dorjeshugden.com
General Buddhism => General Buddhism => Topic started by: negra orquida on April 26, 2012, 03:11:24 PM
-
Once a fellow practitioner said, "Whilst learning science is good, it could also be a hindrance or even detrimental to spiritual practice."
Another fellow student said, "Before I learned Dharma, I thought I knew everything. Now I have to unlearn everything in order to practice Dharma!"
What do you think about these 2 comments? How could science be good yet detrimental to spiritual practice at the same time? Is science contradictory or complimentary to Buddhism? If we find that we need to "unlearn" certain ways of thinking to learn the correct way of thinking according to Dharma, does that mean that whatever we have been taught was "wrong"?
-
Science and dharma are not contradictory to each other, in fact, science could compliment dharma by proofing it. There are many scientists researching about the existence of 'soul', 'near-death experience', etc. There are countless papers and books proofing that people do remember their previous lives - hence proofing that 'reincarnation' does happen!
Also, with the advancement of technology in medical fields, our lives are prolonged hence have more time to practice dharma!
-
We came into this world with no care - we depended on our mothers for nourishment and other necessities. We had already learned to be dependent on someone. As we grew older, we learned to be independent, thus we did not have to be dependent on mum so much - thus started the process of "unlearning".
When growing up we started to mix with different people, forming groups of our own, forming our own opinions based on peer pressure, etc. not knowing what we have learned from there and from them is correct or not. Thus a habit had been formed.
When we came into Dharma, we find that we have to shed our bad habits - habits that have not been beneficial to ourselves nor to others. Thus, unlearning again. This process will go on and on in our life. I heard from a very senior citizen that we will forever continue to learn until the time we take our last breath.
-
Before science, I would imagine that most religions are based on "faith" and science being the pursuit of "reason" ran contrary to the practice of "blind faith". To that extent, science was contradictory to religious and spiritual practice as it demands reason before it supports faith. To many spiritual practitioners, it is faith that begets "accepted reason".
This great divide of logic and faith in absent in Dharma, the learning and practice of the Buddha's teachings. If Buddhism has experience such a wide acceptance especially in the Western world, it is largely due to the fact that Buddhism is the reconciliation of matter and spirit, of faith and reason and of facts and values.
Both Buddhism and Science believe in a natural law - a certain order of things that follows the rule of cause and effect, or action and reaction. Both strongly believe that nothing is arbitrarily decided.
To answer the question in this post, I doubt if we can "unlearn" anything nor should we. Instead we should reassemble our own thought process to understand and obey logic. Therein, lies the enlightened and scientific mind.
-
I will say that science is base on result of experiment and Buddhist is base on the Dharma (Buddha teaching) which is come from the law of karma ( cause and result ) so Science and Buddhist are complement each other..
Example over than 2,000 years ago Buddha has already mentioned that in a glass there are so many beings there and now science proved it that what Buddha had said is correct.
I do believe that we will be learning until our last day. Not talking about learning in the class, but in our life every day there are so many things happening around us and we get to learn something from that.
Therefore we should make ourself to be an empty pot which are ready to fill in knowledge from study, learning and receive the teaching always. When we make ourself as the pot that already full, it will be very difficult for us to learn or receive any new teaching.
-
Isn't unlearning is in every part of our lives be it young or old? Be it in dharma or secular too. Whether we are in dharma or secular, unlearning is always the process in everyday life if we want to become a better person or if we want to climb the corporate ladder or to become successful entrepreneur. Unless we want to stay the way we are now, contended with it, not wanting to do more and stay in comfort zone. Then we are just plain lazy and laid back not wanting to improve.
In my opinion, science is not contradictory to dharma but enriches both ways. As matter of fact, just as what Tammy has pointed out ... science can compliment dharma especially there were scientific researches on the 'soul', near death experience, prodigy factor (reincarnation or rebirth), etc.. "Even science writer Sharon Begley reports in her book (How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves) on how cutting-edge science and the ancient wisdom of Buddhism have come together to reveal that, contrary to popular belief, we have the power to literally change our brains by changing our minds."
