· AQA Spec points covered in this article are as follows:
Religious
Experience – Nirvana in this life and after death, Devotion
and its purposes: acts of devotion in Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism; the
nature and role of Buddha images and the importance of making and sharing
merit; the different perspectives of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism about the
significance of worship; Meditation: the nature and purpose of meditation on
the eightfold path; modern usage of Buddhist meditation as a form of therapy
and how Buddhists have responded to this.
·
Miracles
– the
miraculous birth of the Buddha, the miracle of nirvana in this life and after
death, the “practical” approach to miracles in Buddhism, the powers of the
Bodhisattvas to intervene in the material world.
·
The
relationship between scientific and religious discourses
- How scientific explanation has challenged belief in karma and in miracles and
Buddhist responses to that challenge; The value of science: the Buddha’s
attitude to the search for answers to unanswerable questions; the belief that
science agrees with some Buddhist teaching with particular reference to quantum
physics; the views of Thich Nhat Hanh and the 14th Dalai Lama about the
relationship between Buddhism and science; Different Buddhist responses to
ethical issues raised by science: genetic engineering.
A01 Content
Buddhist views of Religious Experience
·
Nirvana, despite not being an experience that
relates to the power of an ultimate deity, is a religious experience as when a
person attains nirvana they gain access to ultimate knowledge. Stories of the
Buddha’s Enlightenment on earth convey that there are supernatural elements to
nirvana which go beyond simply “realising” a truth – this is because nirvana is
attained when one truly understands the nature of the world, Samsara, karma,
rebirth and suffering. It allows people to understand what their past lives
were and how they were interconnected, and this includes the existence of
spiritual and heavenly beings, and demons and hell realms. Clearly, nirvana
requires great faith in order to achieve and the fact that it cannot be
adequately described in the Pali Canon contributes to the idea that it is only
through faith and practice that one can truly attain this lofty spiritual goal.
·
Mahayana belief in the Trikaya Doctrine and
bodhisattvas may make them more likely to believe that religious experiences
are possible over other sects of Buddhism – this is because they are able to
access the Buddha in the spiritual, supernatural realm of pari-nirvana, and he
could appear to them in a vision (the basis of the Lotus Sutra is a vision of
the heavenly Buddha who taught the bodhisattva goal). In addition, the Lotus
Sutra teaches that the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara can appear to those who have
faith in his unlimited punya and call on his name in distress. Because of
Avalokiteshvara’s semi-divine status he is able to appear to people on the
brink of attaining nirvana and deliver the teaching that they need to allow
them to achieve full Bodhi, this shows that the possibility of a religious
experience is integral to Mahayana belief.
·
Other supernatural experiences that underpin
Buddhism can be discussed – the 4 jhanas (stages of meditation) are
supernatural in nature, and harnessing the power of the mind and restraining
the skandhas is seen to bring about supernatural experiences that go beyond the
material world (e.g. telekinesis, the ability to levitate, telepathy).
Buddhists also believe in the possibilities of miracles and that these can be
achieved through high levels of spiritual practice.
·
Meditation, as well as being the way to nirvana,
can itself be considered to be a religious experience, again not because it
proves to Buddhists that God exists, but it does bring supernatural legitimacy
to the way of Magga as the end of suffering. When Buddhists meditate and feel
extreme senses of calm, joy and peace, it authenticates their belief in the
power of meditation, showing that this religious experience can be used as a
way to confirm their faith. Vipassana meditation also has a link to the gaining
of supernatural knowledge, beyond what humans can understand through pure
reason and intellect alone – this is a religious experience that leads to
ultimate knowledge which goes above “conventional” human abilities to think and
comprehend the world around them.
·
Puja (worship) also leads to a confirmation of
faith that goes beyond conventional human understanding. Many Buddhists –
particularly in Mahayana countries - believe that worshipping an image of the
Buddha (or in the case of Mahayana Buddhists a bodhisattva or past/future
Buddha) will allow them to gain good punya (merit), which somewhat functions
like a spiritual currency that allows Buddhists to reap good karmic rewards
within Samsara. This shows that Buddhists believe that through worship they can
have a dynamic, transactional relationship with the Buddha, authenticated by
the fact that the Buddha is believed to be accessible in pari-nirvana, so can
bestow his heavenly punya upon them.
