Creating a Dialogue Between Buddhism and Philosophy: Religious Experience, Miracles, and Science

 

·        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.

 

Buddhism and Philosophy: Creating Dialogues

 

Creating a Dialogue between Buddhism and Western Philosophy

Question Type One: How reasonable are Buddhist beliefs?

When creating a dialogue between Buddhism and philosophy, you need to be aware of the following Buddhist concepts:

Specification  - Beliefs and teachings about:

·        Ultimate Reality - The key differences between the Theravada and Mahayana concepts of Buddha; the key features of the Trikaya doctrine in Mahayana Buddhism; Anicca: the meaning and importance of the concept of Anicca; the development of that idea in the Mahayana doctrine of emptiness; Nirvana: Nirvana in this life and after death; Nirvana as indescribable and beyond understanding; attempts in scripture to describe it and their strengths and weaknesses with reference to the 80^th dilemma of the Questions of King Milinda.

·        Self, Death and Afterlife - The meaning and purpose of life: better rebirth and Nirvana as goals of life and their relative importance; the ideal of the arhat and bodhisattva in Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism; Anatta (no-self): the concept of anatta; the five aggregates and the analogy of the chariot in the Questions of King Milinda, Book II chapter 1.1; Samsara: the cycle of birth, death and rebirth; the nature of karma and its role on the wheel of becoming; the realms of becoming and their significance including literal, metaphorical and psychological interpretations; Tibetan Buddhist beliefs about the 14^th Dalai Lama as an expression of the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara.

·        Sources of Wisdom and Authority - The Buddha: the significance the life of Gautama Buddha for Theravada Buddhists with reference to his relevance as a role model and his authority as ‘the enlightened one’; the Mahayana view that the life and teaching of Gautama Buddha was ‘skilful means’, with reference to the parable of the burning house in the Lotus Sutra; The meaning and relevance of Buddha’s teaching about Dukkha, including the debate about whether Buddhism is pessimistic; The Pali Canon: the nature and authority of the Pali Canon; different views about how far this is an accurate record of Gautama Buddha’s teaching and the relevance for Buddhists of this debate; the use of Pali Canon in worship and daily life.

Dialogues questions ask you to compare and consider the compatibility between Buddhist beliefs and the philosophical and religious beliefs from the West. This means that as well as comparing Buddhism with the Philosophy topics you learnt in Year 12 and Year 13, you can also compare Buddhism to what you know about Christianity (using your GCSE knowledge!).

 

Part One: How far are Buddhist beliefs reasonable?

For all questions that seek to consider how reasonable an idea from Buddhism is, I want you to consider three things:

1.     If there is evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.

2.     How coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).

3.     If the claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.

Secular Buddhism

If you are given a question on how reasonable Buddhist beliefs are, you could also discuss how secular Buddhist beliefs are more reasonable, as they remove supernatural teachings from Buddhism and instead focus on practical effects of Buddhism on the lives of practitioners. In each case you could therefore argue that a secular Buddhist approach to issues like ultimate reality, religious experiences and science may be more reasonable from the perspective of secular Western philosophers

Analysis: Ultimate Reality

The Buddha

If there is evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.

Theravada teachings on the Buddha – that he was an ordinary man who achieved an extraordinary feat of attaining enlightenment through extreme mental training and meditation – seems to be more consistent with our understanding of the empirical/sensory world than Mahayana, which are fundamentally more supernatural.

However, there are some aspects of the Buddha’s life story that seem to be inconsistent with our empirical experience of the world, making them irrational:

·        His miraculous birth and the fact that he was said to be able to walk and talk immediately.

·        Miracles associated with his life – e.g. the Ploughing Festival, when, as a child, the earth stopped turning so that the Buddha could remain in shade whilst meditating.

·        The fact that he supposedly was unaware of any pain, ageing or suffering until the age of 29.

·        The idea that the Buddha achieved supernatural abilities through meditation, and that others can do this too if they perfect the 4 jhanas (stages of meditation) – including the ability to levitate, read minds and perform telekinesis.

·        The idea that the Buddha achieved a supernatural level of awareness and a state of unknown bliss (nirvana) and then entered pari-nirvana.

·        The idea that the Buddha had multiple past lives in many different forms (e.g. as an animal or God).

How coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).

Again it could be argued that there is some coherence to the belief that the Buddha was an ordinary man who perfected his ability to meditate and was an excellent teacher, making it easy to understand Theravada teachings about the Buddha (although many of the supernatural beliefs about his life are still seen as irrational from our understanding of the material world).

The biggest problem of coherence can be seen in the Mahayana view of the Buddha: that he was a semi-divine being with 3 forms –

·        Nirmanakaya: An earthly form which appeared to people to have normal human experiences like ageing and death.

·        Samboghakaya: A resplendent heavenly form that exists in pari-nirvana, a heavenly realm outside of rebirth where the Buddha exists eternally and can access earth as and when he pleases.

·        Dharmakaya: An ultimate truth form – the belief is that whenever someone accesses any of the truths of Buddhism they are in fact encountering the Buddha himself, and this is a spiritual engagement that allows the power of the Buddha to be ever-present for all beings.

The nirmanakaya is the only form that can be accepted from a rational perspective, based on our own sense experiences and an empirical understanding of the world. Acceptance of the other forms of Buddhism requires some belief in the supernatural world, beyond the material universe that can be perceived. Therefore, it could be concluded that only someone with personal belief or faith in the teachings of Buddhism, or someone who had had a religious experience such as a vision or a numinous experience relating to the existence of the Buddha in his heavenly or ultimate truth form, would accept the existence of the other two forms of the Buddha. From a material perspective, the Mahayana belief in the Trikaya Doctrine is irrational, and is likely to only be confirmed via fideism.

If the claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.

Strong Verification: only that which can be proven true or false through empirical means – sensory experience or scientific testing – is meaningful. This must mean that the subject of the statement is immediately observable to everyone (universally observable) and can be tested scientifically.

Theravada and Mahayana claims about the Buddha both focus on a figure who existed 2,500 years ago, and claims about him cannot be immediately and universally verified, therefore statements about the Buddha cannot be strongly verified.

Buddhists, particularly Mahayana Buddhists, are also unlikely to allow evidence from today’s world to counteract their beliefs about the Buddha. This means that they are unlikely to accept conditions in which these statements are false, making them not meaningful according to the Falsification Principle (Flew). Evidence against the statement “the Buddha walked and talked at the moment of his birth,” is likely to be responded to with the belief that the Buddha was a semi-divine being, so it was possible for him to do this against all evidence we have of new born babies not being able to walk and talk. Therefore, from the perspective of Flew and the Falsification Principle, Buddhist statements are meaningless as they would not allow evidence to count against their beliefs.

However, it could be argued that some statements are meaningful from a cognitive perspective, as we can prove them false – such as “the Buddha walked and talked at the moment of his birth.” We know through inductive reasoning and our own experience of new born babies that this is very unlikely to be true, making this statement meaningful, but ultimately wrong.

It could also be argued that statements about the Buddha could be weakly verified according to Ayer’s development of the Verification Principle – this is because he accepted the authority of some historical statements (giving more credibility to Buddhist texts and the evidence they provide). He also suggested that if we could verify something in principle, it has some meaning. This means that some statements could be weakly verified regarding the Buddha – such as statements about his family and upbringing, which could be compared to other historical evidence from the time and confirmed as likely or unlikely to be true.

Anicca and Shunyata

If there is evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.

When considering the world around us, there is plenty of empirical and sensory evidence that things are impermanent and constantly changing – science tells us that from moment to moment organic material is growing and decaying – movement and growth are true of all things, and all objects also eventually can break, decay or be worn away. It therefore seems that rationally, anicca is a point of view that makes sense, as there is evidence from the material world to support it.

