Theravada Buddhism and Scientism: Epistemic, Ontological, and Soteriological Correspondences and Disparities

Theravada Buddhism and Scientism: Epistemic, Ontological, and Soteriological Correspondences and Disparities

By Robert M. Olkowitz

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Consciousness Studies

University of Philosophical Research Los Angeles, California

April 24, 2015

Theravada Buddhism and Scientism: Epistemic, Ontological, and Soteriological Correspondences and Disparities

By Robert M. Olkowitz

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Consciousness Studies

University of Philosophical Research Los Angeles, California

April 24, 2015

Approved By:

_________________________________________________ Debashish Banerji, Ph.D Date _________________________________________________ Kelly Bulkeley, Ph.D Date _________________________________________________ Obadiah Harris, Ph.D Date

Robert M. Olkowitz

Abstract

What are the correspondences and disparities between Theravada Buddhism and Scientism? Is there a compatibility between the the epistemological methods of Buddhism and Scientism? Is the Theravada Buddhist ontological schemata similar to the physicalist ontological schemata? Is Theravada Buddhist meditation a suitable practice for modern science? Why is Buddhism rapidly gaining adherents in the Western world? Most of these questions have been relatively unattended. The objective, scholastic study of Buddhism is in its infancy. Western society began inquiring into Buddhism during the 19th century. Early studies on Buddhism were repeatedly distorted through the lens of Christianity by European scholars. The prevalence of Christian influence on politics and society naturally demarcated Eastern religions, including Buddhism, as primitive and superstitious. Given this setback, it has taken Buddhism additional time to gain unbiased recognition in the West as an objective, serious, worthwhile pursuit. Since belief structures and sects are numerous within Buddhism, I shall solely focus on the Theravada tradition. Theravada Buddhism shares many similar epistemological methods and ontological beliefs as Scientism. For this paper, Scientism will be the umbrella term for empiricism, logic, materialism, humanism and atheism.

In this paper I will discuss: Theravada Buddhist teachings, epistemology, ontology, and sotierology as well as the epistemology, ontology, and sotierology of Scientism. Theravada Buddhism focuses on first person experience, pragmatism and personal liberation. Scientism focus on viewing reality from an objective third person, advancing technology, and creating our own meanings in life. I will explain the progression of scientific paradigms which influence epistemology, ontological beliefs and theories. I will explore the similarities between Theravada Buddhism and Scientism, namely the importance of logic, reason, pragmatism, personal observation, personal judgment, debate, and unbiased inquiry, which all aid validity in the search for truth. I will explore the methods, goals, and transformative personal practice each system advocates.

Contents

1 History of the Western Philosophies of Science

History, philosophy, and development of modern science in the West. Beginning with the Ancient Mesopotamia, ending with Quantum Physics.

2 Fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism

Discussion of the major texts, beliefs, and doctrines of Theravada Buddhism.

3 Epistemology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism

Discussion of the epistemological beliefs of Theravada Buddhism and Scientism.

4 Ontology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism

Discussion of the ontological beliefs of Theravada Buddhists and Scientism.

5 Subjective Comparison between Scientism and Theravada Buddhism

Exploring the common ground between Scientism and Theravada Buddhism, and major disparities between the two traditions. Explaining the subjective appeal in the West to the modern sensibility brought on by Scientism. Discussion of the potential future of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism

Chapter 1

History of the Western Science

Definition of Philosophy

The terms philosophy and science must be defined before proceeding with my Thesis paper. Philosophy, stemming from the Ancient Greek word philosophia, means “love of wisdom”. “The Greeks used this term in a broad sense, to cover most of what we now think of as the sciences and the liberal arts.” In Ancient Greece, wisdom intrinsically contained a special knowledge not only of things human but divine as well.

“What distinguishes philosophy from other disciplines? The answer has more to do with method than with content.” Many questions posed to philosophers could also be answered by other disciplines. The distinguishing factor between philosophy and other fields of study lies not in the subject matter but rather the system behind answering questions. In its approach, philosophy is rational, careful, and critical. Philosophy is infamous for unraveling seemingly simple aspects of reality into startling complexity. Through this process, more and more questions arise instead of solid answers. The study of philosophy undoubtedly embodies knowledge of specific subject matter depending on one’s specialization, but more importantly philosophers acquire a unique set of universally applicable skills. “Specifically the study of philosophy might turn out to be one of the best ways to learn some critical argumentation skills: defining one’s terms carefully, constructing good arguments in support of one’s views, critically evaluating arguments, responding to objections, and the like.”

These sets of skills allow philosophy to be utilized in every discipline broad or specific: from the philosophy of science and the philosophy of sociology, to the philosophy of movies and the philosophy of video games. If we were to analyze the most well known content of philosophical inquiry, it would fall into a few major categories: ethics, metaphysics, ontology, cosmology, sotierology, epistemology, and linguistics. Immersing yourself in the practice of philosophy truly changes who you are as a person. It transforms you, enables you to think and act differently for the better, and alters your perception of reality. Definition of Science

The term science encompasses a wide spectrum of meanings. Science has many different aspects like philosophy; it is a discipline, a set of skills, and a system for examining the external universe. In the modern world, science, as a discipline, consists of astronomy, biology, physics, and chemistry, to name a few. On the other hand, subjects within the arts and humanities do not constitute science. “What is it that makes something a science?...Many people believe that the distinguishing features of science lie in the particular methods scientists use to investigate the world...For many sciences do employ distinctive methods of enquiry that are not found in non-scientific disciplines.”

Science, when describing method, relies on observation and experimentation culminating in some all-inclusive theory explaining the study, which is indefinitely subject to revision or addition. The scientific method is associated with the following keywords: reason, rationality, logic, falsifiability, empiricism, reproducibility, and peer-review.

The scientific method was created in order to find absolute truth. One might be thinking, “religion and philosophy also are systems for finding absolute truth,” which is correct. The methods of philosophy mirror those of science in the pursuit of truth. Religions, on the other hand, en masse, differ. For the purposes of my Thesis, it is necessary to mention Theravada Buddhism as an exception. In the modern West, Scientism, has become an umbrella term representing ontological, sotierological, and epistemological beliefs. Some philosophers refer to Scientism as a pejorative term for people who “worship” science in a dogmatic manner, but for my Thesis I am not using Scientism in this way. I am strictly employing the word as an umbrella term for the aforesaid metaphysical beliefs and scientific methodology. There is no doctrine of Scientism, no sacred text or even official collective. The term represents people who share similar beliefs, unofficially. For example, most scientists would classify themselves under three headings: materialism, atheism, and humanism. Materialism, atheism, humanism, and the methods of scientific epistemology are all normally closely associated with one another. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 will go into greater detail concerning Scientism. For the scope of this chapter, the present explanation is sufficient. It is not possible to separate Western science from Eastern science with a clear cut line. Both Eastern and Western thought have affected one other from ancient times until today. The remainder of this chapter will present a simplified explanation of the internal discourse in the West of the birth and growth of science beginning with the Ancient Near East culminating with quantum physics. Ancient Near East

The Babylonians utilized various mathematical systems which aided their astronomical study. “At the basis of Babylonian mathematics is the sexagesimal number system...a system which reduces the four basic arithmetical operations to trivialities.” Pythagorean triplets were found on cuneiform long before Pythagoras was born. Evidence shows Babylonian mathematics encompassed “numerical problems, algebra, and perhaps number theory.” Astronomical observation was an essential practice in many early civilizations. We can thank Babylonian astronomers for our current solar-year and lunar month based calendars. The Babylonian astronomers named stars, tracked movements of heavenly bodies, and recorded their observations on clay tablets. The cuneiform tablets were a gigantic leap in scientific progress. The ability to record data eliminated many of the fallacies from oral tradition. By mathematically calculating movements of the heavenly bodies, astronomers were able to predict repetitions in their cycles. “It is finally argued that all subsequent varieties of scientific astronomy, in the Hellenistic world, in India, in Islam, and in the West -- if not indeed all subsequent endeavor in the exact sciences -- depend upon Babylonian astronomy in decisive and fundamental ways.”

The Ancient Egyptians made great scientific advances in the fields of medicine, astronomy, anatomy, writing, language, and architecture, which necessarily includes mathematics. The Great Pyramids, the Sphinges, medicinal knowledge, astronomical calculations, and mummification are some of the contributions Ancient Egypt gave to the world. Consummation of Egyptian hieroglyphics emerged from a complex language and writing system. The ability to efficiently share thoughts through symbol, in both speech and writing, understandable by entities “outside” oneself, is a giant stride in human evolution. Granted, recorded writing existed through cuneiform in Sumeria before the Ancient Egyptians, but the Egyptians developed it tremendously. The mastery of hieroglyphics directly influenced the aforesaid advancements in Egyptian culture.

The Ebers Medical Papyrus documents Ancient Egyptian attempts at the medicinal process of diagnosing and prescribing a remedy. This extract from the Ebers Medical Papyrus illuminates the process: “Another [remedy] for the emptying of the belly and the removal of aches in the stomach of the man: Seeds of the castor-oil plant shall be chewed and washed down with beer, so that everything will come out which is in his stomach.”

Early attempts at empiricism manifested through observation/experimentation as we saw with the Ebers Medical Papyrus. Ancient Egyptians also endeavored to map out the afterlife in very sophisticated detail, underpinning religious and philosophical maturation of ideas,

Ancient Greece

Some of the most important contributions from the philosophers of Ancient Greece include a significant leap in understanding of mathematics, and the formal origins of Western logic, philosophy, and science. The earliest of the Presocratic philosophers of Ancient Greece, credited as the “father of science”, was Thales. He was the first to provide explanations of the natural world which were divorced from mythology, through observation and naturalistic elucidations. “...Nowhere else, not even in ancient India, is there shown so striking a combination of conceptual imagination, attempted linguistic precision, and concern for intellectual consistency.” The Presocratic philosophers studied the world in a rational manner. “They saw the world as something ordered and intelligible, its history following an explicable course and its different parts arranged in a comprehensible system.” Philosophers living in Ancient Greece were not specialized in either science or philosophy, as we would classify them today, but rather their studies spanned a whole spectrum of disciplines. Ultimately, they were concerned with studying nature and investigating the natural world. “The enterprise involved, at one end of the scale, detailed accounts of numerous natural phenomena -- of eclipses and the motions of the heavenly bodies, of thunder and rain and hail and wind and in general of ‘meteorological’ events, of minerals, and of plants, of the procreation and growth and nourishment and death of animals, and of mankind and of the biological, physiological, social, political, cultural and intellectual aspects of human life.”

Plato is well known for his works on the subjects of ethics, politics, and metaphysics. The Socratic method, a system of questioning and deductive reasoning given to the world in the writings of Plato, had an incredibly far-reaching influence on philosophy, logic, and the sciences. Aristotle practiced what we today would call biology, zoology, and anatomy in addition to writing on metaphysical topics. He laid the foundations for the application of empiricism, and “...introduced what may be called the scientific method.”

Islamic Golden Age

Most scholars agree the Islamic Golden Age began during the reign of the caliph Harun al-Rashid (786 CE to 809 CE). In the United States, a country dominated by Christianity and Christian history, many people are completely unfamiliar with the existence of an Islamic Golden Age during the Middle Ages. We were taught almost exclusively about the European Renaissance. The caliphates during the Middle Ages preserved Ancient Greek writings and knowledge. The Islamic Golden Age occurred due to three principal causes: the size of the caliphate empire, the unification under the common language of Arabic, and the emphasis placed on the value of knowledge.

The size of the caliphate empire, at its largest, extended from Spain, through northern Africa, across Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, to parts of central Asia and India. Not only did the sheer extent of the caliphate empire pervade many different peoples, culture, and history, but the empire connected the East with the West in a practical way where knowledge could be transmitted efficiently.

Unification under the common language of Arabic eliminated the need for many different translations, therefore saving valuable time and energy. Paper replaced parchment and papyrus, creating an ideal situation for producing texts. “It was Muslim merchants traveling the Silk Road in the eighth century who first brought the light, thin, pliable stuff west. And it was through Islamic culture in North Africa that paper arrived in medieval Europe, where it took on an explosive life.”

Not only did Islamic scholars improve the writing system, but they laid the foundations for Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press and the European Renaissance. During the Islamic Golden Age, knowledge, scholarship, and rendering of language into Arabic were immensely valued. Enormous grants were conferred on people who could translate foreign language into Arabic. Knowledge was highly esteemed; universities were constructed as well as hospitals requiring licensed medical doctors. “The Fatimid Caliphs gave prominent positions to the scholars in their courts and encouraged the students. They set aside funds to be spent on those who were engaged in pursuit of knowledge so as to give them a chance to devote themselves wholeheartedly to their intellectual accomplishment.”

Many works from Ancient Greece, including texts authored by Plato and Aristotle, were translated into Arabic. Islamic philosophers studied Neoplatonist writings, expounding on their teachings inducing a philosophic renaissance. “Islamic mathematicians fully developed the decimal place-value number system to include decimal fractions, systematised the study of algebra and began to consider the relationship between algebra and geometry.” In regards to scientific progress, experimentation became a staple in Islamic analysis of the natural world. Instinctively, the Islamic promotion of experimentation contributed greatly to the formation of the scientific method.

This rather lengthy summary of the Islamic Golden Age was necessary for two reasons: first, because in the West we tend to gloss over the Islamic Golden Age and focus on the European Renaissance. Secondly, every “Renaissance” in history has had at least one common thread, the separation of rational thinking from religion. “Perhaps the most significant feature of this rule was that freedom which was given out to the people and liberty was given to the minds and reasons. Man may believe in whatever he likes provided that he may not infringe other rights.”

The Scientific Revolution

Most scholars agree the official start of the Scientific Revolution commenced with Nicolaus Copernicus’ On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Why is the genesis of the Scientific Revolution contingent on Copernicus’ paramount text? The Aristotelian worldview and the official Christian worldview was Geocentric. The reason this discovery was groundbreaking centered around the scorn attributed by the church to any claim doubting the Geocentric worldview. When On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres was published members of the Clergy severely criticized Copernicus’ new theory. The Church controlled most of Europe before, during, and after the Scientific Revolution. The Catholic church promoted Catholicism and their interpretation of the Bible as intrinsic truth. Therefore, any discovery posing a threat to the Bible or the Catholic church needed to be extinguished for the sake of the Catholic church maintaining respect and a loyal patronage. I lay major emphasis on this point because I believe it is evident throughout history that dogmatic institutions directly stunt intellectual, personal, and societal growth.

