"When Buddhist modernists say that Buddhism isn’t a religion and try to use science to justify Buddhism, that’s an instance of misunderstanding what religion is and what science is." @evantthompsonhttps://buff.ly/38Xyr2o
-
-
When neuroscientists etc. say there is no evidence for an “I” essence underlying our mental processes, Isnt it ok to say that this is compatible with understanding of “anatta” but not with the usual understandings of the soul in Christianity etc? This isn’t to justify.
-
Yes, if we just take those ideas out of context. Anatman has both descriptive and normative aspects. Descriptive: anatman is the denial that there is a permanent & unchanging self or soul [1]
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
May not be unique to Western Buddhism. Much health/wellbeing/snake-oil marketing is justified using neuroscience under the principle that adding neuro- in front of a phrase makes it better. Including neurophenomenology if I may add :)
-
Agreed. Important to say, however, that "neurophenomenology" originally meant a particular approach within neuroscience to the study of consciousness--the idea was to make neuroscience better by adding phenomenology
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And of course we have folks like Kabat-Zinn who say, when addressing medical audiences, for instance, that "mindfulness" is not religious, and also tells Buddhist audiences that mindfulness is "the Dharma essence of the Buddha’s teachings."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.