Similarly, Mahayana teachings about Shunyata have supporting evidence. Again, from a chemical and physical perspective, our cells are always changing and growing, and even dying. Whilst we cannot observe things such as our hair and fingernail growth directly, it is evidence over time that our physical form is changing, supporting this idea that anicca occurs at a particle level. Thitch Nhat Hanh is known for comparing Buddhist teachings about all things being “empty” of inherent existence with Quantum Physics, which suggests that the world is made up of tiny unobservable particles (“quarks”) that are constantly changing and evolving, so do not permanently exist. It is generally accepted amongst scientists that quarks exist, meaning that there is evidence from reasoned thought at empirical testing that supports the belief that all particles are shunyata, but this cannot be directly verified as quarks are too small to observe.

How coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).

It could be argued that beliefs regarding anicca are somewhat more coherent than beliefs about shunyata, this is because teachings on anicca (that everything is subject to decay and change, and this causes suffering) can be confirmed through sensory experience. It is harder for us to confirm shunyata, as no one can observe quarks/dharmas and this means that we can only assume their existence, although they do appear reasonable.

Shunyata is a notoriously difficult concept – even the Gods in the Mahayana scriptures are said to not be able to understand it. Mahayana Buddhists also distinguish between “ultimate” and “conventional” reality – most Buddhists do not go about their days focusing on shunyata as this could lead to annihilationist feelings/feeling that nothing matters because nothing really exists. On a day-to-day, conventional basis, Mahayana Buddhists act like they do have real existence and that they do matter, this allows them to commit themselves to the bodhisattva goal, prioritise morality and meditate. It is only really higher level monks who actively consider the ultimate truth that they do not really exist, and often they will use vipassana meditation to bring them more insight and knowledge of this truth. This suggests that teachings about shunyata are not easy to understand rationally, as most Buddhists have to spent their time ignoring these teachings to be able to function in day to day life. This doctrine can only be understood by someone who is enlightened, making it incoherent to most practising Buddhists and those outside the religion.

If the claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.

Anicca: The statement “everything is impermanent” can be empirically tested, making it meaningful according to the Verification Principle. The doctrine of anicca is phrased in a cognitive way – the Buddha made factual assertions about the nature of the world which can be understood through our own sensory experience and through scientific testing, suggesting that statements about anicca are rational and meaningful. Furthermore, anicca is not just meaningful, it is also factual, suggesting that this doctrine is actually right, giving more rational support to the arguments of Buddhism.

However, it should be questioned if Buddhists would allow anything to count against this belief, should there be some evidence that something eternal does exist. For example, Buddhists do not believe in a permanent soul or in the existence of a permanent deity, but classical theist religions like Christianity and Islam do. Should these religious be confirmed through divine intervention, would Buddhists change their beliefs? This is obviously hypothetical, but it could be that this belief is a “blik” that Buddhists have.

Shunyata: whilst the statement “everything is empty of inherent existence” is also phrased in a cognitive way, it is at this point impossible to verify if everything is made up of constantly changing particles. This can only be verified “in principle”, through the methods of Quantum Physics, but not in reality. This means that the doctrine of shunyata is only verifiable according to Ayer’s weak verification, rather than being strongly verified as factually correct using the methods of Logical Positivism.

Ultimate Reality – Nirvana

If there is evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.

Issues:

·        Nirvana is beyond human understanding so cannot be analysed in relation to scientific language.

·        Evidence for nirvana and pari-nirvana comes from Buddhists texts, which are unreliable/old/have a faith agenda to convert people. An example is the Lotus Sutra, in which the Buddha supposedly appears in his heavenly form from pari-nirvana – this proves to Buddhists that pari-nirvana exists, but not to those who do not have faith such as scientists.

·        There is no concrete proof that someone has attained nirvana beyond personal testimony, and these testimonies cannot explain nirvana as it is seen as ineffable - Buddhist beliefs about nirvana come from personal religious experiences, and testimony regarding these experiences. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that it is possible for human beings to become “awakened” to a new level of reality, where they have ultimate knowledge of how the world works. In fact, it is generally accepted that an understanding of the nature of the universe can only come from intellectual pursuits, and not through spiritual practises such as meditation.

