From: ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Organization: GRAMMA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:27:58 GMT

In article <memo.834816@cix.compulink.co.uk>
shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:

   In-Reply-To: <1hafa2INN8fd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bi757@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ed Stutsman)



   >I've read many a bunch of jibberish on this topic, and as a 
   >Buddhist, I think too many people are stretching things to make
   >a connection between Buddhiism & science, esp. physics.
   >The only connection I can see is that in research you are at
   >the boundaries of knowledge.  Buddhism deals with mind and /its/
   >boundaries.  At those points, descriptions use similar langauge.


   Precisely. IMHO Buddhists have a FAR clearer picture of what is mind, 
   and what is not. Although I believe that modern philosophers are 
   getting close when they start talking about the all embracing role of 
   language.

   >That's it folks.....a similarity in phrasiology...only.

   What a wonderful little word. Only. Only 6 Million Jews etc etc. :-)
   Only 32 Million years to go etc etc.

   >Capra, etc, stretch definitions for their own motives.

   Agreed, but there IS more to it than 'only phrasiology' Buddhism is 
   perhaps the greatest 'thought experiment' that has ever been done. 
   Budhhism is the logical extrapolation of the greek idea that the 
   world could be understood by pure logic. Buddhism tried, and reports 
   back that all is mind :-)

   It should act as a salutary lesson to all scientists who espouse 
   logic over and above experience and experimental data.

   It is not Tagi who is contemplating his navel Mister Cash....


So we gather that Buddhism knows what is mind and what is not
and that according to Buddhism all is mind. 

And that Buddhism is a 'thought experiment' logically
extrapolating the idea that the world can be understood by pure
logic.


What is a logical extrapolation? Taking it to be a spelling out
of the logical consequences of an idea, how can Buddhism be a
logical extrapolation of the idea that 'the world can be
understood by pure logic'?  
 

A very superficial reading of 'The Diamond Sutra', 'The Sutra of
Hui Neng' and 'The Heart Sutra' showed me that if anything Buddhism
is the very opposite to the idea that the world can be
understood by pure logic. In fact it is constantly drummed in
that language (and therefore logic) take you nowhere at all and
a first step to what is known as 'enlightment' (Buddhistic
insight) is to realize that language is useless when it comes to
real insight.
The obvious objection is that this knowledge (that language is a
hindrance to 'enlightment') has to be given in words and so
language is indispensable after all.
The answer to this seems to be that if you only know (the words
in the) Sutra you again know nothing at all. Naturally there is then
the question: if the words gives you nothing why then read
the Sutras at all?
 
Now Hui Neng answers this question in no
uncertain terms:

"A bigoted believer in Nihilism blasphemes against the Sutras on
the ground that literature  (i. e. the Buddhist Scriptures) is
unnecessary (for the study of Buddhism). If that were so, then
neither would it be right for us to speak, since speech forms
the substance of literature. He would also argue that in the
direct method (literally, the straight Path) literature is
discarded. But does he appreciate that the two words 'is
discarded' are also literature?"

A weak answer is it not? 'is discarded' are indeed words but
they are used outside 'the straight Path' as a (dispensable)
service to those still clinging to words! 
Or is something deeper meant? That even 'inside' 'the straight
Path' there is at least knowledge of the existence of language
so 'literature is discarded' whether it is said in language or
not? That the 'straight Path' would require total oblivion of
the existence of language in order to be consistent?

 
So language is at best used as in the Sutras (in which language
are used to undermine itself) i.e. as a means of connecting new
disciples but for the real understanding it has no bearing at all.


In my view then the idea (if meaningful at all) that the world
can be understood through pure logic has nothing at all to do
with Buddhism. 

(Unnecessary to say I'm not a Buddhist in any sense of the word
 and not committed to any 'path' what so ever, so that the fact
 that language (if you'd be so kind as to grant me that) is used
 above (and here; right now) has of course nothing do with the 
 question of the status of language i Buddhism.)


MTV-regards Anders


--


If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta