Buddha and the Brahmanic Caste System

This is a picture taken after a grueling and intensive two-week meditation retreat. The three nuns are of different schools. From left to right: Won Buddhism, Pure Land, and Medicant. I think the nuns wanted to take this pic and four Theravada monks just decided to "pop" into the picture (including me!).


The Buddha did not just create a new religion, he created a whole ontology of existence, complete with metaphysical details of the duality of  consciousness and its objects, as well as explanations of mundane and ultimate realities. The Buddha created a complete ethical structure in which to judge wholesome and unwholesome deeds within this ontology along with lessons in morality that can lead one down a path to liberation. To say it is a sophisticated philosophy is an understatement, however, as brilliant as the Buddha's mind was for conceptual constructs of actuality, he also  broke down cultural barriers of segregation and ancient traditions of the caste system within his Sangha.

A brief history of the caste system is in order. Before Buddhism, and Hinduism itself, was a cultural identity known as Brahmanism (we will call it a religion for the sake of clarity with the understanding that it was an ancient social phenomenon first). The first scripture of Brahmanism was the great ancient texts of the Veda's (the Vedic tradition is the understructure for many beliefs in Asia. It is paramount to the teachings of several religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism). The first text of the Veda's was the Rigveda, which discussed the creation of the universe.

This explanation is from the Rigveda, however, there are literally 1000's of explanations of how the universe was created from the Vedic tradition. I am not supporting one over the other, nor in any way claiming to be a Vedic scholar. This particular explanation appears to be the first one, as far as the Vedas are concerned and gives an account as to why the universe is structured the way it is, establishing a point of reference that fits the context of this post.

The Rigveda tells of Purusha, the first god of the Vedas, existing in a void, alone and cold. Purusha then created lesser deities in order to worship him. These deities loved Purusha dearly and wanted to give a sacrifice to him (as was the norm for showing devotion in the Vedic tradition). There was nothing that existed except for Purush and the lesser deities, so the deities did the most reasonable thing they could think of, they sacrificed Purusha to Purusha.

This sacrifice IS the universe, the eye is the sun, the breath the wind, the soles of his feet the ground. It was not just the material make up the universe that was created, but man as well. From Purusha came the varnas (the ancient Vedic caste system). From the head came the Brahmin varna, the priests who rule over all and teach the people all things spiritual and academic. From Purusha's arms came the Kshatriya varna, the kings and warriors who protect the people and keep the peace. The legs of Purusha became the Vaishya varna, the farmers and merchants who keep the people supplied with the necessities of life. From Purusha's feet came the lowly Shudra varna, the workers, and slaves, which provided the manpower to run the whole society. This was a division of the male section of the population, the women were either not considered a part of it or as the Shudra varna; even the women of the higher castes were considered lesser pieces to the whole of society.

The Buddha broke these chains, several times declaring that the Brahmins were no better, nor the Shudra no worse than anyone based on birth, lineage or family. One important thing to note here is that in a male dominated society, that was also a caste society, where structure of culture and rigidness of position was the norm, the Buddha openly rejected the thought that one man, or women, was somehow inferior to another in terms of their ability to be liberated.

Many people see the place of nuns within the Buddha's Sangha and think that they were considered lesser to the monks. This is not exactly true. Within the early Sangha, the power structure was monk dominated, however, at no time did the Buddha, or the early Sangha as a whole, say men have a better chance at salvation than a woman does. Many times, in fact, a nun was revered for her progress
and attainment. The Buddha even praised a woman for being amongst his four most spiritually powerful disciples, his cousin and former wife, Bhadda Kaccana; This story is found in the Anguttara Nikaya commentary which is referenced in the wonderful introductory to Theravada Buddhism, The Buddha and his Teachings by Narada Thera.

