Spirituality should be based on reality

Since I bought it, my go-to book for reading prior to my morning meditation/quiet time has been David Barash's "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science." 

My previous posts about the book are here and here. 

For me, it's a home run in the spirituality without supernaturalism ballpark. In the same genre of Stephen Bachelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs," yet more satisfying in certain ways, being based on solid science. Albeit with a healthy dose of modern secular Buddhism viewpoints.

The core of Barash's book, which I've almost finished, is that three principles underly Buddhism in all of its varied forms. However, lots is added on to these principles that can't be defended scientifically.

But this much can. Definitions are from the book's glossary.

(1) Anatman -- not-self; denial that things, animals, or people have an independent, substantial nature. In particular, neither humans nor anything else have an eternal non-material soul. Neuroscience supports this.

(2) Anitya -- impermanence; a state of constantly becoming. Change happens. Everywhere. All the time. No exceptions. Except maybe the laws of nature that proclaim "change happens." Evolution is one example.

(3) Pratitya-Samutpada -- connectedness; the dependent co-arising of all phenomena; dependent origination; interdependence of all things. Fundamental premise of ecology, biology, systems thinking.

Here's a passage from the book that says a lot in a few sentences:

Evolutionary biologists typically attribute convergence among living things not to mere coincidences but to an underlying similarity in ecological niches. 

If two species -- say, whales and sharks -- appear very similar despite being unrelated, the likelihood is that both are adapted to a similar marine environment, which of course they are.

In the same way, we also have both placental mice and marsupial mice, and the wings of birds and those of bats.

The shape and structure of wings speaks eloquently about the physical properties of air and about how the experience of air is shared by flying birds and flying mammals, just as fins are eloquent about water. 

Likewise, the extraordinary parallels between Buddhism and biology, independently captured by seemingly disparate perspectives, may also be due to the nature of their shared reality.

Well, I'd change that "may" in the last sentence to "almost certainly." At least, this is the conclusion I've drawn after reading most of Barash's book.

Once Buddhism is stripped of its supernaturalism, such as a belief in transmigration or reincarnation (which is at odds with its not-self principle), it does indeed seem that Buddhist philosophy is a fairly accurate reflection of reality as modern science has come to know it.

Imperfectly and incompletely to be sure. But a heck of a lot more accurately than religions have been able to comprehend the cosmos. 

So why might someone want to overlay a reality-based philosophy like modern secular Buddhism over what science has learned about reality? Good question. I suspect Barash will answer it in the book's final chapters. 

My personal take on this is that we humans are complex creatures. We aren't just rational thinking machines, and we aren't just intuitive emotional beings. There is a multitude within us.

Those 100 billion neurons in the brain with trillions of connections produce some pretty weird shit, to put it crudely but accurately.

I love to read hard-core popular science books. But they leave me with a wanting for something more. That more is emotional, meaningful, quasi-poetic, uplifting. The sort of thing that, when I have it, makes me feel that life is good and I'm an integral part of a wonderful reality.

Barash does an excellent job of describing how the three principles above -- not-self, impermanence, connectedness -- do indeed lead to a understanding of how to live life happily, meaningfully, productively.

But that's the subject of another blog post, after I finish the book.  

Comments

[Willie R.]

Blogger Brian - I am sure that you are aware of David Chapman's blog at WordPress, where he has recently held forth on the the subject of the naturalization of Tantric Buddhism, and the four strategies he outlines concerning the elimination of supernatural elements germane to Buddhism as a whole: ignoring, denial, psychologizing, and mythologizing. (By the way - thank you for making me aware of David Chapman via your Churchless blog)

In 1968, at the tender age of 19, and as a "lapsed" Catholic, I dropped acid for the first of dozens of times. I had no knowledge of Near or Far Eastern culture at that time. Zero. Nada. But when I closed my eyes about 45 minutes after ingesting what was alleged to be LSD-25 (effectively segregating the LSD-25 molecule from kissing cousins such as strychnine was beyond the capabilities of most underground chemists) my visual cortex was overwhelmed with fractal patterns, kaleidoscopic colors and movements that for all the world seemed akin to Persian arabesques and Tibetan sand mandalas - intense, complex, and.....I must admit - without any rational relevance. But it was there. Was this information, or noise? If information, what was being conveyed? What purpose could noise serve, except as information of a sort? Capitulation of the imagined entity will always be a requirement if Reality is to be discerned - the glaring impotence of the human ego is the "hintergedanke" that inhabits the brain of even the most stalwart of materialists.
The Penrose-Hameroff theory of consciousness known as Orch OR is both denied and ignored (two of Chapman's 4 strategies for the "naturalization" of certain Buddhisms) because reductionists claim that quantum mechanics is not relevant at scales of time and distance relevant to biology. Hameroff postulates that consciousness is an intrinsic characteristic of whatever "reality" is at the quantum level, rather that simply the result of the complex computational abilities of the brain.

