Buddhism and Science

Not long ago, when Apple introduced the AR kit (augmented reality
kit), virtual reality seemed to be a part of everyday life. While previous
virtual reality technology invited users to a new world of virtual reality,
in the present day, AR is a technology that brings virtual materials into
the real world. AR kit application introduced by Apple is a more useful
tool than Pokemon Go, a once-popular game in 2016. This will also
make a significant contribution to the popularization of AR, which is
expected to change people’s way of life, just as the earliest version of
smartphones did.
Buddhism can use this technique to develop various ways of
spreading the Buddha’s teaching. For example, it is now possible not only
to listen to the contents of the scriptures, but also to move virtually into
the times and places where scriptures were revealed through the portal
gates of the smartphones. Obviously, AR can provide diverse and creative
ways for Buddhist missionary activities. Before developing AR technology
and contents, however, we should consider what messages and visions
Buddhism have to provide through this technology in the AR age.

In this essay, I explore the writings of Jon Kabat-Zinn, the founder of the mindfulness-based stress reduction program, to discern in them a moral framework that provides a narrative arch of human decline and restoration through greater mindfulness. I argue that this moral narrative framework has striking similarities to what Slavoj Zizek describes as the BHolderlin paradigm^ which characterizes the thinking of post-Hegelian thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche, Benjamin, Heidegger, and Derrida. This narrative takes late modernity as both the nadir of a process of historical decline in the West and the site of its potential restoration. In demonstrating the similarities between the two narratives, I seek to show how the BBuddhification,^ as Braun calls it, of American spirituality is internally complex, and to offer some conceptual tools from the philosopher Jane Bennett to account for breakdowns that the scholarly study of the mindfulness meditation phenomenon produces in our broad analytical typologies.

We compared the neurophysiological correlates of Mahamudra (a meditative practice of Vajrayana Buddhism leading to emptiness realization) performed after a relaxed mental state versus Mahamudra performed after Generation Stage Yidam practice (visualizing oneself as a Tantric deity). The main goal of this study was to examine the role of Yidam practice in reaching the state of Rig-pa from a scientific perspective. The electroencephalographic (EEG) data from 7 nuns and 9 monks were recorded during 15 minutes of rest followed by 15 minutes of Mahamudra meditation at one time of the day, and 15 minutes of Yidam followed by 15 minutes of Mahamudra later during the same day. The results showed significant differences between Mahamudra performed after rest versus after Yidam. The EEG data also showed there were significant differences between the two types of Mahamudra, with more power in the beta and gamma bands during Mahamudra after Yidam practice. Overall, the neurophysiological correlates of Mahamudra performed after rest resemble those of Mindfulness or Vipassana (Theravada styles of meditation) reported in previous studies. In contrast, Mahamudra after Yidam practice exhibited a unique pattern of neurophysiological correlates, indicating a significantly more energetic state of body and mind. Thus, Yidam practice is shown to have an important role in facilitating the achievement of a wakeful state of Rig-pa through the use of visual imagery and the emotional arousal associated with it.