The Buddha's proclamation that all have an equal chance at liberation was revolutionary. He welcomed slaves to leave their master and join the Sangha, he considered women not only able to be liberated, but most certainly worthy of it and led many down the path of attainment. This was a remarkable change from the social conditions of Brahmanic society. As powerful as the Buddha's teachings were, as brilliant as his insight into consciousness was, his determination to judge people based on their actions, and not on their birth, was not only paramount, it was centuries ahead of its time. The greatest gift the Buddha gave to the world was the teachings of the Dhamma, but let us never forget that within those teachings, lies a remarkable outlook on the worth of a person, one that was in the face of a strict caste system in male dominated society. As the Buddha once said in the Sonadanda Sutta:

It is not one's birth that makes a person great, but their morality and wisdom.

Understanding The Kālāmas- Lessons in Ethics, not Epistemology

I know of no other sutta that is as widely coveted as it is misunderstood, in my humble opinion, than that of the Kālāma Sutta (the Kesamutta Sutta is its official suttanta name). It is the battle cry for modern Buddhists all over the world, pointing to its teaching to validate a form of Buddhism that is individualistic and rational. The common impression of the sutta is that it is a lesson on epistemology, the mode in which we know the truth, however, upon closer examination, I believe this is a lesson about ethics more than the process in which we understand reality.

The sutta in question contains a teaching of the Buddha to the Kālāmas in which he implores them to "know for yourselves" in regards to what is right and what is wrong. It is in this proclamation of the Buddha to "know for yourselves" that many Buddhists cling to when describing the sutta as a lesson for individuality. That may be a hasty interpretation as the sutta explores ethical structures, which I will briefly discuss below, that don't seem to agree with this individualistic explanation.

The passage in question is as follows (I will use Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, as that seems to be the most preferred one amongst those who interpret this sutta as individualistic):

            Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage

            of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical

            reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by

            the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming

            competence [of a speaker], or because you think: 'The ascetic

            is our guru.' But when, Kālāmas, you know for yourselves:

            'These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy;

            these things are censured by the wise; these things, if accepted

            and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering/ then you should

            abandon them

The Buddha was not asking the Kālāmas to reason out their experience in some modern sense. The idea that this sutta is about discerning what is the truth based on empirical evidence seems to be misleading. The modern interpretation that many modern Buddhists are talking from this sutta is that we should somehow construct reality on past experiences in some form of a method based on induction and prediction, much like the scientific method. However, the Buddha said not to trust logical reasoning, inferential reasoning or by reasoned cognition. In fact, the Buddha is not discussing the truth of reality so much as the ethical nature of reality, what is good and bad:

              But when, Kālāmas, you know for yourselves:

             These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy

This then becomes a question of what is right and wrong, and this notion of right and wrong appears to have objective qualities, not just a subjective view of what an individual may consider right or wrong. The Buddha goes on to give a lesson of morality towards  the end of the sutta:

            a mind imbued with loving-kindness. . . with a mind imbued with

            compassion;. .with a mind imbued with altruistic joy .. .with a

            mind imbued with equanimity

The Buddha appears to be imploring the Kālāmas to believe objective values of right and wrong for themselves, yet warns against using reason and inference. This implies a sense of meaning and tradition which includes an accepted model of ethical, a model proposed by the Buddha. I suggest that the Buddha is asking the Kālāmas to participate in the culture of Buddhism from an individual foundation of faith. To know what is right and wrong, not from induction or empirical reasoning, but "for yourself".

Another thing people may not realize is that the very next sutta after the  Kālāma Sutta, in the Anguttara Nikaya, the Sālha Sutta, gives the exact same lesson verbatim. However, in this sutta the Buddha goes on to give a lesson of reincarnation and the means to escape rebirth through enlightenment. These lessons to "know for yourselves" are within a context that specifies a particular model of normative ethics; what is right and wrong and how one should act. On closer examination, these lessons may not be so much about one's own common sense, but one's own faith in the objective morality the Buddha teaches.

