Monkey See, Monkey Do

a topic that arises often, when i discuss buddhism to curious people, is the degree to which buddhism is like science or seems compatible with science. it is a topical question. this relates to whether or not buddhism is logical, compatible to the scientific method, and not based on faith. i suspect this also relates to ritual and superstition. i find that buddhism does have aspects that are compatible with a scientific view, but it might be a mistake to ignore the full range of buddhism. in some forms, it appears quite mystical. then this has me wondering if the comparison of buddhism to science is getting to the heart of the buddhist tradition or if we’re just reframing it into our cultural language.

western buddhism, as i experience it, has had a quality of being anti-superstitious. it is maybe depicted as more of a philosophy or a psychology — that one uses meditation for both personal and societal improvement — than depicted as a religion. i think that is a valid view to a point, but at the same time the full range of buddhist traditions is full of superstition, ritual, devotional practice, and things we might find very odd. so then the question arises, are these cultural trappings irrelevant to the western situation to be discarded? are we instead considering a more essential buddhism in the west?

His Holiness Karmapa, now 23 years old, is possibly the second highest lama in Tibetan Buddhism after His Holiness the Dalai Lama. in his recent and first trip to the U.S., he was interviewed by PBS. mostly the interview introduces him and talks about his role, but then has a few clips of the interchange. at one point, he says,

“The essential points of Buddhism are beyond culture and beyond traditions.”

but the unspoken side to this statement is that the non-essential points of buddhism are specific to tradition and culture. as buddhism comes to the west, what is the tradition and cultural aspects that are included here? or do we cut to the essence and attempt to omit the rest? is that even possible?

i wonder, and this could be a large topic, is this view of buddhism as a philosophy and psychology just our cultural trappings that we’re incorporating? or are those really closer to the essence of buddhism? is the compatibility with science (or lack thereof) something that we inject into the conversation or is that really close to the essence of buddhism?