This is a perspective that I certainly can live with!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Our Faith in Science
By TENZIN GYATSO
Washington

SCIENCE has always fascinated me. As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious about how things worked. When I got a toy I would play with it a bit, then take it apart to see how it was put together. As I became older, I applied the same scrutiny to a movie projector and an antique automobile.

At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.

But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

For many years now, on my own and through the Mind and Life Institute, which I helped found, I have had the opportunity to meet with scientists to discuss their work. World-class scientists have generously coached me in subatomic physics, cosmology, psychology, biology.

It is our discussions of neuroscience, however, that have proved particularly important. From these exchanges a vigorous research initiative has emerged, a collaboration between monks and neuroscientists, to explore how meditation might alter brain function.

The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong - or even to bring people to Buddhism - but rather to take these methods out of the traditional context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone who might find them helpful.

After all, if practices from my own tradition can be brought together with scientific methods, then we may be able to take another small step toward alleviating human suffering.

Already this collaboration has borne fruit. Dr. Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin, has published results from brain imaging studies of lamas meditating. He found that during meditation the regions of the brain thought to be related to happiness increase in activity. He also found that the longer a person has been a meditator, the greater the activity increase will be.

Other studies are under way. At Princeton University, Dr. Jonathan Cohen, a neuroscientist, is studying the effects of meditation on attention. At the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, Dr. Margaret Kemeny has been studying how meditation helps develop empathy in school teachers.

Whatever the results of this work, I am encouraged that it is taking place. You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our interconnected world.

One of my first teachers of science was the German physicist Carl von Weizsäcker, who had been an apprentice to the quantum theorist Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Weizsäcker was kind enough to give me some formal tutorials on scientific topics. (I confess that while listening to him I would feel I could grasp the intricacies of the full argument, but when the sessions were over there was often not a great deal of his explanation left behind.)

What impressed me most deeply was how Dr. Weizsäcker worried about both the philosophical implications of quantum physics and the ethical consequences of science generally. He felt that science could benefit from exploring issues usually left to the humanities.

I believe that we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry.

Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics," which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.

Today, our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic level has reached a new level of sophistication. Advances in genetic manipulation, for example, mean scientists can create new genetic entities - like hybrid animal and plant species - whose long-term consequences are unknown.

Sometimes when scientists concentrate on their own narrow fields, their keen focus obscures the larger effect their work might have. In my conversations with scientists I try to remind them of the larger goal behind what they do in their daily work.

This is more important than ever. It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals.

This is a point I intend to make when I speak at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience today in Washington. I will suggest that how science relates to wider humanity is no longer of academic interest alone. This question must assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned about the fate of human existence.

A deeper dialogue between neuroscience and society - indeed between all scientific fields and society - could help deepen our understanding of what it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share with other sentient beings.

Just as the world of business has been paying renewed attention to ethics, the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity.

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is the author of "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality."

New York Times, Nov 12, 2005<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry Wyld, but this poor dumb slug is already on a fast track to hell and if you keep posting this secular humanist tripe you won't be far behind.

wait a minute, i am becoming a Pat Robertson Zombie NOOOOOOOooooooo!!!!!!!!

Sounds good to me, too, Wyld. One thing I've noticed about the "Big Three" religions is that they seem to take themselves way too seriously. Rather than looking at their stories as being analogy, they are taken to be literal. While most "primative" and Pagan paths have some pretty fantasic myths, they are usually taken as being such. Analogies, metaphors, archetypes, call them what you will. They're meant to teach, not to rule.

The "Big Three" are filled patriarchal, violent, vengeful, intolerant doctrine. And the societies where they are the spirituality of the majority reflect it. That's my opinion. Sorry if I drifted a bit to the "Pat Robertson" topic, but it seemed like you were purposely branching off with this one.