The scientific method evolved during this era, particularly on observation and experimentation the Islamic Golden Age introduced. Induction, in addition to deduction, became an accepted technique scientists added to their arsenal of established epistemological methods. Empiricism, the notion that knowledge comes solely from sense experience, grew in popularity and was expounded upon by philosophers of the time, especially Francis Bacon. The invention of the telescope and the microscope enabled humans to probe areas indiscernible by the naked eye. Instruments used to observe microscopic particles and the far reaches of outer space were exponentially valuable to the growth of science. These observations were nevertheless empirically valid, and the scientific method could be applied to them. In fact, machines which enable us to observe the world and interact with the world in a more sophisticated, efficient fashion are essentially extensions to our senses and body, constituting the core of empiricism.

The practice of modern chemistry as a science, originally unified with alchemy, emerged as a separate discipline largely because of a man named Robert Boyle, who wrote The Sceptical Chymist in 1661. Chemistry enabled further research into the makeup of reality, the analysis of atomic particles, and the properties of matter. This in turn served as one of the prerequisites for physics, and eventually quantum mechanics. Finally for this section, an overview of Isaac Newton’s immense contributions is in order. Many scholars agree his work, Principia, marked the end of the Scientific Revolution. Newton contributed to the inception of calculus and optics, and set the stage for classical physics. Newton’s famous “Three Laws of Motion” ushered in a revolution for the sciences. The Three Laws of Motion served as the bedrock to the study of classical physics. Classical physics, the Newtonian worldview, is at the core of the tenets in reductionism, materialism, and determinism. The Newtonian worldview has dominated the scientific world even up to the present day. Quantum mechanics, though in its infancy, is slowly breaking onto the scientific scene as a paradigm shifter, which I will explain thoroughly in later chapters.

Classical Physics

The Scientific Revolution completely transformed virtually every aspect of life, every scholastic discipline. In the previous paragraph I made clear how observation, experimentation, empiricism, the scientific method, and a distancing from dogmatic religion solidified during the Scientific Revolution. Science in the 19th and 20th centuries continued on the same trajectory inducing progress exponentially. Science greatly influenced technology, medicine, physics, biology, philosophy, and religion. In the same manner philosophy extended into all areas of study, so did science. For example, there is a philosophy of science, a philosophy of religion, a philosophy of medicine, a philosophy of language, and so forth, there now emerged a science of technology, a science of mathematics, a science of economics, social science, and so on.

In addition, science also negatively influenced certain disciplines, depending on who one asks. Religion is one of these subjects. Throughout history, religion and science have often, if not always, clashed. This was most eminently true beginning in the 17th century lasting until today. At this moment, it is important to know that the Scientific Revolution encouraged the outgrowth of secular belief systems, including humanism, empiricism, positivism, materialism, and atheism. More detail on secular belief systems will be covered in chapters 3 and 4.

Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, detailing his observations of evolution. Darwin’s text directly contradicted all three major Western religion’s teachings about life and the origin of life. Furthermore, social science, anthropology, economics, physics, chemistry, linguistics, political science, psychology, and the foundations for computer science altogether developed during the 17th through 20th centuries. Quantum Mechanics

As technology advanced, our knowledge expanded, and we delved into exponentially smaller levels of reality, a discipline called quantum mechanics emerged as a branch of physics.This is an exciting time to be alive because we are now beginning progressive research into the fascinating field of quantum mechanics. Why is this area causing so much commotion and so much interest? Without entering into the concept of paradigm shifts just yet, briefly stated, quantum physicist's observations, experiments, and theories contradict the laws of classical physics. The laws of classical physics were thought to be unchangeable, consistent, and universal. Appearing in the level of atomic and subatomic particles, at nanoscopic scales, the laws of classical physics break down. Quantum laws operate at this level of reality. The observations at the quantum level are so baffling, so confusing, that many quantum physicists say it is near impossible to understand rationally. For example, quantum particles have been observed to be in two places at once, to be both a particle and a wave, and to communicate instantly across any distance in space.

I will briefly explain some of the discoveries of quantum mechanics so far. The double-split experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in the beginning of the 19th century. His experiments showed that light, which was originally thought of as particles, had wave like qualities. Eventually, quantum physicists came to the conclusion that electrons must be both a particle and a wave. Stemming from this discovery emerged experiments which proved that conscious attention “collapsed” waves into particles. In other words, out of the many infinite dimension of possibility, once we consciously “attend” to something, that specific dimension of possibility becomes reality (possibility waves become particles). In quantum mechanics, there is no absolute truth as in classical physics. Quantum physicists speak in terms of what is most probable, or what is most likely to occur. Similarly, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, named after Werner Heisenberg, states that it is impossible to precisely measure a particle’s location and speed simultaneously with perfect accuracy.

In this chapter I expounded on the growth of Western science from the Ancient Near East unto modern day quantum mechanics. I listed time periods of major scientific innovation. I depicted the importance of being aware of the drastic effect dogmatism elicits on progress. Chapter 2 will cover the fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 explore the epistemology, ontology, and soteriology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism.

Chapter 2

Theravada Buddhism

Before we can explore Theravada Buddhism, it is essential that we clarify what it is and what it is not. Many people would claim Theravada Buddhism is a religion. In the West, we tend to automatically compare every religion to the three great monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Our intrinsic nature inclines to look at, in particular, Eastern religions under the same paradigm as the Western faiths when in fact they are of completely different structures.

Faults in Basic Definitions of Religion

To illustrate this point clearly, according to the Oxford dictionary, religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman, controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” To anyone familiar with comparative religious studies, this definition is not only very poor and vague but it only defines religions who believe in a Western version of God or gods. Buddhists do not believe in a personal creator God or personal creator gods nor do most other Eastern religions, consequently, they would not be considered a religion in consonance with the Oxford dictionary definition. Another credible source, Dictionary.com, states religion is “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” We can divide this sufficient description into three sections.

The first section deals with metaphysical inquires of the universe. While it is true that Theravada Buddhism answers certain questions regarding the cause and purpose of the universe, it is considered trivial to speculate about these matters because it is too philosophically puzzling; one will waste time arguing and debating the cause and purpose of the universe to no satisfactory avail. Most importantly, philosophical inquiry into the cause and purpose of the universe does not lead to enlightenment or nibbana, which we will see is the central aim of Theravada Buddhism. On the other hand, much of the Theravada Buddhist canonical literature and commentaries are devoted to explaining the nature of the universe. At the end of this excerpt’s definition, the addition of “especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies” does not apply to Theravada Buddhism as I explained before: Theravada Buddhists do not believe in a creator God or creator gods. In general any organization, religious or secular, can have beliefs of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists, agnostics, secular philosophers, secular scientists all have their own versions of these beliefs even though they are not religious. So far the definitions of religion from two prominent sources remains bereft.

The second section continues: religion is “a set of beliefs...usually involving devotional and ritual observances.” A satisfactory distinction between what is religion and what is not begins appearing. Theravada Buddhists do perform devotional observances to the Buddha, dhamma, and sangha, especially when in a temple or prior to meditation. In the Western mind, devotion normally involves worship, prayer, service, and allegiance to God or to a higher power than oneself. In Theravada Buddhism, this is not the case. When a Theravada Buddhist performs devotional observance to the Buddha, they are paying their respects to a highly qualified, intelligent, enlightened human being who once lived on earth. The Buddha was a normal human being like the rest of us; he had the same type of body, mind, and experiences we have. The major differences are he exemplified perfect virtue, possessed a mind clear of mental afflictions, and was enlightened to the true nature of reality through hard work and personal striving. As a result of his enduring efforts the Buddha became an accomplished contemplative, examining consciousness and reality through a finely-tuned, concentrated mind. Because of the Buddha’s efforts, accomplishments, and insights, Theravada Buddhists pay respects to him.

The dhamma in this context refers to the teachings of the Buddha. Canonical literature and commentaries are included. Devotional observance is paid to the dhamma because it is the vessel which one uses to reach enlightenment. The teachings instruct us how to attain nibbana. Unlike Western religious apotheosis of their canonical literature, the Theravada Buddhist dhamma is not considered divine, was not transmitted from other-wordly beings (whether God, angels, or aliens), and is not to be accepted without questioning. In fact the Buddha wrote nothing himself. His followers attempted to document important teachings purportedly spoken by him after years of oral transmission. Theravada canonical literature and commentaries are simply meant to act as a guide to a specified end, nibbana; they are not the end in and of themselves. The Buddha warns that if one “attaches” to the dhamma he will not fully reach enlightenment. Even the dhamma must be discarded eventually.

The sangha is part of the tiritana of devotion for the support, guidance, and like-mindedness of the community. The Theravada Buddhist sangha is the physical refuge for those beings who have dedicated their life to virtue, meditating, and attaining enlightenment. Respects are paid to the sangha for providing hospitality, exemplary teachers, and the opportunity to practice proper meditation. Theravada Buddhists recognize a moderate amount of ritual observances which vary from country to country. The annual Vesak festival celebrates the life, enlightenment, and parinibbana of the Buddha. It is universally recognized by the Theravada Buddhist community. Funeral rituals vary from country to country. A few monastic ceremonies include Vassa and Kathina.

Secular organizations can perform devotional observances to past events or people as well. For example, an organization for astrophysicists would pay respects to Copernicus and Galileo for the enormous amount they contributed to the field. As a nation, we celebrate Columbus Day. Independence Day is a secular event Americans observe, ritualized through fireworks, parties, and displays of national pride. Once again the line between religion and non-religion seems blurred. Perhaps the third section of Dictionary.com’s definition can aid us. It reads, “a set of beliefs...often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” A fairly large amount of Theravada Buddhist literature encompasses ethics, virtue, and morality. An entire pitaka of scriptures, the Vinaya Pitaka, lists a strict moral code of 227 monastic rules for bhikkhus and 311 monastic rules for bhikkunis, all centered on prohibiting acts which cause bad kamma, disagreement among the monks/nuns, and unwholesome states of mind. Presently, it is important to understand Theravada Buddhists advocate a strict moral code, not because morals are a universal creed mandated by a Divine Being, but because they enable us to live in harmony with one another in society and especially because practicing virtue calms the mind, which is essential for proper mediation.

Theravada Buddhism and all other religions possess some variety of formal ethical code individually suited to their traditions. Likewise non-religious, secular belief systems such as atheism and humanism also adhere to a guide for ethical conduct. Many people cannot imagine a system of morality originating from an atheistic vantage point. If no Supreme Being exists to create and enforce laws of morality, then there is no reason to act morally, these people would argue. If there is no post-mortem reward or punishment for actions on earth, they would ask, why not live hedonistically? While this topic will not be explored in my Thesis, it is important to understand the idea that systems of morality exist outside of theism/religion and successfully function in society. In summary, I have dissected the definition of religion from two of the most popular, referenced sources available today. It became quite evident that the line between what is religion and what is not is very blurred. According to these two definitions, the only pivotal difference is the belief or disbelief in a Supreme Being or personal God and gods. There must be more we are missing.

Complex Definition of Religion

Analyzing deeper into the definition of religion promulgated by Robert Ellwood, Ph.D, more light can be shed on this subject. According to Dr. Ellwood, religions divide reality into two halves, conditioned and unconditioned. Conditioned reality is what we experience now: the physical universe composed of matter and energy. It is almost always considered limited in some sense, whether by space and time, ignorance, or distance from God. We are limited to one conscious experience, one moment at a time, in one location. Moreover, there is a sense of duality in conditioned reality between “us” and the rest of the world. In Theravada Buddhism, conditioned reality is called samsara.

On the other hand, unconditioned reality is unlimited, free and all-encompassing. It is outside time and space. Unconditioned reality is not limited to one moment of consciousness in one location, it is omnipresent. In many religions, this reality is called “God”. In Theravada Buddhism, it is most closely related to a state of mind. For example, it is possible to attain nibbana while living in a physical body. Materialists do not believe in an unconditioned reality. As they understand it, only the physical universe composed of matter and energy ultimately exists. Although new studies within the field of quantum physics observe many similarities between the properties of quantum particles and unconditioned reality.

Robert Ellwood states that there are doors and windows between conditioned and unconditioned reality; he attributes religion to the sphere of action which occurs here. Activities that connect both realities include meditation, prayer, rituals, and services. The numinous associated with unconditional reality is absent from materialism. Materialists would substitute the word “meaningful” for “sacred”. They undergo deep, meaningful experiences but would not attribute them to a glimpse of unconditional reality.

Thus far, we discovered another major deviation between religion and non-religion: the belief or disbelief in unconditional reality. Aiding us further in this distinction is a man named Joachim Wach, a sociologist of religion, who divided the way religion expresses itself in human life through three modes: theoretical, sociological, and practical.

Theory refers to beliefs, myths, and philosophy. For our purposes, Theravada Buddhism contains all three: they have written tremendously on the subject of philosophy, Theravada Buddhists clearly have their own belief systems about ethics, the nature of the universe, and the ultimate goal of sentient beings, and within Theravada Buddhism there is mythology of the birth of the Buddha and an integration of Hindu gods, goddesses, and cosmology.

Sociology refers to the organization of religion. Theravada Buddhists gather in monasteries, are led by senior monks (who are simply teachers and guides), and tend to stay away from politics. There is no supreme leader in Theravada Buddhism like the Catholic Church has the Pope or the Geluk Buddhist tradition has the Dalai Lama. Senior monks in Theravada monasteries are not intermediaries between the practitioner and enlightenment, as many sects of Christian Priests are intermediaries between the practitioner and God,

The third division of religious expression according to Joachim Wach is practice. The practical aspect of religion includes worship, meditation, ritual, and prayer. For Theravada Buddhists, since they do not believe in a creator God or gods, do not worship nor pray. One of the most fundamental requirements for attainment of nibbana is sound meditation abilities cultivated to see into the true nature of reality. Meditation techniques and the importance of meditation is recorded in great detail throughout the Theravada Buddhist canon. Ritual also plays a part in Theravada Buddhism, which was explained in the previous section.

