http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion

Why Dharma is Different?

Dharma, however is different. It is different because it unites. There can never be divisions in dharma. Every interpretation is valid and welcome. No authority is too great to be questioned, too sacred to be touched. Unlimited interpretative freedom through free will is the quintessence of Dharma, for Dharma is as limitless as truth itself. No one can ever be its sole mouthpiece.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So that tickles you're anti-religion funnybone? Not difficult, I've found.

:razz: Well, for a proof is in the pudding kind of example, there's not much division expressed at dharmawheel.net, a Buddhist forum where you are or used to be a mod, because not much division is allowed. :rofl:

No more, please, I'm gonna pee my pants.

Can a religion be used as a scientific method in terms of at least only accepting things that can be proven through our senses? Or is the methods of actual scientists superior in that arena? — TiredThinker

The issue is that modern scientific method has a very finely tuned and powerful method for the discovery of objective facts - more so than anything else in history. So when science considers the 'true nature of the world' then it's concerned with what is objectively the case, something that is measurably true for all observers. That method has discovered facts about the world that were never known previously - the table of elements, evolution by natural selection, the size and age of the Universe, and so on.

The kinds of methods that Shaolin and other Eastern disciplines refer to are not objective in that sense. They're concerned with 'true nature' in an existential rather than an objective sense. They are concerned with realising a state of insight through disciplined introspection.

There are overlaps and complementarities, and many of those are being explored through various kinds of cross-cultural exchanges between (for example) Buddhist scholars and scientists (e.g. https://www.mindandlife.org/). It goes the other way also - there's an initiative to teach science to Buddhist monks.

But all of that is far from what happens when, for instance, Protestant fundamentalism tries to drag science into 'evidence for scripture'. Completely different. You can explore the convergence through philosophical and scientific perspectives but I think a lot of Western religion is too fundamentalist to really allow it.

I was talking to a member of the Shaolin and they told me that Buddhism at least as practiced by the Shaolin is not so much a religion as a method of discovering the true nature of the world. — TiredThinker

It's not uncommon for religious/spiritual people to claim that theirs is "not a religion" but that it "is the truth".
I've seen Christians do this, and Buddhists, too.

I generally think of Buddhism as focused on reincarnation and karma which presumes things about life after death, but his definition made it sound more scientific.

Some proselytizers try to appeal to Western secular people, so they introduce some pseudoscientific vocabulary. I've seen Christians, Hare Krishnas, Buddhists, and Bahais do it.

Can a religion be used as a scientific method in terms of at least only accepting things that can be proven through our senses?

Or is the methods of actual scientists superior in that arena?

Presuming that science and religion have different goals, the question becomes moot.

I don't assume many religions to use expensive scientific equipment to try to measure the truth of things, but in religion there is some philosophical thought outside of strict dogma? And philosophy does contribute to science in some logical cases?