So ---- either consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, or the brain is an epiphenomenon of the collapse of quantum superposition. (Theoretical physicists are becoming increasingly vocal about how absurd are the various misunderstandings of quantum mechanics that are extant these days - I am nowhere near qualified to say anything at all about quantum theory - but the reader probably knows what I am trying to say - through the optic of their own misunderstanding).

In any case, it should be more obvious than a punch in the nose that consciousness (whatever that is) can never be demonstrated without a vehicle of expression (like physicality). Conversely, physicality can never be demonstrated without consciousness.

And, it does not matter to "what is". So enjoy yourselves - if you can.

[Anirudh Kumar Satsangi]

Hello Brian, Radhasoami. How are you?

“Unaccomplished activities of past lives are also one of the causes for reincarnation. Some of us reincarnate to complete the unfinished tasks of previous birth. The is evident from my own story of reincarnation:
“My most Revered Guru of my previous life His Holiness Maharaj Sahab, 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had revealed this secret to me during trance like state of mine. This was sort of REVELATION.
HE told me, “Tum Sarkar Sahab Ho” (You are Sarkar Sahab). Sarkar Sahab was one of the most beloved disciple of His Holiness Maharj Sahab. Sarkar Sahab later on became Fourth of Spiritual Head Radhasoami Faith.
Since I don’t have any direct realization of it so I can not claim the extent of its correctness. But it seems to be correct. During my previous birth I wanted to sing the song of ‘Infinite’ (Agam Geet yeh gawan chahoon tumhri mauj nihara, mauj hoi to satguru soami karoon supanth vichara) but I could not do so then since I had to leave the mortal frame at a very early age. But through the unbounded Grace and Mercy of my most Revered Guru that desire of my past birth is being fulfilled now.”
I am one the chief expounder and supporter of Gravitation Force Theory of God. This is most scientific and secular theory of God. This is the Theory of Universal Religion. I have given Higher Theory of Everything. Sometimes back I posted this as comments to a blog on:
‘Fighting of the Cause of Allah by Governing a Smart Mathematics Based on Islamic Teology’
By Rohedi of Rohedi Laboratories, Indonesia. Rohedi termed my higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Some details are quoted below:
rohedi
@anirudh kumar satsangi
Congratulation you have develop the higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Hopefully your some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory are recognized by International Science Community, hence I soon read the fundamental aspect proposed by you.
I have posted my comments to the Blog of Syed K. Mirza on Evolutionary Science vs. Creation Theory, and Intellectual Hypocrisy. Syed Mirza seems to be a very liberal muslim. He responded to my comments as mentioned below.
“Many thanks for your very high thought explanations of God.
You said:
“Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation. Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, Source of Gravitational Wave is God”
Whatever you call it, God is no living God of any religion. Yes, when I call it “Mother Nature” is the God generated from all Natural forces and Gravitational force is the nucleus of all forces or we can presume that Gravitation is the ultimate guiding principle of this Mother Nature we call it non-living God unlike living personal God of religions. I can not believe any personal God would do so much misery created for its creation. Hence, only non-living natural God can explain everything in the Universe. When we think of any living personal God, things do not ad up!”
I have also discovered the mathematical expression for emotional quotient (E.Q.) and for spiritual quotient (S.Q.).
Austrian Scientist Rudolf Steiner says,
“Just as an age was once ready to receive the Copernican theory of the universe, so is our age ready for the idea of reincarnation to be brought into the general consciousness of humanity”.

[tucson]

Once I was told by a satsangi that in my past life I was a goat-herder that was murdered. This satsangi had descended into apparent madness, and became homeless telling others he was a realized master and me the above. I heard a rumor that he had committed suicide. He had an estranged wife and two children.

Another well-known psychic, Kevin Ryerson, in the voice of a disembodied Irishman channeled by Ryerson, told me I was a dark-skinned maker of golden masks in ancient Egypt and in another life was some kind of merchant that opened trade routes in partnership with my current wife who was a male in that life. He didn't tell me if I was gay or not.

I was told by another psychic I was a Buddhist monk in a past life. Ho hum. Rather boring. Doesn't everyone hear that one?

They could have told me anything and who could or could not refute them?

The only lifetimes I have even the slightest recollection of is one where I was a rather horny and slutty princess during the Renaissance, a North American Indian in the Southwest, and another as an organ grinder's monkey.

[sapient]

@Anirudh kumar, you have discovered the mathematical expression for emotional quotient (E.Q.) and for spiritual quotient (S.Q.).?? And you are the chief expounder and supporter of Gravitation Force Theory of God??

Dont want to be rude, but are you sure you are not going through some sort of mania? Lot of satsangis do get confused between Maniac episode and spiritual awakening. Do get yourself checked brother!

[Lama Surya Das]

Great Stuff! You've given a lot to think about...Thank You!