PZ Myers. 2005 Nov 22. Dalai Lama at the Society for Neuroscience. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/dalai_lama_at_the_society_for_neuroscience/>. Accessed 2008 Sep 06.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Dalai Lama at the Society for Neuroscience
Matt at Pooflingers Anonymous forwarded to me a transcript of the Dalai Lama's talk at the Society for Neuroscience, work done by a friend of his, Talyn. I've put the whole thing below the fold for anyone interested, and Matt has his own excerpts and opinions.
I wasn't too enthused at the word that a religious leader was going to be giving a major address at a scientific meeting, as you might guess. It was not, however, because he was religious…but because I did not think he would have anything relevant to say. I was right; the transcript shows that he was painfully vague and lacking in specifics, and really, he had nothing to add to the science.
Still, it was probably a good talk (I've been to a few of these late presentations, and often they are dull, dull, dull…and on top of a whole day of hardcore science, they can be excruciating.) He had several good, if general, things to say, although you'll have to understand that I still think these would have had just as much if not more significance if spoken by someone who was not wearing the false mantle of religious authority. His comments on the primacy of empiricism were good to hear.
To Buddhists, skepticism and an open mind is also important, required [in order] to have true investigation into reality. If you blindly accept, you don’t reach reality. Buddha said many things, but always encouraged empirical investigation, using your mind to see reality. It then developed in Buddhist tradition as a custom to examine his words and find those that contradict empirical evidence, and interpret them as less…definitive.
I also liked this bit—except for the fifth sentence, these could be the words of a hardcore atheist.
Love, forgiveness, people often view as part of religion. But this is a mistake. These are true humanity, had at birth by all, while religion comes much later and is part of culture. They are different. Religious faith, utilized properly, strengthens these human values. Those who claim to be religious, but are without these values, are not truly religious.
Religious faith is thought by the religious to strengthen human values—I certainly haven't seen any evidence in support of that idea, and much in opposition.
In general, I wouldn't have thrown tomatoes at the guy if I'd attended, probably would have enjoyed the whole thing, and would have found it a good springboard for interesting conversations, so it probably wasn't at all a bad decision by the SFN directors.
Note: I wrote furiously as he talked, and tried to get it all, but used my own shorthand, so this is not an exact recovery, but the things in quotes were his words. Sometimes the words in brackets are clarifications of the context, but usually clarifications from his translator. The context I’ve tried to provide faithfully, and apologize for any errors or misinterpretations on my behalf. I tried, as he said, to be perfectly unbiased :o)
He received a standing ovation as he entered, to which he bowed in namaste gracefully, and then grinned and waved to everyone to sit down. He introduced his translator, who would help with both scientific expressions and complex ideas.
He spoke of the honor to be asked to speak to such a distinguished group, and said, that he would speak informally. "I believe fundamentally that we are the same, human being, so we will talk as though we’re old friends".
The Dali Lama said that "neuroscience and society have a very close relationship." He said that science is "based on curiosity", which brings "the energy to deeper study." And told the story of his own great curiosity about the world, which began in his youth with the study of cosmology. "Looking upon the moon" and reading that the moon reflects light, while traditional Buddhist texts say that the moon is a source of light, led him to "great curiosity". And this question made him investigate the matter on his own. By observation, and by reading, he understood and gained a deep respect for science and "empirical observation".
In addition, "Indian texts speak of physics and matter, and [the elements] of the world." But "more recent science theories are even more subtle and advanced, working past elements into atoms and quantum physics. The science has led us to greater understanding, as it has led him to greater understanding and curiosity.
"In the Buddhist tradition, in particular the Sanskrit tradition, ancient authors are viewed with 100% respect, but I told my colleagues that if we compared [these texts] to modern science—some would be contradictory. Therefore, the Buddhist tradition, which respects empirical experience, requires us to view these texts with understanding, with the knowledge that these texts would be written differently today. I hope those senior colleagues don’t view me as a rebellious Buddhist," he finished with a wicked grin.
He feels, he said, that Buddhism has a natural connection to cosmology and therefore quantum physics. And then he said, there are other questions which occur to human beings. "For example, hair. In particular, baldness. Why me." (Another wicked grin). "This led me to a curiosity of biology."
His predecessor kept English biology and science and medical books, although he himself didn’t read English, he valued knowledge and the idea that someone else might be curious about them. "The human body is nice to look at, very smooth. Yet there are…. Terrifying. [Horrible] things beneath the skin," he joked. "But these wonderful books led me to have an interest in the relation between Buddhist texts and science. Neurobiology. I had great curiosity. And then I wondered, what is that, [to be] curious? It is a question of Consciousness, leading to the Self."
The Buddhist Literature is "substantially about mind, emotions, and contradictory forces; about [how to] use contradictory forces to better your emotions, then change and grow," he said. This "mind and brain connection" means that neuroscience "is a very important field for all humanity." From the "Buddhist viewpoint, it is a mysterious field, with many issues."
We have "spent lots of money to explore outerspace," he grinned, referring to his interest in cosmology, "but in the innerspace, we have a lot of things to yet explore". He said he has "great appreciation for scientists, that spend their lives studying innerspace," and that they make a "great contribution to human knowledge."
Humans have "much conflicting emotion, much bad emotion, jealousy, anger, fear. This is our great troublemaker. We don’t want to suffer". He went on, "Many of our man-made problems are from an unrealistic approach, not knowing the reality." That we can see fear where we need have none, that we may be jealous when there is no threat, angry which is a waste of energy. Therefore, "we can say that such unwanted things are due to ignorance."
Neuroscience is "research about emotions, to transform emotions, and to increase positive emotions, on the basis of understanding brain mechanisms," he said firmly. "Therefore, it is of value to all humanity."
"For twenty years", he said, I have had such "interest in four fields" of science. "But not computer science, although I love mechanical things, but I am hopeless with the computer," he added with another grin. "My brain is not designed to deal with computers, and you all can find out why." But his interests were "cosmology, quantum physics, neuroscience, and psychology." These things, he said, were important for all humans. "I have started [encouraging] studying science among the monk students [as part of their training]" because it is so important.
It is also important for the opposite discussion, and we must talk "to scientists about explanations of Buddhist texts [which] provide a new angle to look at their own fields" in a more subtle, human way.
In Buddhist tradition, "investigation, open-minded investigation, in the nature of reality has the greatest importance."
"When I first wanted to talk to scientists, an older monk gave me the advice, "be careful. Scientists are killers of religion—but I thought, scientists are also trying to find reality, and with an open mind. In the same way as we are."
"To Buddhists, skepticism and an open mind is also important, required [in order] to have true investigation into reality. If you blindly accept, you don’t reach reality. Buddha said many things," but always encouraged empirical investigation, using your mind to see reality. It then developed in Buddhist tradition as a custom to examine his words and find those that contradict empirical evidence, and interpret them as less… definitive." They may be metaphorical. And "if the Buddha was writing now, he would write them differently, based on" empirical evidence, science, and investigation.
Scientists are by definition, by and large, "openminded, objective, in the same tradition". In the Sanskrit tradition of Buddhism, if the "Buddhist finds traditions that contradict the evidence, then those parts of the tradition need to be rejected, or interpreted differently." The tradition believes there is a "liberty to change that which contradicts reality."
In the dialogues between "scientists and Buddhism about emotions, the human mind is important to make better, happier human beings." This may be able to be achieved "through medicine making small changes, to produce better emotions" or block negative ones which are troublemaking, "it is most welcome." Some need more help, have more troublemakers, and can be "benefited greatly". A "normal person’s mind is still a troublemaker. I hope my mind is normal," he grinned, "I hope so, anyway. But I still feel anger and fear. So if you find a little change for the better, I [volunteer] am your first patient. With my troublemakers, I spend a few hours in meditation every day, to help my mind, to quiet the troublemakers." But other paths, other methods, benefit humanity as well.
"Open-minded and unbiased investigation means that it is difficult to talk about right and wrong [consequences] during an investigation, without introducing bias." Scientists must "just investigate. In the meantime, though," all humans must decide. "Neuroscience is so advanced, the role of ethics assumes a greater importance" than every before.
Therefore, in science, be "open, accept any possibility, do not close any direction of research, but be guided by a sense of responsibility." The use of the research will be decided by a collective consideration. But science can be open-minded and unbiased while being responsible and compassionate. Science "needs a global sense of responsibility of its effects on humanity. Scientists are human, they get frustrated, and go home to their wife, husband, children, or friends who will show compassion to these poor scientists," he chuckled. And this shows that "compassion is critical to all humans. Therefore," to you "I promote the fundamental values of compassion and affection—as important to the development of body and brain—and warm-heartedness."
There is a misconception, he says, about the basic human values. "Love, forgiveness, people often view as part of religion. But this is a mistake. These are true humanity, had at birth by all, while religion comes much later and is part of culture. They are different. Religious faith, utilized properly, strengthens these human values. Those who claim to be religious, but are without these values, are not truly religious." Therefore, as scientists, "have these human values. Compassion must be present in science, let it guide you, as you work for humanity."
People in the audience were given cards to ask questions. Four proctors chose a few questions for the Dali Lama.
About animal research, "It is a difficult question, [as it] is a difficult [duty]. I will answer, as I do, to the question of many Tibetan Buddhists who are not vegetarians," he grinned. "I encourage the minimum use of experiments on animals, the absolute minimum amount of pain. Only perform highly necessary experiments, and as little pain as possible. If it must be done, [if that is your path, it is compassionate] to kill out of necessity, but only with empathy. Hold in you the sense of the compassionate. "I [acknowledge] that I exploit this animal to bring greater benefit to a great number of sentient beings." You must feel the sacrifice, in your heart. It is "never made lightly."
About whether "science reduces the need for religion". "No. I [mentioned] religion is about human values. If certain emotions, troublemakers, or [qualities] can be made better through medicine or surgery, it is wonderful." That is part of our values, to make better, to heal.
About patients who refuse treatment. "One who is right-minded, [in his right mind], will weigh benefit against risk. It is their choice. But make sure the education is complete, there is common sense in the patient. Sometimes, if the patient is arrogant, this will cause problems with the family". Then, "with the consent of them, with common sense and compassion", you may need "a little bit of force" [in rising pitch to emphasize little] "with excellent intentions."
Can you speak to the "meditative state vs. using medicine to reach the meditative state".
It is "difficult to see how the medicine would work that way, the state is not the end" [result]. "Some [tranquilizers (from translator)] reduce anxiety, the parts of the brain that make trouble, if you can reduce this while increasing wisdom, it keeps the intelligence intact. Medicines that don’t, which numb troublemakers but also numb intelligence, are not [beneficial]. In a restless mind, it is intelligence that is the critical factor to control a restless mind, and troublemakers. [There are] many levels of awareness, intelligence. One part of intelligence is very focused, and can give a clear mind. But another kind of intelligence, broader, reaches [an enlightened] state and can see the troublemakers, can see the former intelligence was deficient. This meta-awareness can’t be achieved by drugs. But in those with… can quiet troublemakers to help."
About the Mind-Consciousness-Body, how do we understand consciousness?
"You may not advance much in broader questions in this field. But smaller questions, about functions and [connections] in this field will lead to better understanding."
About the "best way to overcome chemical addictions."
"I don’t like [the word] "best". Is it easiest, cheapest, quickest? I don’t know. First, I am ignorant about addiction, but I think there are many factors, so it must be treated case-by-case. I do this. Case-by-case, in all people."
What do you think about Americans thinking about teaching Intelligent Design in Science.
"I don’t know. You must decide [for yourselves]. It is not an issue for [Buddhists]. There is a difference between theistic and nontheistic religions. No conflict. But the education in the United States, I don’t know. You can do more research," with a smile.
You’ve said you would like to be a scientist or engineer. If you were a neuroscientist tomorrow, what would your thesis be on?
"I need a few more days to think very carefully," with a last wicked grin. Every grad student in the place groaned.
He received another standing ovation as he presented the President of the Society with a Tibetan white scarf as a blessing, and gave many bows before he departed, with a cheerful wave.
Posted by PZ Myers on 11/22 at 06:53 PM
Godlessness • Science • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Godlessness • Science • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
It is also important for the opposite discussion, and we must talk "to scientists about explanations of Buddhist texts [which] provide a new angle to look at their own fields" in a more subtle, human way.
i think this gives a clue to the holy monk's motivation. i think he is genuinely and quite innocently drawn to science, and to neuroscience in particular. i belief his goal is to learn stuff to enlighten the Buddhist view.
of course, he understands such is a two-way street, and he tries to give guidance and insight where he can. but he sees science as a parallel path, another source of insight, and values it.
i know a tiny bit about Buddhism. perhaps Raven can comment, as she obviously knows a good deal more. but to Buddhists, at least Zen Buddhists, the rituals and dogmas of religion itself can be a trap, another way of reenforcing what is to them the illusion of ego.
i would think the experiments involving PET scans of people in different mood states would be of particular interest, especially during meditation.
there is also a concrete philosophy-psychology offered by Metzinger that the notion and experience of "self" is just a phenomenon (précis here), a view consistent with the Society of Mind thesis of Minsky. while these ideas don't bear Buddhist trappings and decorations, like ideas of reincarnation, they seem to me otherwise consistent. -
Speaking of reincarnation, I remember from a talk that the Dalai Lama once answered a question about it, saying that if science conclusively disproved reincarnation, then reincarnation ought to be discarded from Buddhism.
I've been reading Doubt, and the author indicates that Gautama's original teachings were entirely nonsupernatural; a creed based entirely on achieving the proper mental state. It was only later that worship and reincarnation were made part of mainstream Buddhism.
I think it's significant that a religious leader positively states that supernatural explanations are to be rejected if they conflict with reality, which is, after all in strong contrast to most religionists having huge problems with science and empiricism.#: Posted by on 11/22 at 09:41 PM -
I read an article a while back about how overwhelmingly those who give blood to the red cross are members of an established religion. Something like eighty percent. While my memory can't be entirely trusted, I guess that this, if true, might support the idea that religion "strengthens human values", not of love and forgiveness per se, but of charity and generosity, and of being giving of one's time (if these are human).
#: Posted by on 11/22 at 09:48 PM
-
I read an article a while back about how overwhelmingly those who give blood to the red cross are members of an established religion. Something like eighty percent.
The idea you talk about is not supported by what you say...
it can be simply explained by the fact that a much higher percentage of the population is part of an established religion. I'm surprised that it's only 80% of the blood donors that are part of an established religion...#: Posted by on 11/22 at 09:55 PM -
My wife and I are atheists but have always felt that Buddism used as a life guide is very useful. There is no doubt that some of the disciplines of Hinduism and Buddism such as meditation and yoga are no doubt good for you, just leave out that god stuff.
Michael#: Posted by on 11/22 at 09:56 PM -
John Smith beat me to it .. The 'statistic' on religious blood donors means little if we dont know the comparison to the population as a whole.
#: Posted by on 11/22 at 10:00 PM
-
I see what you're saying and that the statistic, as is, means nothing. In support of the DL's position I can think of nothing else, aside from that maybe he'd been thinking of such figures as Martin Luther King and Tolstoy and Ghandi as exemplars of his principle, and of how they'd made religion work for humans.