Dr. Robert Ellwood and Joachim Wach have provided us with a complex elucidation of religion. Lastly, we will examine Ninian Smart’s categories of recognizable elements religions exhibit. Ninian Smart, a professor of secular religious studies, claimed the phenomena of religions can be separated into seven dimensions. The seven dimensions include: a practical and ritual dimension, an experiential and emotional dimension, a narrative or mythic dimension, a doctrinal and philosophical dimension, an ethical and legal dimension, a social and institutional dimension, and a material dimension. Since five of the seven dimensions have been covered, I will focus on the two that have not: the experiential and emotional dimension, and the material dimension.

Essentially, the experiential and emotional dimension of Theravada Buddhism centers upon the first person experience one undergoes through existence in reality. Experience is the primary epistemological method utilized by Theravada Buddhists. The Buddha experienced enlightenment first hand in profound states of meditation under the Bodhi tree. The Buddhist spiritual path involves generating wisdom, through experience, and compassion, through emotional concern for suffering beings. By training our mind in meditation, by showing kindness to other sentient beings, we are ultimately undergoing a personal alchemical transformation of ourselves.

The material dimension of religion includes “objects in which the spirit of a religion becomes incarnate, such as churches, temples, works of art, statues, sacred sites, and holy places like pilgrimage sites.” To Theravada Buddhists, three mediums are most prominent in manifesting the spirit of Theravada Buddhism, namely, stupas, pilgrimage sites, and Theravada canonical texts.

After analyzing many prominent, respected definitions of religion, we learned that no single, concise definition can truly capture the entirety of religion. Religions have many dimensions, which even non-religious organizations or beliefs can exhibit. Theravada Buddhism is unique and indubitably challenges the narrow perimeters ascribed to the conventional understanding of religion. Especially as Westerns, if we are to study Theravada Buddhism without biases, it is so critical to clear our preconceived notions of any dogmatic influences from our experience with Western religions.

A copious amount of time was allotted to specifying the many different facets of religion in this chapter. This enables us to not only place Theravada Buddhism in the appropriate framework for proper understanding of its teachings, but, specifically for my Thesis, also to reveal that Scientism is not a separate entity from the dimensions of religion, and in fact shares many of the same characteristics as Theravada Buddhism. Certain commonly used concepts in Theravada Buddhism will be explained in the following pages in sophisticated detail serving as a foundation to underlay more complicated beliefs in Theravda Buddhist epistemology, sotierology, and ontology.

The Buddha

Central to the foundation of Theravada Buddhism was Siddhattha Gotama, more commonly known by the Pali term “Buddha”, which translated into English means “awakened” or “enlightened”. First and foremost, the Buddha was not considered a God, he was not divine, he was not sent to earth for a special mission nor as a divine messenger and he had no intrinsic special powers that all of us lack. He was born human, to human parents, in a specific period of time and space (most commonly estimated between 500BCE and 300BCE). Through life experience, wisdom, compassion, hard work, fine-tuned concentration, and perseverance, the Buddha attained enlightenment. In the Theravada tradition, it is emphasized that the Buddha reached nibbana through his own personal striving, and that it is each one of our own responsibilities to attain enlightenment through our own hard work. The Buddha was a social reformer. In a society segregated by caste and dominated by Brahmanist dogma, the Buddha stood against the accepted evils of his day and taught equality, logic, and the importance of personal experience. Modern scholars liken the schism between the Buddha and the commonplace Brahmanist religion of his time to Jesus Christ and Judaism. Just as Jesus Christ ushered in a reform of dogmatic Judaism, in an increasingly corrupt society where the priests held power over believers and served as intermediaries to God, a society where temples were transformed into marketplaces, so the Buddha presented a new system, way of life, and soteriology into the Brahmanist world which denounced the caste system, Vedic ritual, and esoteric knowledge possessed by a select few.

Brahmanist Religion and Society During the Time of the Buddha

To understand the foundations on which the Buddha built his system of teachings, we must understand what societal religious norms were in Brahmanist society, in addition to the common beliefs regarding metaphysics. I will explain a few major influences on the Buddha and his teachings. Afterwards, we will explore precisely what the Buddha considered wrong with the beliefs and practices of Brahmanist society, why he wanted to change them, and how he accomplished this.

During the time of the Buddha, Brahmanism played an important role in Indian society. The Vedas provided rituals which were necessary to keep the order of society, the universe, and the souls traveling into the afterlife. The bulk of the Upanishads had been produced by this time. During this period, two separate ideological battles were occurring. On one side stood the brahmins who were professional priests, teachers and caretakers of traditional knowledge (especially Vedic study), wealthy householders, and landowners. On the other end were the shramanas, who questioned the traditional teachings of the brahmins, produced ideas from their own inspiration, and chose the ascetic life as holy beggars, “The availability of an alternative form of knowledge outside priestly circles, however, must have contributed to the delegitimation of Brahmanical claims for culture dominance.” The second battle was between the shramanas themselves. Shramanas competed for students; debate between shramanic teachers was one major subtle form of public recruitment. There existed many different Upanishadic circles, materialistic shramanas (lokayatas), shramanas who believed in karma and rebirth, and so on. Emerging from the latter of shramanic groups, the Buddha developed a system of liberation from karma and rebirth. “The Buddha is the first great figure in Indian philosophy because he took the concepts emerging in the networks of his time and created a unifying complex of the key problem together with its solution.”

In the following sections, I will explain the three major Brahmanist ideas and practices the Buddha split from in his teachings.

The Varnas

The introduction of varnas was presented in the Vedas, as a division of the purusha into four components, into which societal responsibilities should also be divided into a four part hierarchy. The varna system corrupted very quickly; on one end of the spectrum, brahmins became rich, priestly kings while on the other end sudras were the poor peasants of society performing menial tasks and manual labor. Achyuta, the name given to the “untouchables”, did not belong to the above mentioned four castes. They were considered below even the sudras and were shunned from society. The main problem with the caste system was that one was born into a specific caste, and remained there not only for the entirety of his lifetime, but his future generations would be locked into that caste as well (with a few exceptions). The varnas were a form of hierarchical slavery; it violated basic human rights. The Buddha believed the varnas were an atrocity to human freedom. He stated that birth should not determine what caste a person is assigned. In the Vasala Sutta, the Buddha metaphorically describes what type of person is suited to be a brahmin or an untouchable, echoing several passages from the Upanishads. By deed, not birth, does one’s merit define what caste he is in. For example, a person who “is angry, harbors hatred, and is reluctant to speak well of others [discredits the good of others], perverted in views, deceitful — know him as an outcast. Whosoever in this world kills living beings, once born or twice born, in whom there is no sympathy for living beings — know him as an outcast.”

While on the other hand, one who keeps the precepts, is compassionate, and wise the Buddha considers a brahmin (metaphorically speaking).

The Buddha stood against orthodox Brahmanist religion in two significant ways: first, he denies and discredits the caste system, and by doing so he also challenged the “divine” Vedic scriptures. Secondly,by disputing the varnas, the Buddha jeopardized the brahmins elite position in society. If the varnas were eliminated, the brahmins would be subject to lose their high ranking. Simultaneously, the lower castes would not be shackled as achyutas or sudras any longer. We can summarize the importance of the last few paragraphs thus: the Buddha challenged the commonly held views of social justice and equality in Brahmanist society which he believed was intrinsically wrong.

Anatta

Anatta, the perception of “not-self”, was and presently is an extremely unique metaphysical view of what we consider to be “us”. During the Buddha’s time, Vedic beliefs and certain shramanic groups posited an inner essence inside all beings named atman (soul), and ultimately a being called “Brahman” who they claimed to be immanent, universal, and transcendent. The Buddha utilized many of his teachings for anatta and denied both the concept of atman and Brahman. The Buddha taught anatta by the scrutiny of phenomenal experience. In other words, when we examine reality through first person experience a permanent, intrinsic soul cannot be located. As we will see in chapter four, the Buddha never claimed a permanent soul does not exist outside of phenomenal experience; it is irrelevant to the attainment of nibbana. For the moment, we must understand that the Buddha’s belief in anatta was both unique and taboo to the teachings of the Vedas.

Vedic Ritual

Ritual played an enormous role in Brahmanist society. The learned brahmins were the only people capable of performing important Vedic rituals. The rituals themselves involved sacrifice to the gods, hymns, mantras, and other special tasks. Vedic ritual also assured everlasting life in the World of the Fathers, a heaven-like realm for the souls of deceased ancestors. “Only the married householder could perform the required rituals for himself and his ancestors, and only a continuing family line can secure the welfare of the departed. From the perspective of this tradition, householder life is therefore not only a means of securing one’s own afterlife, but also an obligation owed to one’s ancestors, and the debt is only paid--and one’s own afterlife maintained--by the procreation of sons to maintain the succession of ritual duties.”

Karma as a term first appeared in Vedic ritual. It described the process of cause and effect via Vedic ritual actions and their results. For example, the proper performance of Vedic ritual would cause the one who recently died to successfully transfer into the World of the Fathers. The original usage of karma evolved over time. Upanishadic scriptures taught that there was a permanent soul (atman) in each of us which unripened karma remained until it blossomed into fruition according to the proper circumstances. The Buddha spoke of kamma (Pali) as a universal law of nature, the law of cause and effect. Kamma is not a thing, an object, or a type of energy. It is the relationship between cause and effect. The primary difference between karma and kamma lies in the omission of atman. The Buddha did not believe in a permanent soul discernible by first person experience; the five aggregates which exist now are the product of previous aggregates, and are causes for future aggregates to arise according to kamma.

nfluence of Shramanic Meditation on the Buddha

A central tenet in Theravada Buddhism is the practice of meditation. The Buddha distinguishes between two types. The first category is called samatha or “tranquility” meditation and the second is named vipassana or “insight” meditation. Before I explain Theravada Buddhist samatha and vipassana meditation, it is critical to understand what traditions of meditation the Buddha practiced prior to his enlightenment, by whom he was taught, and why he was not satisfied. Most practitioners in the Theravada tradition consider the Buddha’s biography as presented in the suttas as fact. Whether or not the Buddha’s biography recorded in the suttas literally took place in history, which to the serious student has no bearing on the truth of his teachings, the symbolism therein is sufficient to clarify the difference between shramanic meditation and the Buddha’s meditation.

We are first introduced to shramanic meditation through the Buddha’s encounter with a wandering mendicant. This occurred after the Buddha left his family’s walled palace and following his experience meeting an elderly man, a man with leprosy, and a deceased man. His four encounters represent the core of Buddhist teachings: that everything is subject to change, out of our control, and impermanent. The ascetic symbolizes the path to nibbana, to overcome suffering. In the wake of choosing the mendicant’s path, the Buddha “sampled the web of paths to realization that crisscrossed the spiritual map of India. He talked with Brahmins. He worked with teachers of trance meditation and went the route of extreme asceticism...”

The Buddha first became a disciple under a man named Alara Kalama. In the Ariyapariyesana sutta, the Buddha explains that he quickly learned samatha meditation up unto the level called the “base of nothingness”. The Buddha was unsatisfied because: “...This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana, but only to reappearance in the base of nothingness.” In other words, the Buddha reached a level of concentrated bliss, but even that was subject to impermanence and did not completely rid him of suffering.

Unsatisfied, the Buddha sought discipleship under Uddaka Ramaputta. Uddaka Ramaputta was able to teach the Buddha to reach the state of “neither perception nor non-perception”, which is the highest level attainable before nibbana. The Buddha said, “This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana, but only to reappearance in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.” Once again unsatisfied, the Buddha decided to sit under a Bodhi tree and not move until he reached enlightenment. That night, the Buddha “broke through” the highest jhana and entered nibbana. He describes it thus: “This Dhamma that I have attained is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.” I would like to briefly explain samatha meditation, vipassana mediation, and the difference between the two for the comparison that is made in many Theravada Buddhist circles regarding its similarity to scientific methodology.

Samatha Meditation

Samatha meditation, according to the Visudhimagga, involves focusing on one of the 40 different objects enumerated by the Buddha, undeterred, for as long as possible or until one chooses to end the practice. One proceeds to practice until the object can be held steadily in the mind’s eye; samatha meditation emphasizes the one-pointedness of attention on one single object of concentration, pictured in the mind’s eye. After many hours of practice, a gradual, sustained concentration develops. Perpetual attention on an object of concentration eventually leads one into what is called “access concentration”, when a “counterpart sign” is formed in the mind’s eye. The difference between the “counterpart sign” and the original object of meditation is described as follows in the Visudhimagga:

“In the learning sign [original object of meditation] any fault in the kasina is apparent. But the counterpart sign appears as if breaking out from the learning sign, and a hundred times, a thousand times more purified...But it neither has color nor shape; for if it had, it would be cognizable by the eye, gross, susceptible of comprehension...”

This excerpt is simply one section of the whole instruction for samatha meditation. When one reads the Visudhimagga, it is quite clear that there is a step by step guide, categorized, structured, and experientially verifiable to attaining access concentration, states of tranquility, and the jhanas. The same applies for vipassana meditation which will be explained in the next paragraph. It is important to understand the structured, step by step progression of Theravada Buddhist meditation instruction for its relationship to scientific methodology.

Vipassana Mediation

Vipassana meditation requires one to be mindful of the present, from moment to moment. Vipassana meditation focuses on reality as we experience it now. The primary difference between vipassana and samatha meditation is that samatha is strict concentration on a single object, in the mind’s eye, and therefore the meditation is not centered on reality as it is in the present moment. The goal of samatha is to attain states of unwavering attention bringing about profound peace and tranquility, but no insight. In vipassana practice the object of attention is based on the present experience of reality, not an object in our heads, which leads directly to insight about the nature of reality. Furthermore, the object of attention changes to whatever we are currently experiencing at the present moment, which is the only thing that truly exists since the past has dissipated and the future has yet to arrive, ranging from thoughts to emotions to bodily sensations to feelings. The Buddha divides our possible experience in vipassana practice into four categories: the body, mind, mind objects, and feelings (pleasure, pain, neutral). In the Satipatthana sutta from the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha explains the four divisions: “...a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. He abides contemplating feelings as feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. He abides contemplating mind as mind, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. He abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world.”

The goal of vipassana practice is to experience reality for what it is in its bare essence, to neither be attached nor averted to what we experience. Normally, through ignorance and mental afflictions, we distort our experiences and therefore suffer from our own delusions. For example, as human beings we have six sense doors from which we experience: sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, and mind (thoughts, feelings, emotions). If a man was struggling with lust for women, vipassana would train him to understand that first the term “woman” is only a conventional label, it has no reality in and of itself, for all the bodily parts and processes make up a “woman”. Secondly, vipassana would teach the practitioner to comprehend that the base experience of “lusting for a woman” can be broken down. The bare essence, beginning the chain of experience leading to lust, is light making contact with our eyes. Afterwards we make associations and judgments on what we perceive, then we may desire or avert what we perceive based on the pleasure or pain it brings. Ultimately vipassana practice enables one to remain aware of the entire process of cognition, to see reality for what it really is objectively.

