My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.
– His Holiness the Dalai Lama from his book The Universe in a Single Atom
2007-08-29 11:28:17 · 11 answers · asked by Shawn B 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
That works for Buddhism, but then again Buddhism was started by somebody who sat down and tried to think "OK, why is the world the way that it is, and what can we do about it?" Most other religions answer that question with dogma allegedly passed down from a big invisibly guy, not by somebody who tried using deductive logic.
Granted I have my disagreements with Buddhism and those conclusions, but I still wouldn't call this a "science and religion" quote. Most religions reply to conflicting scientific evidence with "Either deny it, or reinterpret the results or the dogma so that you can rationalize away the contradictions and make it sound like it fits."
2007-08-29 11:34:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I agree. As a long-time practitioner of Zen, I usually ignore the Tibetan Buddhists - their variant reflects the strong influence of the Bon Pa, an animist religion that predates Buddhism. This sometimes obscures the Buddha's message and more importantly, adds an unnecessary cultural overlay to what is actually universal truth. The Tibetans no more own Buddhism than the Japanese own Zen. In fact, it must be developed in the West using a form that English-speakers can appreciate: in your example, the Dalai Lama does this himself.
2007-08-29 12:23:45 · answer #2 · answered by Who Else? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sounds nice, but applying critical analysis to the supernatural will result in the end of all religions. Something tells he the Dalai Lama does not follow these words, stoops to rationalization or the "can't disprove so it must be right" line of thought.
2007-08-29 11:32:35 · answer #3 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it likely states the thoughts of the Dalai Lama.
It is probably in conflict with the thought processes of most people who believe in literal interpretation of "divinely-inspired" texts like the Bible or the Q'uran.
2007-08-29 11:41:16 · answer #4 · answered by BAL 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Buddhism is nice in that it doesn't threaten, only shows you how to live a better life and see for yourself. The only penalty of not following the path is that you will continue suffer because of your wants and delusions.
2007-08-29 11:33:57 · answer #5 · answered by x2000 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree, but I don't see why he wouldn't start with the premise that those claims have to be justifiable in the first place. Most of them, afterall, are not falsifiable.
2007-08-29 11:31:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The authority I accept is God the Creator not some self proclaimed so-called holy man.
2007-08-29 12:55:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That Lama is one smart cookie
2007-08-29 11:37:15 · answer #8 · answered by dougness86 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of the most rational quotes I heard. I definitely agree.
2007-08-29 11:31:30 · answer #9 · answered by 8theist 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree wholeheartedly, what could be more holy than the truth?
2007-08-29 11:39:01 · answer #10 · answered by Equinoxical ™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