New Buddhist Path - Implications to New Evolutionary Myth - PP 62 - 85

[Mp]

Wonderful response Jundo, thank you for that. =)

Gassho
Shingen

s@today

[Jundo]

Hi Risho,

So are you saying that there is no subjective experience without a subject to perceive it? I mean that makes sense to me, and that's how I understand it. "Beautiful" is a value judgment; green, beautiful, tall, short, etc are all relative comparisons to other things. Obviously without other stuff to compare it to, we could not make comparisons. Tall doesn't exist without short and so on.

Even in our measurement systems, what is a gram, a pound, meter per second? It's all built on comparison; from that perspective everything is related.

That is correct. But it is not just a "subjective experience" of these things. That "subjective experience" is their actual creation in a very real sense. Remove all sentient beings from the cosmos with our brains, tongues and eyes and our inner comparison making abilities and, insta-presto, all "trees" "sandwiches" "tall vs. short", grams, pounds and meters vanish instantly. POOF! GONE!

Oh, don't misunderstand: Most certainly some matter in various configurations with certain properties remain, but without color, taste and everything else we bring to the show. And that "everything else" is something real that without us could not manifest and could be located no where. In fact, without us, the universe does become much like a theatre show with nobody to watch it (and in very many ways, with nobody to write it too because our brains create the images of scenery and story out of otherwise meaningless materials). Most people believe that the world still "would exist without us," that the "show would go on" even without us to see and act and interpret it all. They might think that it is really just the chemical and other physical properties that are the underlying reality, and our experience of them as ideas is just a derivative, superfluous, meta-phenomenon that is but an unnecessary subjective experience of the underlying reality of matter which would exist quite well without it. Yes, in some ways it likely would (and once did for billions of years before our appearance) roll on without us as the underlying chemical and physical structures of things. But all the rest of the "show" necessitates we, the sentient beings, to write much of the story with our creative interpretive brains, to act and to bring the show to life in our seeing. No "humans" and, perhaps carbon and other atoms and molecules yes, but no "trees" and no "cheese sandwiches."

So I get that - I think that is pretty obvious. I think it's logical and experiential that none of us are separate, independent and/or unchanging entities too, i.e. the non-self. There is a self, but it's not this separate thing we think. So it's a self, but it's a "non" self which means that it's a slight tweak -- actually a radically different perspective from what we normally think of ourselves as human beings.

The precepts all support this - In a way, maybe you could say that instead of behaving in ways that are traditionally self-centered (with a view on me, myself and I - separate from you and the world), we try to live in a way that is self-centered, with the understanding that this Zen self-centeredness is focused on the benefit to others. So we do not kill, but moreover we support life, etc. We take care of ourselves because that is taking care of others and vice versa.

Now this is the kicker for me at least --> although that seems very logical and reasonable that I am not separate, I do not intuitively nor habitually behave that way.

Frankly, I am not convinced that realizing we are "one with all things" and that (in one way of seeing) not separate from all the other sentient beings will therefore make us compassionate to them. It helps, and it can make us much less self-centered in many ways, but as soon as we return to our old way of living as separate beings, we will tend to return to our old habits and ways of treating other people. Sometimes folks like Thich Nhat Hanh imply that we can come to see and treat the whole world as "our children" or "our mother." Well, I believe that I treat my children or mother as "my children" and "my mother" because of hormonal and other chemical processes in my brain and body. (That does not mean that I do not love them with all my heart -- "Love" being another real something that needs sentient beings to bring into the universe. It just means that I do not believe that most human beings are biologically wired to love too outside their own group as much as within it). Perhaps, if someday we learn to expand the realm of fellow beings for whom we feel love and caring by expanding that chemical reaction more widely, we human being might actually come to treat others more as "my child" or "my mother." We can learn how to increase our tendencies within for altruism, to be giving, nurturing and concerned with others. I don't think that traditional Buddhist practices alone, including Zazen and the Precepts, are enough by themselves as a cure, although they certainly do much to treat the symptoms of our worst human tendencies toward selfishness and such.

Ok, with all that being said... the troubling part of this chapter, and with the bending of science to meet our belief systems is that we feel like we need to have science back us up so that it validates our practice.