#: Posted by on 11/22 at 10:20 PM
-
"false mantle of religious authority"
for what it's worth, the Dalai Lama often couches his speeches with a statement saying that he is just a normal man like anyone else in the room and that one shouldn't use his position in Buddhism to lend any extra authority to what he says. He usually asks people to just hear him out and evaluate the content of his speeches on their own merit. Of course, he is given the opportunities to talk due to his position.....but I don't think he even remotely exploits the "false mantle of religious authority" as much as the vast majority of others would in his position.#: Posted by on 11/22 at 10:25 PM -
I was not a fan of the idea of the Dalai Lama coming to the meeting. I feel that it is really an unhappy thing for the Society for Neuroscience to appear to support a given religion, even if it is a really cuddly one like buddhism. And sure enough, the headlines reads that neuroscience research on meditation support what those oh-so-wise buddhists have been saying all along. Well Shoot! Why bother doing neuroscience research anyway? Obviously its just confirming the wisdom of the ancients. What a crock. I hope that the security arrangements are just as disruptive of my ability to get to poster sessions next year when the speaker is Frank Gehry. Something tells me they won't be.
Oh.. And before you go writing the Dalai Lama a clean bill of moral health. Our friendly neighborhood secular humanist, Christopher Hitchens, had a couple interesting things to say about the divine one a couple years back. Sure am glad a society I am a part of could befriend a guy who supports nuclear weapons development in India and hangs out with the dudes who sprayed Sarin in the Tokyo subways. Luckily he has a few mindless tropes about meditation to lay on us at the conference, so all is forgiven.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/13news.html -
The DL is first of all a politician whose long term goal is the return of his homeland to local control and his short term task to support the large number of refugees gathered around him in Dharamsala. Sincere though he undoubtedly is, his religious teaching is primarily a means of gaining funding and support for his political ends. As politicians go, he's a whole lot less objectionable than most.
#: Posted by on 11/22 at 11:31 PM
-
I take exception to your interpretation of sentence five. I am definitly not religious. What I feel he is saying is that ALL religions teach that everyone should live by certain basic rules of conduct. Love thy neighbor, don't kill, steal or make war, etc. Religion is not the problem,(though definitly not the answer) it is the people (mostly men) who pervert it to suit their own twisted ideals or to promote their own quest for power. JL
#: Posted by on 11/22 at 11:59 PM
-
I've been reading this blog for months now, almost daily, and the tone of the atheists including Dr. Myers is depressing. You seem to relish any opportunity to ridicule/disdain/vilify anyone who has faith in a god.
When I was 5 or 6 I would go visit my Irish Roman Catholic priest uncle at his almost entirely black parish on the south side of Chicago. My sisters volunteered at Misericordia, a home for neglected children with profound bith defects run by the Sisters of Mercy, I believe. I learned about religion and politics in America from Dr. Robert Fowler at UW-Madison--another Catholic. I am surrounded every day by people who are intelligent, inspiring, and religious--Muslims, Unitarians, and Protestants. And I've seen what faith and good works do up close.
So, Jeez, lay off already. The world's a complicated place and your dogma is ruining an otherwise fine blog. -
mccm,
So the Dalai Lama is not perfect, big whoop. I'm no fan of religion, but when the head of a major world faith backs empirical understanding of the universe I'm pleased. Ok so he will slap a bit of "wisdom of the ancients" spiritual mumbo jumbo in there, but hey, that's what floats his boat. He is, at least in this respect, a strong data point in refutation of the old "religion and science can never be reconciled" canard. Of course they can, but religion has to do the accomodation, and of course it depends on the details of the religion.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan,
Some religious people aren't monsters? Shock horror! What's next? Dog bites man? What PZ and others are trying to get at is what place does a religious leader have at a scientific discussion. In most cases this is "none at all". In some cases this can be "some". Would you like a list of less virtuous theists than the ones you chose? Some people are nice, some people are nasty, guess what, theists and atheists are people too!
Also, please don't presume that the opinion of one atheist is the opinion of all atheists, we're a very diverse set of people (pretty much like any other set in that respect). The "theist" bashing you see is usually well deserved. This is because it is usually restricted to those few theists who make total asses of themselves and those theists who are effectively "appeasers" or apologists for fundamentalism.
One last point. The Dalai Lama does not believe in a god or set of gods. Buddhism is not a theistic religion.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 06:56 AM -
We were there. The SFN symposium series he spoke at is a new "neuroscience and society" series, so one can expect any number of other speakers in the future coming from all walks of life. In that context, a speaker's religiousity isn't quite as difficult to swallow...JMHO. Beyond that: the DL really isn't as much of a religious leader per se but the embodiment of a philosophy based on meditation; but that's preimarily my own interpretation and others can interpret his position otherwise.
The DL himself was quite charismatic in person and it was easy to see how people are drawn to him. On the other hand, he usually does not speak in English, and because he did last week, it seemed that might have hindered his message: it sounded like he was rambling a lot. The NYT Op-Ed he wrote the same day (http://tinyurl.com/87bay) seemed to elaborate more on some scientific studies and it would have been nice to hear him talk a bit about that.
All-in-all it was a fun event for the SFN mega-conference (~30,000 attendees) that can get quite tiring towards week's end! It gave most of us something to talk about to our non-science friends when we came home.#: Posted by Sir Oolius on 11/23 at 07:13 AM -
I second what ekzept said. The only thing I would add, and it's way off-topic here, is a translation error I spotted:
About patients who refuse treatment. "One who is right-minded, [in his right mind], will weigh benefit against risk.
The Buddhist concept of "right mindfulness" is quite different from the English idiom "to be in his or her right mind". That the translator made this error, or allowed the Dalai Lama to make it and did not correct it, makes me think that some other ideas in the talk may have been conflated, due to language, as well. But I wasn't there, and this isn't a Sanskrit/Tibetan liguistics blog, so I'll just leave it at that speculation.
fyreflye:
The DL is first of all a politician whose long term goal is the return of his homeland to local control and his short term task to support the large number of refugees gathered around him in Dharamsala. Sincere though he undoubtedly is, his religious teaching is primarily a means of gaining funding and support for his political ends. As politicians go, he's a whole lot less objectionable than most.
I agree with your first and third sentences (minus the "first of all", but I am not sure what your evidence is for your second. What do you base that on?
The Hitchens article seems to be objecting to a series of strawmen--so a bunch of Westerners don't understand Buddhism on its own terms, and construct an idealized, unrealistic image; that's somehow the Dalai Lama's fault? And this sentence is just bizarre:
While he denies being a Buddhist "Pope," the Dalai Lama is never happier than when brooding in a celibate manner on the sex lives of people he has never met.
Sounds more like Hitchens' projection than real evidence to me.
This is a perfectly realpolitik statement, so crass and banal and opportunist that it would not deserve any comment if it came from another source.
In other words, the only reason it deserves comment is that the Dalai Lama does not live up to the ethereal depiction of Buddhism propagated by Macintosh ads, Shangri-La movies, and Western celebrities?
During his visit to Beijing, our sentimental Baptist hypocrite of a president [Clinton, at the time of this article] turned to his dictator host, recommended that he meet with the Dalai Lama and assured him that the two of them would get on well. That might easily turn out to be the case. Both are very much creatures of the material world.
Hitchens' high moral dudgeon is even more amusing when you consider that he doesn't seem to have any moral problems with the Mideast adventures of a certain sentimental Methodist hypocrite of a current president.
Basically, he objects to the Dalai Lama because he is a creature of the material world, while in Buddhism, the material world is all there is (nirvana means "extinction"; to escape the cycle of the physical world by ceasing to be). While in Theravada Buddhism, the goal is to attain nirvana for oneself, in Mahayana Buddhism (of which Tibetan Vajrayana is a later development) the goal is--while certainly being able to attain it for oneself--holding back to help others attain it as well. So the Dalai Lama is operating under the tenet of remaining in the material world to help others, and Hitchens faults him for being in the material world.
Additionally, Hitchens refers to Lon Nol's army as a Buddhist army (different Buddhism, different country, different history), although Lon Nol did commit the very anti-Buddhist act overthrow Sihanouk, who was regarded by the majority of Khmer (and against canonical scripture) as a true god-king, which Hitchens leaves out of his casual attribution of "Buddhist army".