This modern Buddhist reliance on the Kālāma Sutta seems to point to the need people have for some kind of individualistic and rational choice when deciding on a spiritual path within everyday life. However, this explination may be misguided, as some interpretations of this sutta seem to be biased towards a modern perspective.

Modern Buddhism appears to have a need to define individualism as a virtue, especially in regards to the Kālāma Sutta. Whether or not modern Buddhism, as it exists today, is a good thing for Buddhism is not so much in question as the need it seems to have to verify modern characteristics of society through 2500 year old scripture. The Kālāma Sutta was not a discourse for modern rational thinking, it was not calling people to be more individualistic socially. Rather, it was a teaching on individual belief within the communal tradition of Buddhism. The belief in the Buddha's teachings must be made individually and with determination. This does not mean that the community or the tradition is not important, and it certainly does not mean the teachings are not an intricate part of that decision. It is saying that one should learn from the teacher, participate in the traditions, be a member within the community, and to do all of these things from a decision that one has made on their own; a decision that the Buddha's teachings are true.

This new form of individualistic Buddhism is not necessarily bad for Buddhism in itself. However, the tendency for this type of Buddhism to validate its individualism through ancient doctrine is bad for the religion, Trying to make individualism a virtue is fine. Constructing a modern interpretation of Buddhism is fine. Conceptualizing the teachings from a perception of modern values is fine. However, distorting the teachings and misinterpreting the doctrine in order to validate this form of Buddhism is not only harmful to the individuals, it is harmful to Buddhism as a whole. There is no need to imply the Buddha modeled his teachings around ideals he never held in order to construct a doctrine that agrees more with an individualistic identity. A modern development can be a good thing for Buddhism, but that is what it is, a development. Understanding what the teachings actually mean is necessary for this development though, and not claiming that the modern western construct of the Dhamma is actually what the Buddha was teaching. 

Is Epicurean Minimalism Really Similar to That of the Buddha's?

Epicurious was  Greek philosopher born around 340 BC, which is approximately 40 years after Aristotle was born. The scope of influence Epicurious has had on history, and today's modern world, can not be overstated. Much of the hedonistic ideal is attributed to Epicurus. While Epicurus did not say gods don't exist, he did tell his students to not be afraid, and to live life to its fullest without worry of the divine, for, after death there will be no punishment. However, this lust for pleasure in the present moment does not adequately convey his teachings, he was actually a strong proponent of a simple life and minimalizing pleasure, causing many people to refer to him as an ascetic.

Epicurious also developed an elaborate physical theory based on the atomist philosophy of Democritus, where the physical world is made up of small pieces of matter that can not be broken down anymore known as "atoms". This physical theory is remarkably ahead of its time, accounting for such natural phenomena as gravity and the notion that something can not be created from nothing. Another interesting aspect of his philosophy is his "films" explanation of perception. He suggested that our perception of the outside world is due to thin "films" of the object coming "into" our senses, he then concluded that this is how we get thoughts and ideas. A concept would be a thin "film" of an object entering our mind. He also constructed the first social theory argument, as far as I know, wherein which a society was formed through agreements to not treat people badly if they return the favor. Epicurean theory, though it talks of simplistic living and simple atoms, is not a simple philosophy, the physical aspects along with his description of the empirical senses alone is quite sophisticated, and would require a person to devote one's life to it in order to  master.  That being said, I have some issues with a tendency amongst modern Buddhists to compare Epicurean thought to Buddhism.

The three main arguments I hear that support a similarity between Epicurean thought and Buddhism are these: Firstly, that the materialistic perception of Epicurus and his insistence that something can not come from nothing is somehow equivalent to the Dependent Origination. Secondly, that his suggestion to not fear the gods or punishment after death is similar to the Buddhist idea of a reality existing without a creator god. Thirdly, and this is the most popular, that the minimalist teachings of Epicurious are comparable to those of the Buddha.

I will address these three points briefly and give explanations as to why I think these comparisons are hasty, at best.