I don't feel that what Loy or I are doing here is from a need to "back up" and prove aspects of Buddhist Practice and belief. In my view, science has a narrower focus centered on understanding the physical structures and processes of the universe. It is a bit like saying that, if I am a chef running a kitchen, I do not need science to confirm how I cook the pasta. Science might provide some helpful information on why the water boils, the chemical properties of a tomato, how much salt to use and why the body needs salt, etc. But the taste of the dish is up to the chef's creativity, the ingredients chosen for the sauce in the chef's experience (unlikely there is a practical equation for that, although science might help farmers raise better tomatoes by understanding the chemistry of delicious tomatoes and its relationship to the soil etc.), and the tongues of the customer. I know "delicious rigatoni" when I taste it, and I do not need science to tell me why. It is nice when science might add a viewpoint to explain why some sauces are more delicious than others, and how to raise better ingredients, but the proof is the tasting.

It is simply that I do not wish to believe or advocate some view of the world that science indicates is likely false, superstitious, bunkum or the like. I do not want a religion that insists the earth is flat when it is simply not, or that babies are born walking and talking as fact.

I will admit that there may be room for common ground. If Buddhists believe that "the small self, from a certain perspective is not separate and we are just a manifestation of the universe", and then physicists say the we, "from a certain perspective are not real and are just stardust, all fields of matter-energy" I think it very cool to share common ground.

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Jakuden]

Great discussion. In these posts discussing Science, I have sensed the tendency of some to be referring to Science as something concrete, a belief system that is well defined, that is being compared to Buddhism and its doctrines. I feel that is mistaken. What we call "Science" is the investigation of the unknown, via forming a hypothesis, setting up a set of circumstances to test it, then deciding via mathematical statistics whether the hypothesis has been borne out. However, the result has to always be stated with a statistical "degree of confidence," which, said differently, is actually a degree of uncertainty. This practice has helped me view this process in the light of "don't know" rather than "we know this for certain." A hypothesis can be "proved" one day but then not really the next, for infinite reasons. That is in complete alignment with the "don't know," infinite nature of the Dharma. Science can only align with any belief system so much--it is by nature incomplete, a corner of a giant puzzle that we humans have miraculously somehow put together.
Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Risho]

thank you very very much Jundo; that was very helpful.

Gassho

Risho
-sattoday

[Byrne]

Great discussion. In these posts discussing Science, I have sensed the tendency of some to be referring to Science as something concrete, a belief system that is well defined, that is being compared to Buddhism and its doctrines. I feel that is mistaken. What we call "Science" is the investigation of the unknown, via forming a hypothesis, setting up a set of circumstances to test it, then deciding via mathematical statistics whether the hypothesis has been borne out. However, the result has to always be stated with a statistical "degree of confidence," which, said differently, is actually a degree of uncertainty. This practice has helped me view this process in the light of "don't know" rather than "we know this for certain." A hypothesis can be "proved" one day but then not really the next, for infinite reasons. That is in complete alignment with the "don't know," infinite nature of the Dharma. Science can only align with any belief system so much--it is by nature incomplete, a corner of a giant puzzle that we humans have miraculously somehow put together.
Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jakuden,

Your recent posts about science have been very concise and thought provoking. Thank you very much.

Gassho

Sat Today

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,

I don't have much to add at this point but I wanted to say I'm finding the discussion thought provoking.

Gassho

Hoseki
Sattoday

[Kokuu]

Hi all

I found this section interesting but not a huge challenge since it is pretty much the viewpoint I hold as a scientist who worked within the paradigm of self-organisation in biological science and evolution. However, it is just what I see as the current best model for explaining how the universe works and may be replaced by something better at some point.

The most interesting thing for me about the study of evolution is that self-interest has been demonstrated to be best served through altruism. Not unlimited altruism, though, but assuming goodwill at first and only stopping to give to people once they have proved to be only self-serving. Being altruistic is good, being a doormat not so much.

As HH Dalai Lama says "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy yourself, practice compassion."

I am not sure that Buddhism needs a creation story. It is sufficient that things exist and we have to interact with them.

The overlap between physics and Buddhist ideas of interconnection is also interesting but I would not care if physics did not show the same thing. Experience from meditative experience is enough for me. Science is good at what science does but while it can say what the brain is composed of, it cannot tell us what it is like to be human. Even though we know which hormones are produced when we are in love, they give no idea of how it feels.