If Hitchens really wanted to reinforce his point, he could have added that the "good Buddhists" of Cambodia were so enraged at Lon Nol's overthrow of Sihanouk that they killed his brother and ate his liver, and make that somehow Buddhism's fault, too. The reality of the interplay of politics, history, and religion has always been more complex, but Hitchens doesn't "do" complex.
Finally, to his credit, Hitchens, despite his pro-war stance, criticized what occurred at Abu Ghraib. Yet despite the fact that the American public is predominantly Christian, and the higher red-state representation in the military makes it even more so, in his articles on Abu Ghraib, he never blames that on Christianity. Apparently this dynamic he's identified applies only to Buddhism.
So all the referenced article really shows is that Hitchens is superficial in his research, and he mistakes PR campaigns and his own catty prose in his puff piece for substantive criticism. There's a shock (not).
The Dalai Lama is what he is; no more, no less--a religious and political leader, not a would-be saint. I'm not a worshipper, but I do find his personal story interesting--he was taken at 3 from his parents, plunged into an all-male feudal world of power and authority, and educated in the traditional monastic style. The Chinese invaded his country when he was 16, putting him in the position of having to deal with a superpower to protect his people at an age where, in my state of residence, you're not considered old enough to drive a car with other adolescents in it, without an adult present. At 19, he became a refugee and had to establish a government-in-exile.
Yet despite that environment and those experiences, he somehow retained enough interest in the world around him to interact with science in a modern way. If he doesn't always get all the details right, I'm not particularly surprised; despite his interest in science, he is not a scientist. But that he didn't go over fully to the traditional feudal way of thinking, despite being immersed in it since the age of 3, nor become a total reactionary, despite being overthrown and driven into exile--to me, that is the interesting story in all this. -
Sir Oolius:
The DL himself was quite charismatic in person and it was easy to see how people are drawn to him.
I've only heard him speak in person once, but what struck me was that his sense of wonder and humor made him come across in tone and style more as a 10-year-old boy than a 50-something monk. Since I only have the one data point, I am curious if you found him so, as well. -
Christians and Their God Awful Sense of Whaa?
One especially revealing fact, when comparing buddhist and zen people to the protestant christians, is - literally - the divinely bad sense of humour they have. It is showing, how the lost sheep come and try pretend to be the good shepherd. They come off as pretentious. When you point it out, that you know actually more about their religion than they do, and when you show that they are lost in their own jungle of words, they lose their nerves and begin to shout how you are the devil etc.
The thing that makes it really hard to not laugh at a christian is how they seem to have been reading that big book of theirs upside down all their lives. What makes it almost embarrasing is when you see a whole congregation doing the same thing.
One reason why the Gospel of Thomas has not been included into the bible is that it gives the show away too easily:
http://www.goodnewsinc.net/othbooks/thomas.html
Having entertained myself with buddhist and zen literature (quite a treat) it is not that hard to understand what Jesus was really talking about. In general he talks about the same things as the buddhists do, although, the Middle Eastern culture probably was not too receptive to that kind of teaching. See, they have no humour, see. No wonder the Jews had to put the guy to sleep. He was about to give away their game. In Gospel of Thomas it reads how Jesus said: "He who shall drink from my mouth shall become like me; I myself will become he, and the hidden thing shall be revealed to him." Sounds about as much a buddha as anyone else.
Too bad decent writing skills and logic was not among the strengths of the local people. In his last days you can read in the bible how Jesus curses even Peter for not understanding a word he has said. Must've been quite frustrating. I always imagine how pissed off the guy must have been when he told the diciples to "go and fish a congregation", and when they really did: Just another show in how they could misunderstand what his message was.
Now, what actually creates the humongously bad collective sense of humour in christians is this: When a devotee finally begins to unconsciously understand how much further his sense of humour should stretch and stretch before he can truly enter the inner Kindom of Heaven, he becomes afraid, and loses his faith. That someone could be such a hypocrite that he can't understand, how it all was made with all good in mind, and with love, and compassion. Must feel kind of cruel, too. To not be able to understand the meaning of god in the bible, and how God's mercy is never left ungiven. Only a true hypocrite cannot stretch himself to accept it and forgive himself. When you hate yourself you show it to others by hating them.
A religious person once asked spitting to my face: "How long does it take to travel from hell to heaven?" I answered: "The trip from hell to heaven takes only as long as it takes to forgive oneself." Apparently he was still in the throes of his own insurgency.
Sometimes, I even feel that there should be a place to collect all these people. Some place, at least once a week, a moment of peace, when they are not around. A place where they would gather by their own will and stay the hell out of the way, at least a couple of forsaken hours. Please. I am asking nicely. Please!
To me bible, genesis and its stories do have a poignant message to them. It is just that the material has been written so poorly compared to the asian counterparts. When you consider a tribe that must survive in the early days of civilization, it must've been crucial to separate the husk from the seeds, and see who can be truly honest to themselves and thus to the present company, and who are just pissants ready to stab you in the back because they are afraid of their own shadow. Nothing wrong in a small mindfuck to test people out. Unfortunately as all things good go, there are always enough stupid people to spoil everything.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:06 AM -
DL: "Religious faith, utilized properly, strengthens these human values."
PZ: "Religious faith is thought by the religious to strengthen human values—I certainly haven't seen any evidence in support of that idea, and much in opposition."
The key phrase there, of course, is "utilized properly". (Ah, you say, but how do we know who is utilizing their faith properly and who isn't? Hell if I know. Pardon the expression)#: Posted by Seth Gordon on 11/23 at 10:42 AM -
Raven,
You seem to think that the Hitchens article was aimed at people who are educated about the varieties of buddhism, and object to it on the grounds that he is arguing against the western view rather than against what the Dalai Lama and co "really" believe. But he's not writing to you. He's writing for people who believe something to the effect that the DL is supposed to be reincarnated (which makes it sound a lot like there is the possibility of life after death), and that he has access (probably through his connection with former lives or through years of sitting around with his eyes closed) to knowledge and wisdom that can't be attained any other way. This is what gives him his 'divinity'. Are you suggesting that these bits aren't believed by the the DL and his followers?
It's strange that you have plucked sentences out of the article the way you have. Reading your post it almost looks like the 'realpolitik' quote should follow the 'buddhist pope' one closely in the article. The 'buddhist pope' quote certainly does look bizzare when it is not followed by the examples of the DL moralizing about masturbation and prostitution in a particularly irrational way.
I believe it is important to treat the DL just like any other religious leader and constantly remind people that he is no one special and in fact has devoted his time to studying one set of writings or speeches from one other (perhaps remarkable) person rather than the acquisition of knowledge about the material world. Because of Mac ads, Shangri-La movies, and Richard Gere.
I don't know anything about Cambodia or any of that business and there is only so much time to read in the day, so I specifically left that bit out of my discussion. But if what you say is true and its just more buddhists killing more buddhists then it does more to advance the understanding that buddhism is no more a peaceful relgion than christianity or islam. I'm sorry if you think that this was just a given and that everybody ought to know it already, but I think that this misperception is what endears DL to the neuroscientists who usually have such venom for christianity.
You are absolutely right in pointing out that he is not a scientist. I would argue that he is not even a very interesting philosopher, and that he certainly isn't adding some sort of aesthetic or creative aspect (something that could at least be argued for Gehry). He's just another Joe Shmoe who happens to be an armchair neuroscientist. There are sooo many of those. Why is the DL special? Perhaps its because he doesn't really think he's a regular guy, but instead allows himself to be worshipped and catered to by minions. People are taken in by his 'divinity' and respect his opinion more than some others.
The rest of you comments about Hitchens and christianity and the war in iraq and all that aren't very relevant here. But I'm certain that you won't find Hitchens shaking hands with Pat Robertson anytime soon. His reasons for supporting the war (right or wrong, I don't claim to be smart enough to say) are purely secular. He has a whole book about Mother Teresa that is not exactly complimentary.
