Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kalyanamithra" data-source="post: 2280779" data-attributes="member: 99586">Dear friends,Thought to write this based on what I observed in a different <a href="http://www.elakiri.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87119" target="_blank">thread</a>. This post presents how I see this issue. Hope we can have a nice 'sakachcha'. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" />As you may be aware of there is a tendency among the lay and clergy (i.e. monks) to justify Dhamma (i.e. the teachings of Sammasambuddha Gautama) using science. Is it correct to do so? I think it's not because of the following. 1. Science is an outcome of (unending) succession of experiments (what I'd like to qualify as 'Anarya'). Dhamma was disclosed as a result of an 'Arya Pariyeshana' (a noble experiment)Dhamma is 'arya' because it make the person practicing it noble. - For example it shows how all our suffering can be traced back to the unwholesome roots of 'lobha' ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]greed, desire, craving, attachment[/FONT]), 'dosa' ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]aversion[/FONT]), 'moha' ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ignorance[/FONT]) we have in our minds. - Not stopping at that Dhamma reveals how we can control and completely eliminate these roots in this very life. - Cession of suffering (which is called 'Nibbana') is the sole aim of Dhamma. - Path we need to follow to reach it is called the Noble Eightfold Path (or 'Arya Ashtaanghika Margaya'). It is noble, because it raises us spiritually. Isn't it great if we can remain calm without giving in to various desires? without disturbed by hatred? etc. - A nice Deshana <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" /> in which Sammasambuddha Gautama explains how/why one should become a 'follower' is found in Kalama Sutta. It is worthy to see this Sutta, because most of the Buddhists know it partially; and use it to justify their not practicing Dhamma.Kalama Sutta (Kesamuttisuttam) - <a href="http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0402m2.mul6.xml#M1.0189" target="_blank">Pali (roman text) </a>| <a href="http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/3-tikanipata/007-mahavaggo-s.html" target="_blank">Sinhala</a> (15th sutta in the page) | <a href="http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/3-tikanipata/007-mahavaggo-e.html" target="_blank">English</a> (5th sutta in the page) <a href="http://www.gautamabuddha.org/downloads/mp3/1/1.7_Kalama_Sutta.mp3" target="_blank">Deshna on the Sutta</a> (MP3) by Ven. Kribathgoda Gnanananda Thero Science is Anarya; because it doesn't improve us spiritually. Isn't this why we see adverse things from computer viruses to weapons of mass destruction. Of course advancement of science contributes to improve the way we live; but it doesn't alone make the society better. 2. Science itself doesn't have an end. Scientific knowledge is changing all the time with outcome of each research activity. Even established theories get disproved when disputing facts are found. Dhamma is not like that.- Dhamma as understood by a Sammasambuddha (i.e. perfectly enlightened one) is Akalika (valid for all time; whether or not people practice it). For example, anger caused misery in a person 2500 years ago; it causes misery even today; it will cause misery even in another 1000 years time. Eliminating the cause of anger from oneself gave rise to happiness and peace of mind at the time of Buddha. Isn't it valid even today? - Dhamma cannot be refined like science; because it is based on 'Dharmatha' (i.e. how things operate) underlying the wold. Think about a person you are fond of. You may have felt that you liked him/her when somewhere back for the first time. Wasn't it because you kept on thinking about him/her that the desire to see him/her again arose? (Please note that this phenomina is not a 'sin' as some people say; it's natural (until you complete the Arya Ashtangika Magga) and is a Dharmatha. We should understand its existence in us; and the capability each of us have to put an end to it). Gradually you may have got attached to that person. (That's how we are bound to friends and family; the world we see); Won't a permanant separation would cause sorrow in you? Isn't this true? All of us have this mechanism operating within us. Because of that we get attached to what we perceive as 'world', through what we see; what we hear; what we smell; what we taste; what we sense; and what we think. This mechanism is called: Patichcha Samuppada (dependent origination). It is how ignorance (of the way things are) causes suffering; and gives rise to succession of life-and-death (the samsaraic existence) Dhamma teaches how we can control this mechanism; and how we can stop this. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" /> Trying to refine Dhamma won't change this mechanism. Therefore any attempt to modify/explain Dhamma based on Science is harmful. I'd like to mention a rhetorical definition used for Science by Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero in a Dhamma Deshana. Science is an outcome of "asampurna paryeshanaya" (an incomplete experiment) <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/cool.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:" data-shortname=":cool:" />. If you are a researcher (or a person aware of the basics of science), I need not tell you that any scientific finding always has a room for improvement. 3. Whether we like it or not, the scope of science is finite and covers only a subset of what we perceive as world. It is because of the way the basics of science are defined. For instance, a scientific finding should be verifiable by repeating the relevant experiments under same conditions. People may come up with various hypotheses, which may later on be accepted (until they are disproved) as theories, etc. Still they are all based on observations. Can things beyond one's scope of thinking be well dealt with science?   