-
What is Unlearning?
Unlearning is not reframing or refreezing or something along that lines. They all focus on an end state whereas unlearning is about moving away from something rather than moving towards something.
So unlearning is exactly what it says. Intending to let go of what we have already learned or acquired. It is not about right or wrong. It is about being open to and exploring something that lies underneath the judgment, underneath the right and the wrong.
-
Does it really matter if science and Buddhism contradicts each other or is detrimental to your spiritual practice? If we practice spirituality and science is being hindrance to our spiritual success, i dont think science is to be blamed and the underlying problem is not science but rather the practitioner themselves allowed science be be a hindrance for themselves.
Some quotes to share:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy
I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.
Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed
"Only the hand that erases can write the true thing". By: 8th century monk, Meister Eckhart
-
Once a fellow practitioner said, "Whilst learning science is good, it could also be a hindrance or even detrimental to spiritual practice."
Another fellow student said, "Before I learned Dharma, I thought I knew everything. Now I have to unlearn everything in order to practice Dharma!"
What do you think about these 2 comments?
How could science be good yet detrimental to spiritual practice at the same time?
Is science contradictory or complimentary to Buddhism?
If we find that we need to "unlearn" certain ways of thinking to learn the correct way of thinking according to Dharma, does that mean that whatever we have been taught was "wrong"?
Science "finds out" physical and biological processes and organize them together for a better understanding of them. Sometimes this is used to heal and help, sometimes it is used to destroy.
Example: the apple falls from the tree = law of gravity.
Is the law of gravity wrong?
Do I have to un-learn the law of gravity in order to practice Dharma (maybe I want to levitate...)?
Dharma is not about un-learning the sciences, the worldly knowledge, Dharma is about changing our expectations and perspective, it is about gaining an open mind, it is about looking further and not be satisfied with partial answers, it is about focusing on the others, it is about betterment, it is about the cessation of bias ways of existence.
Example: through complex post-mortem (CSI kindda stuff) we can determine even the reason for the death of an Egyptian mummy dating back to some 3,000 years.
Is that science wrong?
Or is the conclusions we draw from the result of this science wrong, or incomplete?
Ex: The mummy of such Egyptian king indicates that he was stabbed from the back and died of his injuries, that is the reason for death. Science stops there. An historian might extrapolate and try to find the reason for the murder, and even who killed the king. While a Buddhist would continue further and say: the primal cause for the king's death was his karma. This does not mean that he was not stabbed and did not in effect die of his injuries or had enemies in court.
Some may say that science proclaims that there is no life after the death of this body. Science does not proclaim that, for if they do, it is mere superstition to say it and therefore not in accordance with a scientific process requiring a demonstration and a proof. All that can be proved is the death of the biological body.
Yet, we can say that we cannot proof or dis-proof something that does not exist.
Yet something formless cannot be proven by a method relying on the physical and biological only.
Science is not wrong, science is incomplete, science is "work in progress, sorry for any inconvenience caused". What is validated today is questioned tomorrow.
What is wrong is to see science as complete, or as the only mean of understanding of reality, because science is limited by a few things:
1. it is observing a subject that is also the object.
There is no difference between what I see and me, for without me seeing it it does not even exist.
There is no difference between what the scientist observes and the scientist.
Thus the whole idea of science being "objective" is a bias to start with.
In fact, nowadays, scientists themselves agree with that, and they are a step ahead of most of us on this, as we still believe that "I" evolve in a "world" that I am meant to "discover", I travel, I experiment, I try new food, just like if I was a me made of a mind and body that is like travelling in a world that I live in, meeting other me's in the same quest, and we discover things, we discover the law of gravity, we discover that the earth is round, we go to the moon, etc...
Reality is not like that, and the "world" only exist when "I" engage with it.
So much so that at the moment of death, I came to believe that we actually experience the "end of the world", the armageddon. So the next time I meet a lunatic in the street that tells me that the end of the world is near, maybe he is not that lunatic after all. We think that the world exist in such a way that it will continue to exist after we die, mainstream science do think that very much. As Buddhist we see more facets to that, more dimensions.