·        An understanding of nirvana often depends on a supernatural interpretation of the world – including the belief that beings are constantly reborn over many lifetimes and in many different forms within the cycle of Samsara. There is no empirical evidence to support these claims beyond people’s past life memories, which have been criticised as unscientific and unreliable in nature. This is particularly true of pari-nirvana, which is seen as an unknown heavenly realm beyond human experience – this means that Buddhists subscribe to supernatural beliefs about life after death, but there is no hard scientific evidence to support human consciousness being able to continue after death, meaning that most hard materialists would reject views on pari-nirvana.

How coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).

Nirvana is one of the most incoherent beliefs in the Buddhist doctrinal system, as it is viewed as being ineffable/impossible to describe. This is illustrated in the Milindapanda when Nagasena is unable to explain nirvana through an analogy, as nothing is like it. The problem of ineffability shows that from a rational perspective nirvana cannot be understood. Buddhists must aim for this goal out of a sense of personal conviction and faith, but the nature of this goal is impossible to understand rationally.

There are also various interpretations of nirvana and it is hard to know which one is right, this makes views on nirvana incoherent:

·        Theravada believe that it is a spiritual awakening on earth that leads to rebirth outside of Samsara, resulting in the end of suffering. Once beings go there they are inaccessible to those on Earth.

·        Mahayana view nirvana, particularly after death, as being more like some sort of heaven – it is outside of Samsara but still accessible – proven through the Lotus Sutra.

·        Mark Epstein – those who have a metaphorical view of rebirth and samsara may see pari-nirvana in an entirely different way – nirvana is a mental state achieved through meditation and clarity, so there may not be life after death at all for those that achieve it.

·        Secular Buddhists see nirvana as awakening – Batchelor – it is when people have completed the 4 “tasks” of overcoming suffering in their lives. This again is viewed as a mental state achieved after the practising of meditation and mindfulness rather than a spiritual/supernatural achievement. Secular Buddhists may also not believe in life after death.

If the claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.

The statements “nirvana is possible” or “pari-nirvana exists” are treated as cognitive by Buddhists, but it is impossible to test these empirically/scientifically. At best, there can only be a personal confirmation of nirvana achieved through practising the way of Buddhism, but this cannot be universally verified, making the beliefs appear to be unreasonable/irrational.

However, it could be argued that the statement “pari nirvana exists” could be confirmed through Hick’s Eschatological Verification. In principle, it is possible to verify this statement, and we understand what is needed to check its validity – one must become nirvaned on earth, and then see if they enter a state of pari-nirvana when they die. This means that logical positivism could regard some of these statements as meaningful, even if they are not necessarily factual.

Analysis – Self, Death and the Afterlife

Anatta

Is there evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.

Anatta is the personal extension of anicca, which as discussed above, can be regarded as a farily reasonable belief, grounded in material observation of change and decay in the universe.

Buddhism rejects the existence of a soul, making it more concurrent with science and empiricism, which generally also accepts there is no soul. Therefore, Buddhist doctrine can been seen to have support from atheist philosophers such as Richard Dawkins (who argues that we have no soul, we are “machines made of meat”, programmed by our DNA) and Gilbert Ryle (who sees the belief in the soul as a “category mistake”).

However, it is important to remember that Buddhism is still based in faith rather than scientific evidence – for example, the Buddha illustrated his belief in anatta by discussing the 5 skandhas – the 5 elements that make up a human (form, consciousness, perceptions, sensations, impulses) – these are somewhat unscientific in nature, so Buddhism does not directly correlate to science and empiricism.

How coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).

Anatta is illustrated through the chariot analogy, contained in chapter 1.1, book 2 of the Milindapanda of the Pali Canon. Nagasena’s use of analogy makes this teaching easier to understand, showing that despite the fact that Buddhists use names to refer to each other, these names do not denote a permanent soul or essence – rather, they are a convenient way to reference an impermanent collection of parts (the skandhas), just as a “chariot” in reality is just a collection of different objects. This makes the belief more reasonable as it is clearly explained, and possible for all humans to see that because everything is changing, there can be no permanent soul.

