the scientific correctness and noncorrectness of buddism

[ChieftheCef]

Sunyata is indeed made of emptiness, Nothingness, the Void. Look at atoms. They're mostly empty space. It's the universal principle, making the most of things, making greatness, which includes incredible diversity and specialized adaptation, from nothing at all. But obstructions to this nothingness aren't bad, nothing is bad in the universe. I'll give you an example. All badness. It actually does a few things for you and I, mostly including growth but sometimes removals of obstructions, and a whole reality of other things. Bad things, like good food, some drugs including coffee and cannabis and alcohol, when moderated, are not bad at all (in the sense that the harm they do to your body with infrequent moderate use allows for regeneration), though that does good by keeping most people from the badness continually, as usually over indulgence leads to less amount in use and less frequency of use. It is true that Nothing is Everything, but Buddha had the wrong idea about pleasures and badnesses. Sure in some sense to detach is good but what is a better lesson is to overcome what badness comes your way, to properly adapt to it. And one of the keys to happiness (bliss) is taking in everything good and ignoring, or detaching, or disregarding YET properly adapting to the obstacle and overcoming/taking care of it. Another portion of it is being kind where allowable. Another is eating, at least, somewhat right, exercising for 30 minutes a day, meditation for 5-10-30 minutes a day. Another is not thinking badness upon yourself and avoiding viciousness with others. In all it is be positive within and without. What are your thoughts if what I have said here is true?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's the universal principle, making the most of things, making greatness, which includes incredible diversity and specialized adaptation, from nothing at all.

"Making greatness" is not a scientific principle.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe best to not get too fixated on 'correctness' and 'incorrectness' of any givin situation weither scientifically revelant or not.

I think one's ability for discernment comes more naturally and effortlessly without a great need for retrospective analytics to be uses as a template whenever a person traverses through the myriad of various obstacles that challenges our ability to navigate well when it crops up, only because there is always constant change and dynamics warranting a custom approach by how it is going to be navigated.

With that "red hot ball of iron" in the throat that can never be dislodged or spit up, living with such a situation provides its own means on how its dealt with and that happens a lot.

It's why I don't rely on standardized templates for that ultimate 'magical' 'ultimate 'cure on whatever ails us time to time.

---

 

[Yazata]

Sunyata is indeed made of emptiness, Nothingness, the Void.

While some Mahayana Buddhists say things like that, I don't think that it's universal to Buddhists, particularly Theravada. I'm not really comfortable with turning Buddhism into a supernatural ontology of some sort, with some sort of 'Buddha-nature' in the place of God (or Brahman in the Buddha's time and place). I'm not convinced that the Buddha intended that either.

As the Buddha said repeatedly, he taught only four things: Dukkha, the arising of Dukkha, the subsiding of Dukkha, and the path to the subsiding of Dukkha.

But obstructions to this nothingness aren't bad, nothing is bad in the universe.

Good and evil are ideas foreign to Buddhism. In their place Buddhism has skillful and unskillful. It's all very consequentialist and even utilitarian in that regard. What is skillful is what leads to the subsiding of Dukkha (translated as 'suffering', but broader than that, more like 'unhappiness' or even 'dissatisfaction'). The 'no-self' doctrine comes into play here, since if our attachment to the constructed idea of our personal self fades, the distinction between ourselves and others fades along with it. So other's suffering becomes indistinguishable from our own. (That's where Mahayana's Bodhisattva ideal of benevolent selflessness comes from.) The goal becomes to reduce not only our own suffering, but suffering in general.

We can certainly argue about whether the taming/elimination of dissatisfaction is a goal that humans should strive for. It will bring peace, sure enough, but dissatisfaction is (arguably) also what drives growth and creativity. It's what motivates Buddhists to set out upon the Buddhist path, after all. Perhaps that's the source of the idea that Buddhahood isn't achieved until humanity is transcended.

What are your thoughts if what I have said here is true?

It's unclear to me what any of this has to do with science.