In this article we start off from the comparative religion studies and their search for concepts to include Buddhism in the study of religion. We analyze and criticize concepts of Otto, Zaehner, Smart and Wiebe and show how they give a biased view of Buddhism and are not able to include all aspects of the Buddhist tradition in their study, thereby reducing Buddhism to the categories influenced by Western cultural a priori’s. With Orye we uncover the cultural preconceptions and the underlying problematic cognitive paradigm in their interpretations of Smith’s concepts. We discuss the qualities and weak points of cognitive and Gibsonian ecological psychology and place them next to the Buddhist theory on mediated and direct perception. We use ecological psychology and Ingold’s application of ecological concepts and theory in a new conceptual framework. This conceptual framework is able to include the non-conceptual learning processes and the fine-tuning of the mental perceptual system in Buddhist shamatha meditation. This results in a new learning environment in the mind and in an instrument for the acquisition of a non- symbolical, non-conceptual, conscious, perceptual kind knowledge about the mind in vipassana meditation. A characterizing aspect of this kind of knowledge is that it has a transformative effect on the ‘knower’ as a whole, including his body, mind, heart and perceptual systems. We explain the different aspects of mindfulness and awareness in fine-tuning and training mental perception and the Buddhist learning environment in this process of ‘guided rediscovery’. We show how Buddhist knowledge and Buddhist practices have inspired mainstream psychology and neuropsychology. The introduction of Buddhist knowledge and methodologies in science has raised controversies and meta-philosophical discussions about whether Buddhism, often still perceived of as a ‘religion’, can have a legitimate voice in the scientific investigation of the mind. With Latour we will show how Buddhism and science are fundamentally different and unique, but both valuable systems for the investigation of reality. In Latour’s radical symmetrical approach however, not a single statement or hypothesis can be excluded from the scientific debate for the sole reason of being derived from Buddhism, or not being compatible with the cognitive paradigm of Western knowledge. With Latour we plea for a dialogue, more research, multiple methodologies, debates and controversies, in which a posteriori any statement can be collectively refuted as ‘artifact’ or accepted as ‘fact’ on the basis of rigorous scientific research. In this way Buddhist knowledge and practices can have a place in the scientific investigation of the mind, rather than merely being reduced to the object of science, be it the comparative religion studies, psychology or neuroscience. There are many testable hypotheses in Buddhist psychology which could give new inspiration to the scientific debate. Buddhist psychology as a partner to Western psychology could throw new light on the explanations for the positive effects found in outcome studies on mindfulness-based approaches and could help in our scientific understanding of the working-mechanisms of the mind.

Religion and science are usually portrayed as at "war" or in "harmony." But it is advocated here that the relation is more complex: religion can accept and even encourage science up until science starts to impinge on core religious beliefs; at that point, religion tries to control the scope of science. In Christianity, attempts at control occur when scientists advance theories impinging on God as a creator and humans as creations. In Buddhism, the problems arise when scientists theorize about consciousness and deny the possibility of rebirth. Such a "control" model captures more of the history of religion and science than either the "war" or "harmony" model.

This book is about the spiritual journey that took a skeptic to the discovery of Pure Land Buddhism. You will find many different quotes from the buddhist sacred texts (sutras) and the commentaries and teachings of the great masters of the past.  Modern research is analized  in order to point to the core truths taught in the Dharma (the Buddhist teachings) like rebirth, the 6 realms of samsara and the existence of different universes or world-systems. The offers reflections to question beliefs about yourself and the world in order to transcend your doubts and deeply reflect upon the Buddhist teachings, and the Pure Land Dharma method as taught in the Chinese Pure Land School, the most popular and cheriched Mahayana school in Asia which is centered in Amitabha Buddha and His Wester Pure Land of Utmost Bliss.

As the first of three articles, the present essay explores the character of selected aspects of early Buddhism in order to assess its potential relevance as a reference point for those engaged in research on mindfulness in psychology. The exploration, which proceeds in critical dialog with suggestions made by Donald Lopez Jr. and Evan Thompson, covers the topics of the Buddha’s omniscience, Buddhist cosmology, the notion of karma, the role of rebirth, the past lives of the Buddha, and the role of religious authority vis-à-vis the scope of personal investigation in early Buddhist thought. The present paper is meant to serve as a corrective to an apparent tendency in recent scholarship, as part of an in itself deserved criticism of exaggerated positions taken by Buddhist modernists, to overlook or even deny rational dimensions of Buddhist thought, here in particular taken up from the viewpoint of its earliest phase. This tendency appears at times to be based on a lack of historical perspective or understanding of Buddhist doctrines and their development.

Convergences and conflicts in the dialogue between Buddhism and modern science occasionally find precedent in historical sources and encounters, some of which have set the stage for scenarios that are commonplace in the current dialogue. This paper brings recent scholarship and Tibetan sources on astronomy and geography in Tibet into conversation with the ongoing Buddhism and science dialogue. In response to a lack of context in the dialogue, the paper gives attention to how two contexts in particular, namely, the contemplative and historical, inform currents in the Buddhism and science dialogue about cosmology. The paper challenges claims made that Tibetans did not encounter European science until the twentieth century and that Tibetans were unaware of scientific cosmological ideas, and therefore have not updated the Buddhist Mount Meru cosmology. To address tensions inherent in the binary discourse on science vs religion, this paper asks, does the Mount Meru cosmology represent a domain wherein Buddhism or science hold more appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution about its existence?