However, this view can be criticised when considered in relation to Buddhist teachings on rebirth, as it leads people to question how they can be reborn when the soul does not exist to take on new forms. Whilst the Buddha does explain that all the skandhas develop into a new form, this could make the overall teachings on anatta less coherent (note – there is not consistency with other teachings from Buddhist doctrine).

It must be remembered that other world faiths would reject this viewpoint as incoherent – dualist religions like Classical Theist faiths would outright reject the idea that there is no soul, as they rely on the belief that there is an immortal, God-given part within all humans.

If the claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.

“There is no atman.” Is a cognitive statement, so the assumption is that it can be proven to be true, and the evidence that is given for this comes from the human experience of anicca and the chariot analogy – suggesting that when all the parts of a human are subtracted, no permanent soul remains. There is evidence from the material world that supports the statement that there is no soul – e.g. the beliefs of hard materialism, that human consciousness is created by the brain.

However, it should be questioned if this belief is falsifiable for Buddhists, relating to the view of Flew – like other doctrines, it only has meaning if it can be falsified, and we must ask if Buddhists would allow any evidence to count against this belief. This is a hypothetical question, but if the existence of the soul was somehow proven, would Buddhists accept it?

Samsara and Karma

If there is evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.

Science does not accept the belief in the supernatural, so Samsara is a problematic. Karma and samsara are intimately connected, this offers a completely different worldview to modern science and the two ideas are hard to fit together. Karma is dependent on the existence of an afterlife and the view is that karmic consequences are experienced over many lifetimes in Samsara– this is rejected by science. The nature of both karma and Samsara can only be truly understood by gaining nirvana, not through scientific testing.

There is no evidence from science or empiricism supporting the ideas that humans are reborn, let alone reborn in multiple forms (some of which are spiritual rather than physical). Samsara is seen as largely illogical from the perspective of modern science.

However, Possible response: Metaphorical and Psychological Interpretations of Samsara. By arguing that karma and samsara may be non-literal and refer instead to psychological states, it can be argued that Buddhism and science can continue to coexist. From a psychological point of view, different karmic actions contribute to one's metaphorical existence. Rather than being reborn in a place, the view could be that humans “inhabit” a place on the wheel of life depending on their actions. E.g. – someone who craves often could be described psychologically as a “hungry ghost”. In this view, people may believe that we are always reborn as a human, or that we can literally be reborn in the other realms, or even that we are not reborn at all (this is a more secular interpretation). Mark Epstein supports this: “Each realm becomes not so much a specific place but rather a metaphor for a different psychological state, with the entire wheel becoming a representation of neurotic suffering.”

How coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).

·        Based on scriptures that are unreliable and have a specific faith agenda.

·        No evidence to support the existence of other realms in the material world today – particularly Gods and demons.

·        Past life memories are seen as unrealiable and irrational, and are not universally experienced.

·        The workings of Samsara and karma are hard to know without gaining enlightenment – karma is equated to a universal law but unlike other universal laws, such as gravity, chance is also possible. This means that not everything that happens to us is determined by karma, and it is possible for accidents and random events to occur. It is also unknown when exactly we will experience the impact of past karma, so we could go many lifetimes before we receive that punishment for past misdeeds.

If the claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.

Karma and Samsara are explained in cognitive ways in Buddhism, but it is not possible to prove their existence through empirical observation or experience. Therefore, the statements that these doctrines are true are presented as being factual, but in reality it is impossible to prove this, making the statements unverifiable.

However, it could be argued that Samsara could be verified through Hick’s eschatological verification – to know if samsara exists, we must be reborn, meaning we have to die to be able to test these statements. Buddhists believe that at the moment of enlightenment they are able to remember all of their past lives, which will result in individual proof of these doctrines.

Bodhisattva’s (specifically, Avalokiteshvara):

If there is evidence from science and empiricism that supports the claims, and if these claims are consistent with a rational understanding of the material world.

There is no scientific support for the existence of bodhisattvas as semi-divine beings. For Avalokiteshvara to be empirically verified, it must be possible for all people to be able to see or experience him, which we know has not happened in today’s world. Avalokiteshvara’s divine form (many heads and arms) is supernatural in nature, and his renowned spiritual abilities appear to be illogical when considered from a material standpoint.

