iew of the world is somewhat distorted or clouded.With the understanding that the two traditions maintain relatively negative positions regarding everyday experience we must also understand that both rely directly on experience to explain the nature things. As stated earlier both are pragmatic in their approaches; that is to say that the emphasis of each is to start from experience. This only seems natural. For what more logical place could one start than from his or her own experience? However, what is important for both science and Buddhism is to make the proper logical inferences about experience when relating them to the ultimate order of things. Unfortunately, this is a skill at which we do not ordinarily excel. This is precisely the reason why expert training is important to both traditions.In science we have specialists, each trained in a particular field of study. For example, would one suffering from a sinus infection go to a physicist to receive treatment? Of course not. One would go to someone with some training in the discipline of biology. Further, one would seek out a person with a firm understanding of microbial biology and human anatomy. Even more specifically one might seek the council of another with a specialized study of the human ear, nose, and throat. This example illustrates why it is that in science expert training is necessary. The same is true for Buddhism. Only, where science is concerned with understanding the external (physical) world, the focus of Buddhism is in understanding the inner (mental, spiritual) world. Expert training in yogic meditation is necessary in Buddhism in order to clearly see and eliminate the distortions of the mind. This leads us to the divisions between science and Buddhism. The divisions lie primarily on two fronts, one having to do with the relationship between the mind and body and the other, just mentioned above, is the point where each chooses to focus its attentio...