In summary, the Buddha learned lessons from living a life of luxury, to experiencing the austerities of an ascetic, to cultivating the highest levels of concentration before reaching nibbana. All of these experiences contributed to his attainment of nibbana under the Bodhi tree. Granted, Buddhism contains many radically different teachings than the Brahmanist religion, but nevertheless the philosophical doctrines and beliefs of the Brahmanist religion served as a foundation in which Buddhism grew.

Chapter 3

Epistemology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism

Truth, representing something that is in accord with reality, is the most precious commodity in the universe. It enables us to live, to evolve, to progress, to make sense of the world around us. How do we know what is true? How do we find truth? How do we know what is false? Many people and organizations claim to have truth, but throughout history individuals have been clashing with each other over these important questions. Neither were we instructed before birth about truth, nor do we know when we will die, making our time here on earth of the utmost essence to answer these questions.

Martin Heidegger coined our predicament, “thrownness”. We are “thrown” into life with no previous guidance, information, or preparation. We are born into a hostile environment with a self-reflective consciousness attempting to survive and make sense of reality. Systematic methods to discover truth, to prove truth, and just as importantly, to discredit falsity, were created by humans since lies and deception are part of our inherent nature. In the past up to the present, many powerful, influential individuals and organizations declared they possessed truth, or they knew truth, worse yet, attempted to stifle dissenting personages. Common sense, rationality, and logic (which will all be defined shortly) have proven them false. In a way, the systematic methods to discover truth are like white blood cells; they are unbiased, unrelenting, strict, and are used for protection. We will learn by the end of this chapter, that fundamentally this is exactly why the epistemological methods of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism were invented: to recognize truth and dismiss falsity. Epistemology

Abiding by standard philosophy, linguistic, and scientific procedure, all the terms used within the field of epistemology must be clearly defined. In this section entitled “Epistemology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism”, naturally I will expound upon epistemological terms relevant to Scientism and Theravada Buddhism. Of course, there is no universal set of beliefs in Scientism or Theravada Buddhism, but by clearly defining terms used in each tradition’s epistemology, it will create a framework applicable to each field in general, and also to specific sects.

Scientism, which was described in Chapter 1, is an umbrella term representing metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological beliefs normally associated with atheism, materialism, reason, and the scientific method.

To begin, what exactly is epistemology? Epistemology is the study of knowledge; it is concerned with the definition of knowledge, how we know or what limits us from knowing, what is the scope of knowledge, and what justifies fact from opinion. Chapter 4 will concentrate on ontology, but a terse differentiation between ontology and epistemology is in order since the two overlap greatly. Ontology attempts to answer these questions: What is existence? What makes up reality? What is being? Epistemology endeavors to figure out how and why we know what we do. Epistemology can be broadly divided into two categories:

“First, we must determine the nature of knowledge; that is, what does it mean to say that someone knows, or fails to know, something? This is a matter of understanding what knowledge is, and how to distinguish between cases in which someone knows something and cases in which someone does not know something. Second, we must determine the extent of human knowledge; that is, how much do we, or can we, know? How can we use our reason, our senses, the testimony of others, and other resources to acquire knowledge? Are there limits to what we can know? For instance, are some things unknowable? Is it possible that we do not know nearly as much as we think we do? Should we have a legitimate worry about skepticism, the view that we do not or cannot know anything at all?

There are many different types of knowledge, ranging from factive knowledge, to procedural and propositional knowledge, to acquaintance knowledge. Epistemologists generally focus on propositional knowledge, and for my Thesis I shall do the same. Proposition knowledge refers to a declarative statement, whether true or false, that attempts to purport a fact about reality. “5 times 5 equals 25” and “plants are made up of cells” are two examples of propositional knowledge. We can apply this to virtually any subject matter. Deriving from the seemingly universality of knowledge arises the questions: “Can all truth be known by the human mind? Are there possibly truths that are entirely unknowable? Are there limits to reason and sensory experience?”

Propositional knowledge itself can be divided into two groupings, depending on the source from which it comes: a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. A priori knowledge refers to knowledge obtained through the use of reason, not sensory experience. For example, intellectually understanding the Theravada Buddhist doctrine of anatta is a priori knowledge. A posteriori knowledge posits knowledge which is obtained through sensory experience. For example, after seeing and tasting a lemon for the first time, one would have gained a posteriori knowledge about the lemon regarding its yellow color and bitter taste.

What constitutes knowledge? Knowledge consists of three elements: belief, truth, and justification. The checks and balances of all three are necessary for knowledge. David Truncellito, Ph.D, claims that knowledge is a mental state; specifically, a type of belief. One must first believe something before he can obtain knowledge about it. On the other hand, if one does not believe something, he cannot have knowledge about it. In other words, if he has never entertained certain thoughts he cannot possibly have knowledge about them. In epistemology, thoughts which are currently being contemplated are called “occurrent beliefs”. On the contrary, “non-occurrent beliefs” remain in the sub-conscious, not in the mind’s present awareness.

For knowledge to exist, there has to be objective truth. Once again, truth represents facts that are in accord with reality. As we develop beliefs, the goal for the majority of people, is to align them with the truths of reality, instead of other reasons like confirmation of one’s personal biases, or comfort from fear. Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Presently, our argument is validated because it assumes so. Certain groups of people, namely relativists, do not believe in objective truth. For purposes of my Thesis, both Scientism and Theravada Buddhism surmise that objective truth exists.

In the study of epistemology, for one to possess knowledge, they cannot simply postulate the correct outcome, or final solution. Justification of belief, the third major element of knowledge, must provide a logical, step by step process toward the concluding statement. It is unacceptable for one to posit a correct answer, having performed a lucky guess or arbitrarily found their way to the conclusion, and therefore claim that they possess knowledge.

Unfortunately, just because a belief is justified does not mean it is true. An example that comes to my mind is how our ancient ancestors attributed natural occurrences such as lightning, thunder, and celestial phenomena to mythological explanations involving “gods” or “goddesses”. Our ancestor’s beliefs were justified by observing the phenomena, and theorizing what was to them a logical explanation: unseen “gods” and “goddesses”. It is important to note two attributes of justification:

“The fact that a belief is true does not tell us whether or not it is justified; that depends on how the belief was arrived at...Similarly, the fact that a belief is justified does not tell us whether it's true or false.”

Although, common sense tells us beliefs which are justified are more likely to be true than beliefs which are not.

The Gettier problem, proposed by Edmund Gettier in 1963, countered the certainty with which justified, true belief constituted knowledge. The mere fact that he provided an example of a contradiction to justified, true belief as knowledge forced philosophers and scientists to amend their stance. Essentially the response they gave entailed a concept called a “defeater”. A “defeater” is something which nullifies an argument. In Gettier’s famous clock example, if the person reading the time on the clock knew it had stopped working, his belief that the clock functioned properly would be nullified. Even though his belief would be justified and true that he read the time on the clock correctly, the fact that the clock stopped working is a “defeater” to his proposition of knowledge. In conclusion, as long as a belief is true, justified, and has no “defeaters”, many epistemologists would consider this true knowledge.

The second major question in epistemology is, “What is the extent of human knowledge?” Does knowledge have limits? To obtain knowledge about the physical world, we need sense organs, perception, and a mind which computes the data received. In addition to the senses, reason and memory are necessary. Reason plays a central role in acquiring knowledge outside of the senses, namely abstract or non-empirical facts. We need reason to analyze our observations and beliefs, and memory to store knowledge and pass it onto others accurately. What are the limits to our knowledge? Many people who ascribe to Scientism would argue that our knowledge is limited to the senses, and reasoning on data thereof. Theravada Buddhists take it one step further by saying there exists extra-sensory perception, and data extending beyond the physical senses. More on the Theravada Buddhist belief in extra-sensory perception will be covered in the next chapter.

Before moving forward, I am going to define a host of terms used in Scientism and Theravada Buddhist epistemology. These concepts delineate people who follow Scientism and its epistemological methods, as well as Theravada Buddhists and the epistemological methods they practice. Understanding these concepts is a mandatory prerequisite for fully grasping both the epistemology and ontology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism.

Ultimate Reality and Conventional Reality

Without entering into the particulars of relativism and absolute truth, a crucial demarcation between conventional and ultimate reality will aid us in our understanding. Ultimate reality represents what actually exists whether in the mind, or matter and energy. “A statement is ultimately true if and only if it corresponds to the facts and neither asserts nor presupposes the existence of any conceptual fiction.” For example, Theravada Buddhism teaches us that physical objects, dhammas, and “that which is aware” constitute ultimate reality. For materialists, ultimate reality consists of matter and energy; in other words, everything in the universe is matter and energy, and can be broken down into these two constituents.

Conventional truth depicts reality in another manner. Conventional reality is not ultimately real. “A statement is conventionally true if and only if it is acceptable to common sense and consistently leads to successful practice.” Conventionally true statements are convenient designators. Convenient, because it is much more efficient to say “the chair” instead of “the aggregate of molecules in this particular moment in time and space shaped in such a way, with so and so designs, and so on”. Even this example contains conventional terms. The primary point is that conventional statements are practical for day to day living and communication. Humans understand each other when speaking conventional truths. Conventional truths are induced from facts of reality, otherwise if they were not no one would be able to communicate effectively with each other.

Rationality, Logic, and Common Sense

When we are told, “Be rational!”, “Apply logic!”, or “Use your common sense!” What precisely are we instructed to do? The first two commands could not have existed prior to the Ancient Greek Philosophers, since they formally introduced such concepts to the Western world. The last of the three commands, using common sense, most likely came into existence very early in human history. I will consider “common sense” first. If we break down the term “common sense”, the two separate words seem clear enough on their own. Common, in this context, refers to something apparent to the majority, something frequently experienced. Sense, in this context, indicates sensory perception. The two words together signify sensory perception frequently experienced by the majority of people. In addition, cultural context and environment play a large role in what is considered “common sense”. For example, if one was told to use “common sense” when crossing the street, the term refers to the near-universal sensory experience of visually examining whether or not a potentially dangerous object (automobile) is present before moving your physical body from one side of the black pavement to the other. This cultural context assumes one has lived in an environment with cars, trucks, and roadways, moreover, that the pedestrian has some experience of crossing the street personally, or knowledge through another medium (i.e. watching a television show with automobiles and roads). Lastly, sensory experience, in addition to memory, are imperfect and subject to error. In an ultimate sense, experience is relative; everyone perceives the world in unique ways. Therefore, “common sense” is flawed from an ultimate point of view of reality. On the other hand, the term “common sense” is practical in the conventional understanding of reality, on the conceptual level.

Circling back to the first phrase “be rational”, we will examine the word “rationality”. Rationality is a concept invoking the use of reason. What is reason? According to the Miriam Webster dictionary, reason is “a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact.” To use reason, to be rational, consciousness must exist. Beings who are self-aware can nurture this quality into levels of maturity unreachable by animals, or humans who think, speak, and act solely on emotion, feeling, and instinct. Reason consists of the ability to see the relationship between cause and effect. Ideally, rational decision making receives no influence from emotions, bias, or feelings. Rational decision making in its purest state is completely logical, empirical, and objective. Since we do not live in the ideal world described a moment ago, naturally our thoughts and decisions are mixed with, even in trace amounts, emotions, biases, feelings, or instincts.

“Apply logic!” is the third phrase of our scrutiny. The term logic has been used on a few occasions in my Thesis describing reason, rationality, and epistemology. There are various different categories of logic, ranging from mathematical logic, to philosophical logic, to computational logic. Broadly speaking, logic may be defined as

“the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments...The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own.”

Argument, in this context, indicates a group of formal statements consisting of premises which support a conclusion. The purpose of logic is to decipher good arguments from bad ones, truth from falsehood. In the West, logic was first systematized by Aristotle. Logic was sparsely improved until the Middle Ages when logicians such as Peter Abelard, William of Sherwood, and William of Ockham greatly contributed to the field. Many other scholars expanded the limits of logic throughout the post-enlightenment period until the present day. Computer technology runs on its own language formed by computational logic, Boolean logic, and binary language.

The study of logic is immensely complex; I have only scratched the surface of this fascinating field. I will return back to our original question, what does it mean when people instruct us to “apply logic”? They are communicating with us to apply systematic reasoning and objectivity into our assumptions, thoughts, words, or actions, depending on the situation. It is uncommon for people to dive deeper into the linguistic origins of everyday vocabulary. We tend to be satisfied with a superficial, conventional understanding of words and phrases we frequently use. I picked three common phrases which contain many implications to what we value as a society when it comes to obtaining knowledge and discrediting falsehood. Common sense, logic, and rationality play a fundamental role in both Scientism and Theravada Buddhism. The method I chose to use explaining these three terms had two purposes: first, to show how these three common, everyday phrases contain deep rooted ramifications for the epistemological methods of society at large. Second, I aimed to exhibit some of the key concepts within Scientism and Theravada Buddhist epistemology.

Deduction and Induction

Moving forward in our discussion of terms relevant to Scientism and Theravada Buddhist epistemology are the methods of deduction and induction. Deduction and induction are terms used within logic. A deductive argument supposes its premises are true, therefore the conclusion based off the premises must also be true. “The premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.” This type of deductive argument is considered logically sound. Older definitions established deductive reasoning as moving from the general to the specific, while inductive reasoning shifted from the specific to the general. Modern logicians consider this inaccurate; solely the nearness to truth the author believes his argument to possess is the deciding factor whether or not the argument is deductive or inductive. One common example of deductive reasoning is starting with a theory and applying it to a precise hypothesis. For instance, to apply general mathematical laws to specific mathematical problems is considered deductive reasoning. Deductive arguments are either true or false.

Inductive arguments emphasize the probability that their premises could be true, which in turn, if valid, would make their conclusion unlikely to be false. There are two primary differences between deductive and inductive arguments. While deductive arguments are a matter of the relationship between the premises and conclusions as being either truth or false, the presenters of inductive arguments are not completely sure their premises are true, although they would posit reasons to believe it is likely true, therefore it would also be likely that their conclusion is true.