Teachings regarding Avalokiteshvara from scripture have been proven to be untrue – for example, in the Lotus Sutra it is suggested that if a person is drowning or burning in a fire, they can call out to Avalokiteshvara and immediately be saved from harm. It would be quite easy to test this claim, and so far evidence from the world around us tells us that this is not true, particularly considering the fact that it is likely that many Mahayana Buddhists have been caught in natural disasters, and we can assume that despite these beliefs Avalokiteshvara has not saved them from harm.

There is also no evidence that the 14^th Dalai Lama is the earthly form of Avalokiteshvara, particularly as he is worshipped by Tibetan Buddhists as a semi-divine being. Most would argue from a rational perspective that Tenzin Gyatso is a normal man, and there is biological and historical evidence to support this, so he should not be regarded as a spiritual being with great power.

How coherent the belief is (i.e. if it is easy to understand from a rational perspective).

Many Buddhists see the teachings regarding the bodhisattva goal as being rational, because they are explained in scriptures such as the Lotus Sutra. This is particularly easy to understand as it has been illustrated by the Parable of the Burning House, which teaches people why the Buddha i) did not immediately preach the bodhisattva path when on earth and ii) he had to pretend to live and normal life and pass away to encourage others to start along the path (i and ii are both examples of upaya kusala). It is believed that this teaching came from the Buddha directly, albeit through his Sambhogakaya, so this gives the teachings rational weight for Mahayana Buddhists.

However, other Buddhists, particularly Theravada, have criticised the bodhisattva path, suggesting that this does not reflect the teachings of the Buddha himself, who only taught the arhat goal. As Theravada Buddhists believe that Gautama is inaccessible to humans now he has entered pari-nirvana, they reject the authority of the Lotus Sutra over texts such as the Pali Canon. This shows that there is no one coherent view of the bodhisattva path within Buddhism itself. It could also be argued from this perspective that it does not make sense to say that the Buddha pretended to live a normal life only to later return from pari-nirvana and overturn these teachings. The evidence from the Pali Canon suggests that the arhat path is the only correct path preached by the Buddha.

If the claims can be supported by the Verification and Falsification Principle, and thus can be interpreted in a cognitive way.

The claims “the bodhisattva path is the final teaching of the Buddha” and “the 14^th Dalai Lama is the earthly form of Avalokiteshvara” are both cognitive statements, and are thus treated as meaningful. However, it is impossible to prove if these statements are factual in an empirical sense, meaning that ultimately they cannot be meaningful from this perspective.

It is also possible to argue from the perspective of Falsification that it is unlikely that Buddhists will allow beliefs regarding Avalokiteshvara and the 14^th Dalai Lama to be overturned by empirical evidence, due to the impact of fideism on the lives of believers. These statements are meaningful to Mahayana Buddhists and it is likely that any attempt to disprove them are going to be rejected by Buddhists – for example, testing Avalokiteshvara in a life or death scenario is likely to be rejected, as only those with true faith would be saved by the bodhisattva.

Analysis – Sources of Wisdom and Authority

AO1 – what are the sources?

·        The Buddha – Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha of this time cycle, is seen as the primary authority for all sects of Buddhism, but particularly for Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists. This is because he is seen as a role model (Theravada) as an extraordinary human who was able to become enlightened without the help of another teacher – his importance is further emphasised through his miraculous experiences and his moral conduct. For Mahayana, it could be argued he has even greater importance, as a semi-divine being who exists as the Trikaya (Nirmanakaya – earthly body; Sambhogakaya – heavenly body; Dharmakaya – ultimate truth form). This means that Mahayana Buddhists can continue to have a personal relationship with the Buddha in pari-nirvana as he is still accessible to them.

·        Texts – the Pali Canon (Theravada) and the Lotus Sutra (Mahayana and Nichiren).