Equal disdain for all religion. - It is funny that the atheists parrot the religious idea that it is what one believes (rather than what one does) that makes one worthy or unworthy. The atheists may have discarded God, but they haven't discarded the one idea that is really central to religion. One can take the Church out of the atheist, but one can't take out the religion.
-
fyreflye:
.
The DL is first of all a politician whose long term goal is the return of his homeland to local control and his short term task to support the large number of refugees gathered around him in Dharamsala. Sincere though he undoubtedly is, his religious teaching is primarily a means of gaining funding and support for his political ends. As politicians go, he's a whole lot less objectionable than most.
I agree with your first and third sentences (minus the "first of all", but I am not sure what your evidence is for your second. What do you base that on?
That politicians being politicians put politics first and religion second except when putting religion first results in achieving political ends. The DL is not Pat Robertson or the Pope, but he's not The Buddha either. But if you insist upon being blind to the fact that by the very fact of his position the DL must be a politician first and a religious second then feel free to join the happy herd of his naive followers.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 11:58 AM -
John:
"What I feel he is saying is that ALL religions teach that everyone should live by certain basic rules of conduct."
Arun:
"It is funny that the atheists parrot the religious idea that it is what one believes (rather than what one does) that makes one worthy or unworthy."
PZ is not saying that religions does not preach, what he is saying is that it is hard to see that religious people act like they have stronger human values and sometimes act or preach like they have weaker values.
dan:
"You seem to relish any opportunity to ridicule/disdain/vilify anyone who has faith in a god."
It is certainly a good feeling then the usual situation is reversed. Either atheists and/or agnostics are directly vilified, or indirectly by preaching that theists have stronger human values like DL did.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 12:34 PM -
mccm: my point is that the Hitchens article says nothing about whether the Dalai Lama in reality contradicts his claim of being an empiricist, which is what we're debating. Pointing out the ways in which it was a sloppy, poorly-researched, out-of-context hatchet job was just icing, but we can skip that to focus on the main point.
fyreflye:
That politicians being politicians put politics first and religion second except when putting religion first results in achieving political ends.
But I asked for your evidence for that assertion, not just a repeat of that assertion. Simply repeating a blanket assertion without providing any evidence is a tactic of creationists, not scientists.
The DL is not Pat Robertson or the Pope, but he's not The Buddha either. But if you insist upon being blind to the fact that by the very fact of his position the DL must be a politician first and a religious second then feel free to join the happy herd of his naive followers.
Never said he was the Buddha, and I'm not one of the "happy herd of his naive followers", as you seem so willing to label most of the Tibetan people, in Tibet and in exile. Personally, while I don't give a rat's gluteus whether you're rude to me or not, if I were you, I'd be embarrassed to be that publicly rude and disrespectful of the culture and history of an entire developing-world nation. Clearly, you're not. But that doesn't make it evidence, either.
My point is: the Dalai Lama claims to be an empiricist, and the people who object to him speaking at the SFN seem to think he somehow does not live up to that claim. But all the objections presented so far seem to be nothing more than "by definition". If you can show clear examples or instances of where he claims to be an empiricist, but rejects it for mysticisms when the chips are down, you have real evidence that he is no empiricist, and I will join you in condemning him for that.
But superficial strawmen and ad hominems by Christopher Hitchens, and fyreflye's circular argument that religious figures who are politicians put politics before religion because religious figures who are politicians put politics before religion are not the same as producing real, verifiable evidence that the Dalai Lama is no empiricist, no matter how often you repeat it. If you can show him actually rejecting empiricism, then you have evidence. -
As an atheist, a Buddhist, and a humanist, I am pained by the anti-religion bigotry that so often appears in PZ's posts and among the comments on this blog. It's ironic that in blog by a scientist mostly about science there is such frequent over-generalization and stereotyping — just the sort of things that I expect scientists to avoid.
I assume all bigotry derives from ignorance, in this instance ignorance of religion and religious practices. Not all religions are the same or even theistic, and within the broad categories of Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Buddhist there is tremendous variation — just like in the broad category of Scientist. It's been my experience in the US and Europe few people have much awareness of Buddhism beyond what they may have gleaned from the beat poets or a magazine article, and that's a shame because it is so different from the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic family.
Buddhism is all about asking questions, seeking answers where ever they may be found, throwing away dogma, and cultivating compassion. What's not to like about that?
Then there is the mediation bit:
Many of you must have seen press reports like this one on Sara Lazar's study, "one of several exploring the potential impact of meditation on the brain presented at the Society for Neuroscience meeting… . Lazar is a research scientist at Harvard Medical School's Massachusetts General Hospital. She presented the study at Neuroscience 2005, the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. It also appears in the latest issue of the journal NeuroReport." (See webmd.com article)
"Studies have shown people who meditate are more relaxed, and skeptics will say, 'Of course they're more relaxed. They're just sitting there,' " said Sara Lazar, lead author of the study. "But sitting and relaxing in front of the TV doesn't make your brain grow."
The researchers studied 20 people with extensive training in Buddhist insight meditation and who had been doing it for an average of nine years. During those years, they meditated for about 45 minutes, six days a week. Researchers compared structural magnetic resonance images of their brains with those of a control group of 15 non-meditators.
Meditation changed gray matter. Those who regularly meditated had increased thickness in a region called the insula, central to integrating thoughts and emotions. That might help explain how meditation relieves stress. Years of practicing meditation also affected areas controlling heart rate and breathing.
Most of the increased thickening was in the right hemisphere, in the prefrontal cortex, which sustains attention and regulates memory. Those areas generally thin as people age, so one hypothesis is that meditation might slow age-related brain loss. Three of the 20 meditators practiced yoga in addition to meditation and had even greater increases in brain thickness.
It could be that people drawn to meditation already have thicker brain matter. But the finding fits with recent evidence that the brain is capable of changing structure and function — and that used circuits get stronger, while those ignored shrink and weaken. People who speak two languages, for example, have thicker areas of the brain that control language, and musicians' brains change after years of practice.
See also this CNN interview -
I'm with Raven. I find it interesting that in spite of the hardheaded skeptic pose, mccm keeps throwing out unsupported assertions about the Dalai Lama:
Why is the DL special? Perhaps its because he doesn't really think he's a regular guy, but instead allows himself to be worshipped and catered to by minions. People are taken in by his 'divinity' and respect his opinion more than some others.
Perhaps. But given that the Dalai Lama consistently characterizes himself as a simple Buddhist monk in his public appearances, the only way to confirm that he really doesn't believe that would appear to be telepathy.#: Posted by Stephen Stralka on 11/23 at 12:52 PM -
I love how "atheist" somehow always manages to mean "fundamentalist wacko." It must be wonderful to have such cartoonish targets to constantly set yourself up against, and avoid all nuance about a subject that has driven humanity for the last ten thousand years.
#: Posted by on 11/23 at 01:35 PM
-
Buddhism (pretty much all of it, tibetan, korean, cha'an, zen, thai, vietnamese, etc) has as one it's central points the idea that the religion is based on empiricism (there's a bunch of other stuff about suffering, self and rebirth and what not as well).
What this means is that the Buddha isn't saying what's what, here's what you have to do or you're going to hell. He's stating what he actually has experienced. In addition he's also saying that other folks should try it out and see for themselves.
So empiricism in buddhism means that you should check it out and find out if it works.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 01:42 PM -
"I assume all bigotry derives from ignorance,"
Wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."