A02 Analysis:
When
analysing these sections, as well as simply considering how consistent these
ideas are with science and Logical Positivism, you may also find it helpful to
compare these ideas with Classical Theism (particularly Christianity, and how
consistent these ideas are with teachings from the Bible). There are two
possible foci of these questions, and below this is what you should explain:
·
How far the belief
is reasonable:
1.
According to the
doctrines of Classical Theism/Philosophy of Religion.
2.
According to modern
science and empiricism.
·
How coherent the
beliefs are:
1.
Do they make sense
rationally?
2.
How consistent are
they with other beliefs within the belief system?
3.
Are they meaningful
for everyone?
Buddhist Religious Experience, including
views on miracles: A02
·
How far the belief is reasonable:
Dialogue with Classical
Theism/Philosophy of Religion:
Classical Theism
– Christianity teaches that there is one ultimate creator God, who is both
immanent and transcendent, and is characterised through his “omni”
characteristics. Christians would therefore argue that it is possible for all
people to meet with the Divine, although is regarded in a number of ways
(mystical, numinous, through a vision). However, as they believe in one
all-powerful God, Christians would argue that any supernatural or ultimate
knowledge that someone gains ultimately should come through Him, and they
should have a sense that there is a being greater than themselves when they
have this experience. It is therefore likely that Christians would reject the
legitimacy of claims to nirvana, as they would not see it possible to gain
supernatural or ultimate knowledge without the input of God. Many Christians
also believe in the power of the Devil/occult/demons, and may warn that power
that does not obviously come from God could come from evil sources – it is
therefore possible that fundamentalist and some Evangelical (scripturally
literalist) Christians would therefore reject the knowledge gained from nirvana
as being from evil sources. At best, they may say that God is trying to
communicate with Buddhists but they are misinterpreting his message as nirvana/
not realising the Holy Spirit is meeting with them.
Philosophy of
Religion – James may accept the legitimacy of Buddhist experiences, as they
view religious experiences as being mystical in nature as they consist of four distinguishing
features: They are ineffable, that is they cannot adequately be described by
the human language; They are noetic; they convey some knowledge of the
universe; They are transient - they do not last long and may only happen once
in a life time – showing that God is transcendent (outside of space and time); They
are also passive; the person has no control over them. In all religious
experiences James identifies a feeling of deep inner peace, joy, great
emotional intensity and an unshakeable claim that God has been encountered in a
bipolar event. These experiences could be used to prove religions other than
the Classically Theist ones – such as Buddhism.
Those who
believe in the legitimacy of visions may also believe it is possible that
Buddhists could see visions of the Buddha or Avalokiteshvara, assuming that
they do not believe that this visions must come from one God in particular –
this would be a generalized/pluralized view of religion, where all religions
are seen as being equally valuable and potentially equally correct. This could
be supported by Swinburne’s Principle of Testimony and Credulity, which
suggests that humans would not actively lie about religious experiences such as
visions, and are in fact giving accounts of things that seem real to them – it
is important to remember, in his view, that if something seems to be present,
it is because it probably is.
However, other philosophers would reject Buddhist views of
religious experience because they define religious experiences in a specific
way. For example, whilst Walter Stace also views religious experiences as
mystical in nature, he still sees them as communicating some knowledge of God
(of classical theism) and relates his mystical experiences to the Christian
God, which he views symbolically.
Dialogue with Science
and Empiricism – Science/human reason generally can be used to criticise
the legitimacy of religious experiences, including Buddhist ones.
•
Reason: All our normal experiences count against religious experiences – we
always subscribe our experiences to having some kind of concrete cause –
whether it is physical/bodily, environmental or emotional. Religious
experiences can therefore be easily explained as having a more likely
explanation (e.g. Occam’s Razor logic).