First, the extraordinarily elaborate physical theory of Epicurious being similar to the Dependent Origination seems to be a stretch. The point Epicurious was making is that the world is conditioned by material "atoms", and while he believed there was a sense of free will (swerve, as it is called), the whole of reality can be understood by these physical conditions. Physical conditions which are empirically observable and completely in the realm of the material world. Dependent Origination, while a teaching on conditions, really has very little to do with this explanation,  The two main firing points within the round of conditions in the Dependent Origination are the results of past kamma and desire. Neither of these are empirically apparent in the material world. Epicurious's declaration that something does not come from nothing may seem close to the never ending, never beginning cycle of samsara in Buddhism, however, it is an explanation of the physical world, purely in the realm of matter, while the Dependent Origination is a never ending cycle that is held in place by the Dhamma. This aspect of the Dhamma being, natural laws of conditioning that are not empirically testable, such as kamma and rebirth (you can find a more detailed explanation on this in one of my other posts).

Second, that Epicurious's insistence to not fear the gods or worry about punishment after death is similar to the notion that there is no creator god within the belief structure of Buddhism. Ottapa, Pali for fear, is a fundamental quality to the teachings of the Buddha. It is, in actuality, a wholesome factor in own's decision-making to fear the results of one's actions. Ottapa is the fear to be unwholesome and it stems from a fear of doing wrong now because of the results one would face from one's own kamma in this life, and yes, the next life, after death. While Buddhism does not have a creator god, this does not imply that it is similar with Epicurious's belief to not worry about the gods or that there is no punishment after death. The teachings of the Buddha are hinged on repercussions of past actions after death, I don't see how this comparison is valid.

Lastly, the idea that Epicurean minimalism is similar to the minimalism taught by the Buddha. While these two teachings look similar on the surface, they are quite different from the perception of intention (a quality the Buddha held as foundational). Epicurious was interested in the comfort of the senses. He did not advocate indulgence because that would eventually lead to discomfort. Epicurious thought of desire in three ways, natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and empty. It was through minimalizing the unnecessary and completely eradicating the empty that one found comfort in the senses. This is important, he wanted a life of pleasure via the senses, one of joy and ease. This is a drastic difference from the asceticism proclaimed by the Buddha. The minimalist path taught by the Buddha was a means to detach oneself from the senses, not to find a comfortable state within them. According the Buddha, desire itself leads to suffering, one's desire to find this state of comfort that Epicurious advocated would only lead to suffering in the eyes of the Buddha. While both lived, and taught, a minimalist life, the intention behind this life was much different.

To take one of the Buddha's own metaphors, from the Upali Sutta; When one is walking with the intention to cross a path and steps on a beetle unaware, compared to when one steps on a beetle with the intention to step on a beetle. While both acts seem similar, they are quite different. This was one quality of action and livelihood the Buddha was very clear about, intention. So, while Epicurious leads a minimalist life with the intention to attain a state of comfort WITHIN the senses, the Buddha leads a minimalist life with the intention to detach himself FROM the senses. While on the surface these two may seem to share certain qualities, the teachings are rather far apart, and these similarities may not be so similar after all.

This is Not What the Buddha Meant

When the Buddha was very ill and close to leaving this earth (for the last time), he gave several teachings over the course of a few days. One of these teachings was to his secretary Ananda as to what causes earthquakes.

The Buddha was very sick and the evil spirit Mara came to him and urged him to let go of life, that he had done great things and it was time for the final passing away. In actuality, Mara just wanted the Buddha gone from the world so that his teachings would begin to decline. The Buddha told Mara to stop troubling himself, and that his death was imminent. At this point, the Buddha renounced his will to live and there was a great earthquake.

