"The means by which we live," taught Martin Luther King Jr. "have outdistanced the ends for which we live" Like so much of MLK's philosophy this perspective was respectfully lifted from Mohandas K. Gandhi's in his essay, "Ends and Means," and, while at first, we might say that the answer to this 'outdistancing' is simplifying our means, and (perhaps) buying a spinnign wheel, but an alternative answer might be to close the gap by increasing the scope and focus of our ends.The last four hundred years have seen prodigious growth of material technology, fruit from the root and tree of the physical sciences, but we have seen no analogous enhancement, from psychology or religion, to our ends. I will suggest that the philosophy of the current Dali Lama is the successor in the debate of ends and means and offers an unformulated but radically new answer to the spiritual progress of human beings.
It is possible to view Buddhism disrobed of its various cultural and traditional garbs. What emerges is more than a cultural tapestry; at its epistemological heart, buddhism is a science that differes with all other science in one respect--the conclusions are not communicable.
Sciences, what we could call communicable sciences, such as chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy can meaningfully communicate their findings. Although all scientific 'facts' are conditioned, since they fail to be more than just hypothesis that haven't been proven wrong yet, they can still be explained, understood, and applied to technological problems. For instance, the knowledge of the ideal gas law can be applied in the world to make brakes and hydrolics. Moreover, the person who uses those brakes or hydrolics doesn't even need to know the principles at stake to find that technology useful.
The special science that Siddartha Gautama discovered (lower case 'b' - buddhism) produces 'facts' that are also conditioned by hypothesis, and it even yeilds a sort of technology; however, the 'facts,' although they can be put into phrases, the sense of those phrases cannot be apprehended by a listener until that listener discovers the truth of it for themselves, and the technology derived from these scientific facts is only useful to those who understand the priniciples invovled. It is as if you could not make a call on your cell phone until you understood the principles of elector-magnatism, and you could not start your car until you could calculate torque.
His Holiness the Dali lama wouldn't argue that Buddhism is not a religion, nor does he argue the epistemics of the issue. He simply appeals to our common sense and common humanity. And it turns out that 'common sense' and 'common humanity' is just a very limited, unsystematic, and imperfect amount of buddhism that everyone has experienced just from being alive. Practicioners of buddhism use meditation and other experiments as the scientist uses her bench. They observe (all of percpetion, mind, consciousness and materiality), take note (in memory), and come to conclusions which change and are modified as new evidence emerges.
Buddhism the science suits modernity very well. As the division of labor and capital infurstructure enhances individuality increases, and unlike the forcably communitarian ethos of ideologies of the past, buddhism promises each individual their own individually tailored goals and serenity. Just as science has no biases, moral or otherwise, niether does buddhism. And for the practicioner who starts with those biases, their first hurdle in their practice will no doubt be to discover the impermanence of such biases.
Buddhism, in this devested respect is neither psychology, nor a religion, but a separate branch of knowledge whose nearest of kin is modern science, and its technology promises to close the 'outdistancing' of modernity between ends and means. The next step is to do the philological legwork necessary to create as complete a cannon of buddhist experiments and increase the acceptance of secular buddhism as a new branch of knowledge.
It is possible to view Buddhism disrobed of its various cultural and traditional garbs. What emerges is more than a cultural tapestry; at its epistemological heart, buddhism is a science that differes with all other science in one respect--the conclusions are not communicable.
Sciences, what we could call communicable sciences, such as chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy can meaningfully communicate their findings. Although all scientific 'facts' are conditioned, since they fail to be more than just hypothesis that haven't been proven wrong yet, they can still be explained, understood, and applied to technological problems. For instance, the knowledge of the ideal gas law can be applied in the world to make brakes and hydrolics. Moreover, the person who uses those brakes or hydrolics doesn't even need to know the principles at stake to find that technology useful.
The special science that Siddartha Gautama discovered (lower case 'b' - buddhism) produces 'facts' that are also conditioned by hypothesis, and it even yeilds a sort of technology; however, the 'facts,' although they can be put into phrases, the sense of those phrases cannot be apprehended by a listener until that listener discovers the truth of it for themselves, and the technology derived from these scientific facts is only useful to those who understand the priniciples invovled. It is as if you could not make a call on your cell phone until you understood the principles of elector-magnatism, and you could not start your car until you could calculate torque.
His Holiness the Dali lama wouldn't argue that Buddhism is not a religion, nor does he argue the epistemics of the issue. He simply appeals to our common sense and common humanity. And it turns out that 'common sense' and 'common humanity' is just a very limited, unsystematic, and imperfect amount of buddhism that everyone has experienced just from being alive. Practicioners of buddhism use meditation and other experiments as the scientist uses her bench. They observe (all of percpetion, mind, consciousness and materiality), take note (in memory), and come to conclusions which change and are modified as new evidence emerges.
Buddhism the science suits modernity very well. As the division of labor and capital infurstructure enhances individuality increases, and unlike the forcably communitarian ethos of ideologies of the past, buddhism promises each individual their own individually tailored goals and serenity. Just as science has no biases, moral or otherwise, niether does buddhism. And for the practicioner who starts with those biases, their first hurdle in their practice will no doubt be to discover the impermanence of such biases.
Buddhism, in this devested respect is neither psychology, nor a religion, but a separate branch of knowledge whose nearest of kin is modern science, and its technology promises to close the 'outdistancing' of modernity between ends and means. The next step is to do the philological legwork necessary to create as complete a cannon of buddhist experiments and increase the acceptance of secular buddhism as a new branch of knowledge.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment