"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
-
-
Replying to @buddhadharma @evantthompson
Agree. But I can’t think of a contemporary Buddhist teacher - modernist or not- who actually justifies Buddhism through science as opposed to just claiming that Buddhism and science are compatible. Wonder who he is thinking of.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @grahamlock7 @buddhadharma
Virtually every Western teacher I've encountered uses science to support Buddhism. As for compatibility, this claim is no more plausible to me than claiming Christianity or Hinduism or Islam is compatible with science
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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 :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
1/?: I was being tongue in cheek of course, knowing fully well that neurophenomenology is better construed as phenoneurology. However, there's a larger point connecting phenomenology to Buddhism that suggests a critique of your book ("suggests" because I haven't read the book)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Fair. I actually criticize the idea that Buddhism is phenomenology, or that it's easy to connect the two, in my book -- my views on this have changed over the years.
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.