2. it is limited to the biological and physical.
Does a rainbow exist? Science says no, science says yes, science says it's an optical illusion.
Does it exist?
Does time exist?
Does space exist?
These very things have been the basis for scientific observations for centuries, until quantic science gave a kick to the whole thing... Science is a work in progress, therefore not an ultimate and comprehensive method to understand and deal with reality.
-
Once a fellow practitioner said, "Whilst learning science is good, it could also be a hindrance or even detrimental to spiritual practice."
Another fellow student said, "Before I learned Dharma, I thought I knew everything. Now I have to unlearn everything in order to practice Dharma!"
What do you think about these 2 comments? How could science be good yet detrimental to spiritual practice at the same time? Is science contradictory or complimentary to Buddhism? If we find that we need to "unlearn" certain ways of thinking to learn the correct way of thinking according to Dharma, does that mean that whatever we have been taught was "wrong"?
I don't understand why the fellow student has to unlearn everything in order to practise Dharma. Science is a school of thought for understanding reality. There are empirical evidence to some theories and none for others. So it's an on going process.
Perhaps the unlearning part is that money and relationships give us happiness. We need to convince ourselves that being selfless gives us happiness instead. So our focus should be on benefiting others all the time and not self indulge. Self indulgence is an act of selfishness. This is the relearning part I can think of.
-
Science just depicts the arrogance of the western world. Those who believe science is the only answer are also arrogant. How many times has science been proved wrong? How many times have scientists though they were right until a new discovery comes about. Im sure a thousand years ago, if you told a scientist that there are other planets, or that the world was round, they would have never believed you. I'm sure that if you told someone a thousand years ago, that everything was made of atoms they would have never believed you. There are still so many discoveries that are yet to be made, yet people choose to believe that science is always right. Science is constantly being corrected, they think they are right, and this is the answer until a new discovery comes along. To this day science has never proved reincarnation, yet there is so much evidence to show that it does exist. One day this breakthrough will be made, and people will say "Oh, they were right all along". Great, just great. Better to have known it all along, why be hindered by people who think they know what is right.
-
I feel that it is illogical to give up science in order to practice Dharma. Everyday of our life is a learning process whether secular or spiritual. Buddhism is based on logic and understanding just like science is base or research and experiment. In fact, science and dharma compliment each other. There's nothing for us to "unlearn". Whatever we have learned or whatever mistakes we have made is an lesson for us to be a better person. Real dharma practice is the need to transform our minds and get rid of our bad habituation. So this is the "relearning" that we must put effort in.
-
Dear Jeremyg,
I agree with you. A science oriented person often thinks that nothing is correct unless it is validated by scientific methods. This arrogance hinders spiritual growth and training. However, great scientists acknowledge the limitation of science because scientific theories are only true within a fixed parameter and conditions.
In fact, as scientists explore more into scientific frontiers, they can't help but acquiesed to what Buddha already knew 2,600 years ago.
When the dharma student remarked he needs to unlearn everything when he goes on the spiritual path, I would take it to mean that he now needs to keep a more open mind and let go of ordinary preconceptions/views.
-
Science does not contradict the Dharma... in fact, several scientific findings has proved the Dharma to be true hehe....
However, whether or not science is detrimental to our spiritual practice is debatable. After all, many scientists are atheist (I'm not judging though...), it's not because they're bad people, but being in this field, they tend to be conditioned to be this way due to their environment.
When it comes to unlearning... I have heard of this term used in some occasions, and it's mostly used for mediocre dharma students. Many people, tend to get ahead of themselves... although it is great to seek knowledge, but sometimes seeking the knowledge unmakes a man especially when it's regarding Dharma and we lack the wisdom to contemplate on it. Therefore, unlearning can be applied here when one has certain amount of Dharma knowledge. Because, sometimes (or most of the time...) people gets rather egoistic and when our Guru says something, we go like 'yeah, I know that already' then fail to take it seriously and in the end, fail to put it into practice.