Zazen allows us to feel what it is like to be human. Some people such as Krishnamurti have criticised it for exactly that as it is always subjective, but that is not the case if zazen is the experience of the universe observing itself.

Anyway, words.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Jakuden]

Jakuden,

Your recent posts about science have been very concise and thought provoking. Thank you very much.

Gassho

Sat Today

Hi all

I found this section interesting but not a huge challenge since it is pretty much the viewpoint I hold as a scientist who worked within the paradigm of self-organisation in biological science and evolution. However, it is just what I see as the current best model for explaining how the universe works and may be replaced by something better at some point.

The most interesting thing for me about the study of evolution is that self-interest has been demonstrated to be best served through altruism. Not unlimited altruism, though, but assuming goodwill at first and only stopping to give to people once they have proved to be only self-serving. Being altruistic is good, being a doormat not so much.

As HH Dalai Lama says "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy yourself, practice compassion."

I am not sure that Buddhism needs a creation story. It is sufficient that things exist and we have to interact with them.

The overlap between physics and Buddhist ideas of interconnection is also interesting but I would not care if physics did not show the same thing. Experience from meditative experience is enough for me. Science is good at what science does but while it can say what the brain is composed of, it cannot tell us what it is like to be human. Even though we know which hormones are produced when we are in love, they give no idea of how it feels.

Zazen allows us to feel what it is like to be human. Some people such as Krishnamurti have criticised it for exactly that as it is always subjective, but that is not the case if zazen is the experience of the universe observing itself.

Anyway, words.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

Gassho,
Jakuden
SatToday

[Doshin]

Great discussion. In these posts discussing Science, I have sensed the tendency of some to be referring to Science as something concrete, a belief system that is well defined, that is being compared to Buddhism and its doctrines. I feel that is mistaken. What we call "Science" is the investigation of the unknown, via forming a hypothesis, setting up a set of circumstances to test it, then deciding via mathematical statistics whether the hypothesis has been borne out. However, the result has to always be stated with a statistical "degree of confidence," which, said differently, is actually a degree of uncertainty. This practice has helped me view this process in the light of "don't know" rather than "we know this for certain." A hypothesis can be "proved" one day but then not really the next, for infinite reasons. That is in complete alignment with the "don't know," infinite nature of the Dharma. Science can only align with any belief system so much--it is by nature incomplete, a corner of a giant puzzle that we humans have miraculously somehow put together.
Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Thank you.

Doshin
Sattoday

[Jeremy]

I just read through this section of the book again to remind myself of the line of argument:

David Loy argues that we need a new creation story, on the grounds that he doesn’t like the 'disenchantment of the world' (his description sounds a lot like Max Weber's idea by that name) and he holds the current neo-Darwinian story partly to blame. In order to 're-enchant' the world, as it were, he goes on to borrow an argument that neo-Darwinism and science as a whole is being replaced by a whole new paradigm about cosmic creativity and self-organisation. Some would call this a 'post-materialistic science'. Time will tell if this is true. On the way, he also tells us that subatomic particles make conscious choices, following up by implying that DNA mutations are conscious as well. No doubt he got those ideas from the same sources who claim there's a new paradigm in town. In my view, the argument doesn't work, not only because there's more than a hint of 'woo' in his conscious subatomic particles, but because the whole project of trying to inject spirituality into science is misguided.

What's really interesting, however, is how David's argument in the next section of the book reveals that he didn't need to make this argument to find the meaning and purpose that he's looking for. In the next section he makes a more Buddhist argument to the effect that because we are part of the universe and we make meaning, it follows that the universe makes meaning. Curiously, this is a very Darwinian kind of argument, because a major part of Darwin's genius is that he found a way to account for the development of complexity and purpose in life without the need for an external guiding hand in the form of God or an intelligent designer.

Jeremy
SatToady

[AlanLa]

As a (soft) social scientist, I feel like people are talking about the same stuff with different terms from different perspectives, whereas Loy the philosopher blends perspectives as part of the structure of his ongoing argument. It's an interesting read, both here and there, and I really appreciate all the background material here that Loy leaves out and/or possibly misunderstands, but I trust Loy knows what he is doing.