Ananda came to the Buddha and asked why had such a great earthquake occurred. The Buddha told of 8 reasons an earthquake appears:

The first reason was because of natural conditions- I will use the Pali Text Society translation (it is far more widely accepted amongst scholars than the Access to Insight translation in the picture above)-

"The great earth Ananda, is established on water, the water on wind, and the wind rests upon space. And at such a time, Ananda. as the mighty winds blow, the waters are shaken by the mighty winds as they blow, and by the moving water the earth is shaken." (you can see the discrepancy between translations between the picture above and the Pali Text Society, Apo is regularly translated as water, above it is translated as liquid. Vayo is regularly translated as wind, above it is translated as atmosphere).

Both Pali Text Society, Digha Nikaya Vol 2 page 114, and Maurice Walshe, Wisdom Publications, Digha Nikaya, page 247, translate Apo as water and Vayo as wind in this very same explanation of earthquakes given by the Buddha. (Note, these are the two main translations of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, I know of no scholar that would use the translation in the picture above).


The second reason was because a great man or a deva had concentrated on the earth element in meditation.

The third through eighth reasons involved the life of a Buddha from conception to death, including the moment a Buddha renounces his will to live. 

Looking back at the first cause, one must understand this explanation within the context of the time, and from the perception of a culture 2600 years ago. The Buddha was in fact describing the earth (sub-continent of India) as a plate floating on a "pool" of water. This whole "pool" was then surrounded by wind and that wind surrounded by space. You can see in the actual words of the Buddha that this is what he meant. Earth upon water, water upon wind, wind upon space. This does not, in no way, imply earth surrounding lava in a planet and that planet being surround by atmosphere and space in the modern understanding of reality, as the top picture seems to be implying.

Distorting the Buddha's words, or misunderstanding them in order to fit the modern conceptualization of the world is not necessary, and it is quite harmful. It takes away from the insight the Buddha actually had.  The Buddha understood enough, within a culture that thought the very air we breathe is magical and that the growth of plants and trees was supernatural, that earthquakes are caused by natural conditions, first. We need to understand that he was developing these teachings from examination and extraordinary reasoning skills, but he most certainly did not understand the materialistic reality of the universe the way we do now. Saying so diminishes his teachings to a cold, plastic, empty explanation of matter.

It is folly to take a teaching that starts off with natural conditions (from a remarkable understanding of nature at the time) yet continues on with divine reasons for earthquakes as some equivalent to modern science. It seems to be completely missing the point of his lessons and turning the Dhamma into a sterile mode of predicting particulars instead of the teachings of what reality is in itself.

The Spark That Started a Fire

Heraclitus is an ancient  Greek Philosopher from the city of Ionia. He was born approximately 535 BCE, which is about 65 years before Socrates was born. He was one of the last philosophers of the Ionian school, which was the first school of philosophy in ancient Greece.

Ionian philosophers would understand the universe by insisting there was one main element of reality and all of existence is made from that one element. Heraclitus considered fire as the one primary element that all things are derived from.

Heraclitus also believed reality was in a state of chaos and turmoil, and that things were in constant flux. He uttered the famous phrase "No one steps into the same river twice," as an explanation of existence. He believed chaos to by a fundamental part of nature, and so, concluded that the only constant was inconsistency. He called this constant Logos, which means something akin to guidance in this context. He also believed that strife in the face of chaos was justice and that ethics should be understood from within this struggle.

Parmenides was born approximately 20 years after Heraclitus in the city of Elea. He was the first philosopher of the Eleatic school of ancient Greece. He is considered by some to be the father of logic (or the grandfather, as Aristotle holds that title to many) because he was the first philosopher to understand that philosophy depends on proof of argument rather than statements of belief regarding what reality was made of.

Parmenides insisted that change is impossible and that existence is infinite. Reality is, in actuality, one timeless and unchanging being and our perception of movement is a delusion. This philosophy is subtle and difficult, and should not be understood as a simple explanation of the material world, where particulars of existence don't move. Rather, he was talking about existence as a whole. Parmenides was struggling to construct the first ontological system.

In many ways, Parmenides was responding to Heraclitus. You see, the insistence of Heraclitus is important to the works of Parmenides, as it acts as the foundation in which Parmenides questions.