Review Essay on MEDITATION, BUDDHISM, AND SCIENCE
Edited by David L. McMahan and Erik Braun
New York: Oxford University Press, 2017
and
RELIGION AND SCIENCE IN THE MIRROR OF BUDDHISM
By Francisca Cho and Richard K. Squier
New York: Routledge, 2016.

Tibetan Buddhism is one of the fastest growing religions among Chinese in the twenty-first century. The transnational teaching activities of numerous Tibetan lamas attest to this religious trend in the popular realm of contemporary China. Unlike on their native soil, Tibetan lamas immersed in urban China encounter converts whose acceptance of Buddhism often rests upon a " scientific " assessment of Buddhism. Thus, the Buddhism-science dialogue stands out as a central theme in contemporary Sino-Tibetan Buddhist encounters. Based on the authors' collaborative study of the Buddhism-science entanglement in this transnational Buddhist context, this article will illustrate that science signifies not merely the conventionally accepted system of knowledge, based on the modern, empirically-driven search for the understanding of the material world. Instead, it connotes a web of interconnected social meanings pertaining to Buddhist understanding, critique, and appropriation of this web. In this regard, the authors argue that simultaneously, science is identified as an integral part of the iconoclastic secularism in modern China subject to contemporary Buddhist critique, science is utilized as an instrument of Buddhist conversion, and science is reconceived as a neutral, open social space for knowledge making, in which an increasing number of Buddhist teachers persistently claim Buddhism as a science of its own.

The paper by Monteiro, Musten and Compson (2014) is to be commended for providing a comprehensive discussion of the compatibility issues arising from the integration of mindfulness – a 2,500-year-old Buddhist practice – into research and applied psychological domains. Consistent with the observations of various others (e.g., Dunne, 2011; Kang & Whittingham, 2010), Monteiro and colleagues have not only highlighted that there are differences in how Buddhism and contemporary mindfulness interventional approaches interpret and contextualize mindfulness, but there are also differing interpretations of mindfulness within Buddhism. These apparent differences within Buddhism are arguably more noticeable when making comparisons across Buddhist vehicles (i.e., Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana), but to a lesser extent intra-vehicular differences can also be said to exist (i.e., differences between Buddhist traditions of the same vehicle). This commentary investigates the validity of some of these different Buddhist constructions of mindfulness, and then discusses how a better understanding of their scriptural and conceptual soundness (or lack thereof) may help to reconcile some of the actual and perceived incompatibility between Buddhist practice and contemporary secular mindfulness-based approaches.

Abstract

There are three terms for ‘mind’ in the Buddhist Canon – Mano, Citta and Viññāṇa. But there does not seem to be much clarity on them in their Canonical usage. In translating the concepts, contemporary scholars, East and West, do not seem to be much clearer either. Exploring what we eventually come to call the ‘Triune mind’ – i.e., three-in-one mind, this limited research delineates the three minds functionally – Mano as R-Mind (Receiving Mind), Citta as J-Mind (Judging Mind) and Viññāṇa as E-Mind (Executive-Mind). Characterizing this view of mind as an M(ind)-Simplex, each of them, as well as all three taken together, however, come to be seen as an M(ind)-Complex, too, given their multifunctionality and interrelationality. By way of coming out of the confusion related the word trio, a general criterion is proposed to be used in seeking clarity – to consider the context. Is it localized or generic? The paper benefits from Western Science and Linguistics, as well as from some creative and unconventional thought on the part of the author. Along these lines are a few new terms and concepts introduced (see end of paper).

The present article aims at setting the issue of the relationship between Buddhism and science in a historical and philosophical frame wider than that one taken into account by the international scholarship so far. The historical point of view allows us to conclude that the narrative that connects Buddhism with science is not based on features intrinsic to Buddhist thought. In fact, such narrative prospered thanks to the development of a dialectic, typical of the 18th and 19th centuries, between science and religion. The philosophical point of view allows us to conclude that such narrative is backed by a metaphysical-like thought that denies the specificity of both science and Buddhism.

