all and all, Whether Buddhism is, or is not, a religion
depends upon how the word "religion" is defined. as Buddhism don't
have a God to worship. i can also say Science is a "religion", a
personal set or institutionalized system of "beliefs", and
practices. it's still continuing on it's discovery that will bring
it closer to Buddhadharma. analogically, Science is equal
to thinking earth is flat, vs Buddhism is thinking earth is
round. Science have to work further. science latest
discovery on micro-oganism, vast universe, sun dying, evolution,
e=mc^2, quantum physic, global consciousness, etc,
Buddha already know about them.
btw, u still misunderstood, supernatural and reincarnation is from Hinduism
at first. they think that there's a permanent soul from one
reincarnation to the next. however, Buddhism
rebirth concept is different and quite similar to
science that there's non-self, that's just
energy coming and going. like cycle of water, like weather, rain
fall onto the ground and sea and evaporate back to the sky to form
clouds and fall back as rain.
/\
1. You're saying that science has to work harder to catch up
with Buddhism in understanding the natural facts of our world?
Don't just assert. Prove it.
What new natural knowledge is Buddhism bringing
to the table? How many dimensions does our world have? Eleven, as
M-theory suggests? Or 10, as earlier theories did? Or four, or
three? How was the first self-replicable cell formed? Is the RNA
world hypothesis correct?
What about applications from knowledge in
Buddhism? Has anyone made any discoveries, built any cutting-edge
technology based on their insights from Buddhism?
What does Buddhism tell you about all of these questions? And
don't talk in riddles. Explain in clear terms that we can predict
and test, rather than reactroactively fit into science.
It is one thing to claim that Buddhism offers a spiritual truth
that cannot be tested by science. It is quite another to claim that
Buddhism offers insights into our natural world that science has
yet to discover.
2. You are eager to put Buddhism in the same framework as
science, but energy in science is impersonal -- it is used and
converted constantly, both (a) from one form of energy to another
and (b) from mass to energy and back.
It is therefore a massive leap to go from the energy of science
into rebirth, where the "energy" of an individual is retained in
its entirety from one life to another.
Furthermore, I can't see how the Buddhist formulations of
non-self and "energy" are consistent with the concept of rebirth.
If you keep talking about non-self, then why is there even
retribution on the self? How is it that the "energy" of an
individual remains intact even after death, only to be transported
into another sentient being?
The idea of "energy" in Buddhism is hence very different from
that of science in significant ways. There is no scientific
evidence for what you are claiming. Furthermore, given the way you
explain it, I'm not even sure it is consistent with itself.