The great Canadian Philosopher David Gallop once said, "Plato's writings are footnotes to Parmenides." And Alfred Whitehead, the giant process philosopher that helped give the world Principia Mathematica, once exclaimed, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

This was the start of it all; Heraclitus making a claim, which was refuted by Parmenides, where in which he made an argument for reality, which was expanded upon by Plato as he constructed his own philosophy of forms, which was then answered to by the whole of European philosophy.

As a devout lover of Parmenides, I disagree with Heraclitus. However, my love for Heraclitus is deep as well, for, without him, Parmenides would have never had a claim to refute.

Issues of Lineage

This is a photo from a seminar at Mahachulalongkorn University held last week concerning the ordination of women. A Theravada monk and a Mahayana nun spoke on the subject. Both sides discussed the problems surrounding this issue and ways to resolve it, whether through full Theravada ordination or other means.


There was some discussion on one of my posts about nuns and why my tradition, Theravada, doesn't have many. It comes down to  the belief (by some) that the lineage of nuns was broken in the Theravada tradition approximately 1,000 years ago.This is an extraordinarily delicate subject, but I will give a very brief history as to what is going on.

There are two main sects of Buddhism in the modern world, Theravada and Mahayana. Mahayana is in actuality several hundreds of sects and many would say that Vajrayana (Tibetan) is not Mahayana. For the sake of clarity, we can say the orthodox sect, that being the Theravada tradition, and the non-orthodox sect, including all other schools of Buddhism.

The lineage of nuns in the non-orthodox sect, for the most part, is not in question. Women can shave their heads, adorn a robe and become a nun without controversy. The Theravada tradition is a little different.

According to some people's interpretation of the orthodox rules, a nun must be ordained by 5 monks and 5 nuns, so there would have to be orthodox nuns present at the ordination. Some explanations of the orthodox sect's history claim that the order of nuns vanished around 1,000 years ago. This means that it is impossible for any new nuns to be ordained, as there are no nuns to ordain them. The lineage of nuns and monks must reach all the way back to the Buddha in order for an ordination to proceed. Note that this applies for monks too, if there were not enough monks to ordain a new monk, the lineage would die.

Other people say that since the non-orthodox nuns have roots in the orthodox tradition, it should be perfectly acceptable to ordain nuns into the orthodox tradition. Now there are many orthodox nuns that have been ordained with the help of non-orthodox nuns. However, the legitimacy of the nuns ordination is in question by some.

This is a very delicate subject not just from a religious perspective, but from a cultural perspective. There are many social issues involved. I am in full agreement with the ordination of women. Some of the greatest warriors of the Buddha have been women, I certainly think the nuns are a necessary and important part of the Sangha. I am, however, reluctant to say what particular traditions in specific countries, having  their own cultural and social constructs, should do.

Buddhism and the Question of Faith and Science

I have come across a surprising amount of conversations regarding faith and science lately, almost all laced with elements of tension if not outright heated arguments. It is difficult to get one's ideas out in such a conversation as both sides have already decided  their position; instead of a consensus of resolution being sought in cooperative effort both sides are just trying to win an argument. One conversation that has become as relevant as it is troublesome for me is whether or not Buddhism is scientific.

I certainly don't have all the answers and am often wrong. In an academic environment, I am proved wrong almost daily. I say this without shame for a few reasons. First, I have just started publishing, 2 conference papers so far, and have much to learn. Secondly, no matter how many papers I publish I will have much to learn. Thirdly, any good academic is proved wrong almost daily. This being said, I have decided to post a quick introduction of my thoughts on the matter regarding Buddhism and science.

This is a very brief look into my thoughts, but I believe it is important that I make this public, as much as possible. One particular conversation prompted me to post this as the tides of patience turned when someone insisted that Buddhism was not only scientific, but a science itself. I had heard this statement before and read a couple papers on it, but never took it very seriously, I will explain why below, but something said in this particular conversation concerned me. It was proposed that, even though some elements of Buddhist belief are not based in science it is still not only scientific but an actual science.