-
Science has saved many lives... science has brought many many good things to the world and has also given Dharma modern means of communicating plus it has given us the conditions for this forum to exist for example.
But science is limited, science is not a method to bring about happiness. Science is merely a method of observation, merely a method of construction for objects and processes, a good method but a gross one at that.
The results it has had though, good and bad, have been so remarkable in the recent years (like the last 100 years) that it has taken a front place in how we get around thinking about existence. We got deluded as a society thinking that science can solve all our problems, and we gave up the spiritual, as if they were contradictory or even opposite.
But I believe that science and spirituality are not contradictory for as long as science is not projected as superior than spirituality, or as a demonstration of an inadequacy of spirituality with reality. Because if we do, then of course, we find there is a bias, there a worm in the apple.
Science is not THE answer, it is only a method of research, and there is no need to give it up to practice spirituality, what needs to be given up is ignorance, not science!!!!
-
Science and Spiritual does not contradict with each other. But many times, some 'beliefs' in spiritual were proven to be existing by our own eyes while scientist can't find a way to explain the existence of spirits and gods/deities.
Even i feel that there are more things in the universe that science cannot prove what spiritual does. for example the existence of spirits and gods. make it even simpler, an oracle taking trance. Scientist not be able to prove the existence but they can see an oracle who can wear a heavy oracle crown on his head after taking trance. on another arguement also, scientist were amazed by how some high monks (for example Gangchen Rinpoche) can heal a particular sick person by just touching the person.
Spiritual as in Buddha's teachings explained every existence in the world in detailed form while science cannot authenticate the rights and wrongs in spiritualism. Science needs facts while there are many things in spiritualism that scientist has yet to able to proof it.
I feel we do not need to unlearn anything that we know from spiritualism or science in order to accept one another. we just can literally combine the two and i always believe in science while also believe in what i saw with my own eyes. but there are too many examples that i saw in real life that makes me believe there are existence of Buddhas, gods, spirits and other beings in this universe such as aliens. Scientist still can't proof their existence but i do believe they exist.
-
Unlearning I believe is not about throwing away all the things we have learnt from home, schools or university or in life. It is about adopting better balance in acquiring a wider spectrum of knowledge so that we see the world with holistic view as opposed to the heavily ego centric view which our normal education and way of living supports.
Spiritual practice provides this holistic view . Such a view helps us to achieve higher quality of happiness by moving towards others more instead of focussing on ourselves all the time. Scientific knowledge is useful in making our life easier and more convenient when dealing with externals. However it does not necessarily equate with higher quality of happiness which can only be achieved through training one's mind. Hence religion provides such training to address this imbalance. When our education is balanced, one will achieve inner and outer happiness. Science can co exist without problems in as far as Buddhist philosophy is concerned because when applied appropriately and conscientiously both function to improve our happiness and well being.
-
Its rather annoying to me whenever people say "science proves what the Buddha taught is true"... it is like saying "science proves that gravity exists". To me, science is still finding out what the Buddha taught 2,500 years ago.
I agree with Hope Rainbow that science is incomplete and a work-in-progress. One of the key differences between science and dharma is that scientific conclusions can change and is dependent on many factors, but the dharma does not change, it is constant.
This is what His Holiness the 101st Gaden Tripa Lungrik Namgyal had to say about science (extracted from http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?p=12258 (http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?p=12258)):
In general, I feel that studying science is good. However, the study and practise of the Buddha’s teachings is the only ultimate way to the liberation of all beings from samsara and for us to become a Buddha so that we can liberate all beings from samsara. Towards this objective, studying the Buddha’s teachings is sufficient. All the 500 Arahants of the past have achieved this without requiring study of science. Studying the Teachings is not to just acquire knowledge or to acquire official paper certificates. Studying the Teachings is to free oneself from samsara and also that oneself can become a Buddha to liberate all beings from their sufferings. Again, towards this aim, studying of the Teachings is sufficient. There is no further need to include the study of science. However, to be a famous scholar recognized by the world, we will then need to study both the Teachings and science!
