was not anti-intellectual. He was not a proponent of what we would call magical thinking, nor of seeing fairies on shower curtains (to refer to one of your earlier posts.) This kind of twaddle -- i agree -- is not compatible with the what I would call the authentic mysticism of Nichiren Buddhism (to differentiate it from the hoaxster mysticism of new agey hoodoo gurus.)

---

by: deardenver @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 16:00:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Buddhism can't be proven by science

Yet, science does prove Buddhism every day. Science regards man as "the Observer", because they've looked into every pore and no one is home. No Self, as proven by science!

Behavioral sciences also prove Buddhism, as well as animal sciences, in that they point out the motivations that drive our behavior. And the animal sciences have come a long way to finally proving that animals do think and have emotions, as if we didn't already know this.

Then there is the Ten Factors. Cause and effect just happens to be a scientific law, and the simultaneity of cause and effect is in Quantum Physics. Of the Ten Factors the only ones that cannot be proven are Entity, Manifest Effect, and Consistency from Beginning to End. All others could be put to the test of science and pass. Just take a look at any form of life. They all have appearance and a nature that coincides with the appearance. Every form of life has some power and influence regardless how small, and the cause and effect of life can be observed in all forms of life.

Of the Three Truths, only the Middle way cannot be proven. Non-substantiality and impermanence can.

Of the Ten Worlds, only Buddha Nature cannot be proven through observation. The Mutual possession could be hard to prove also, but no one has tried except Buddhists.

Anyway, there is a lot of truth to Buddhism that is already proven by science, but since Buddhism is the science of life, and life is the hardest subject in the universe to comprehend, it doesn't surprise me that scientists stick to easier subjects like Quantum Physics. :)

Markp

---

by: markp @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 18:43:26 PM CST

Why oh why?!

Why does it always come to this? Why do Buddhists have to insist that somehow, science confirms Buddhism?

Why can't religion and science coexist as two different, equally valid pursuits? Why must Buddhists hold science to some arbitrary "Buddhist truth" standard, and why must scientists hold Buddhism to the standards of scientific truth?

It's ridiculous. Like using the rules of tennis to evaluate whether someone is a good football player. Yeah, they're both sports, but different, OBVIOUSLY.

---

by: mroaks @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 16:46:52 PM CST

Why not?

Buddhism is about 1000 times harder to understand than science, because it is vastly deeper than any scientific study. If it were easier then there would be enlightened scientists, but what we see are just people who don't know how their own lives work just like everyone else. The truths revealed by Buddhism are just as valid as any scientific truth, albeit more so because they are inclusive to the entire universe instead of exclusive to a certain discipline, and the doctrines of Buddhism coincide very nicely with all fields of science.

I don't even see why this is such a big deal to some people. Science doesn't have all the answers, but Buddhism does. I haven't seen many scientists evaluating Buddhism, so this discussion is also rather one sided.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 18:32:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

further

Why is it that people have such a high reverence for science? I like science as much as anyone, in fact I absolutely love the discovery, but in the end these scientists lack the one thing that could propel them to an even greater understanding. Without the correct basis what we see is a disjointed effort at understanding disparate things that are actually interwoven. In order to truly understand the world and the universe you must consider all things to be inexorably linked. You can't break it down into pieces and come out with a true understanding.

As an example, with all the understanding we now have about how the universe works, do you think it possible that if I told a scientist that by purifying the mind the environment also purifies he would believe me? Of course not, because the scientist is only looking for things that can be proven by the scientific method, yet Quantum Physics does suggest such possibilities. The possibility of the moment is what Quantum Physics is all about, and that is also a Buddhist principle called ichinen sanzen.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 19:50:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Falsifiable

Why is it that people have such a high reverence for science?

Patrick Henry once stated that the most important Bill Of Rights was the freedom of speech, because even if you lost a right through capriciousness, you could argue it back. The 18th and 21st amendments for example. (Maybe some day we can repeal the 16th.)

In science the burden of proof is on the theory. If something is not falsifiable it is not science. Quantum Physics was not postulated by practicing Buddhism. It came from the scientific method. Attaching a metaphysical philosophy to it, Quantum Mysticism, is charlatanism.