Let's look at people (in general) trying to explain Dhamma with science. This is not an attempt to look down upon any specific person. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/sorry.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":sorry:" title="Sorry    :sorry:" data-shortname=":sorry:" /> What stated below is just my opinion; you are welcome to disagree. I am saying this because most of us seem to have been deceived to believe science is the 'Truth'.I am not saying that science is bad; we need it. Not only that we should help its advancement by engaging in research activities.Vyagghapajja (Dighajanu) sutta in Anguttara Nikaya highlights how we should work towards prosperity without sacrificing spiritual development. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind the aim of a Sammasambuddha is revealing path to Nibbana. Materialistic prosperity advocated by the Buddha is therefore not decoupled from the ultimate goal. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" /> Deshana on the Vyagghapajja Sutta (MP3) by Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero (<a href="http://www.gautamabuddha.org/downloads/mp3/8/8.4_Wayaggapajja_Sutta1.mp3" target="_blank">Part 1</a> | <a href="http://www.gautamabuddha.org/downloads/mp3/8/8.5_Wayaggapajja_Sutta2.mp3" target="_blank">Part 2</a>) clearly explains that. Here the Thero points out the fact that we Sri Lankans have not utilized even the advise useful for materialistic prosperity in Dhamma. Reference: <a href="http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0404m1.mul5.xml#P4.0281" target="_blank">Pali (roman text) </a>| <a href="http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara5/8-atthakanipata/006-gotamivaggo-s.html" target="_blank">Sinhala</a> (4th sutta in this page) | <a href="http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara5/8-atthakanipata/006-gotamivaggo-e.html" target="_blank">English</a> (4th sutta in this page)I see three common things in those using sicence to explain Buddhism. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Yes, they have some understanding of science. Unfortunately they highlight that (e.g. monks highlighting there BSc degrees <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/no.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":no:" title="No    :no:" data-shortname=":no:" />) and seem to think high of it. Apparently they have considerable faith on science. Because of this they cannot free their minds of 'Scientific thinking' to follow the way Dhamma teaches us to think...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They have faith in Buddhism; but probably not the Akarawathi Shraddha <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/oo.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":oo:" title="Oo    :oo:" data-shortname=":oo:" /> that we (the followers) should have. Because a person having 'Akarawathi Shraddha' need not quote/cite from science when elaborating the teachings of Buddha...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They want to justify calling themselves Buddhists (forgive my wording here: to me its like school children of different faiths arguing to prove religions of one another better than the others'...)</li> </ol> But they do not understand such justifications (esp. in Dhamma discussions) are futile.   Because people already having Shraddha will not gain anything (they will probably listen to them with dismay/sympathy). Others will not gain Akarawathi Shraddha from what discussed; they will probably get a momentary pleasure seeing another person defending Buddhism with scientific concepts <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/dull.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":dull:" title="Dull    :dull:" data-shortname=":dull:" />. This is not the outcome of a Dhamma Sakachcha advocated by the Buddha. I will mention two points I've seen in television discussions. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Use of scientific theories (rather hypotheses) on formation of worlds/ lifeforms to justify Aggañña Sutta (<a href="http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha3/27-agganna-s.html" target="_blank">sinhala</a>). They completely ignore that Sammasambuddha revealed this sutta not to explain formation of life; but to explain the social structure was there because of Damma (contrary to what Brahmins used to say). etc. A Sammasambuddha never wishes the disciples to get entangled in unthinkables (like how the worlds form, etc.)! <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" /></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Use of scientific concepts (like modulation of audio on optical signals) to explain how a Sammasambuddha can converse with beings in faraway worlds. Even a child can understand that one cannot have such real time communication with existing technology. [aside: even if its possible the life forms there need to be able to receive, demodulate and decode the message to converse] So why do they forward these vague 'explanations'? As I see, it's only because they do not (unfortunately) have Shraddha in what disclosed by Buddha. They are trying to forcibly create 'faith' (rather blind faith) in themselves; using means not advocated by Dhamma.  <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/no.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":no:" title="No    :no:" data-shortname=":no:" /></li> </ol>Such discussions are bad because it diverges from the aim of Dhamma. They are misleading, and we should be aware of that... To conclude: I wish those lay and clergy would realize Dhamma and give up this Ashraddhi way of discussing/explaining Dhamma. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" />Let us try to realize why Sammasambuddha Gautama revealed Dhamma; and why we need to follow it.Theruwan saranai!</blockquote>

Verification: Dawasata paya keeyak thibeda?

Top Bottom