A neuron is a physical structure in the brain (and other parts of the body) comprised of a cell, with dendrites leading to it, an a single axon extending from it. Serving as the medium of communication, it carries electric messages within the mindbody in the form of neurotransmitters. Travelling along the Axon and arriving at the Axon Terminal, they connect with other dendrites adjacent to it. But this happens by jumping across a synapse, namely a gap. A neuron being no thicker than a sixth of a hair strand, you can imagine how small the synaptic gap must be. While our knowledge of the neuron is relatively new, in this paper, I seek to show how, 2500 years ago, the Buddha saw this miniscule gap in his mind’s eye, through his mindscope, as I call it along the lines of telescope or stethoscope.

Buddha’s birthday is one of the most celebrated, if not the most celebrated, Buddhist occasion around the world.  This paper studies how a foreign religion can be so well-accepted that its major festival gains national recognition.  It does so by comparing a one-thousand carriage Buddha’s birthday image procession held in China about 1,500 years ago to a Buddha’s birthday celebration held outside the Office of the President in Taiwan in the 21st century.  These two circumstances are significant because the heads of state are conspicuously present outside their symbols of power and the entire capital city observed the occasion.  This paper identifies the factors critical to indigenous Chinese people accepting major festivals of a foreign religion.  Through a careful analysis of both the supply of appropriately-skilled Buddhists and demand of government and public, the essential factors are acknowledged.  This study will include social, cultural and political perspectives in promoting and justifying the importance of this Buddhist festival.

ABSTRACT: Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?
The main aim of this article is to shed light on the intricate relationship between Buddhism and science by focusing on what is becoming an increasingly popular area of contact between the two domains, namely the study of consciousness in the field of cognitive (neuro)science. First, three fundamental ways of approaching the relationship between Buddhism and science are outlined: (a) rejection (Buddhism and science are not, and cannot be, compatible); (b) acceptance (Buddhism and science share important commonalities); (c) construction (Buddhism and science are compatible because they have been made compatible in the course of specific historical processes). It is claimed that which of the three stances one takes depends ultimately on how one construes the two parties involved and the nature of their (potential) interaction. To exemplify this, the scope of the discussion is narrowed to the domain of consciousness research and a general overview of some of the main arguments for and against the collaboration between Buddhism and cognitive (neuro)science (“Three Turnings of the Wheel of (Non)Interaction”) is provided. Finally, in light of the tentative results of our analysis, a short reflection of some of the most pertinent presuppositions and entailments of different stances towards Buddhism-science dialogue is laid out, with special emphasis on the distinction between construing Buddhism as “living” versus “dead” tradition.

This paper investigates the creation of modern Shin studies (shinshûgaku 真宗学) as a form of Buddhist studies distinct from modern Buddhist studies and traditional sectarian studies. Seeking to secure a place for Shin Buddhism in the modern academic world, Sasaki Gesshô, Soga Ryôjin, and Kaneko Daiei developed Kiyozawa Manshi’s emphasis on personal religious “experience” into an “empirical” field of study. More specifically, they employed a discourse of personal “confession” to transcend the strictures of traditional sectarian studies; a discourse of “empiricism” to bring Shin studies in line with other academic disciplines; and a discourse of “esotericism” to combat the implications of historicist Buddhist studies. By examining a 1929 public debate between Kaneko Daiei and preeminent Buddhist studies scholar Kimura Taiken, I show these two fields of study to have been in substantive dialogue with one another. This paper thus presents evidence for a more complex understanding of the modern field(s) of Buddhist studies, as well as a more nuanced understanding of  “Buddhist modernism” as more than the creation of individual thinkers who floated free beyond the confines of institutional Buddhism and imagined an easy harmony between Buddhism and science.