•
Reason:
Religious experiences could be incorrect, or lies – this is the same as a
criticism of miracles. Hume’s view would support the idea that religious
experiences are falsifications or misunderstandings, stemming from the human
love of awe and wonder.
•
Science
– Psychology - Freud: religion is wish-fulfillment of the unconscious mind. We
believe in God to overcome the fear of death and the unknown – this need can
cause hallucinations which confirm the existence of God, but in reality
religious beliefs are “infantile and neurotic.”
•
Science
– Medicine: Some people who have TLE (temporal lobe epilepsy) have religious
visions and mystical experiences as one of their symptoms. This has led
scientists to suggest that religious experiences are caused by chemical changes
in the brain. It has even been suggested that religious figures from history
had this condition – St Paul is said to have been unwell with an undisclosed
illness and some people have hypothesized that this was TLE.
•
Science
– Research: Persinger’s God Helmet: created a device that stimulated the
temporal lobes which could manipulate the brain to cause people to experience
the feelings of mystical religious states. The brain can recreate these
feelings showing that religious experiences are states of the brain.
•
Sensory
Experience - Hallucinogenic drugs can also externally cause people to believe
they are having mystical experiences (although James saw these as legitimate).
·
How coherent the beliefs are:
1.
Do they make sense rationally?
No:
-
Religious experiences can be seen to go against
human reason – we see in the universe that phenomena normally have a material
cause, and so attributing a religious experience to supernatural power doesn’t
necessarily seem to be the simplest solution (Occam’s razor).
-
Evidence from science and empiricism suggests that
believing in the supernormal is incorrect – religious experiences could come
from our psychology, Temporal Lobe Epilepsy or from some chemical substance
reacting in our brains. Equally, due to a desire to be famous or a propensity
for awe and wonder, accounts of religious experiences could be wrong.
-
Religious experiences are emotional, subjective,
personal and individual – the only way for all people to be convinced by a
religious experience would be if everyone on Earth had the same experience
simultaneously, and this is yet to occur.
Yes:
-
For those who have had a religious experience there
is a personal confirmation of faith – F. Schleiermacher comments that, despite
being numinous in nature, religious experiences are “self-authenticating” –
meaning that the experience goes beyond human reason and needs no other
evidence to be believed by the experiencer.
-
Swinburne: Credulity and Testimony – we should
believe accounts from people who have no reason to lie, and accept that if
something seems to be present it is because it probably is.
-
If we take a pluralised view of all religions being
equally valid it is wrong to question the truth claims that believers make,
including whether or not they have had a religious experiences.
2. How consistent with
other beliefs within the belief system.
Consistent ideas:
Nirvana – the ultimate goal for all Buddhists, whether as a bodhisattva
or an arhat, is to attain nirvana. All Buddhists understand that nirvana is
ineffable, but involves the comprehension of some form of ultimate knowledge –
which is why bodhi is known as “awakening” – true understanding of the nature
of things. Nirvana also has the supernatural result of the ending of human
suffering within the realms of Samsara, and whilst there are a variety of
literal and metaphorical interpretations of this doctrine, it is ultimately
accepted that those who have attained nirvana will have overcome suffering in
their life and beyond.
Meditation – as this is part of the Buddha dharma and common to all
forms of Buddhism, even Secular Buddhism, it can be argued that meditation is a
consistent practice that all Buddhists would view as being significant. This is
because Samatha (mindfulness meditation) is part of the path to the ending of
suffering as taught by Gautama, and all Buddhists regard it as having positive
emotional effects, such as bringing feelings of great peace and joy.
Points of
inconsistency:
Visions: Not all Buddhists accept accounts of religious experiences in
Buddhist scriptures – for example Mahayana Buddhists believe that the Lotus
Sutra records the vision of the Sambhogakaya of the Buddha appearing from
heaven and delivering Buddhist doctrine to his followers, after his death.
