Spirituality is deep science rather than narrow science.
-
Then why bother for humans who are reborned to be unable to understand dharma?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:A human can practise dharma and attain enlightenment so a human life is precious in Buddhism.
I don't understand your second question... intelligence is the result of karma. -
Says only you....Originally posted by An Eternal Now:There is no pseudo science or non-pseudo science, only bad science or good science. If it is as you mentioned plus reproducible, it is good science.
Extract from wikipedia:
A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. Alternatively it has been described as the promotion of ideas as scientific when they are not in fact scientific.
A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.[18]
The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific reasoning.
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.[19]
Failure to make use of operational definitions. (ie. a scientific description of the operational means in which which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[20]
Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor)[21]
Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[22]
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also: falsifiability)[23]
Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict [24]
Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[25]
Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e. hypothesis testing). [26]
Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[27]
Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[28]
Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain negative findings.[29]
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference"). [30] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[31]
Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claimed results.[32]
Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.[33]
Lack of progress
Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.[34] Terrence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.[35]
Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. [36]. By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.[37]
Personalization of issues
Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their (confirmation bias), the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[38]
Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[39]
Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_science
Kindly do some reading.
-
I already explained to you plenty of times, Ken Wilber already explained to you, that Buddhism precisely follows scientific method and you can find out for yourself what is being said is true.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Says only you....
Extract from wikipedia:
A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. Alternatively it has been described as the promotion of ideas as scientific when they are not in fact scientific. -
?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Then why bother for humans who are reborned to be unable to understand dharma? -
Are the insane human? Then why they cannot understand the dharma?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:? -
[The Buddha:]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html
Whence is there anger
for one free from anger,
tamed,
living in tune —
one released through right knowing,
calmed
& Such.
You make things worse
when you flare up
at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up
at someone who's angry
wins a battle
hard to win.
You live for the good of both
— your own, the other's —
when, knowing the other's provoked,
you mindfully grow calm.
When you work the cure of both
— your own, the other's —
those who think you a fool
know nothing of Dhamma.
/\ -
So doing wrong is right?Originally posted by sinweiy: -
Because they are confused. Another same question is... why can't insane people do science experiment properly?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Are the insane human? Then why they cannot understand the dharma?
Of course, if they are not confused enough to be able to do science experiments properly, maybe they have hope.
It depends on each individual and I cannot comment on everyone as a whole. -
hahaha it is precisely that they are unable to understand that they get rebornOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Then why bother for humans who are reborned to be unable to understand dharma? -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
wrong or right is all in our own mind of attachment, discrimination and false thoughts.
So doing wrong is right?
wrong or right is always in the change, sometime wrong become right, right become wrong, hence void of absolute nature.
the outside phenomena is neutral, what's at fault is the attachment of an egolistic 'self' that is the problem. with an egolistic mind, we will feel "I' am right or 'They' are wrong to protect the self. but who's I and They? seeing fault of others is only making oneself bothered/affflicted, ie self torture only. let it go.
If you are a true cultivator,
You see not the faults of the world;
If you see the wrongs of others,
You have fallen into the wrong path.
Others find fault but I do not,
If I find fault then I am at fault;
Only remove this fault finding mind,
And all Kleshas would be broken. --Ch'an Master Hui Neng
all and all it's to sever the affflicted mind, be it if we were to work the other way around.
/\ -
How can the insane be confused? Otherwise we should not classify them as insane.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Because they are confused. Another same question is... why can't insane people do science experiment properly?
Of course, if they are not confused enough to be able to do science experiments properly, maybe they have hope.
It depends on each individual and I cannot comment on everyone as a whole. -
Then why do you say killing cannot be right?Originally posted by sinweiy:wrong or right is all in our own mind of attachment, discrimination and false thoughts.
wrong or right is always in the change, sometime wrong become right, right become wrong, hence void of absolute nature.
the outside phenomena is neutral, what's at fault is the attachment of an egolistic 'self' that is the problem. with an egolistic mind, we will feel "I' am right or 'They' are wrong to protect the self. but who's I and They? seeing fault of others is only making oneself bothered/affflicted, ie self torture only. let it go.
If you are a true cultivator,
You see not the faults of the world;
If you see the wrongs of others,
You have fallen into the wrong path.
Others find fault but I do not,
If I find fault then I am at fault;
Only remove this fault finding mind,
And all Kleshas would be broken. --Ch'an Master Hui Neng
all and all it's to sever the affflicted mind, be it if we were to work the other way around.
/\
-
You can do the right thing without attachment to a "me" who is "doing the right thing". That is what is meant.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Then why do you say killing cannot be right?
View & ConductOriginally posted by _wanderer_:Eternal Now you can read my mind huh? lol no la we probably don't read same books.
But well, I do agree most with Longchen's post, though when you say "view of the Dharmakaya", different pple would have diff understanding of what it means.
Basically I think the View refers to the Ultimate View (some call it View of Emptiness, some call it Primordial Wisdom, others call it something else...). I think Padmasambhava is reminding us not to get lost in conduct, thinking that there is "something truly virtuous" to adopt and "something truly nonvirtuous" to abandon in our conduct/actions. This means, while we are adopting virtues and abandoning nonvirtuous we should bear the View of Emptiness in mind, that NO truly existing person is performing any truly existing action towards any truly existing party.
However, having embraced this View of Emptiness, as what Longchen said, we should not think that we don't need to care about performing virtuous or nonvirtuous actions, because for us the unenlightened beings, we're still bound by karma. So though aware of the "lack of an inherent truly existing nature" of virtues and nonvirtues, we should still try to adopt virtuous behaviour and abandon nonvirtuous behaviour.
Thanks for all the sharing Longchen, Sinwei and Eternal Now. I found it kinda surprising and very interesting that diff pple have diff interpretations. I believe such sharings can help all of us sharpen our understanding of the Dharma and motivate one another to apply and actualize them.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
because one is not up to the level (Dharma cloud stage) when it's 'right'. so those not up to that level, karma still has it's working.
Then why do you say killing cannot be right?
/\