In general, not only do we as normal people use inductive reasoning on a daily basis but so do scientists. On a mundane scale, we rely on inductive reasoning for many of our activities throughout the day. For instance, every time we turn on a faucet we expect water to flow out. It is entirely plausible, when the faucet is turned on, for water to be jammed and cause enough pressure to induce a freak accident involving an explosion from water pressure. The same rule appears in science. When scientists perform experiments they do so on limited test sizes. Conclusions reached on a limited sample size, yet proclaimed ubiquitous, is an example of inductive reasoning. This is a regular occurrence in the scientific community. How would scientists or philosophers respond to these examples? First they would not talk in absolutes, but rather probabilities. To our faucet situation, philosophers would argue that the probability of water flowing normally is exceptionally high, and the probability of a freak explosion due to water pressure is exceptionally low. To the second example, scientists would declare that a limited sample size, a finite study, is not universal in its findings, but the conclusions are most likely applicable to the majority.

Empiricism

The following paragraphs will examine empiricism, positivism, reductionism, skepticism, and the scientific method in detail. According the the Encyclopedia Britannica, empiricism is “the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.”

Those familiar with Theravada Buddhism immediately recognize the enormously large role empiricism plays in their tradition. The basic theory behind empiricism is to eliminate claims which cannot be experienced, for example, God, heaven, hell, and the devil are all concepts which cannot be experienced through the five (or six senses in the Theravada tradition). No one has ever experienced those concepts in physical reality, therefore an empiricist would classify them as untrue.

Now, within empiricism exist various sects of belief. Some empiricists only believe the five senses register rationally accepted experience. Others tack on the mental sense: our introspection, feelings, and emotions. Some presume the experiences we encounter are directly physical (direct realism). While others deduce we only experience what is called “sense datum.” “Those who accept sense data believe that sense data exist whenever a person perceives anything, by any of the senses, and also whenever a person has an experience qualitatively like perceiving, such as a hallucination.”

Empiricists, like Theravada Buddhists and pragmatists, emphasize real world evidence, derived from experience, to be tested against hypotheses, theories, and any form of a priori reasoning.

Positivism

Empiricism is the primary epistemological tool used by Positivists. Positivism is extreme, in the sense that it completely denies any metaphysical speculation; it is entirely empirical, “this-worldly”, and anti-theistic. Positivists believe that empiricism, logic, mathematics, and science will uncover all truth. “ Strict adherence to the testimony of observation and experience is the all-important imperative of the positivists.” Auguste Compte formally gave rise to this philosophical ideology. A recurrent theme among “free thinkers” throughout the ages, those who support rationalism, reason, positivism, and the like, gained most of their motivation, I believe, from the apparent absurdities and dogmas of Western religions. Positivism, notably, set out to completely dismantle religion and the acceptance of miracles, through the epistemological methods of empiricism, logic, and science. The logical positivist movement emerged in the middle of the 20th century, a movement which idolized the objective methods of science. The logical positivists were interested in the natural sciences, mathematics, and physics. They attempted to hasten the growth of philosophy, to the degree of the sciences, by devaluing the role of subjectivity, and promoting pure objectivity. Logical positivists focus on the context of justification for method and proof, rather than the context of discovery.

“The positivists believed that disputes between rival scientific theories could be solved in a perfectly objective way - by comparing the theories directly with the ‘neutral’ observational facts, which all parties could accept.”

Unfortunately, there is no prevalent agreement whether “neutral” observational facts exist. Thomas Kuhn, an influential philosopher of science, claimed that each “paradigm” (essentially, era of scientific innovation) has its own paradigm-relative facts. In addition, Kuhn believed paradigm shifts did not occur based on rationality and fact, which is how logical positivist envision progress, but rather because of faith and peer pressure within the scientific community. Skepticism

Skepticism formally originated with the Ancient Greek philosophical belief system known as pyrrhonism. Adherents of pyrrhonism believed that nothing can be known for certain. “The senses are easily fooled, and reason follows too easily our desires.” As an extreme form of skepticism, they would not accept anything as ultimately true, instead instructing their members to acknowledge conventional truths insomuch as it is practical to live peacefully in life. Over time, skepticism evolved into less extreme forms. It has come to be known as a system of rigorous scrutiny through doubting, questioning, debating, verifying, reasoning, and ultimately accepting the final result as a provisional answer invariably subject to modification. There exist three dominant forms of skepticism: philosophical skepticism, scientific skepticism, and religious skepticism. Skepticism endeavors to act as a system of checks and balances against the claims of philosophy, religion, science, or any other discipline. “The skeptical arguments and their employment against various forms of dogmatism have played an important role in shaping both the problems and the solutions offered in the course of Western philosophy.”

Scientific skepticism utilizes the scientific method when investigating claims. Scientific skepticism is empirical, and holds strict standards for validating truth. Religious skepticism uses similar if not the same criteria in its methodology. The difference between the two is that scientific skepticism is a methodology, while religious skepticism is applied to specific subjects. Religious skepticism solely analyzes religions, religious figures, and religious beliefs. The possibility exists for a religious devotee to be a religious skeptic, or for atheism to be a subject for scrutiny, as long as the same standards for analysis are practiced. In modern times, the “debunking” of new age pseudoscience has become a popular endeavor. Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs falsely regarded as being based on the scientific method. Many New Age groups employ up to date scientific terminology to promote their beliefs. Religious skeptics are quick to apply empiricism and the scientific method to the New Ager’s claims, in the same way it was performed against Christianity and Western religions during the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Method

The scientific method is the bread and butter methodology for each and every one of the epistemological terms I defined in this chapter. At its core, the scientific method is a venture to observe reality, propose hypotheses, discover truth, and discredit falsity with the least amount of personal bias, subjective influence, or prejudice. The standard scientific method must contain, minimally, these four major aspects. “1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.”

Summarized, the foundation of the scientific method can be broken down into observation, hypotheses, and experimentation. Phenomena must be capable of being observed for any hypotheses and experimentation to occur. One of the primary goals of implementing the scientific method was to exclude “other-worldly”, unobservable, and accepted explanations such as God, miracles, the soul, heaven and hell, among others. The hypothesis acts as a starting point from which the rest of the study proceeds. By beginning with a hypothesis, the question is clearly defined, and the study is set on the right track. If the hypothesis supposes a theoretical answer, the study has a set path, which eventually will either prove the hypothesis correct or false. Experimental tests, in my opinion, act as the crux of the scientific method. The ability to perform experiments on empirically verifiable, observable phenomena brings us closer to our goal of having the least amount of dogmatic, unfalsifiable beliefs present as accepted explanations. In addition, over time certain criteria has been supplemented to the four core aspects of the scientific method. The ability to replicate experiments ensures that the first successful or unsuccessful experiment was not a chance occurrence. Replication seeks to eliminate any potential bias or errors which may have existed in the first experiment. Peer review is another subsidiary to the scientific method. Constructive criticism, objective observations, and strict evaluations on whether or not the study is maintaining the standards of the scientific method are all benefits of peer review.

In the previous sections of this chapter, I provided explanations to key terms within epistemology in general as well as the epistemology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism. All of the concepts provided thus far apply to Scientism, or at least certain branches within Scientism. That is not the case with Theravada Buddhism. Although I revealed when an epistemological term pertained to Theravada Buddhism, in the following section I plan on specifying one epistemological concept, applicable to Scientism yet especially important in the Theravada tradition, called pragmatism. Pragmatism

Pragmatism, a philosophical tradition which emerged in the 19th century, contends that epistemology, ontology, and other philosophical topics should be examined based on their practical applications. Whereby founded by Charles Sanders Pierce, William James developed pragmatism further with one primary goal: to make religion and science compatible. The only way this could work, he argued, is through the common quality of practicality. Pragmatism, a form of empiricism, regards the a priori as mere instruments to help our knowledge of reality. “Our ability to think about external things and to steadily improve our understanding of them rests upon our experience.” T raditionally, Theravada Buddhists are empirical pragmatists. Solely through experience is knowledge verifiable. In addition, Theravada Buddhists are only concerned with pursuits that make practical differences. For instance, they consider metaphysical speculation useless unless it brings one closer to the ultimate goal of nibbana. This belief extends into every aspect of life.

Chapter 4

Ontology and Soteriology of Scientism and Theravada Buddhism

Ontology, a major branch of study within metaphysics, questions the nature of the universe, the nature of being, and attempts to categorize reality. Here, we find disputes between mind and matter, ventures to depict the core components of reality, and theories underlying what it is to be conscious. Ontology is an immensely paramount metaphysical branch of study. Knowledge of the basic components of reality and the nature of consciousness have life changing effects. It completely alters the whole structure of how we perceive reality, the purpose of life, and what is really important. At the end of this chapter, I will incorporate both Scientism and Theravada Buddhism’s soteriological beliefs since it closely ties in with ontology. Suppose tomorrow ontologists discovered reality is simply a three dimensional computer program, similar to the movie The Matrix, except with no outside universes, entities, or afterlife: solely the three dimension computer program exists. How would this change our lives? What would we prioritize? Would the value of life and our experiences increase or be completely meaningless? In this scenario, life would be seen as precious, since there is nothing after death, individual cooperation would be prioritized to increase the quality of life, and of course knowledge would be valued above all for the potential to discover ways to produce unlimited happiness, immortality, peace, and ease of living.

Suppose tomorrow ontologists discovered reality consists of the physical universe and an afterlife of either pure bliss or pure suffering, depending on the actions one takes in the physical universe. In this situation, our ultimate goal would be to reach the afterlife of pure bliss, and avoid the afterlife of pure suffering. As humans, we would indoctrinate the means to get there, and punish those whose actions led to the opposite. Free-will, wisdom, and rational thinking would all take a back seat behind knowledge regarding proper action to attain the afterlife of pure bliss and avoid the afterlife of pure suffering. Our whole lives, our priorities would all center on the means to heaven and avoiding the pitfalls to hell. Notice the similarities between these two alternate universes with Physicalism and the Western religious view of reality, respectively. See how in each universe the epistemology is different, priorities change, and standards of behavior alter. The purpose of this example is to show exactly how drastically ontological beliefs modify every aspect of our lives, and to emphasize the importance of ontological studies in general.

Ontology of Scientism

We will begin with the ontology of Scientism in regards to the make up of reality itself. To give one overarching, consistent worldview of Scientism is simply fallacious, just as it is in any other tradition. Generally Scientism adheres to a monist ontological schemata. Materialism, also known as Physicalism, is the belief that solely physical matter and energy exist in reality. Mind or consciousness emerges as an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Idealism, on the other hand, contrasts with Physicalism based on their conclusion that only the mind or consciousness exists. Depending on the school of Idealism, they either believe the physical world is an illusion of mind like a dream, or they believe the physical world is a denser manifestation of pure, unconditioned mind. Materialists presume the whole of reality can be understood and calculated through the study of cause and effect. There is no room in a Materialist universe for any outside influences such as God or unconditioned mind, since reality works perfectly fine according to the laws of nature. Why do Physicalists deny the independent existence of mind? The hard problem, the issue of mind and body interaction, is one of the main counterarguments to dualism. Followers of Scientism argue that there are no convincing studies proving the independent existence of mind. Once we die, they say, its lights out. No one has ever returned to inform us of an afterlife. In addition, recent studiesare showing evidence correlating clusters of neuron firings and consciousness. In other words, Physicalists believe that eventually studies on consciousness will show exactly where and how consciousness is produced by the physical brain. This is called Promissory Materialism: one day science shall explain everything about the universe; currently, we do not have all the answers, but one day we will thanks to science.

Physicalists posit that an objective universe naturally exists “out there” while our consciousness, our perception, is a by-product of evolution that has no bearing on the existence of the objective universe. According to the Physicalists the entire universe is composed of matter and energy. The smallest unit of matter, without losing its basic properties, is the atom. The smallest units of matter in general are the quark and the lepton. The smallest unit of energy is called the quantum. Followers of Scientism are reductionists in the sense that they believe everything in the universe, including consciousness, can be reduced to atoms, quarks, leptons, quanta, and their respective interactions.

What do adherents of Scientism believe about the nature of being? Underlying all tenets of Scientism resides the understanding that new facts, new theories, and new discoveries can potentially overturn previously held notions. When speaking in terms of what followers of Scientism believe, it is better asked what do followers of Scientism believe based on current data, discoveries, and theories. According to contemporary research, scientists state that the universe operates naturally by cause and effect. They declare the universe is random; it has no intrinsic reason for existence. Historically, the universe began as an extremely dense, hot singularity. There is no data in our possession regarding the period before the singularity. It is completely unknown; we have a variety of hypotheses but no facts. At one point in time, the singularity expanded exponentially and then cooled. After millions of years passed, elementary particles clustered together forming the basis of matter. Like-matter attracted one another forming stars, stars formed planets, and planets formed galaxies.

On earth, conditions were perfect for supporting organic matter. Currently the majority consensus in the scientific community is that self-replicating RNA molecules commenced the process of organic evolution.

“Survival machines began as passive receptacles for the genes, providing little more than walls to protect them from the chemical warfare of their rivals and the ravages of accidental molecular bombardment.”

Genes, according to Richard Dawkins, are the units of nucleotides between the “start” and “end” symbols indicating the beginning and end of a protein chain. Although Dawkins does not explicitly state it, in his theory genes act as the core “I”, the metaphorical soul. Genes must execute three principle tasks efficiently to ensure survival in the physical world: obtaining the necessary energy to function, adapting to the environment, and replicating itself. In the quote above from The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins uses the term “survival machine” to depict the earliest vessel genes created to perform the three principle tasks for survival. Over time, survival machines grew in complexity. Genes began making copies of themselves for each cell. Groups of cells worked as a unit. Plants are one branch of survival machines adept at harvesting energy directly from sunlight. Two disadvantages of plants are they move remarkably slowly and their movements are generally irreversible. Animals, another branch of survival machines, have the ability to move freely, reversibly, and repetitively. Animals primarily obtain energy from eating plants or other animals. Gradually, various animal survival machines adapted to the different demands of their environment: fishes to the sea, birds to the air, and lions to the savanna. Natural selection throughout generations and “lucky” genetic mutations caused leaps in evolution.

As animal survival machines became more complex, they evolved brains ushering in a whole new frontier of existence. Brains provided the capacity to play out real life situations via thought, in a fantastical learning space. Instead of interacting with the environment through trial and error, a slow, tedious, potentially life threatening process, the imagination supplied a perfectly safe, efficient means to unfold possible actions in the real world. “The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness... Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain’s simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.”