Theravada Buddhists do not accept that this vision took place, as they believe
that the Buddha is inaccessible to humanity and the universe after he died and
entered Pari-Nirvana, outside of Samsara. This means that they are also
unlikely to believe in visions of Avalokiteshvara as they do not believe that
the Buddha preached the bodhisattva goal to them.
Puja: not all Buddhists place the same value on acts of devotion as a
way of making and sharing merit. Theravada Buddhists, whilst still revering
images of the Buddha, are more likely to do this because he is seen as a great
role model, and inspiration, and an excellent focus for their own meditation.
They do not believe that it is necessary to worship and image of the Buddha to
gain good punya (although many Theravada Buddhists will still choose to do
this). Puja is not seen in a transactional way by all Buddhists, removing the
supernatural idea that the Buddha in his heavenly form can confer merit to
those who please him with acts of worship.
Secular Buddhism: removes all mystical aspects of religious experiences,
particularly a literal belief in Samsara and the possibility of the Buddha
being a semi-divine being that can appear in visions or confer spiritual merit
to others. This is because Secular Buddhists remove mystical and “religious”
content from scriptures and instead focus on Buddhism as a philosophy of life.
They would therefore be unlikely to accept the legitimacy of Buddhist claims to
religious experiences, seeing instead that the practices of Buddhism lead to
positive emotional effects, but this is not due to supernatural power.
3.
Are they meaningful for everyone?
All
sects: nirvana, meditation.
Mahayana
only: visions of the heavenly form of the Buddha, worship of bodhisattvas to
gain punya.
Secular
Buddhism: only Buddhist practices are
valuable, supernatural teachings are not relevant to Buddhism as a contemporary
modern philosophy.
The relationship between Science and Buddhist Discourse, including views on miracles: A02
·
How far the belief is reasonable:
Dialogue between Buddhism and Classical
Theism:
When compared with religions such as Christianity,
Buddhism could be argued to be more rational and based in sensory experience,
meaning that it fits better with modern science. Many aspects of Christianity
depend on archaic views of the world, and scripture has been proved to be
scientifically inaccurate, leading Christians to have to reinterpret Buddhist
scriptures in order to find meaning in their stories. The Buddha avoided
answering “unanswerable questions”, which prevents Buddhism from being committed
to a specific creation narrative or view of the world, making it appear much
more reasonable than Abrahamic religions, which are creationist in nature
(suggesting that God created the world “ex nihilo” and in a certain order).
Historically there has also been a great deal of animosity between Christianity
and science, with Christians of the past seeing great thinkers of their day
such as Galileo as being decried for their attempts to explain the world in
realist ways, as a blasphemous action. Buddhism appears to be much more
accepting of modern science and empiricism, even going so far as showing that
ancient Buddhist doctrines regarding shunyata and anicca as being consistent
with contemporary studies into Quantum Physics.
Dialogue between Buddhism and
Philosophy of Religion:
Logical Positivism: only statements
that can be empirically tested have meaning. This is similar to the Buddhist
view of the importance of personal experience, self-realization and personal
discovery and showing the value of Buddhist truths. The Buddha’s teaching of
Magga was born out of his own experience of the extremes of luxury and
asceticism, giving more credibility to his teachings. He also encouraged people
to try ideas out for himself.
However, it must be remembered than many Buddhist
doctrines are unverifiable in nature, or can only be verified eschatologically,
meaning that the Logical Positivists may not be entirely accepting of all
Buddhist statements, just those that can be verified.
Dialogue between Buddhism and Modern
Science:
Hume and Empiricism: Hume valued reason
and the human ability to draw conclusions from the sensory world, making him an
empiricist and a realist. He would likely view the Dalai Lama’s comment that
Buddhism should adapt its teachings to fit with modern science as new knowledge
is discovered in a favorable light, as this also shows an empirical side to
Buddhism.
Quantum Physics: Similarities. Both
Buddhism and Quantum Physics accept that the
world is made of tiny particles; these tiny particles are not permanent, they
are constantly in the process of becoming something else; everything is
impermanent at a molecular level; the way that people perceive the world is not
the same as the true nature of the world.