-
In fact, I felt science has no contradiction to ANY religions, if the religion is genuine to make you a better, kinder person.
What science cover, compared what is talked about in Dharma text, are so little... There are so many things still cannot be explained by science yet, but the way our world has promoted science, has made it very arrogant (many ppl said, if it cannot be proven by science, it is not real).
Science is not EVERYTHING, and I felt we cannot compare science with Buddhism.. :)
-
Our spiritual path does not intertwine with the teachings of 'logic'. Religion always approaches things beyond what our human eye can see, it thinks beyond the logic. Students generally want to be taught by teachers, by that I mean they hear what a teacher has to say, agree with their ideas and want to learn more from them. It's not necessarily a case of a teacher having to prove anything to his/her students.
Buddhism to me is generally about what we believe personally, while on the other hand science is about what we can prove to each other. This doesn't mean that they are two mutually exclusive 'things' - for me I think Buddhism and science are two sides of the one coin. They are two ways of trying to explain the world in which we live. One (Buddhism) does it by looking inwards, the other (science, obviously) does it by looking externally.
I don't think it's really benficial for one to prove to the other which is correct, for when we think in terms of 'I am right and you are wrong and I can prove it,' then I think we are in danger of losing sight of what we should be trying to achieve. When we begin to want to prove things, that is when we erect barriers and I don't think that is the way of Buddhism.
-
I guess this unlearning term actually applies to how we used to see things, how fixated we are with things and our perception of how things should be.
For new learnings to penetrate through our thick skull, we have to be open to new things like a kindergarten kid all over again so that we do not form projections and judgement during a dharma talk, teachings and any other form of knowledge being transmitted to us. It will block our ability to learn so therefore we have to have the attitude as if we know nothing.
-
Interesting!
I don’t see science and Dharma are contradictory. Instead I have been reading or hearing that how the finding from science proven the Buddhism phenomena.
How I see science it is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.
And Buddhism is a Buddha's teachings that spiritual technologies that identify the actual, root cause of human suffering and problems and eliminates them.
Both are 2 methods that use to understand the nature of reality. It doesn’t mean we have to unlearn one method in order to learn up the other.
By learning up Buddhism it is a spiritual practice that to change our internal habituation for good, for happiness. This brings true happiness in our lives and also future lives. It’s eternal.
We don’t have to give up things that benefits for endless lives but understand the real meaning of lives and move on towards achieving it.
-
Once a fellow practitioner said, "Whilst learning science is good, it could also be a hindrance or even detrimental to spiritual practice."
Another fellow student said, "Before I learned Dharma, I thought I knew everything. Now I have to unlearn everything in order to practice Dharma!"
What do you think about these 2 comments? How could science be good yet detrimental to spiritual practice at the same time? Is science contradictory or complimentary to Buddhism? If we find that we need to "unlearn" certain ways of thinking to learn the correct way of thinking according to Dharma, does that mean that whatever we have been taught was "wrong"?
I dont think that science will make our spiritual practice go bad, as science encourages investigation and investigation is important for spiritual practice. What is the use of spiritual practice if there is no investigation and realization involved? So far all of the theories that science has found matches with what has been taught in Buddhism. what else can be said about that?
On the 2nd statement, its not about unlearning, but its about being humble. If someone is humble, they can learn a lot of things. Nobody needs to unlearn, they just need to be humble and have the ability to accept that they could be wrong.
-
What I know so far is that alot of things that science has proven, has been explained in the Buddhist teachings, and what Science is yet to find or prove thus far, has been explained in the Buddhist teachings as well.
I do not think that learning science is a hindrance or detriment to spiritual practise. Because to me, spiritual practise is practising to transform yourself for the better, to achieve qualities closer to that of the Buddha. So that doesnt really need science to analyse and prove, because it can be done if you want to.
I don't think also that we have to unlearn everything in order to practise the Dharma. I think it should be that we learn that everything we knew wasn't exactly bringing us happiness therefore using our past experiences, we learn new things by changing ourselves, and our persepectives. We change (or I guess we could use 'unlearn' here) who we were with our defilements and become (or 'learn') a better person. That's practising Dharma. Using our past experiences to teach us so that we have a better tomorrow.
Whatever we have been taught is not wrong per se, it is just that it was influenced by what society knew, what those around us know, what society knows to be right, what our parents, and peers were brought up to think was right. In their mind it is right. But learning the Dharma doesn't make it wrong, I feel it just makes us realise that society doesn't know a better solution to finding happiness. It makes us have a clearer understanding and direction to seeking happiness, liberation and a better future. Maybe people arent' seeking that, so all their wordly pursuits, are still right, because that is their goal and aim.
-
Once a fellow practitioner said, "Whilst learning science is good, it could also be a hindrance or even detrimental to spiritual practice."
Another fellow student said, "Before I learned Dharma, I thought I knew everything. Now I have to unlearn everything in order to practice Dharma!"
What do you think about these 2 comments? How could science be good yet detrimental to spiritual practice at the same time? Is science contradictory or complimentary to Buddhism? If we find that we need to "unlearn" certain ways of thinking to learn the correct way of thinking according to Dharma, does that mean that whatever we have been taught was "wrong"?
To answer your two questions:
1. I don't think that learning science is a hindrance towards our spiritual practice. It may reinforce and strengthen our practice instead.
2. For everything that we do in life, if we want to progress, we have to learn, unlearn and relearn. It's like dropping bad habits, and picking up new ones.
The only way to know that we have taught has been wrong, is to be able to discern right from wrong... and the only way to do that is through knowledge. In this case, Dharma knowledge.
Shantideva says that our mind is a continuum, there's no beginning and no end. For that person to say that before Dharma, he thought he knew everything is just a reflection of arrogance. He doesn't have to unlearn anything, just reduce his ego. :)
-
Learning science is not a hindrance , when it becomes a hindrance most of the time we do not know it is. But science is a safer bet than being superstitious as it is backed up by logic, experiments and practical researches. If certain religious views needed to be proven by science, i personally applaud that. His holiness Dalai lama mentioned before if science is able to prove what Buddha had said is false and fallible, he will be the first to remove the doctrine from the tripitaka.
Unlearning and then learning or vice versa has no right or wrong, we learn things by conditions....our mind perceive certain views to acknowledge certain reasoning at a point of time in life and events. As we can see our thinking and how we deal with everyday life changes as we aged. Have you notice that dharma doesnt change but stays true and truth even after 2500years ago. If we uses dharma correctly and applied it to our everyday life withna little creativity...it is not that Difficult.
-
In my case or how my mind works, I dont need to unlearn anything because I am completely aware that my knowledge and what I know as well as my findings could be proven wrong at any given time, and if there is a better view to fill up those views, I would gladly replace my own views with the 'fresh' views as well. I do know that sometimes, when we learn too much, we tend to cling to our knowledge and make it the basis of our confidence and that is how our mind becomes more narrow, until one day where it will no longer be able to accept any other view that is different from its own.
Being narrow minded is dangerous.
-
Science engages the conceptual mind. The study and practice of Dharma goes beyond concepts. As long as we use the reasoning conceptual mind, as we do in learning science, and apply it to Dharma, we will not really gain any realization of the Truth, the absolute or ultimate Truth.In fact , through the study of Science, we only acquire knowledge of Relative or Conventional Truth.
Also, in order to truly learn and realize Dharma, we have to unlearn what culture and society have fed us with as 'truths' over a long period. Take, for instance, this - society tells us that Happiness is about getting a well-paid job and a high position; it's about getting married and having kids. When we learn Dharma , these so-called means to Happiness are turned on their heads. So we have to unlearn all these preconceptions and expectations that have been ingrained in our minds. Only after we have unlearned all this, can we begin to learn and realize the truths of the Buddhadharma and apply to our lives to find true freedom from suffering and ultimate peace and happiness.