Do you know which university is opening a new “Dalai Lama Center for Ethics and Transformative Values”?
Maharishi University of Management is the obvious pick, but that’s not it. And it’s also not Lhasa University (Go Fighting Sherpas!), although that’s a great guess too. Nor is it Buddha College, Western Karma, or the Gelug School.
In fact, it’s MIT:
With the launch of the Dalai Lama center, MIT is breaking new ground in the world of academic science: no other major science research institution in the U.S. has a center named for a contemporary religious leader.
Might this conflict with its mission of teaching about, well, science and technology? Not according to the scientific authorities at the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies:
“Buddhism has no history of conflict with science,” says B. Alan Wallace, president of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies in Santa Barbara, Calif. “In that regard, it may seem non-threatening to certain scientists who’ve grown very wary of Christians, who they think always have an agenda to try to plug intelligent design or their own particular theological creed.”
If Buddhism has no history of conflict with science, it’s only because science considers Buddhism too ludicrous to pay attention to.
Here are a few things Buddhists believe in:
- Saṃsāra, a continual cycle of death and re-birth that can only be escaped through “enlightenment“.
- Karma, the notion that good and bad actions produce “seeds” in the mind which come to fruition either in this life or in a subsequent rebirth.
- Prophecy
- Guardian Gods who watch over the four cardinal directions
- A wrathful God of the Dead
I may not have been clever enough to go to MIT, but I am pretty sure that most of those things conflict with “science,” which (for instance) has never managed to find “seeds” in the mind, and whose Michelson-Morley experiment provided strong evidence against the existence of “karma.”
What’s more, the center’s namesake is believed by Buddhists to be the “reincarnation” of his predecessors. When he dies, his Buddhist buddies will go to a “holy” lake and watch for signs indicating to them which toddler’s going to be the next Lama, at which point they’ll kidnap him and haul him off to a monastery, where they can fill his head with all sorts of nonsense about rebirth and samsara and karma and dharma and shawarma.
Oh, and also he thinks gay sex is wrong:
Although he is known for his tolerant, humane views, he is a surprisingly harsh critic of homosexuality. If you are a Buddhist, he says, it is wrong. “Full stop.No way round it.
“A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife – astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”
[...]
“A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it,” the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. “But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don’t create life.
Why, that doesn’t sound like a “theological creed” at all!
How does Michelson-Morley disprove Cause and Effect?
Not “Cause and Effect”. Karma.
They used an “interferometer” to send light in different directions, looking for “karmic” changes in phase. To the surprise of everyone, they found nothing! Further experimentation replicated the results, and nowadays it’s virtually impossible to find a physics book that even mentions karma.
Admittedly there are “high” and “low” forms of Buddhism. The “high” forms are more theologically-oriented, the “low” forms stress the immediate causal relations and the ever-changing “identitiy” rather than some nebulous notion of divine kings, reincarnation & cet.
I was surprised at the Dalai Lama’s position on homosexuality because in Buddhism, desire is desire. There’s no “these holes are bad” argument… disappointing to hear. That’s cultural relativism (and “high” Buddhism) rearing its ugly head.
Of course, I’m Muslim, so I guess I’m on an even shorter end of the stick on this website…
I didn’t ask how they ran the experiment. Karma is just the philosophy of Cause and Effect, the physics of cause applied as a psychology of action… so, you say that Michelson/Morley found no cause and no effect? How does measuring the speed of light have anything to do with a philosophy of Karma?
Karma is just the philosophy of Cause and Effect
No, it’s not. Karma is when you observe “effects” and then invent causes after the fact.
“What? You got fired from your job? It’s probably because you were rude to that homeless person. That’s karma for you!”
It’s pretty much the opposite of cause and effect.
“Karma is just the philosophy of Cause and Effect
No, it’s not. Karma is when you observe “effects” and then invent causes after the fact.”