As I stated before, genes are the metaphorical “soul” of the survival machine. Genes are the master programmers; they dictate the form and qualities of the organism, survival, passing on of genes, and so on. As the ego, the C.E.O. of the day to day operations of the body evolved, more and more tasks were taken over from the genes. Richard Dawkins entertains the possibility that one day the genes will hand over all control to the ego with one command: do whatever is best to keep us alive. This is the extent of what current science understands about the nature of being and the origin of life. Scientific Paradigms

Thomas Kuhn introduced the concept of “paradigms” in his monumentally important book on the philosophy of science entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. At the core of Kuhn’s work, he refuted the theory of linear scientific progress, and instead maintained scientific progress occurred through periodic revolutions, what he termed “paradigm shifts”. In addition, consensus of the scientific community (subjectivity) rather than objective facts plays a key role, Kuhn states, in determining truth. This came as a shock to many people in the scientific community who believed that scientific progress is purely objective and linear.

To get a thorough understanding of Kuhn’s description of paradigms, a passage in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions will be reproduced in its entirety: Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute. To be more successful is not, however, to be either completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number. The success of a paradigm—whether Aristotle’s analysis of motion, Ptolemy’s computations of planetary position, Lavoisier’s application of the balance, or Maxwell’s mathematization of the electromagnetic field—is at the start largely a promise of success discoverable in selected and still incomplete examples. Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise, an actualization achieved by extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing, by increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm’s predictions, and by further articulation of the paradigm itself.

When a new paradigm emerges, for it to be revolutionary, it must explain phenomena more effectively than methods in pre-existing or current paradigms. Simultaneously, it must be open ended enough to leave problems for scientists to resolve. Why are scientific paradigms important? What insights do they give us about scientific progress? Supplementing the aforesaid paragraph, knowledge regarding how discoveries, beliefs, and data from “outdated” paradigms influence current paradigms is crucial to grasp scientific progress correctly. Kuhn presents a few examples of previous scientific acceptance: Aristotelian dynamics, phlogistic chemistry, and caloric thermodynamics. Currently we know all three of these theoretical structures have been disproven or at minimum, faulty. In each of their heydays, however, they were commonly accepted facts arrived at by scientific methods. Kuhn responds to those dissenters who do not believe previous paradigms were arrived at through scientific methods: “If these out-of date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge.”

Paradigm shifts not only affect the scientific community, but the society at large in which they are produced and accepted. Paradigm shifts involve perception shifts, the world seen in a new light. Aristotle, Copernicus, and Galileo all observed the same night sky, the same objects in the heavens, but their interpretations differed. With quantum physics showing potential as a brand new paradigm, emerging from Newtonian physics, we need to seriously contemplate Kuhn’s wisdom, to better understand scientific progress and the role subjectivity plays in supporting paradigms.

Humanism

Thus far, I explained the epistemology, ontology, history, and beliefs of Scientism. In general, the methods of science are the best, most efficient means of discovering, justifying, and establishing truth. A large part of our experience of reality lies in the background of science, namely ethics and metaphysics of our existence. Soteriology, the study of salvation in religions, clearly has no place in the scientific tradition according to the orthodox definition of the word. Humanism, broadly speaking, is an epistemology, a secular code of ethics, and in part, a secular soteriology. Humanism fills the void that scientists normally overlook, making Scientism a comprehensive whole.

Following suit with the rest of Scientism, humanism’s stance on ethics, and the purpose and “salvation” of life is not set in stone but ever subject to modification based on new facts. Humanism advocates the rights and freedoms for all individuals. Humanism is secular. It rejects transcendental knowledge, arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness as a means of knowledge. On the other hand, altered states of consciousness, intuition, flashes of inspiration, and numinous experiences can be used as a source for new ideas or ways of looking at the world after being rigorously analyzed and rationally assessed. Humanists are very liberal; they are for the separation of church and state, equal rights for all people, freedom of expression, and civil rights. Humanists focus on supplying the intrinsic needs human beings require for day to day survival and general well-being, without infringing on other people’s rights. Humanism teaches us to find meaning in life in our own creative ways. If we are athletic, we can find meaning in life through exercise or sports. Those of us who are artistic can creativity express themselves through painting or photography. Humanists believe the freedom to express our creativity openly and find meaning in life through our own unique ways is fulfilling and liberating. A good life to a humanist is a life “worth living, fruitful, and flourishing...that has a positive impact on others.”.Naturally certain characteristics are ascribed to someone who lives a good life. A. C. Graying lists a few: lives that are meaningful, full of activity and honesty, manifest autonomy (personal responsibility), shared with others in true intimacy, and experienced with a joy for living.

Theravada Buddhist Ontology and Soteriology

Theravada Buddhist ontology and soteriology are much more unified and inseparable than they are in Scientism. Specifically, the core teachings of Theravada Buddhism directly pertain to the nature of reality (ontological aspect) and the understanding thereof leads one out of suffering (soteriological aspect). Theravada Buddhist ontological and soteriological beliefs have remained relatively untouched since they were written down in the Tripitakas and its commentaries, in contrast to science, where many paradigm shifts occurred throughout history. Science grows cumulatively. “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants,” wrote Isaac Newton. Science is unique because discoveries, theories, failures, and experiments need not be performed by each and every scientist in each and every generation. Through the medium of books, and recently the Internet, scientists can acquire knowledge of all past discoveries, theories, failures, and experiments without having spend time recreating them. They can start where their predecessors left off. In Buddhism, things work differently. Theravada Buddhism remains fervently orthodox regarding the Buddha’s teachings. Mahayana Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism, and all other expansions from Theravada are similar to, but mostly different from the manner in which science progresses. In the eyes of Mahayana Buddhists or Vajrayana Buddhists, their respected traditions are seen as an advancement toward truth, or a progress forward from Theravada Buddhism. On the other hand, in the eyes of Theravada Buddhists, Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions are unorthodox, and are not what the Buddha taught. The major point is this: in Buddhist traditions the correct way of looking at things is relative to specific sects, but ultimately reliant on personal success with the teachings. In science, truth is not an interpretation of a text but is based on evidence. Truth is more objective in science rather than pragmatical as in Theravada Buddhism.

Components of Reality

Theravada Buddhists maintain that reality is composed of three basic parts: rupa, dhammas, and mind. Rupa, meaning form, refers to physical objects. Rupa applies to atoms, molecules, space, form, and matter. Dhamma is a Pali word with many meanings. In this context it represents mental objects or mental phenomena. Mental phenomena range from emotions, to feelings (pleasure, pain, neutrality), to torpor, excitement, thoughts, ignorance, and joy. Mind is defined differently in Theravada Buddhism than in the West. In Theravada Buddhism, mind is that which is aware, that which experiences. Theravada Buddhists base their knowledge of reality through what is experienced. Reality can be reduced to physical objects, mental phenomena, and “that which is aware”. Each of these three aspects of reality are separate but dependent on each other.

How did physical objects, mental phenomena, and mind come into existence? Why did they come into existence? Theravada Buddhists do not have an answer for these questions. The Buddha refused to answer them. If the Buddha, capable of omniscient wisdom, had the ability to answer these questions about reality, why did he refuse? For two reasons: first, the answers to questions about the birth of the universe, dhammas, and mind are irrelevant, for some, hindrances to enlightenment. Second, the answers to these questions would be so confusing and abstract that his followers would not understand, therefore time would be wasted. If one becomes enlightened (an arahant), would he then know the answers to these questions? Simply put, no. Buddhas are different from arahants because Buddhas are capable of omniscient knowledge while arahants are not. Buddhas possess the ability to focus their mind on whatever answer they wish to know and they will discover it. Arahants have eliminated the three fetters of ignorance, hate, and grasping, like Buddhas, but arahants do not harbor omniscience. Theravada Buddhists attribute three characteristics to reality in addition to the three constituents of reality mentioned a moment ago. The three characteristics of reality are sort of like natural laws of Western science, except the three characteristics of reality exist in any and all universes, dimensions, and experiences. The three characteristics are impermanence (anicca), a general sense of unease (dukkha), and non-self (anatta). Impermanence applies to every casually created, conditioned phenomena, whether it be physical objects, dhammas, or consciousness. Nothing is permanent; everything that has arisen will eventually cease. The universe is always changing; it is in a const

ant state of flux. Nibbana is the one exception to this rule, for it is unconditioned and uncreated; therefore it does not arise nor does it cease. Anatta, often used in reference to non-self, means without essence or an intrinsic core. This mark of existence is applicable to every level of reality from quanta to complex organisms like human beings, to feelings and emotions to consciousness. Existence is momentary. It arises and ceases in an instant, producing a causally linked chain through time. Theravada Buddhists do not believe there is an essence within any part of this causally linked chain that can be observed through first person phenomenal experience. This causally linked chain is composed of processes without an intrinsic core.

For a specific example of how there is no essence in causally linked chains, I shall use the example of the human body. To disprove the assertion that our bodies last for an entire lifetime, and they are impermanent, let us take the five aggregates which make up a person, namely form, feeling, perception, mental volition, and consciousness. On the macroscopic scale, a person can lose parts of his body such as his fingers, legs or ears and still be considered the same person. They can have heart replacement surgery, or screws put in their body and still be the same person. Likewise, one can change their interests, personality, or psychology and not lose their identity as the same person. On the microscopic scale, cells are continuously dying and being replaced by new ones. While it is true that the claim, “our bodies regenerate completely every seven years” is a myth, the majority of our cells are replaced many times throughout our lives.

For people who believe consciousness is permanent, or at base the “self” of our being, they are challenged by Theravada Buddhist doctrine. “What we call the mind is really a continuous series of distinct events, each lasting just a moment, but each immediately followed by others. There is is no such thing as the mind that has these different events, there are just the events themselves.”

In other words, awareness paired with sense contact, feeling, or mental volition occurs from moment to moment. The experience of the senses, of pleasure and pain, and mental volition arises in us due to dependent origination (cause and effect), there is no underlying, separate “I” which experiences. We entertain the illusion of a “self” because we experience a continuity of events that we link together like a movie. Most convincing of all, it is impossible to observe a separate, permanent self. When we introspect, we can only perceive feeling, thoughts, and mental volition, not awareness itself.

Dukkha is translated as suffering, but “a general sense of unease” is more accurate. The Buddha states that existence is filled with unease; we get old, become ill, and eventually die. “There is something unsatisfactory, something anxious, frustrating, and incomplete about all life as it is ordinarily lived.” Physically we are faced with disease, pain, danger, and survival. There exists mental illnesses ranging from depression to schizophrenia, ADHD and Alzheimer's disease. We cling to things which bring us pleasure, and shun things we find unpleasant. We live in the illusion of permanence. We delude ourselves to think our body, relationships, money, or success will last forever, and therefore suffer tremendously when they are inevitably lost. On the deepest level of all, there is one fundamental existential realization: nothing external will bring us true happiness, it is all transitory, and the cycle of rebirth and death continues on forever (unless one reaches nibbana). From this understanding, the feeling which arises can be described as one of utter hopelessness and depression. In addition, we are not in complete control of our lives and of reality. It is impossible to think, “I wish for everlasting happiness” and all of a sudden it manifests. We cannot say, “I wish to never experience fear” and fear becomes erased from future experience. Neither free will nor determinism altogether describe our predicament; rather, it is a mixture of both. As human beings, we have the freedom to choose our actions and reactions from moment to moment, but we do not possess the ability to wholly regulate our environmental influences, our genetics, the situations we encounter daily, or the thoughts and emotions which arise in us.

Ontologically speaking, Theravada Buddhists are event dualists. Unlike substance dualists who believe that mind and matter exist as two separate substances, Theravada Buddhists do not posit nonphysical objects or substances but instead nonphysical events. “Nonphysical events are events instantiating nonphysical properties...The mental is not the ineffectual ghost that haunts the physical. Rather, it can be said that both mental and physical events are causes of behavior.”

To a Theravada practitioner, asserting reality is completely physical (Physicalism) or wholly mental (Idealism) is extraneous. Simple observation provides us with both physical and mental experiences: the thought to move my hand is non-material while the action itself occurs physically. Theravada Buddhists, as empiricists, argue that our first person experience comprises of physical and mental occurrences. For a dissenter to claim non-material experiences are indeed physical, or material experiences are in fact mental moves direct experience into conceptualization; it is irrelevant and unnecessary.

If there is no-self in the Theravada Buddhist understanding of the universe, who or what experiences? Theravada Buddhists claim we have first person experiences of reality, that is unquestionable. How do these experiences arise? As I explained in chapter 2, five aggregates comprise our being: form, feelings, perception, mental volitions, and consciousness. Theravada Buddhists are mereological reductionists in a slightly different manner than normally defined. Theravada Buddhists reduce experience to the six senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and thought. No matter what dimension of reality one can possibly experience, all phenomena arise through these six senses. Vipassana meditation gives the practitioner proper methods to achieve this insight for themselves. One of the main fruits from vipassana practice is the knowledge that experience is moment to moment, through the six senses. Form is experienced through the five physical senses; feeling, perception, and consciousness are experienced through the mental sense. Reverberations of the physical senses manifest in thought as well, in our imagination, dreams, hallucinations, and out of body states. For example in dreams, remembering this experience is in the mind, we still undergo visions, sound, touch, smell, and taste, likewise for hallucinations, out of body states, and the imagination. Perhaps the most unique aspect about the Theravada Buddhist view of reality is best exemplified through the phrase: “experience is reality.” Hallucinations, dreams, and out of body experiences are all considered real experiences. To tell an observer who experienced a hallucination, dream, or out of body state that what they underwent was not real is completely misleading in the Theravada tradition. What they encountered was real to them: their experience through one or more of the six senses. Theravada Buddhists instruct us to be objective observers of experience. Judgments, biases, projections, good and bad, are supplementary to pure experience of the six senses; we add them on to sense-experience which contributes to suffering.

Theravada Buddhist Universe and Soteriology

The trailokya of Theravada Buddhist cosmology has evidently been influenced by previous and concurrent Indian religious cosmological conceptions of the universe. Whether or not the trailokya of Theravada Buddhism intends to be taken at face value, whereby other dimensions and universes are literal places with beings inhabiting each realm, or that the trailokya is a metaphor for mind states only, it nonetheless plays an important part in Theravada meditation practice and soteriology.