However, it must
also be remembered there are some major differences - The Buddha did not adopt
a scientific methodology – he discovered the dharma through meditation; Quantum
physicists have to guess at the behaviour of quarks, the smallest particle
level, because they are unobservable, whereas the Buddha is believed to have
true understanding of the nature of things; Buddhism teaches the difference
between “ultimate” and “conventional” reality whereas science says that there
is one reality with different levels of comprehension.
·
How coherent the beliefs are:
1. Do
they make sense rationally?
Yes:
-
Buddhist scientific beliefs
could be argued to make rational sense because they share methodology with
contemporary science and empiricism – particularly the emphasis on the personal
testing of ideas before someone draws conclusions. They are also based on
easily observable phenomena – for example that everyone does suffer, and
everything does appear to be impermanent.
-
The relationship between
Buddhism and Quantum Physics shows that there are evidential (at least
theoretically evidential) links between scientific conclusions and Buddhist
doctrines.
-
Secular Buddhism shows that it
is possible to practice Buddhist ideals and to utilise Buddhism to live a moral
life without having to believe in less rational supernatural ideas – this is
supported by Batchelor seeing the Four Noble Truths as four practical “tasks”
for one to undertake to overcome human suffering rather than ideas that convey
some supernatural ultimate knowledge of the world around us. The Buddha’s
teachings on miracles can therefore be viewed practically: it is miraculous
that we can overcome inevitable human suffering without this being a
supernormal event.
No:
-
Despite having some
similarities with scientific methodology, Buddhists on the whole do hold a
supernatural view of ultimate reality, including the idea that we can be reborn
in many spiritual realms in Samsara, and that there is life of some form after death
in pari-nirvana.
-
The Buddha also taught that
miraculous events are possible, suggesting that through perfecting Buddhist
practices one is able to pervert natural laws as we understand them - gaining
and using supernormal powers like telepathy and levitation. This counters a
rational and scientific view of the world.
-
Karma in particular is not
supported by science – there is no evidence that bad things that happen to us
are as a result of past bad karma, and this depends on the cycle of Samsara but
can also be random.
-
Many Buddhist ideas are based
on outdated ancient texts, and the credibility of these sources and the
testimonies they contain could be doubted, making them incoherent. This can
particularly be applied to miraculous accounts of the life of the Buddha. As
the Pali Canon, for example, was complied at least 500 years after the death of
the Buddha and beforehand was preserved through oral recitation, it is possible
that over time legends were added to the scriptures designed to give the
Buddha’s teachings more spiritual authority. It is possible therefore that the
miraculous accounts are additions to Buddhist texts that do not record literal
historical events as they occurred, and that these should this be interpreted
non-cognitively over cognitively.
2. How
consistent with other beliefs within the belief system.
Points of
consistency: belief in anicca is accepted by all Buddhists, and
it is likely that even Theravada Buddhists would accept the premises of
shunyata in addition to this as they are based on the idea that things are
constantly changing, just applying this to a molecular level.
All Buddhists see the process of realizing the
dharma as being one that is dependent on personal experience and
self-discovery, and all Buddhists are encouraged to test ideas themselves
before accepting them.
Points of
Inconsistency: Secular Buddhism provides the largest point of
inconsistency when it comes to Buddhism and science – particularly in its
rejection of the supernatural and miraculous elements of Buddhist doctrine. As
Secular Buddhism is atheistic in nature and instead prioritses the practices of
Buddhism, secular Buddhists may choose the knowledge and practices of modern
science over supernatural elements of Buddhist teachings such as the view of
rebirth and ultimate reality.
3. Are
they meaningful for everyone?
Theravada &
Mahayana: Belief in both practical elements of self-discovery and testing of
the dharma and in the authority of Buddhist texts and the power of Gautama and
an extraordinary being (potentially even a semi-divine one, depending on the
sect).
Secular Buddhism:
Believe in scientific practices over and above the supernatural doctrines of
Buddhism.
No comments:
Post a Comment