Then you don’t understand what you’re arguing against
If you would be so kind as to point out just one thing that Karma has ever predicted ahead of time, I’ll gladly reconsider my position. Bonus points if the prediction is non-obvious.
The simplest web search will help
http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/karma.htm
You need to stop trying to disprove your misconceptions and attempt to actually understand what you are arguing against.
In fact, I tried the simplest web search. I ended up with a bunch of pages that (just like the one you linked) might as well be written in gibberish.
In Buddhism, karma has a more specific meaning, which is volitional or willful action. Things we choose to do or say or think set karma into motion. The law of karma is a law of cause and effect.
These are nonsense sentences. They don’t mean anything, they don’t tell me what karma is, and they don’t give the slightest indication of why anyone should believe that there is such a thing as karma.
Sorry, dude.
I can’t fix your reading comprehension problem.
In any case, your proposed argument about Karma is disputed. Michelson & Morley had nothing to do with proving or disproving Karma, or disputing cause and effect.
Science shouldn’t bother concerning itself with proving or disproving a literary or philosophical metaphor (Karmic “seeds”) as though it were a literal fact.
Karma, as taught by Buddha, never claimed any predictive power across lifetimes. That is cultural baggage from Hinduism.
Many of your arguments are against cultural accretions to Buddha’s thought. As Nahid says, there are many ‘Buddhisms’.
And if you want to assume a rationalist, science based position, learn about Logical Fallacies… Like the Ad Hominum and the Red Herring you throw up in your comment from 4:43 pm.
Your position about the Buddhist understanding of Karma has been shown to be a fallacious understanding.
Well! Someone’s lost my vote in the next lama election!
Science shouldn’t bother concerning itself with proving or disproving a literary or philosophical metaphor (Karmic “seeds”) as though it were a literal fact.
[...]
Your position about the Buddhist understanding of Karma has been shown to be a fallacious understanding.
Wow. Just … wow. Did different people type each of those sentences, or something?
Your implication being that they are contradictory statements…
I embrace Buddhist psychology but am totally averse to all the other stuff — cafeteria Buddhist, I guess. But I am primarily a Skeptic.
Sabio… Buddha said as much in the Kalama Sutra
Yes, thank you Doug. And here is the link for those who are curious.
Your implication being that they are contradictory statements…
Yes. If Karma is not subject to standards of “proving or disproving,” then it’s not possible to make “fallacious” statements about it. Fallacies are errors in reasoning and you seem to be claiming Karma is not subject to reasoning.
Dr Coldheart:
“If Karma is not subject to standards of “proving or disproving,” then it’s not possible to make “fallacious” statements about it. Fallacies are errors in reasoning and you seem to be claiming Karma is not subject to reasoning.”
I claim Joel’s understanding is fallacious, and therefore his arguments are in error.
Joel:
“Karma, the notion that good and bad actions produce “seeds” in the mind which come to fruition either in this life or in a subsequent rebirth.”
““science,” which (for instance) has never managed to find “seeds” in the mind,”
repeat:
“Science shouldn’t bother concerning itself with proving or disproving a literary or philosophical metaphor (Karmic “seeds”) as though it were a literal fact.”
It is an absurd argument to suggest Science can find such things as an idea in the brain. Science will never be able to find philosophical or metaphorical ‘seeds’, let alone an actual factual object in the brain which is an ‘idea’, or anything like a self or soul. As real objects they do not exist. They are a metaphor, a philosophical tool. they are not real.
Joel’s understanding is fallacious.
As to your question – Is karma subject to proof?
Proposition: Everything has a cause.
Proposition: Everything is made of constituent parts.
Proposition: Everything depends upon everything else, relies on other ‘things’ to exist in order for it to exist: everything is ‘connected’ to everything else.
These are basic tenants of Buddhist philosophy.
Is there anything there you disagree with?
Karma is just ’cause’ … everything comes together from the appropriate and suitable causes and conditions.
How is that not subject to reasoning?
It sounds like we agree that souls and karmic seeds don’t actually exist. That’s good enough for me!