The physicists on the web site that this rebuttal against Biocentrism was posted, are closely mirroring what is going on here: you cannot argue subjectivity and call it science. If Biocentrism is falsifiable, which it is not, then evolution had a purpose, which according to the theory, is our species to observe the universe to validate it's existence. Early Intelligent Design advocates used the eye to point to a "too complex" biological organ to be a product of random mutation. It's hard to believe that a biology scientist chooses to call our existence as proof because our observational prowess, as science has now proven, is limited to one tenth of one percent of what can be observed in the visible light spectrum. Insects observe a completely different universe than we humans do. According to Biocentrism, that universe does not exist because we do not observe it.

"Reverence for science"? At least it has a reason for it.  

---

by: joeisuzu @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 21:15:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

re: falsifiable

I don't think I've been arguing against science at all, and I haven't attached any metaphysical philosophy to Quantum Physics. All I have shown is that the doctrines of Buddhism are in alignment with science, and actually go beyond what science can prove through scientific method. What the hell is wrong with that? That maybe you and mroaks don't understand Buddhism, so you misunderstand what I say, is not my fault.

Science cannot cure societies of the problems they have that have their basis in the behavior of the people, but Buddhism can. Science can only make your personal hell a little more comfortable, but if you want to improve your life then you practice Buddhism.  

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 07:36:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

re: Falsifiable 2.0

Reverence: deep respect for someone or something.

My reply was about you asking "why" people had such a reverence for science. I have a deep respect for science and the scientific method because it keeps fallible individuals, who sometimes are experts in their field, from attaching meaning to facts to fit a preconditioned belief without that belief being able to be proven falsifiable; testable.

Science cannot cure societies of the problems they have

True. That is up to the people in society.

Science can only make your personal hell a little more comfortable

That is all that science can do?  Well, then that comment completely belies this one:

I don't think I've been arguing against science at all

You also wrote:

I haven't attached any metaphysical philosophy to Quantum Physics

But that is exactly what you do when you say:

All I have shown is that the doctrines of Buddhism are in alignment with science, and actually go beyond what science can prove through scientific method

Once you go beyond the scientific method, it's not science any longer, it's subjective.

On the web site this all came from

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14...

they are having the same argument with the same results.

---

by: joeisuzu @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 09:49:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh please

It's ridiculous to evaluate science and religion by the same standards.

Science doesn't have all the answers, but Buddhism does.

Chauvinistic much? (oh, snap)

Next time you get a severe infection, I hope you'll be smart enough to take antibiotics (thank you, science) rather than rely on Buddhism to cure you.

It blows my mind how many Buddhists misunderstand "actual proof." It DOES NOT MEAN that Buddhism fixes everything or can be proven like a chemical reaction. ACTUAL PROOF with regard to Buddhism means that the teaching leads a person away from harm and toward realization.

It does not mean proof of magic and miracles. That was a Gakkai distortion of Nichiren's teaching.

Remember hearing the MIRACULOUS stories of how Ikeda and other Japanese leaders supposedly OVERCAME tuberculosis by virtue of their sincere Buddhist practice? Actual proof of faith they called it. But ya know what? It happened in the 1950s when antibiotics to fight the disease had been developed and were widely used. So who gets the credit? Medicine or Buddhism? To hear the Gakkai tell it, faith was the cure.

You say, why not judge science and buddhism by the same standard? Because faith healing is total bullshit, and I have seen Namu-myoho-renge-kyo used by charlatans who pretend that cancer can be cured with creative visualization.

That's not only bullshit, it's cruel bullshit. The stakes are high, that's why you don't act as if Buddhism is the equivalent of medical science. All your daimoku can't save the life of a gunshot victim, but a trained trauma team at an emergency room can. Only the most reckless idiot would say buddhism is a better way of stopping the bleeding.