I think this has been said many times, but most of the grievance here comes from religion being bigot about science or science facts, or by vilifying nonreligious people.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 02:07 PM -
He's writing for people who believe something to the effect that the DL is supposed to be reincarnated (which makes it sound a lot like there is the possibility of life after death), and that he has access (probably through his connection with former lives or through years of sitting around with his eyes closed) to knowledge and wisdom that can't be attained any other way.
as much as i would like to, don't have time to get in the middle of this right now. but i need to correct an apparent impression.
as skeptical as people might be about Buddhist reincarnation, AFAIK the reincarnated being has no memory or recollection of past lives. yes, there's "past lives psychotherapy", whatever that means, but that's not Buddhist. the only residue from previous lives is karma. indeed, i believe it was Minsky who commented that the problem with the concept of a reincarnated soul is that it has no memory and so cannot benefit from the experience of former lives. (he also observed, if i recall correctly, that the problem with the soul as a concept of something after death is that it is not alive, because it never changes.)
also wanted to comment that while i've never seen the DL in person, i did listen to him at a similar conference at Kresge at MIT and i very much got that wide-eyed-kid impression.
sorry, need to go work now. later ... - sorry folks, didn't make clear. my experience was a video of this visit to MIT.
-
re #50371--
You probably want to leave Tolstoy off that list. He was more of a champagne liberal with a very nasty way of treating his wife than a real good guy.
Which isn't to say that I don't love his writing#: Posted by on 11/23 at 02:20 PM -
I'm not sure what to make of this request to provide "evidence" that the Dalai Lama isn't an empiricist. I mean, what about the whole part where he's the Dalai Lama? And the entirety of Tibetan Buddhism? Hello?
#: Posted by on 11/23 at 03:11 PM
-
Hello?
If it is that obvious, poke, then surely you will have no trouble producing concrete examples of instances where--despite his famously saying that if science and religion conflict, then religion must change--he chose to act differently when confronted directly with that conflict. When you produce those instances, I will join you in saying that he is no empiricist.
Where is the conflict, exactly, and given that conflict, when did he come down on the side of religion over science? That is all the evidence I am asking for. -
I’m trying to figure out what the Dalai Lama would have to do for his statements of respect for empiricism and open-mindedness to be taken seriously. Quit being Dalai Lama? Renounce Buddhism? There’s certainly nothing about Buddhism, generally speaking, that is inherently offensive to an empirical mindset, since Buddhism in its core teachings really doesn’t make any metaphysical claims. Of course, I can see how his position as Dalai Lama would be harder to swallow—it’s certainly the case, after all, that the way one becomes the Dalai Lama is to be identified as the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama—but there are other factors to consider.
For one thing, I see no reason to think the Dalai Lama isn’t sincere in his efforts to use his position to bring about a worthy goal—the liberation of Tibet. (This might well be a futile goal, of course, but that’s another question.) With Tibet in the hands of the Chinese, and so many of its people in exile, the Dalai Lama is the most visible symbol of the continuity of Tibetan culture. There’s no denying he enjoys a lot of privileges as a result of his position, but he does seem to recognize the position brings a lot of responsibility with it as well, and he seems to take that responsibility seriously.
Besides, it’s not like it’s his fault he’s the Dalai Lama. He was picked out for the position at a very young age and, given the tradition he’s coming from, he might no more be able to give up being Dalai Lama than Haile Selassie could give up being Jah to the Rastafarians. I can’t say for sure what the general attitude of the Tibetans is toward the Dalai Lama, but assuming that they do look to him as their leader, it could be that there’s only so much he can do to change that.
The point, though, is that I’m at least willing to believe, in the absence of other evidence, that he’s doing everything he can to bring the Tibetan tradition into the modern age. Unless you see this tradition as one that ought to be abandoned altogether, I can’t see how there’s anything wrong with that. He’s saying quite clearly that Buddhism must yield to modern science, and he’s also taken the position, for what it’s worth, that if the Tibetan people ever do regain their country, he will have no part in the government, which he wants to be democratic. So he’s willing to renounce his temporal authority, and he’s open to revising the teachings of his religion in accordance with modern science. What more do you want?#: Posted by Stephen Stralka on 11/23 at 05:10 PM -
Stephen, your points are well-taken, and there's the human rights issue in addition to all the ones you mentioned--were he to renounce his post, just to please poke's, mccm's, and fyreflye's idea of what constitutes a "proper" guest speaker at a conference public talk, what little light is currently shining on the human rights abuses Tibetans in Chinese prisons undergo would lose one of its most visible advocates.
What fyreflye refers to as "the happy herd of his naive followers" includes monks, nuns, and ordinary citizens who survived (or didn't) the Chinese prisons in Tibet, including refugees/exiles with whom the Dalai Lama currently works in his role as the leader of Tibet in exile. (Not my idea of either "happy" or "naive", but as they say, YMMV.) My guess is that even if the Dalai Lama were to renounce all that work, his title, and Buddhism itself, the critics still wouldn't be satisfied. -
mccm, the reason to invite a Buddhist, rather than some other religion, is that other religions aren't so strongly based on principles directly related to the mind. One of the 8 major principles of Buddhism is the development of concentration through long practice (not by asking a deity to give you better concentration.)
The reason to invite the Dalai Lama, rather than another Buddhist leader, is that the Dalai Lama has spent a great deal of time engaging with leading scientists in discussion on these issues.
I don't see it as being any less valid than studying the health of people in cultures that eat lots of fish, compared to Western cultures that eat more red meat.
If there were a religious sect, which had spent 2,500 years following practices based on running, and had developed various practical exercise techniques to improve one's running, and had a culture in which some people spent most of their life doing those exercises, and those practices had quantifiable results, I'd expect scientists in the appropriate fields to take an interest.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 07:58 PM -
Stephen Stralka: ... he might no more be able to give up being Dalai Lama than Haile Selassie could give up being Jah to the Rastafarians.
IIRC, Selassie's inherited position was Emperor of Ethiopia. It was long after his birth that certain Jamaicans declared him "Jah" (apparently a variation on "Jahweh"), which he reportedly considered prime craziness. (He was really wrapped up in the Emperor part, though.)#: Posted by on 11/23 at 08:03 PM -
It's important to remember that the DL's talk was necessarily limited by the large mixed audience, time limits, and the context. (Never mind the language barrier).
If you want to get a more accurate idea of his interaction with scientists, it would be best to pick up one of the published accounts of his semi-regular closed conclaves with scientists.
One such is "Consciousness at the Crossroads : Conversations with the Dalai Lama on Brainscience and Buddhism", an account of a 1989 meeting.
And really, for all the anti-religious criticism (let alone the Chi-Com criticism), the fact is the man lives in the middle of nowhere but knows more about science than the guy who determines US science policy.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 08:06 PM -
"What this means is that the Buddha isn't saying what's what, here's what you have to do or you're going to hell. "
Actually, the Buddha also said "here's what you have to do or you're going to heaven".
Even heaven has its bad side, because sooner or later it ends and you move on again, and that sucks, because you'll probably end up someplace worse.
The whole point of Buddhism is to stop the whole cycle. It's the "Jane! Stop This Crazy Thing!" religion.
Which is why I figure the rebirth angle isn't strictly necessary. Since the whole idea is to *stop* the cycle in a neutral state, it applies just as well if you take endless rebirth as a metaphor for going through life making the same sorts of mistakes over and over again.
In life you have great days, good days, neutral days, and you have bad days and downright evil days. The whole rebirths-in-hell-or-heaven-or-other-realms is just a cosmological extrapolation of day-to-day life.
If you want to believe in actual rebirths, fine, but I don't see it as being strictly necessary.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 08:24 PM -
fyreflye:
"That politicians being politicians put politics first and religion second except when putting religion first results in achieving political ends."
But I asked for your evidence for that assertion, not just a repeat of that assertion. Simply repeating a blanket assertion without providing any evidence is a tactic of creationists, not scientists.
When you provide me with evidence that any of the DL's religious assertions are factually true, I'll provide evidence for my rude conclusions. Falsifiable evidence only, please.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 08:43 PM -
fyreflye, first you argue, with no evidence:
Sincere though he undoubtedly is, his religious teaching is primarily a means of gaining funding and support for his political ends.
Then you argue, again with no evidence:
That politicians being politicians put politics first and religion second except when putting religion first results in achieving political ends.
