Dear friends,

I think that every age and culture develops its own languages or symbolic systems for mapping and describing the observed flux of phenomena. Modern science is one of them which is probably the most appropriate to the present-day mentality. The Dhamma teachings as an invariant truth should possibly be expressed in many different ways i.e. in many different languages or systems of symbols. In this context some of the concepts developed in the new scientific paradigm during the last century (for a simple presentation I would recommend you to watch documentary film "The Secret Life of Chaos") can be very useful providing convenient metaphors for modern people to understand some of the basic Buddhist tenets. For instance I like to think about kamma as an feedback mechanism in the self-organizing system of the flux of psycho-somatic phenomena (naama-ruupa) which constitute our experience. Here "self-organization" means without any governing principle such as
soul, god etc. which, I think, is a neat illustration of anatta.

Metta,
Ardavarz

--- On Sun, 5/16/10, Peter Tomlinson <gnanayasa@...> wrote:

From: Peter Tomlinson <gnanayasa@...>
Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 6:37 AM







 









Dear Ong Yong Peng,

Science is appropriate to answer secular, i.e. lokuttara matters.  Lord Buddha did not much concern himself with such.  Isn't it true that He often refused to respond to questions about whether ther was a god, whether the sould was eternal or non eternal etc.  I mention Culamalunkyaputta Sutta here.  And wouldn't we see in the simile of the poisoned arrow the trap of conflating science with Dhamma?  Lord Buddha isn't concerned with those issues of the origins of the Universe, brain science whether there is or is ot "self".  



What I say here isn't a bad attitude towards science or any "modern" point of view.  Simply they are incapable of solving the problem of existence which only Buddha Dhamma approaches wisely and effectively if one wishes to end samsara.

Science has no such interest or indeed wisdom and viriya to achieve.



Lord Buddha is the little brown fat guy in funny robes.  And believe me I think Ajahn Chah and others would fulfill that picture nicely.  



________________________________

From: Ong Yong Peng <palismith@...>

To: Pali@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 8:23:11 PM

Subject: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta



 

Dear Peter,



I do not want to speculate your background, but I guess it is some Abrahamic religious background, given your name. I would say fanatic ideologies exist in both political and religious realms in too many forms. But, Buddhism does not fall into such category.



The Buddha acknowledged other religions and philosophies. The Buddha also mentioned that what he taught his disciples was only a very minute portion of what he knew.



Western Buddhists should not perpetrate such ill attitude and intolerance mentality towards Science. The Dalai Lama who is openly holding dialogs with scientists should be your example.



Also, I do not really know the "fat brown guy in a funny outfit" you mention. I believe there is a limit to idolising the Buddha. He would probably laugh if he sees how much people overdo it.



metta,

Yong Peng.



--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Peter Tomlinson wrote:



I find it difficult to grasp how anyone who has taken refuge, i.e. has Saddha in the Buddha Dhamma, could imagine that "science" has revealed anything not know to the rishis and Buddhas of ages past.  It is not,  Dhamma - one thing, and science, everything else.  If so then Dhamma is mere quaint ancient proto-Indian ritualised explanation of the unknowable which "Science" the secular moderns world"s New God / Dhamma, can explain ever so much better than a fat brown guy in a funny outfit, too dumb to get in out of the weather.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]