You may claim that he doesn't mean this, but rather is trying to get converts to Buddhism. I, on the other hand, wholeheartedly feel that HH is searching for the truth, which is what all the religions of the world are about. He is one of the few monks in any tradition that tells people "not to take up [their religion] but to study within their own traditions, where their roots are deepest" (Time, March 2008 ).
Tenzin Gyatso
At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.
But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.
But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.
I believe that Science and Religion are compatible. Should science prove a commonly held belief, like HH and the moon, religion should be rewritten. I also believe that in the matter of morality, religion can be very helpful to the world.
Are Science and Religion compatible? If Science proves an aspect of your religion wrong, should it still be included in your beliefs, or should science override it? Or should they stay different entities, should they not deal with each other?
-source-