Finally you say:
When you provide me with evidence that any of the DL's religious assertions are factually true, I'll provide evidence for my rude conclusions.
Your claim to know with certainty what other people are thinking, your name-calling, and your moving the goalposts when called on it are strictly out of the creationist playbook of how to argue when the evidence is not on your side.
When you are ready to present reliable evidence that the Dalai Lama does not live up to his pro-science words and deeds, I will listen to what you have to say. But now you are just arguing like a creationist, which is a waste of time. -
ah, time to play.
The reason to invite the Dalai Lama, rather than another Buddhist leader, is that the Dalai Lama has spent a great deal of time engaging with leading scientists in discussion on these issues.
indeed, most other major religious and political leaders seem to think attending scientific conferences beneath them and the constituents they represent. there's a lot to be said for a religious leader who actively seeks interaction with science.When you provide me with evidence that any of the DL's religious assertions are factually true, I'll provide evidence for my rude conclusions. Falsifiable evidence only, please.
"any of the DL's religious assertions" is pretty broad. do you mean basic doctrines of Mayahana Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, the DL's personal observations, or what, specifically?
it is not tied to Buddhism per se, apart from being a significant practice, but the physical, mental, and health benefits of meditation and training in meditation are pretty well established. heck, it might not be "falsifiable" for you, but the very fact i can use it to stop the lactic acid burn in my legs while biking says something for the practice of meditation.
Buddhism isn't science, and it's far from perfect, given its history in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, but it sure as heck poses a serious challenge to other religions in terms of its engagement with modernity. most others seem to want to throw modernity away in their orthodox forms, or at least box it up so it remains "safe".
even Judaism, which is a very life-affirming religion, is and deserves to be challenged by it. a monk was asked if there's nothing he would kill for, if hypothetically someone was going to kill the last Buddhist alive, if he wouldn't kill for that? his reply was that if there is anything true about Buddhism, then it would be rediscovered, even if all the personal witnesses and texts disappeared.
now, from a Buddhist perspective, this is simply consistent with non-attachment. but from a Jewish perspective, it really hits a nerve and makes Judaism look twitchy and lacking self-confidence in contrast.
i should qualify and explain, i have many sympathies towards being a "Jew-Bu", a Jew who seeks connections between Judaism and Buddhism, notably in the direction of creation a non-theistic Judaism. undoubtedly this is terribly controversial, rejected by the most liberal of Jews, and held in amused skepticism by Buddhist teachers, perhaps because it seems another symptom of the complexifying "monkey mind". maybe so.
but my personal alternative is to abandon both traditions entirely. who is to say whether my seeking connections between Buddhist teachings and Judaic aren't as valid as notions of karma and reincarnation? it's a journey. and i'm sure there'll never be a neat, finished, crystalline answer. life is a ball of mud. and seeking the crystalline is in many ways seeking perpetuation of self. -
"now, from a Buddhist perspective, this is simply consistent with non-attachment."
Right, just as, from a Buddhist perspective, the destruction of the Bamiyan buddhas was just proving their point of impermanence of all thigns. (Indeed, it seems a bit odd for Buddhists to build monuments intended to last so long. The sand mandalas, swept away after a short display, seem more in the spirit.)
Given the Buddhist preference for such equanimity, it's actually remarkable that the religion has stuck around for 2,500 years.
" but from a Jewish perspective, it really hits a nerve and makes Judaism look twitchy and lacking self-confidence in contrast."
On the other hand, Buddhism has an inherent concept of cycles, and repetition, and the idea that the Buddha was just one of many through many cycles of the universe.
The Jews, not so much. If you believe there won't be any do-overs, then it's a natural to get quite a bit more upset.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 09:32 PM -
fyreflye,
Are you in high school?
Being a smart ass isn't the same thing as being smart.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 09:32 PM -
Given the Buddhist preference for such equanimity, it's actually remarkable that the religion has stuck around for 2,500 years.
oh, it's not like it hasn't been without cost. i don't know the historical particulars -- or even if they are known with any confidence -- but it looks like Buddhism left India or that region, escaping and surviving in China, because all the Buddhists were annihilated.
also, someone zinged the DL for meeting with the Sarin gas terrorists of Japan. i bet he'd meet with bin Laden or al-Zahrqawi (sp?) too. ideals in Buddhism are to pray for the person who is murdering you, that they may be rescued from the hell in which they find themselves.On the other hand, Buddhism has an inherent concept of cycles, and repetition, and the idea that the Buddha was just one of many through many cycles of the universe.
yeah, but this monk's response wasn't based upon some theoretical metaphysics or theology, which is what you seem to imply. this was a quiet statement of confidence that Buddhism was true and truth necessarily must be rediscovered. the cycles shtick seems like rationalization in contrast. -
My most significant experience with Buddhism occurred when I moved to the San Francisco Bay area and began sitting (i.e. meditating) with a group in Palo Alto who's teacher, Gil Fronsdal, was affiliated with Spirit Rock, a group of Buddhist teachers asscociated with Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein, all from Jewish backgrounds who had traveled to Asia to "find themselves" in the 1970's and brought back Buddhist practice. With others they founded the Insight Meditation Society in the Boston area and Spirit Rock outside of San Francisco. Kornfield and Goldstein were and <span class="caps">AFAIK</span> remain practicing pyschologists.
Being a hard-headed atheistic, software engineering manager at the time, I was impressed with their focus on just "watching the breath," "noting what the mind does," and frankly the purely empirical experience of "seeing for yourself."
Imagine going on a retreat where for ten days you don't talk, don't read, don't write, don't listen to the radio or TV — where you just notice how your mind stays active doing its thing. I found it to be an incredible experiment in self discovery — pure empiricism at its finest.
To me that is the essence of Buddhism: seeing for yourself what you are. Why doesn't every scientist who really cares about science seek out such an experience? Why do so many people who hear about retreats like this react with something akin to horror? "You mean I have to be with myself for ten days? No TV, no newspapers, no internet?" It's just cultural conditioning and facing up to it.
We human beings are truly marvelous creatures and we can see that for ourselves — if we just are willing to let go and give it a try. No God involved, no dogma, no strange rituals. Simply spend a little time with just yourself. -
"When you provide me with evidence that any of the DL's religious assertions are factually true,"
One of his religious assertions is that meditation practice improves concentration. That's one of the pillars of the religion. Some of the key Buddhist texts are the Buddha's discourses on meditation. Concentration aids 'mindfulness' of one's actions and thoughts, another pillar, and they contribute to the development of the rest of the pillars of the religion, the 'softer' less empircally-oriented ones like 'right speech' and 'right thinking'.
As noted upthread, a recent study on casual-to-serious non-ordained American meditators found a thickening of the cortex in regions associated with concentration. Not unlike the kind of development found in musicians, where the brain enlarges somewhat in related areas of the brain.
Other studies have shown meditators being less distractible, and otherwise having characteristics not shared by the controls.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 09:45 PM -
"yeah, but this monk's response wasn't based upon some theoretical metaphysics or theology, which is what you seem to imply. this was a quiet statement of confidence that Buddhism was true and truth necessarily must be rediscovered. the cycles shtick seems like rationalization in contrast."