The Tripitaka teaches that there are three worlds, realms, or planes of existence vertically, each with many subdivisions. Horizontally, there can be millions or billions of realms. Vertical realms are different mind states populated with different beings. Horizontal realms indicate the same beings with identical mind states. For example, a hell realm and a human realm are vertically related. A human realm in this universe is horizontally the same as a human realm in another universe.

Starting with the highest realm vertically is the world called arupa-dhatu or arupaloka. Next is the rupa-dhatu or rupaloka. Lastly, is the kama-dhatu or kamaloka. Arupaloka is the immaterial realm which is divided into four levels. The following four levels correspond to the four states of formless meditation. The first level is the infinity of space. The second is the infinity of consciousness. Third is the infinity of nothingness. Fourth is the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. As a side note, this fourth level is extremely close to nibbana. Only mental action can be performed in the arupaloka, and only good, wholesome kamma can be produced. Rupaloka is the realm of form, sight and hearing, and subtle or astral matter. This realm is inhabited by gods who have reached certain levels of jhana meditation. Jhana is a word used to describe different levels of absorption through concentration. Those reborn here will have some experience of jhanic absorption. The rupa-dhatu is divided into 16 grades within five categories. With the exception of the first category, the rest correspond with the four jhanic states of meditation.

The kamaloka is called the “Sense-Sphere” realm and the world of desire. It is divided into four categories. The first is called the “higher kamaloka”. The second category is the “lower kamaloka”. The third category is named the Human Realm or the “manussa loka”. The last category is called “apaya” or the “states of deprivation”. The apaya is divided into four parts: the “asura” realm, the “preta loka” (hungry ghosts), the “animal” realm, and the “hell” realms. There are a few key facts about the apaya. Beings are born here from the result of unwholesome kamma in past lives. The apaya realms are not eternal; one departs once their kamma expires. It is difficult to acquire wholesome kamma in the apaya.

Asuras are characteristic of constant strife, jealousy, and struggle. The “hungry ghost” realms are populated by beings “who continue to harbor base attachments to the material world may be reborn as ghostly beings continually starved but never able to satiate themselves.” The “animal” realm consists of animals as we know here on earth. Animals act primarily on instinct without the capabilities of higher consciousness. The naraka or “hell” realms are the lowest of all the three worlds. The narakas are a place of intense suffering, and distance from the dhamma. The Buddhist narakas are similar to Western conceptions of Hell except narakas are not permanent.

Fusing the concepts of kamma, rebirth, the trailokya and the Four Noble Truths emerges Theravada Buddhist soteriology. I previously defined the Theravada view of being, reality, universes, samsara, kamma, and nibbana (more on nibbana shortly). These are absolutely essential for grasping Theravada Buddhist soteriology. Reality is infinite; it is cyclical. After birth comes death, followed by rebirth and death, and so on forever. Beings in all realms are subject to this cycle: some lifetimes last 100 years, some only seconds, while others eons. Suffering, impermanence, and non-self are intrinsic properties for all of reality. Kamma as well is present in the entirety of samsara. If beings commit wholesome actions with wholesome intent, good impressions are stored in their aggregates, as a cause or potential seed. On the other hand, if beings commit unwholesome actions with unwholesome intent, bad impressions are stored in their aggregates. Since every cause produces an effect good or bad, kamma eventually ripens whether in this life or a future life.

Kamma may seem like the culprit for rebirth, but the Buddha taught the underlying cause for samsara is ignorance. The twelve nidanas are the twelve chains of causation that lead to rebirth and suffering. Based upon pratityasamutpada, the Buddhist term for dependent causation, the twelve nidanas explain the causal chain of our suffering and existence in samsara. Orthodox Theravada Buddhists read the twelve nidanas literally, but it can also be interpreted metaphorically for mental processes (like the trailokya). From the Samyutta Nikaya (12:1;II 1-2):

“With ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness [comes to be]; ...name and form...the six sense bases...contact...feeling...craving...clinging...existence...birth...aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, monks, is called dependent origination.”

Later commentaries attempted to fix the logical inconsistencies (how can ignorance or volitional formations occur before consciousness and birth?) by dividing the twelve nidanas over a span of three lives. Figuring out logical consistencies in the twelve nidanas will not be undertaken in my Thesis. For now, we need to know the process of becoming (twelve nidanas) and the way to cease their existence (nibbana). To accomplish this we must “reverse the chain of causation”. When ignorance ceases, so does volitional formations, so on down the list. From the Assutava Sutta: “When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn’t, that isn’t. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.”

Nirvana (nibbana in Pali) is a Sanskrit word meaning “blown out” or “to extinguish”. Nir-va means to blow out from lack of fuel. Nibbana is the ultimate goal of Theravada Buddhists. It is liberation from the cyclical existence of samsara. Nibbana is the state in which the “fires” that cause suffering, namely ignorance and attachment, are extinguished and mental afflictions are permanently eradicated. Throughout most of Western scholarship on Buddhism, even into the present, nibbana on many occasions is erroneously interpreted as complete annihilation. Buddhist sotierology is mistakenly called pessimistic and nihilistic. Guy Richard Welbon corrects this wrong view:

“The transition is all the more natural [from nibbana as annihilation to nibbana as freedom from the three fetters] when religious language continually likens suffering to a consuming fire. As all passion is fire and suffering, the idea of ‘repose, separation’ is immediately identified with this notion of ‘bliss.’”

Nibbana can be attained during life. Paranibbana means “beyond liberation”. It refers to the final liberation from samsara after death. “This last state is often called sunyata or ‘void’, meaning unsubstantiality; hence the higher and inner reaches of reality beyond human thought and expression and hence a seeming abstraction.” How do Theravada Buddhists know the state of nibbana exists when conceptualization or quantification of it is impossible? Through direct experience in meditation anyone can verify for themselves the reality of nibbana. Why is nibbana desirable? Why do monks renounce life, relationships, and external pleasures to pursue nibbana? Nibbana is permanent, unconditioned, and uncaused. Life, relationships, and external pleasures are impermanent, conditioned, and caused. In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha describes the destination of wisdom, the destination of attainment as the destruction of hatred, lust, and delusion. He lists thirty three synonyms for nibbana:

“the uniclined, taintless, truth, far shore, subtle, very difficult to see, unaging, stable, undisintegrating, unmanifest, unproliferated, peaceful, deathless, sublime, auspicious, secure, destruction of craving, wonderful, amazing, unailing, unailing state, nibbana, unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, nonattachment, island, shelter, asylum, refuge, destination, and the path leading to the destination.”

Chapter 5

Correspondences, Discrepancies, and Future of Theravada Buddhism and Scientism

I am dedicating the last chapter of my Thesis to comparisons between Scientism and Theravada Buddhism. This chapter will include more subjective interjection on my behalf than in the previous four chapters. The point of this chapter is to elicit the similarities between Theravada Buddhism and Scientism, and to shine the light of awareness on issues between the two traditions. I wish to switch gears from pure objective reporting of facts to more of my own subjective, personal interpretations of the objective data. Subjective interpretations presented in my Thesis represent what I believe based on all my research, experience, and theoretical understanding I possess at this moment in time. My point of view, one must keep in mind, is ever subject to change based on new evidence, facts, theories, and perspectives.

Epistemic Correspondences and Discrepancies

In chapter 3, I discussed how both Theravada Buddhism and Scientism ascribe to empiricism, their own slightly different versions of empiricism. Followers of Scientism delineate five senses capable of registering experience. Humans have many other senses normally unnoticed: balance, temperature, and position in space, among others. Theravada Buddhists accept all human senses (including the unnoticed ones) as capable of registering experience in addition to thought, which is invariably equated with the five primary senses of the West.

The first schism between the two traditions regarding empiricism is on thought. Scientism does not consider thought a reality in the same manner as the other physical senses. Since the vast majority of adherents of Scientism are Physicalists, thought is deemed an epiphenomenon, made of matter and energy; experience to them is not an ontologically real experience. Thought is not a “sense”, it is an operation of the physical brain. Whereby Theravada Buddhists believe any experience whatsoever is real to the person experiencing it (including dreams, hallucinations, out of body experiences or the imagination), Scientism only considers experience of the five main senses real. Experience must not only arise out of the five senses, it must be verifiable for others as well. Our shared experience of the world through the five senses, communicated by language, is a principle requirement for proving real experience.

Suppose in the middle of Nebraska a lone farmer witnesses a large alien spaceship in the day lit sky, only to vanish moments later. No one else on earth saw this phenomenon. Even though the farmer experienced this UFO through his vision, one of the primary five senses, it is highly unlikely his experience will be considered real because only he alone can testify to the UFO. Authorities whom he reported to would assume he hallucinated, is schizophrenic, or is crazy, thereby invalidating his experience as real. In Scientism, experiences need to endure rigorous analysis and peer review, precisely like scientific experiments, before they are considered legitimate or not.

The second schism between empirical epistemology of Theravada Buddhists and Scientism lies within the paranormal senses. In the Theravada suttas and commentaries, it is claimed by the Buddha and others that extrasensory powers not only exist, but can be cultivated through meditation. Three specific examples of extrasensory abilities are clairvoyance, clairaudience, and claircognizance. The Samannaphala sutta explores in detail the various fruits of meditation practice, including both extrasensory and superhuman powers. I will quote two brief examples from the Samannaphala sutta in the Digha nikaya: "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the awareness of other beings. He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness.”

“WIth his mind...He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird.”

Followers of Scientism vehemently deny these claims. Extrasensory perception and super mundane powers cannot possibly exist without breaking the laws of nature. These claims have never been reproduced in a laboratory, nor objectively observed and analyzed. Adherents of Scientism would say one day our technological evolution may provide us with these capabilities but currently they are fantastical. Personally I side with Scientism on these assertions by the Buddha. If nothing else, I read these two passages metaphorically, not literally. Remember the Buddha’s cultural context when reading Pali suttas. Remember also the level of technological advancement during 500BCE-400BCE. Many natural phenomena remained mysterious, mystical, and were explained by mythology. Claims of super mundane powers and extrasensory perception were normal during that period of time. What are my final thoughts on the legitimacy of extrasensory perception and super mundane powers? I remain skeptical of their literal reality, but open to the possibility that one day technology will advance far enough where we can read each other’s minds or fly through the air. I also think it is possible that natural evolution can one day enable us to evolve extrasensory perception.

Technological innovation provides us with new ways to gather information about the world. While still applicable to the five primary senses, new technology like computers offer us a unique epistemological experience unknown to humans pre-20th century. Computers operate like our brains. Computers receive, send, store, and calculate information. They connect us to other people instantly who may be physically distant. They allow us to communicate. While computers are recent phenomenon, experienced by the five senses, epistemic knowledge (or information) obtained from computers fall under the category of inference. When we use our GPS to map out a route, we are not directly walking on earth constructing a path based on our direct sensory experience. We infer knowledge through the medium of GPS systems (and computers) by indirectly gaining knowledge about the objective world. Inference is a valid means of obtaining knowledge in both Theravada Buddhism and Scientism. Therefore new technological innovation will not pose an epistemological problem in either tradition.

Ontological Correspondences and Discrepancies

Reiterating from chapter four, Theravada Buddhism studies experience in the first person. It attempts to describe every facet of first person experience from emotions to otherworldly realms. How does Theravada Buddhism differ from Scientism in this regard? Scientism analyzes the external world based on third person experience, as if taking the position of a metaphorical God. Let me clarify: while Theravada Buddhists focus on the first person, followers of Scientism try to stay as objective as possible in the canopy of third person. The methods of science are nearly perfect for discovering truth in the objective world. Exponential progress has been made because of the scientific method. Scientific methods work so well that studying the objective world is giving us answers to subjective phenomena. On the other hand, Theravada Buddhists have nearly perfected methods of study for subjective phenomena, and first person experience. In general, I believe religion (including Theravada Buddhism) should be confined to the study of first person experience; religion has no business, no validity attempting to explain phenomena in the objective world.

I will use a specific example from Christianity to explain this point, although it applies to every religion including Theravada Buddhism. For instance, in Genesis of the Holy Bible, the first chapter is dedicated to explaining how the objective universe emerged, how stars, planets, plants, animals, and humans were created. How were these claims verified? According to Christianity, the Bible was Divinely inspired, God told His followers exactly what to write down. Premise one: God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Premise two: God dictated to his followers the details of creation. Premise three: His followers wrote down in the Bible exactly what God told them. Conclusion: The Bible is a direct source of knowledge and history from God who created the universe Himself. When we analyze Genesis, many logical inconsistencies and contradictions arise especially in light of modern science. First, there are two differing creation stories within Genesis itself. The Bible says the earth was created about 6000 years ago. Scientific analysis proves the earth was born 4.54 billion years ago. The Bible claims humans were created directly by God. Science has proven humans are the result of a long evolution of organic life. The list goes on and on.

The methods of science are the metaphorical sword of truth: perfect for discovering facts in the external world. The epistemic methods of religion are unqualified to explain the objective universe. Many of the scientific methods apply to finding subjective, first person truth as well. If science were to amalgamate Theravada Buddhist first person experience epistemology, including vipassana theory and meditation, I believe it would be extremely beneficial to the psychological and therapeutic fields. What about religion’s role in studying experience? In general, religion works wonders “fixing” the existential depressions of existence; it fails miserably describing the objective universe. If religion were to be used solely as a type of mental, first person experience therapy, to give meaning to life, to explore archetypes, ethics, morality, and stimuli which cause virtuous, long term wholesome states and unwholesome states, I believe pragmatical human psychological understanding would undergo a renaissance.