---

by: mroaks @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 20:08:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

re:

You misunderstand what I am saying. I do not advocate faith healing. Take your meds if you have to, but you do get sick because of causality. Even a minor cold is picked up because you shook hands with someone or were in the same room or something like that. Severe sickness also has its roots in causality, even if it appears to come from nowhere, it does come from somewhere.

I also don't advocate getting rid of the sciences, that would be crazy. What I do say is that the sciences would be a hell of a lot better if the scientists had the correct basis instead of a Christian one, that you still have also, which is believing that everything is outside yourself.

And, BTW, I don't get sick. A cold in winter and one in summer. Thats all I get. When I was a kid I got all the usual things, but at least for the last 30+ years the only other sickness I got was tonsilitus. Had a couple broken bones, some back pain, stuff like that, and I do have health care even though I don't use it much. It's called karma.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 07:20:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mysticism in Buddhism

Let me clear this up right now. There is no mysticism in Buddhism.

The observer and that which is observed are everywhere produced by the matrix of causality and conditions. In all that is produced by causality and conditions, there is emptiness of self.
The Great Calm-Observation, Volume 5, Part 3, Page 1

This means that you and everything you see, taste, hear, smell, and touch are produced by causality and conditions. Any mysticism comes from the peoples lack of understanding of reality as-it-is. People have been doing this since the beginning of the human race, and it is not new.

The rhythm that comes from this practice that mroaks seems to disdain and put into the category of mysticism is all explained through causality and conditions. Even the supposed healings can be explained, just like he did explain it partly. That he cannot see the causality and conditions of every phenomena that happens has no effect on the reality as-it-is. I can explain it, but I'm afraid you would have to come to my house for about a month of sundays for the explanation to sink in enough that you could understand it, maybe. Buddhism is a deep subject, and is very hard to teach, plus the student must first have the capacity to understand or I cannot break past their own conditioning.

Science can only make your personal hell a little more comfortable

"That is all that science can do?  Well, then that comment completely belies this one:"

I don't think I've been arguing against science at all

Arguing the limitations of science is not the same as arguing against science. If I were against science, which I am not, I would be arguing the efficacy, not the limitations. Hell, I don't like the fact that we're spending billions of dollars to find out if life existed on Mars. We already know that where the conditions are right life will spontaneously appear, and this comes from science. I don't think we need to waste all that money, but that is not an argument against the efficacy of science.

Once you go beyond the scientific method, it's not science any longer, it's subjective."

Except that ichinen sanzen is observable! This is exactly the same as scientific method, in that it is observable and some of the theory can be proven to be true. According to the video not every little point must be proven only that there must be a preponderance of evidence.

And, as it says in the baloney detection kit.
#4. Does this fit with the way the world works?

Yes, of course!

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:32:19 AM CST

Religious arrogance

Markp, others are absolutely certain that their religion, be it Christian or Buddhist or Muslim, explains everything in the universe and is entirely compatible with science, and even goes beyond science to provide insight into the depths of human life.

These assertions are nothing new. Making the same assertion about your own brand of Buddhism serves only to underscore the point that science and religion are two very different disciplines with different goals, and it is perilous to conflate the two.

Perhaps if one's identity is based around a claim of being strictly rational rather than emotional one cannot permit there to be any such thing as mystery in his religious teachings. This is the central problem in debates between science and religion. If both sides are arguing that they are the bastion of certainty, the debate can only reach an impasse as we see here.

I am content to let science reveal and decide the certainties of the physical world.

I am content to let religion remain uncertain, occupied with great mysteries of human experience.

---

by: auntie @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 15:48:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

prove it!

"Markp, others are absolutely certain that their religion, be it Christian or Buddhist or Muslim, explains everything in the universe and is entirely compatible with science, and even goes beyond science to provide insight into the depths of human life."

Submit your theory to the scientific method and lets see which ones pass the test. That is the problem with all these other religions is that their theories cannot withstand the scientific method, hence science doesn't give them any credence. Ichinen Sanzen can pass. Try it for yourself, you don't have to be a scientist to see what passes and what doesn't.

Just watch the video that Joe provided. That video explains what can and cannot be done.


Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:11:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

re;

And, BTW, ichinen sanzen comes from the Buddha, not Nichiren Buddhism. Sect has no bearing on this issue.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:33:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Proof and arrogance

Markp, you wrote:

That is the problem with all these other religions is that their theories cannot withstand the scientific method, hence science doesn't give them any credence. Ichinen Sanzen can pass.

Simply, the onus is on you to prove your claim. You say that ichinen sanzen can be proven by science, then by all means, I look forward to reading about it in Popular Science magazine.

For now, your claims are bluster. Arrogant, ugly bluster. Your inflated claims stoke pride of membership in your religious club, while belittling all other religions and religious teachings.

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe "your" teachings to be vastly superior to science and all other religions. There are words to describe people who believe as you do, including "zealot" and "fanatical fundamentalist."

Perhaps your views represent a kind of rigid, dogmatic interpretation of Tendai or even Nichiren Buddhism, but you are mistaken if you believe you are defending what Nichiren actually taught. In his writings, Nichiren was respectful of the unknowable nature of karma and recognized the ineffable, ungraspable nature of life itself.

I am not persuaded that you know better than Nichiren.

---

by: auntie @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 18:16:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Give me a break!

"Simply, the onus is on you to prove your claim."

They have already been proved wrong by science. Why do you think there is even a discussion on this? Please stop with the same old same old, everyone thinks their religion is correct line. This is such a childish line as to not even garner a response by thinking people. Sorry to be so blunt.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 20:06:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

wish I could edit

And wish I could see what I'm responding to while I edit, but this is a blog not a board, and it is limited.

Lets just give ichinen sanzen a little test. First the Three truths, because that is a part .

All Life is non-substantial, no self.

That has already been suggested by scientists. Read a bit and you'll discover why.

Life is Impermanent. Thats a gimme.

Ten Factors:
All life has Appearance: Does it not?

All life has a Nature: Does it not?

All Life has Entity: Debatable

All life has Power: To some degree, yes.

All Life has Influence: Same as above.

Cause and effect is a scientific law so I won't even go so low as to teach it.

Now, I've already satisfied the scientific method to establish a theory. Do I have to spell the rest out for the kindergärtner ?


Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 20:16:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Intolerance

Don't anyone dare to suggest that I am intolerent of other religions. My ex-wife is Muslim. I was the sponsor of Muslim soldiers at the International Student Division on Fort Sill OK. I have been a Christian, but I am today a Buddhist.

This conversation had nothing to do with intolerance of religion until Auntie decided to bring it up. This is a discussion of science and Buddhism, not science and Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion.

My response was that Buddhism is more profound than science and that Ichinen Sanzen can pass the test of the scientific method. As I outlined above, it did.

Now, I am done with this thread. If anyone wants to carry on with this discussion then I suggest you join my board and request debate status as it is apparent that grown up subjects can't be talked about while children are present.  

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 20:42:17 PM CST

Whoaa nellie

I think we would all benefit from going back to the discussion Joe linked to. It's very detailed, and it takes a while to get through, but it makes many, many good points and offers a clear critique of what Joe and others are calling Quantum Mysticism.

Yeah, I'm a Buddhist, but a plead agnosticism. I don't know. I can't claim certainty about my religion, not even ichinen sanzen, and I don't see why anyone needs Buddhism to be a practice of certainty.

Anywayze, go read that link. It's fun just to see Deepak Chopra cut down to size.

And markp, way to kick auntie's old-lady ass. :-*

---

by: mroaks @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 22:37:28 PM CST

yeah, yeah

Auntie sidelined me with that charge and i'm afraid I didn't react as well as I should have. Unfortunately I have yet to live up to T'ien-t'ai and Nichiren, but I am trying.

Markp

---

by: markp @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 23:19:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

auntie

She's a sneaky ninja granny. Be careful around her. She trips me up all the time.

---

by: mroaks @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 23:33:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ninja?

We are "keeping it real" as you whippersnappers say. Perhaps we have exhausted this topic for now. Let's move on with no hard feelings, and save our fire for future juicy clashes.

---

by: auntie @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 15:56:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]