Zap

Not that it's too hard to figure out, but I've kinda reasoned over the years that religion isn't so much God talking to man, as it is man talking for and defining God.

boy Larry you know how to cut through the crap!

and in those definitions they put artificial constraints and limitations on god so his eminence agrees with their petty causes

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by PSBeaty on Nov 17, 2005 ---</FONT></center>

I mean why should god have to conform to a few ounces of fat and protein, the mind (twilight zone music now), that is the substance of Osama Bin Laden and Pat Robertsons brains (it is true, they have brains, believe it or not)!

but that is not what I came to talk about

There are some recent articles in both Science and New England Journal of Medicine on the Yoga portion of Wyld's email. THere is substance to the claims (which comes as no surprise to anybody involved in techniques of aligning the mind (twilight zone music again) with the body. I personally like tantric sex, i mean it takes a while but my god the release of endorphines is incredible, but don't hold that against me. Anyway,the control group in many of these studies are typical Americans (whatever the hell that means). One thing I would take it to mean is that there is a good probability that they do nothing to align the mind with the body. Now I take more of a western approach to mind body alignment (OK Yoga fanatics it is a shortcut but i am time constrained). I do 50 minutes of Aerobics at least three times a week and some weigts and stretching blah blah blah. but, in the articles I read, the benefits of Yoga were not compared directly to this kind of control group. It has been documented that this activity does create many of the benefits associated with Yoga (fewer circulation related illnesses, less serious and fewer muscle and connective tissue injuries, better non drug induced control of pain, greater resistance to infectious disease on on on).

just thought i would throw that into the mix!!!

edited to say
one toke over the line sweet jesus
on toke over the line

for no apparant reason whatsoever

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by PSBeaty on Nov 17, 2005 ---</FONT></center>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PSBeaty:

boy Larry you know how to cut through the crap!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple concepts are what everything boils down to......I think.
I mean you boil down 40 gallons of maple sap to get one gallon of maple syrup. So does it follow if you boiled down 40 whitehouse saps, you would be left with one gallon of bullshit syrup? I think it might.

Larry, it is irresponsible of you to suggest the white house is full of bullshit syrup!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PSBeaty:
Larry, it is irresponsible of you to suggest the white house is full of bullshit syrup!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yah, and it's downright un-Meriken. Why, if the troops in Iraq hear about the bullshit syrup, they might all start singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and then WALK OUT . . .
Sorry ... back to Science & Religion ...

i, for one, don't think it is a bad idea if they (we) walk out, of course a bar of the masacree infull orchestration and 10,000 part harmony with a nice little cross step as they board the planes would be a nice touch! I hear the peace with honor (success) bullshit syrup again, don't they know that even if that were ever possible, the possibility ended with torture, for no apparant reason other than torture, on the behalf of the the US at Rumsfeld's and Bush's and Cheney's ad in finitum ignorance. THey made our flag, a flag that has been through a lot of hell and should have learned a lesson in Vietnam, as the post WWII world was still confusing and mixed up, but still our flag that potentially stood for something at one time, into a symbol equivalent to a swastika. THose Bastards! those repulsive arrogant sob's. Sorrry Larry, I'm irresponsible too!!!

i apologize for my emotional outburst. but humans are emotional critters. that is where science and religion merge for me. I am more interested in how the mind organizes its perceptions and emotions into a set of rules or guidelines that act to help these poor critters make sense out of it all. Religion, the nature of these perceptions rules and guidelines, are secondary to there emotional impact, the rationalization of detonating a pack of explosives on your back in response to the hatred and fear of those who play by your perception of a different set of rules, usually antagonistic by doctrine, rules.

Sorry again, just trying to rationalize my own emotional outburst when i pushed my suicide button and spewed forth with "irresponsible" words into this column last night before bed!

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by PSBeaty on Nov 19, 2005 ---</FONT></center>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html


BRAVO! And this from a right-winger!!!

I thought this was an interesting article -
it is a perspective on Right Wing Radical Religion. There seems to be more Religious Leaders speaking out against these rats, I mean radicals. Hope this is ok posted in this thread.

Jewish Leader Blasts 'Religious Right'

By KRISTEN HAYS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
November 19, 2005 8:24 PM EST
HOUSTON - The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists in a speech Saturday, calling them "zealots" who claim a "monopoly on God" while promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler's.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said "religious right" leaders believe "unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person."

"What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God?" he said during the movement's national assembly in Houston, which runs through Sunday

complete article found at http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20051119/437eb150_3421_13345200511191706662858

i recently saw a bumper sticker with the Israel flag as a back drop and the words said, "fight terrorism, support Israel"

So, I do hope he has success within his own faith in this area and it is good to see this. i wish a Muslim leader and Christian leader and a Voo Doo leader etc. would emerge with such K-hone-ies

edited to say
I am all for fighting terrorism, i just don't believe the sentiment in the bumper sticker above, not that I have anything against Israel, expressed an approach I would support. edited because you just got be clear these days.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by PSBeaty on Nov 20, 2005 ---</FONT></center>