In chapter four, I discussed the various universes in the Theravada tradition versus the one physical universe in Scientism (although experiments in the imminent future with the Large Hadron Collider may potentially reveal parallel universes through mini-black holes, according to physicists). First, as with external epistemology, I believe religions are inferior to science when depicting external ontology. For example, Theravada Buddhists claim that many different realms of being exist. In fact, every religion declares other realms of being exist. Christians believe in heaven and hell, Theosophists in devachan, and Shintoists in yomi. Yet, we live day to day with no experience of other realms. How do we know which tradition is speaking truth? And how do we personally experience these supposed realms ourselves? For my Thesis, I will solely answer from a Theravada Buddhist point of view. Only through the development of intense concentration do the powers to experience other realms arise via extrasensory perception. Is the belief that other realms literally exist necessary to be a Theravada Buddhist? No, it is not. The Buddha even says pursuing extrasensory ability is frowned upon because it distracts one from enlightenment. Why do Theravada Buddhists claim that other worlds exist if the majority have never experienced it for themselves? The Buddha himself experienced and taught many realms exist. Numerous bhikkus and bhikunis have testified to these realities. The profundity of the Buddha’s teachings and the quality of his character designate the Buddha as someone worthy of trust, therefore Theravada Buddhists put reasoned faith (not blind faith) in the Buddha’s word. How would followers of Scientism respond to this? Right away correlations between the Buddha and cult leaders would arise. What makes the Buddha any more trustworthy than other human beings? He says multiple universes exist, but I have never experienced them. I cannot verify other realities through objective analysis and study like I can to everything in the physical universe. Other realms of existence are not falsifiable, adherents of Scientism would argue. Even if I were to dedicate time to sharpening my concentration there is no guarantee I will experience other realities. Suppose I do perfect my mental faculties and experience other universes. How do I know what I experience is not a hallucination or my imagination? We have come full circle back to how one defines empiricism.

Suppose experiments from the Large Hadron Collider prove other dimensions exist. Would Theravada Buddhist cosmology be taken seriously? It depends how accurately Theravada Buddhist cosmology describes reality. Let’s assume the suttas depict all realities perfectly. Research into the Buddha’s epistemological methods would explain how he and his followers obtain knowledge about reality, previously unknown to the general scientific community. In this situation, rigorous studies on meditation and the mind would take place. I believe there are two catalysts for serious widespread scientific study in Theravada Buddhism: ubiquitous positive results stemming from proper meditation--I believe is most likely to occur, which would have far reaching effects in the fields of psychology and therapy-- or cosmological accuracy as depicted by the Buddha in the suttas--which I believe is less likely to occur, but would give us a prototypical map in which to understand the topography of reality. Let’s create a hypothetical situation and explore questions from the materialistic point of view. Neurological studies are slowly hinting that consciousness may in fact be an epiphenomenon from large groups of neuron firings in the brain. Suppose if eventually neuroscientists prove consciousness to be an epiphenomenon of the brain, would that completely discredit the experiences of meditation? Would it make them simply hallucinatory? I do not think so. It could be entirely plausible that subtle states of consciousness, as experienced in meditation, do not necessarily have to presume that a subtle version of mind separate from the body undergoes these experiences. It could quite possibly all occur in the confines of a consciousness based on physical matter and energy. Even if death was the end all be all to our consciousness, a system of meditation to eliminate suffering, or general un-ease in life, in my opinion is perfectly rational and reasonable to pursue. I believe Theravada Buddhist teachings are practical, insightful, and life changing even if we were confined to only one life in a Physicalist universe.

Refutation of Reincarnation via Scientism

Reincarnation, the belief that each of us has an inner essence (soul) which migrates from life to life, and rebirth, the Buddhist view that the five aggregates cause a continuation in existence from life to life, is refuted by Scientism in the following way. Reincarnation and rebirth can only be studied indirectly from past life memories or subjective experience (such as meditation). Currently it is impossible to objectively perform experiments on reincarnation because of death; the time between death and rebirth is unobservable by modern scientific instruments. Not to mention reincarnation and rebirth is not guaranteed to occur from human life to human life; a human may be reborn into many other realms as many different beings.

In terms of logic, followers of Scientism believe reincarnation is illogical because in the afterlife, if one existed, there is no physical body, no five (or six) senses, no brain to register experience or store memories, and no time and space as we know it on earth. How can we remember anything without a physical brain structure to store these memories, in addition to conveying experience gathered without our primary five (or six) senses into language or thought-form? We assume the afterlife is experienced with the five (or six) senses because we have no other (major) senses. Also, we model the afterlife based on our environment and natural laws of the universe like gravity, energy, and the arrow of time. Adherents of Scientism would say any theories on an afterlife are purely speculative. Lastly, if there was an afterlife, what connects the afterlife with the physical world or from dimension to dimension? Until the Hard Problem of philosophy is solved, scientists remain skeptical about the afterlife and reincarnation/rebirth.

Personally, I am skeptical but I believe rebirth may be a possibility. I endorse studies on reincarnation, the implications of such studies whether true or false are enormous. Right now, the most objective studies on reincarnation/rebirth involve interrogating those with past life memories. Dr. Jim Tucker, who currently heads leading research on reincarnation (taking the reins from founder Dr. Ian Stevenson), has sorted through thousands of cases dismissing many frauds and rigorously interviewing those retained. He published a book entitled Return to Life, which documents his experience studying thousands of rebirth cases. Needless to say he is a firm believer in reincarnation/rebirth. On the other end of the scale, those who follow Scientism disregard these studies because they lack authenticity, there are too many frauds, memories are fallible, and you cannot objectively prove reincarnation/rebirth. Ethics

Theravada Buddhist ethics is essentially identical with humanism. Both are secular and concerned with individual rights as well as kindness and respect towards others. Both systems admire the environment, promote conscious living, and highly value knowledge, reason, and experience. One of the main reasons Theravada Buddhists practice morality is to promote wholesome states of consciousness, likewise with humanists. Neither Theravada Buddhists nor humanists believe life has intrinsic meaning. There is no God nor special purpose humans have on earth. Theravada Buddhists teach that we exist, suffering exists, and there is a way to permanently cease suffering. Humanists teach that we are the result of random universal evolution, and meaning is a personally unique. Theravada Buddhist ethics and humanism differ only in relation to soteriology and kamma. As stated above, wholesome states of consciousness are mainly cultivated in Theravada Buddhism for its effect on meditation. It is far easier to meditate when one’s mind is tranquil. What’s the purpose of meditating? Ultimately to reach nibbana. Humanists cultivate wholesome states of consciousness mainly for the intrinsic feeling the state provides, and for spreading it along to others. The second difference, kamma, is much more pronounced. Theravada Buddhists believe good kamma is produced from good actions, thought and words, and bad kamma from negative actions, thoughts, and words. If one accumulates good kamma, they are subject to better rebirths, and vice versa for negative kamma. Humanists dismiss the notion of kamma completely; it bears no effect on why they choose to act ethically. Humanists generally do not believe in life after death or rebirth. Actions have no impact on oneself or others past the confines of this life. Essentially, humanists strive to create meaning through creativity, skills, relationships, and experiences.

Potential dangers of Scientism

Our nation as a whole was largely Christian from its founding days up until recently. Only now is the staple tradition of America, Christianity, fading away for Scientism. I think the methods of science are genius for studying the external world, and validifying truth, but the potential for dogmatization is rearing its ugly head in the same manner as it has in every other religion. Scientists are becoming the new priests, the keepers of esoteric knowledge. Scientists know what is best. We go to scientists for help, for advice, for truth. Scientism is the new intellectually elite tradition. Even though science is complex and profound, it is accepted more readily by the masses than religious esoteric traditions of the past, in my opinion, because there is an absence of mysticism, of strenuous personal transformation to reach truth. Truth is presented simply, objectively, and without any subjective requirements of the listener. Here is why science can be considered a new religion: because it functions exactly like religions of the past. Science explains the phenomenal universe, expounds on causes and effect, and answers many of the mysteries of the universe logically, more efficiently than traditional religions.

Science has discredited many of the world’s indigenous and mainstream religions’ ontological explanation of the universe. Shamans and priests, the once respected leaders who were the keepers of knowledge and truth, in addition to sacred texts and ritual, have fallen beneath the march of science. The knowledge and respect once possessed by religious traditions has been transferred into the hands of scientists. Rather swiftly, the whole of religion, instead of specific inconsistencies, inaccuracies or logical fallacies, is discredited by dogmatic followers of Scientism and skeptics as well. Dogmatic skeptics generally pick out excerpts from sacred texts read completely out of context (for example, the Jewish mitzvot). Critics of religion tend to read sacred texts literally like they would a scientific report or a phone book. Instead, sacred texts are meant to be read metaphorically; they portray truth through stories, dialogue, myths, and parables. Sacred texts are ambiguous, they do not present meaning in black and white. What is the inevitable outcome of reading sacred texts literally instead of metaphorically? Religion and its teachings as a whole are completely rejected.

Popularity of Theravada Buddhism in the West

As Christian values fade away, in my opinion largely due to the epistemological methods of Scientism, new vistas are emerging that were previously banned, shunned, or scorned. Both Scientism and Theravada Buddhism have directly and indirectly attacked Christianity in the following ways: Scientism applies the scientific method, logic, and reason to successfully disprove external “facts” from the Bible. Theravada Buddhism demonstrates, through its teachings and by example of its practitioners, that letting go, non-attachment, wisdom and wholesome actions are more lucrative to true, lasting happiness based on personal experience and rational application of the mind. The void left by this confrontation is difficult to fill. Why? People are fearful of atheism, fearful of not having an intrinsic purpose in the universe or fearful of potential annihilation after death. Most people cannot bear this burden of fear, and many are turning to new age religions for solace. The progression from dogmatic beliefs to new traditions commences in the following way: 1) dogmatic belief system questioned due to new evidence, theories, or perspective 2) existential void emerges 3) new traditions sought to fill void. Even though Buddhism is atheistic and teaches that we have no intrinsic purpose in the universe, people are drawn to it because of the reputation meditation poses for personal growth, and generating positive feelings. Buddhism is beginning to flourish in the West because it is not dogmatic, uses rationality, and places emphasis on first person experience, not blind faith.

Future Relations between Scientism and Theravada Buddhism

Will religion, including Theravada Buddhism, ever be completely overrun by Scientism? I do not believe so. First person experience of reality, especially of altered states of consciousness, remain forever outside quantification. The whole of Theravada Buddhism focuses on first person experience of reality: its epistemology, ontology, and soteriology. Continuing down this train of thought we ask, “Is first person experience constricted to human beings?” No! With virtual reality on the horizon, and eventually the complete merge between virtual and real worlds, first person experience will express itself in a unique way humans have never experienced before. Will Theravada Buddhist teachings become old news? No! Virtual reality still involves the five (or six) senses. Virtual reality will produce pleasure and pain in our brains. The three characteristics of existence are intrinsic to any reality, virtual or not. Vipassana is an extreme scientific method of scrutiny of first person experience; it is the perfect method for overcoming first person suffering and finding first person contentment.

References

Aaboe, A. (1974). Scientific Astronomy in Antiquity. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 21-42.

Ancient Egypt: The Ebers medical papyrus. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/eberspapyrus.htm

Assutava Sutta. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

Barnes, J. (1987). Early Greek philosophy. Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin

Books.

Bhikkhu Bodhi. (2005). In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the

Pali Canon. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Bhikku Nanamoli. (1999). The Path of Purification. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.

Bhikkhu Nanamoli, & Bhikkhu Bodhi. (2009). The Middle Length Discourses of the

Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. (4th ed.) Somerville, MA:

Wisdom Publications.

Boeree, C. (2000, January 1). Epicureans and Stoics. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/latergreeks.html

Buddhist schools of Beliefs: Hinayana (Theravada) and Mahayana. (n.d.). Retrieved

March 27, 2015, from

http://www.advaitayoga.org/advaitayogaarticles/buddhistschools.html

Collins, R. (2000). A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: First

Harvard University Press.

Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene (New ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Deduction and Induction. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Algorithms/MyAlgorithms/DeductInd

uct.htm

Deductive and Inductive Arguments. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

Definition of quantum. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quantum

Definition of religion. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Definition of religion. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/religion

Definition of reason. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason

Detection of mini black holes at the LHC could indicate parallel universes in extra

dimensions. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-mini-black-holes-lhc-parallel.html

Edwords, F. (n.d.). What Is Humanism? Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism

Ellwood, R., & McGraw, B. (2014). Many Peoples, Many Faiths: Women and Men in the

World Religions (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Empiricism. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186146/empiricism

Epistemology. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/

Fatimid Dynasty in Egypt. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=574

Garrett, B. J. (2000), Defending Non-Epiphenomenal Event Dualism. The Southern

Journal of Philosophy, 38: 393–412. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2000.tb00907.x

Gnanarama, P. (2000). Essentials of Buddhism. Singapore: Pategama Gnanarama.
Grayling, A. (2014). The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and for Humanism.

London, United Kingdom: A&C Black.

Heehs, P. (2002).Indian Religions: A Historical Reader of Spiritual Expression and

Experience. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Hookway, C. (2008, August 16). Pragmatism. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/#PraMax

Huemer, M. (2004, May 21). Sense-Data. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sense-data/

Hurley, P. (2006). A Concise Introduction to Logic. (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing Co.

Introduction to the Scientific Method. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html#Heading7

Katz, V. (1993). A History of Mathematics: An Introduction. New York City, NY:
 
Harper Collins.

Keown, D. (2013). Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction (New ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Leary, D. (1949). How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs. London, United Kingdom:

Routledge & Paul.

Llinás, R., Ribary, U., Contreras, D., & Pedroarena, C. (1998). The neuronal basis for

consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences, 353(1377), 1841–1849.

Miller, E., & Buschman, T. (n.d.). Brain Rhythms for Cognition and Consciousness.

Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv121/sv121-miller.pdf

Moreman, C. (2008). Beyond the Threshold: Afterlife Beliefs and Experiences in World

Religions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Obayashi, H. (1992). Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. New York,

NY: Praeger Publishers.

Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. New York City,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Positivism. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/471865/positivism

Pseudoscience. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/pseudoscience

Radford, B. (2011, April 4). Does the Human Body Really Replace Itself Every 7 Years?

Retrieved March 27, 2015, from
http://www.livescience.com/33179-does-human-body-replace-cells-seven-years.h

tml

Researchers show that memories reside in specific brain cells. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27,

2015, from http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/conjuring-memories-artificially-0322

Samannaphala Sutta. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html#mindreading

Siderits, M. (2007). Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

Skepticism. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/547424/skepticism

The Story of Islam's Gift of Paper to the West. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://web.utk.edu/~persian/paper.htm

Tyberg, J. (1970). The Language of the Gods. Los Angeles, California: East-West

Culture Centre.

Vasala Sutta. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2015, from

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya.html

Vogeley, K. (2004). Neural Correlates of First-Person Perspective as One Constituent of

Human Self-Consciousness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 817-827.

Welbon, G. (1968). The Buddhist Nirvana and Its Western Interpreters. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Wheelwright, P. (1977). The Presocratics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.