The conversation began as it normally does, someone says Buddhism is scientific, and I respond that some elements are but not all. Sometimes people will agree, sometimes not, I am very used to this conversation as it is quite common. However, this particular one took an unexpected turn when the person agreed that not all elements of Buddhist belief are rooted in the scientific method and then said "Nevertheless it is still a science." I am still unsure how to respond to this statement, but it did serve as the catalyst for this post.

Many people will disagree with what I am going to say, many will agree (though few people read this blog). That being said, I am always open to dialogue. Serious study of what the Buddha said is my life's work, and I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong within intelligent discourse that is attempting to find the truth of the Buddha's words instead of a debate about who is correct.

Instead of responding to the statement, "Even though there are aspects of Buddhist belief that are unscientific, it is still a science", I will respond to the statement, "Buddhism is a science". Again, this is a very brief summary of my views and this post is in no way trying to resolve any issues nor mimic an academic paper. It is just my clumsy attempt at making these views public, as far as this blog is able.

When faced with the statement. "Buddhism is a science", one needs to understand what exactly Buddhism and science are.

Buddhism, though it has a surprising amount of emphasis on empiricism and reason for a religion, is structured around a framework of absolute truth that any believer most hold in order for many teachings to make sense. For brevity, I will use only one example of these absolute truths, rebirth. If one does not hold that reincarnation is true, then the teachings of kamma and rebirth don't make sense and are at best a myth (though the teachings are very clear that this relation of cause and effect between action and birth is not only essential to the understanding of existence, but an actuality ). If one does not hold that reincarnation is true, then the idea of nibbana is nonsense. There can be no state of non-rebirth if there is no state of rebirth. If one does not hold that rebirth is true then the idea of past lives is ridiculous. The results of past kamma from past lives being experienced in this present life are dependent upon there being past lives. There are many more examples of these absolute truths the  Buddha builds upon in his teachings, but I will leave those for future discussion.

This is where many people will say that rebirth can be tested by science, if not now, then in the future. Here is my response to that.

Science is a field of study that uses the scientific method. It is a study that leads to a belief in how the world functions and exists based on induction. One critical element of science is that it must always assume that it may be wrong, no matter how insignificant the chances are, science must be prepared to be proven wrong. That means two things, what is tested by science must be falsifiable and the result of the test must never be absolute.

Continuing with reincarnation as the example; rebirth is not presented as a phenomenon that is falsifiable in the teachings. If science were to somehow test rebirth in the future, from a Buddhist perspective, then the premise of the test would be something that exists absolutely and could not be falsified. Another important point is that things that may or may not be tested by science in the future can not be used in an argument as if those things ARE scientific.

Secondly, let's say reincarnation happened to be tested by unbiased scientists and the results were favorable that rebirth is an actuality of existence. These findings would be unusable by Buddhists for proof of their faith as it would be making the findings an absolute truth. Remember, any findings made by science must allow for the chance to be disproven.

This summary of my views is really nothing more than a comparison of what science is and what Buddhism requires a practitioner to hold as truth, and the conclusion is that they are incompatible in many ways. I am not saying Buddhism doesn't have qualities of reason and empiricism,  I have devoted my life to Buddhism in part because of this. What I am saying is that the qualities of reason and empiricism exist within a framework of absolute truths that are foundational for the teachings of the Buddha. The teachings must be understood in relation to these truths. At some point, the practitioner must make a decision from a position of faith that transcends the realm of scientific observation,  and hold these  truths as unfalsifiable and absolute certainties. Yes, I said faith, as I believe the Buddha said as well.

I welcome criticism. I welcome dialogue. I welcome the chance to be proved wrong. What I don't welcome is more debates where cooperation and respect  fall to the waist side and winning an argument becomes more important than an active search for what the Buddha said.