Perhaps. My point was basically that if there are cycles, then there's plenty of time for it to be rediscovered, which could take a while. It may be inherently true, but it isn't necessarily obvious.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 09:52 PM -
damn.... i write a message, get on a plane, land, and you folks have filled a couple pages.
i want to try to be a little more clear and less offhand with my issue and maybe ask a couple questions because there appear to be a lot of different perspectives here that disagree with me.
i think that by inviting someone to be a major speaker at a the SFN conference, the SFN publicly grants some amount of cache or respect to that person. so by inviting the DL to speak we tacitly 'approve' of him and what he might say. you might even say that the SFN has given the DL its blessing.
if you believe that (you don't have to but the rest of my message is going to be based on that premise) then the SFN has a sort of power that it can wield, and it becomes a question of what sort of people does it want to apply that power to.
forget i ever brought up Hitchens. lets pretend that we all believe that the DL is at least a decent person. so we can at least invite him on that count.
here's what i assumed that some of you seem to be arguing is wrong: buddhism is a religion and if one is a buddhist like the DL (whatever the mahayana or whatever) then you believe and teach certain tenets. a portion of these tenets have a supernatural/mystical, non-materialist, non-empiricist basis. examples that i'm not sure apply to the DL are belief in reincarnation and karma and some sort of state known as nirvana that one reaches through enlightenment which is the complete suppression of the self. also, buddhism has strict rules that one should follow if one is to be a proper buddhist such as refraining from certain sexual practices and perhaps a particular diet or something like that.
we can split two ways here. 1) buddhism is purely materialist and empricist or 2) buddhism is a mystical religion.
if 1 is true, then buddhism is nothing more than another philosophy. why should we have a special name for buddhism rather than just calling it empiricism? and why shouldn't we invite an up-to-date philosopher of science instead? and why should he be particularly asked to speak on meditation? because he meditates a lot?
if 2 is true, then the SFN tacitly lends support to mystical beliefs. i think it undermines the scientific and empricist basis of the SFN to do so.
i think the way this is getting played in public is that it turns out that meditation in the buddhist manner is really good for you and makes your brain grow. now buddhism the religion is good for you and you should follow it. now you start following buddhism and your meditation teacher goes in for all the supernatural tenets too so you have to follow those if you are going to meditate properly.
i'm sorry if this is repetitious and unclear still, but i think you get the idea. basically if buddhism isn't a religion then i have no problem with it, but it sure looooks like a religion, so by endorsing it the SFN appears to be endorsing non-materialist beliefs. i don't like that. -
"we can split two ways here. 1) buddhism is purely materialist and empricist or 2) buddhism is a mystical religion. "
Textbook case of the excluded middle. Why not "3) it's a little of both, with more or less of the mystical depending on which type of Buddhism you're talking about"
If there are empirical, material aspects of Buddhism, which would be worth studying, then they're worth studying. Further, aspects of Buddhism which it gives a spiritual/mystical explanation for may have real testable effects with different, but real, explanations which can be found by science.
If Buddhists had a particular religiously-dictated diet, and Buddhists were found to experience low rates of certain disease, wouldn't that be worth studying, even if the Buddhist rationale for the diet was nonsense?#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:03 PM -
"now buddhism the religion is good for you and you should follow it."
Not at all. Buddhist meditation consists of as little as paying attention to the feeling of air passing through your nostrils as you breathe. That's it. Not much spiritual matter there which requires a commitment to one religion.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:05 PM -
"As noted upthread, a recent study on casual-to-serious non-ordained American meditators found a thickening of the cortex in regions associated with concentration. Not unlike the kind of development found in musicians, where the brain enlarges somewhat in related areas of the brain."
BTW, this is the sort of thing I hope to discourage. I don't mean any offense Jon H, but it is very very very important to note that correlation is not causation. We do not know that meditation or musical practice causes the brain to enlarge or thicken. We know that people who meditate have thicker parts there. Even this needs to be replicated. In order to make the strong causal conclusion you will need to start with people whose cortices look the same, split them into meditation and non-meditation conditions, and follow the changes in their cortex over time in an experimentally blind fashion.
I'm not saying that it can't be the case. I'm just saying that science hasn't shown that meditation makes your brain grow just yet. -
seems like we crossed streams there.
no i don't think there is a third option. if to be a buddhist is to have mystical beliefs, the buddhism is mystical. this is about as true a deductive statement as i can muster. if you can be a buddhist and not have mystical beliefs, then you might as well just be an materialist instead and forget the religious trappings. -
Good point, Jon H,
Like many traditions, there are parts that are valuable, and parts that are hooey. At least the DL allows that some parts are going to turn out to be hooey. And Buddhism teaches that you don't have to accept everything your teacher tells you. "Find out for yourself."
Look at a parallel in medicine. There are all kinds of traditional remedies that are placebos at best. But, there are also lots of pharmeceuticals that have come from traditional remedies: aspririn from willow bark, for example.
The scientific method lets us identify and separate out the essential, useful parts of tradition, whether it's aspects of diet, exercise (both mental and physical), medicine, or whatever, and discard the bullshit.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:22 PM - mccm, I believe your last statement is an argument from incredulity--you can't imagine how anyone can be a non-mystical Buddhist, so therefore it can't exist, no matter how many people who have studied the matter more closely tell you it can. As I am sure you know, argument from incredulity is not considered actual evidence.
-
"no i don't think there is a third option. if to be a buddhist is to have mystical beliefs, the buddhism is mystical. this is about as true a deductive statement as i can muster. "
First, you really ought to learn more about Buddhism.
Second, it's pretty silly. My point about religiously-dictated diets stands. They may have mystical justifications in the religion, but have genuine benefits with scientific explanations.
If there were a religion that worshipped the willow tree, would you throw out your aspirin?#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:30 PM -
mccm - There has been a lot of weird mystical baggage attached to buddhism over time. But that does not change the essential truths at the center of it regarding psychology. I too, reject mystical, supernatural stuff. But I think that one could reject all that stuff and still be a Buddhist, if only because one likes the aesthetics of the tradition. (robes, hair, chants, all that stuff)
Buddhism is not an all-or-nothing thing, you are allowed to pick and choose to a greater extent than in Western religions without being called a heretic or hypocrite.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:31 PM -
mccm, there's a good book you should track down.
It's called "Zen and the Brain", by a neurologist (professor emeritus someplace) and Zen practitioner, published by MIT press. Big, dense, technical, with a number of testable hypotheses. Compared to Tibetan buddhism, it's mysticism-free.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:36 PM -
please don't take my silence over the next few hours as agreement. but also please don't take me as disagreeing for the a lark.
my argument does indeed hinge on the dalai lama's teachings being mystical. so can you answer me just this one: whether or not one can be a non-mystical buddhist which sort is the dalai lama? -
BTW - I don't consider myself a Buddhist, but I have found certain ideas from Buddhism interesting and useful.
#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:41 PM
-
"whether or not one can be a non-mystical buddhist which sort is the dalai lama?"
More mystical, but does it matter if he's addressing non-mystical aspects of his religion?
Would you prefer that no Roman Catholic neurologists speak, because they believe in transubstantiation?#: Posted by on 11/23 at 10:42 PM -
Why does it have to be an either/or situation? How is it useful to force that point? I'm sure, growing up how he did, the DL has some mystical beliefs.
We all have some kind of non-rational stuff that we believe in on some level.
I don't believe in any supernatural stuff, karmic justice, an afterlife.. but I still find myself doing superstitious stuff when my favorite football team is in a close game. I'll find myself changing my shirt, or thinking "hmm they were ahead when I was sitting in that chair, and fell behind when I moved to the couch. I'd better move back to the chair."
Hell - it's irrational for me to feel connected to an NFL team in the first place, just because I happen to have been born in the city that the team is located. But I do it anyway. Go figure.#: Posted by on 11/23 at 11:02 PM -
whether or not one can be a non-mystical buddhist which sort is the dalai lama?
Christmas Humphreys. -
additional reference on the rationalist C.H., and a critical quote:
Buddhism would remain what it is even if it were proved that the Buddha never lived.
-
Your claim to know with certainty what other people are thinking, your name-calling, and your moving the goalposts when called on it are strictly out of the creationist playbook of how to argue when the evidence is not on your side.
When you are ready to present reliable evidence that the Dalai Lama does not live up to his pro-science words and deeds, I will listen to what you have to say. But now you are just arguing like a creationist, which is a waste of time.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
BTW, I've been a practicioner of the liberation methods taught by the Buddha, primarily Vipassana, since 1978. They are not only helpful but so liberating that I can no longer think of myself as either a Buddhist or a believer in Buddhism and have learned to view with a more than appropriate skeptic