Buddhism is a science

Periodically, I have to point out with a blog or two that Buddhism, strictly speaking, is a science—though not to be confused with say, the physical or biological sciences.  Still, it is a science.  As a science, which is “cognizance of something specified or implied” (OED) there is a cognition, for example, of pure Mind as animative, or of its transcendent, empty ‘field’ which is like a pure matrix (garbha).  

Where the problem arises for the curious or for Buddhists on the wrong trail is they have little or no appreciation of the subtlety involved in cognizing Mind.  They are too quick to theorize or to make comparisons with mental states with which they are already familiar such as awareness or consciousness.  Yet both are still subjective.  Mind, however, is not subjective or something sensately objective like the bushes I see outside my window.  Such is Mind which is phenomenalized and hidden from itself—not Mind-only.

Ironically, the modern world we live in has Mind analogues of Mind in radio and television.  The signal that is amplified by the radio or the television is like Mind.  And like Mind, we can neither see the signal as a visual determination nor are we conscious of it—not until the signal goes through a particular amplification or magnification process.

What a great Buddhist teacher does is try to get us to connect with Mind’s immaculate substance which is like a signal, but of a very much different sort.  The teacher is bending over backwards with compassion trying to help us see this Mind; to have a direct cognizance of it.  But his efforts are not without problems and failures.  The difficulty that such a teacher faces is that when he really tries to remove the normative and intellectual obstructions that are plastered over the luminous nature of Mind; that prevent us from cognizing it, we go into a tizzy, or get defensive and hostile.

I sometimes get the impression that those new to Buddhism, and even old Buddhist veterans, really believe Buddhism is easy; that one can become enlightened in a few minutes or there is no real enlightenment at all because we have never been non-enlightened—or samsara is nirvana.  Such conclusions are unwarranted and hardly scientific.  There is no authentic attempt on the part of the practitioner to go beyond the boundaries of the psychophysical.  This kind of Buddhism is really a concession to samsara which teaches the ordinary person how to cope with their desires.

Comments

[minx]

Some creatures love to display their self-loathing in public. And in a free society they should be allowed to do so. In the end it is a matter of a continous battle for balance and entropy in a universe of infinite probabilities.

[suvimutta cittassa]

Oh, hell, you mean the khandhas are anatta, are not the Atman which is the "light and only refuge"?

You cant beat a dead horse for years with these mental midget materialistic superficial fucks.

Youve better odds trying to prove the spirit to a hardcore metaphysical atheist.

Youre in the gutter preaching sobriety to drunkards and crack whores. Let them burn, fuckem'

[Mumon]

Bompu Zen. That's what it can be without the great faith, doubt & determination...