AO2 - Issues with the reliability of Buddhist texts:

The evidence from the empirical world is mostly found in Buddhist texts. These could be considered to be inaccurate and unreliable – this is because:

1.       They were not compiled immediately. The Pali Canon was not written down until around 5 centuries after the death of the Buddha, being previously preserved through oral traditions. The Lotus Sutra was not written until at least 2 centuries after the Buddha’s death, and is based on the supernatural revelation of Buddhist doctrine from heaven.

2.      There is no guarantee that the message of these texts has not been changed over time, or contains mistakes, so the evidence they provide regarding the Buddha could be wrong.

3.      The writers of these texts had a specific agenda – to convert people to Buddhism, and to promote the ideas of a specific sect of Buddhism and show that this is right (e.g. the Lotus Sutra promotes the Bodhsiattva Goal, and describes Mahayana Buddhism as the “greater vehicle” – the agenda of the writer is to clearly show that Mahayana Buddhism is better than the “Hinayana” (lesser vehicle) of the Theravada school.

4.      The content of the texts appear to be irrational – the texts deal with supernatural matters on a constant basis, from the story of the Buddha’s miraculous birth in the Pali Canon, to his miraculous appearance centuries after his death in the Lotus Sutra. These texts also depend on the Indian worldview of karma and Samsara, for example the Jartaka takes in the Pali Canon tell stories of the Buddha in a variety of forms in Samsara, including animal forms. This is irrational and incoherent when considered from a scientific and empirical perspective, as we know through observation that animals are not rational and sentient in the way that they think and behave, yet this is how the Buddha is presented when he was in these forms (for example, when he was born as a tiger, he realised a carnivorous diet caused suffering to other creatures and thus chose to starve himself to death in order to save others – this goes against everything scientists have observed about the nature and intelligence of tigers).

5.      The concepts, particularly those that are supernatural (miraculous accounts, Samsara and karma, nirvana, ultimate reality, gods and hell, bodhisattvas), cannot be verified through the methods of the Verification Principle, making them meaningless.

 

However: this could be counter argued:

1.      Through Swinburne’s principle of Credulity and Testimony – Swinburne assumes that testimonies should be taken at face value, The principle of credulity states that if it seems to a subject that x is present, then probably x is present. Generally, says Swinburne, it is reasonable to believe that the world is probably as we experience it to be. Therefore, when considering a text such as the Lotus Sutra, which records the appearance of the Buddha in his heavenly form, it should be assumed that this text tells the story as is, and the testimony should be accepted by those who hear it.

2.      Through the fact that the texts should not be taken literally – many contemporary Buddhists do not view the Buddhist scriptures as being literally true, rather they see them as illustrative myths that help Buddhists to better understand their doctrines. This in particular is a view of Batchelor in Secular Buddhism – the stories are not true, but they help us to understand the context and origins of Buddhism, as well as the beliefs that existed at the time that these texts were being written down. Therefore, it does not matter if the texts cannot be proven through science and empiricism, as they are not supposed to be taken as cognitive fact.

3.      Others would disagree with the above point and say that the Buddhist texts are true, regardless of evidence against them – fundamentalist Buddhist groups such as Nichiren Buddhists may fall into this category. Nichiren argued that the Lotus Sutra is the only authoritative text in Buddhism, and that the content and message it contains is literally true, without error, and should be protected and upheld by all Buddhists. This view of the texts simply dismisses the criticisms against it, seeing the texts as being most authoritative and ignoring potential issues. This could also be linked with Hare’s “blik” and Flew’s view of Falsification – some Buddhists do not accept any evidence against their beliefs, and this could include and criticism of their scriptures.

4.      Some Buddhists would argue that the question of textual accuracy is irrelevant – as Buddhism is seen to be a personal journey of spiritual discovery, where each doctrine needs to be personally encountered, considered and experienced before it can be truly accepted, some Buddhists argue that it is not important whether or not the events in the Pali Canon and Lotus Sutra actually happened. What is important is whether or not the stories and teachings have an impact on a believer and help them on their path of ending dukkha. This could be seen as an anti-realist interpretation – it is the mental effects of the text on the believer that is important, rather than the beliefs actually needing to be true or proven.