In any case, I am curious as to what made you infer this pattern you claim to see, but I will say this: Buddhism and hinduism follow the same dogmatic principles as any other religion. They are fundamentally no different, but are simply religions tailored to communal cultures, as opposed to a religion tailored to an individualist culture. Don't be confused by these surface differences: if you read the texts and know your regional and evolutionary history well, the similarities are striking. The reason you may recognize a bigger picture is because they are part of a histo-cultural construct, so they are a bigger picture, it was just created by the human beings before and around you, not some spiritual force.
First I would like to say that you're a rotten... just kidding. I actually appreciate very much your
taking the time to discuss these matters. Thank you.
The reason I keep saying that Buddhism is not a religion is because I typically associate religion with deity. Buddhism is non-dogmatic. The Buddhist looks to Buddha as the physicist looks to Newton; i.e., someone to revere, but not worship. I think that Buddhist doctrine would be invaluable to any person of any spiritual persuasion, be that person an atheist or Jew or Jainist, etc.
As for Hinduism, the main tenet that I talk about is Yoga. Yoga is not that bullshit you see on television with women in spandex sitting cross-legged on a mat talking about "spiritual realization" or "inner harmony" or some crap like that. That is nothing but glorified stretching using the alias of "Yoga" to make it sound more "mystical." At best, I suppose, it could be called a preliminary of Hatha Yoga, which in itself is a preliminary, but that's AT BEST. (forgive the rant)
What I mean by the word Yoga--i.e., Raja Yoga, Gnana Yoga, Karma Yoga--is a science. Just as a diet can make you lose weight or cutting a tree with a chainsaw will cause it to eventually fall to the earth, so is Yoga a predictable, methodological pursuit. There is no prayer or worship. It is applied psychology. It is learning how the mind works, utilizing that learning to control the mind, and then focusing the mind until the desired result occurs.
I do see your point in saying that spirituality and science are not co-equals. You cant explain science using spirituality. Spirituality is merely one aspect of science. See below.
In the end, all I'm saying is you could just call yourself a scientist instead of hiding behind the shill mask of spirituality, though you may want to get a better grasp of the scientific method first - there's no such thing as a spiritual science, but you can be scientific about spirituality. Maybe you're a scientist who noone in the scientific community agrees with, but so were lots of great scientists until everyone decided to agree with them. You can approach spirituality from a scientific angle, which is what you're trying to do, but you can't approach science from a spiritual angle - it doesn't work, because science precludes you from having faith in what you can't reliably measure and draw valid conclusions from, and spirituality precludes reliable measurement (I suppose you could technically worship science to be spiritual about science, but that wouldn't be scientific per se).
Yeah, I read over what I wrote, and when I came across the term "spiritual science" I threw up a little bit in my mouth. That's why I shouldn't rush my replies in topics such as this.
"You can approach spirituality from a scientific angle." Yes! OK, that's it in a nutshell. What has taken me several posts to say you have just said in one succinct, accurate sentence. And no, I don't want your autograph.
Topic: Science and Religion (Read 3302 times)
August 11, 2008, 09:13:37 AM