The paper by Monteiro, Musten and Compson (2014) is to be commended for providing a comprehensive discussion of the compatibility issues arising from the integration of mindfulness – a 2,500-year-old Buddhist practice – into research and applied psychological domains. Consistent with the observations of various others (e.g., Dunne, 2011; Kang & Whittingham, 2010), Monteiro and colleagues have not only highlighted that there are differences in how Buddhism and contemporary mindfulness interventional approaches interpret and contextualize mindfulness, but there are also differing interpretations of mindfulness within Buddhism. These apparent differences within Buddhism are arguably more noticeable when making comparisons across Buddhist vehicles (i.e., Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana), but to a lesser extent intra-vehicular differences can also be said to exist (i.e., differences between Buddhist traditions of the same vehicle). This commentary investigates the validity of some of thes...

The paper by Monteiro, Musten and Compson (2014) is to be commended for providing a comprehensive discussion of the compatibility issues arising from the integration of mindfulness – a 2,500-year-old Buddhist practice – into research and applied psychological domains. Consistent with the observations of various others (e.g., Dunne, 2011; Kang & Whittingham, 2010), Monteiro and colleagues have not only highlighted that there are differences in how Buddhism and contemporary mindfulness interventional approaches interpret and contextualize mindfulness, but there are also differing interpretations of mindfulness within Buddhism. These apparent differences within Buddhism are arguably more noticeable when making comparisons across Buddhist vehicles (i.e., Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana), but to a lesser extent intra-vehicular differences can also be said to exist (i.e., differences between Buddhist traditions of the same vehicle). This commentary investigates the validity of some of thes...

Статья посвящена анализу диалога тибетского буддизма и западной науки, начавшегося во второй половине ХХ в. по инициативе Далай-ламы XIV и активно развивающегося в настоящее время. Приведены примеры сотрудничества западных (включая, российских) ученых с лидером тибетских буддистов и буддийскими монахами, особое внимание уделяется исследованиям феномена сознания. Выявляются новые области возможного взаимодействия, которые возникли в ходе дискуссий и предполагают использование западной научной методологии и традиционной буддийской медитации и философии сознания. Демонстрируется необходимость создания общей философской платформы, которая позволила бы участникам диалога лучше понимать друг друга и способствовала развитию и углублению сотрудничества. Современные философы, вовлеченные в диалог, предлагают несколько способов достижения этой цели. В статье разбираются философские подходы Алана Уоллеса («эмпиризм»), Мишеля Битбола (трансцендентальная феноменологическая эпистемология) и сторонников межкультурной философии (Джей Гарфилд, Марк Сидеритс, Виктория Лысенко). Именно межкультурный подход, предполагающий равноправие всех участников (концепция «полилога») и знание ими как языка науки, так и языка философии друг друга, представлен в данной статье в качестве наиболее перспективной методологической основы взаимодействия «мультикультурных рациональностей».

2016 Cheung, Kin. “명상연구의주제이동: 전문가에게서 초보자에게로 [The Shift in Meditation Research Subjects from Experts to Novices].” In명상과치유 [Meditation and Healing], edited by Nae Chang Han, The Institute of Mind Humanities Series 13, 235-253. Iskan, South Korea: Wonkwang University Press.

In the current dialogue between Buddhist traditions and the sciences—an engagement dominated by Tibetan and Zen Buddhists on one side and psychologists and neuroscientists on the other—the subject of health is featured prominently. However, despite the shared term, participants aren’t actually talking about the same thing.

Guest post in American Buddhist Perspectives
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2016/07/health-in-the-buddhism-and-science-dialogue.html

Also shared in Asian Medicine Zone
http://asianmedicinezone.com/scholar-zone/health-in-the-buddhism-and-science-dialogue/

There are three terms for ‘mind’ in the Buddhist Canon – Mano, Citta and Vinnāna. But there does not seem to be much clarity on them in their Canonical usage. In translating the concepts, contemporary scholars, East and West, do not seem to be much clearer either. Exploring what we eventually come to call the ‘Triune mind’ – i.e., three-in-one mind, this limited research delineates the three minds functionally – Mano as R-Mind (Receiving- Mind), Citta as J-Mind (Judging-Mind) and Vinnāna as E-Mind (Executive-Mind). Characterizing this view of mind as a M(ind)-Simplex, each of them, as well as all three taken together, however, come to be seen as a M(ind)-Complex, too, given their multifunctionality and interrelationality. By way of coming out of the confusion relating to the word trio, a general criterion is proposed to be used in seeking clarity – to consider the context. Is it localized or generic? The paper benefits from Western Science and Linguistics, as well as from some creat...

an apocryphal story about thales is that, around 500 bc in miletus, greece, he bought all the available olive presses before olive harvesting and made much money from the oil his presses produced after harvest…thales is usually considered the first, or one of the first, of the pre-socratic greek philosophers among whose downstream progeny was aristotle who is often considered one of the first western european thinkers to move intellectual attention from mythopoetic narrative to observation of nature… long after thales, and after cuneiform started recording the counting of grain quantities into mesopotamian storage, christianity claimed ownership of all of nature in the name of its own deity which excluded, both violently and non-violently, all other claims to such ownership while at the same time demonizing nature, and especially its human female form, as the source of all evil…it would be fair to assert that, judging from the concentration of physical sciences, with all their extensions, in western europe and the us, where scientists have been declaring for centuries that they know the nature of reality and that their methods of knowing are the only ones that can and do give accurate information about nature and to note that this kind of assertion, with its rigidly exclusive claim, carries forward the voices of homer, of both old and new testaments, of the greek philosophers, and of the mediaeval theologians such as ockham and aquinas who gave a clear position to reject for thinkers such as roger bacon, francis bacon and rene descartes… my wife, lynn and i, watched the documentary "The Dalai Lama: Scientist," the other night (september 2020)…buddhism begins with suffering and offers many ways to relieve oneself of the conditions that bring suffering including following recommendations of the current dalai lama such as the one, when asked about celibacy, to the effect that if one has a choice, the better alternative is celibacy… well…all living things continue their existence by some kind of reproduction…from the standpoint of this fact of nature and life, buddhism turns people away from nature and life…or, to put the

http://doi.org/c25m
https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/en/publications/jjrs/listofjournals/
Cheung, K. Review of Darwin, Dharma, and the Divine: Evolutionary Theory and Religion in Modern Japan. By G. Clinton Godart. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 45, no. 2 (2018): 458-460.

The use of Buddhist teachings and practices in psychotherapy, once described as a new, popular trend, should now be considered an established feature of the mental health field in the United States and beyond. Religious studies scholars increasingly attend to these activities.  Some express concern about what they view as the secularizing medicalization of centuries old traditions. Others counter with historical precedent for these phenomena comparing them to previous instances when Buddhist teachings and practices were introduced into new communities for healing benefit like medieval China. This paper reveals that a growing number of psychotherapists also compare their activities to medieval China and other locations of Buddhist transmission. Drawing on the models of scholars like Robert Ford Campany and Pierce Salguero, the possible benefits and limits of such comparisons are outlined.  The paper ultimately concludes that scholars use comparison to normalize these contemporary phenomena as cohering to a historical pattern. But their interpretations are subsequently employed by psychotherapists to legitimate their activities.

Kexue, or science, captured the Chinese imagination in the early twentieth century, promising new knowledge about the world and a dynamic path to prosperity. Chinese Buddhists embraced scientific language and ideas to carve out a place for their religion within a rapidly modernizing society.

Examining dozens of previously unstudied writings from the Chinese Buddhist press, this book maps Buddhists' efforts to rethink their traditions through science in the initial decades of the twentieth century. Buddhists believed science offered an exciting, alternative route to knowledge grounded in empirical thought, much like their own. They encouraged young scholars to study subatomic and relativistic physics while still maintaining Buddhism's vital illumination of human nature and its crucial support of an ethical system rooted in radical egalitarianism. Showcasing the rich and progressive steps Chinese religious scholars took in adapting to science's rising authority, this volume offers a key perspective on how a major Eastern power transitioned to modernity in the twentieth century and how its intellectuals anticipated many of the ideas debated by scholars of science and Buddhism today.

We would like to begin this brief introduction with an anecdote, which we believe will be illustrative of the importance of the studies contained in this special issue of the Journal of Dharma Studies. When, in late January of this year, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a public health emergency of international concern, the ways that Buddhist monastic communities in and around Kathmandu, Nepal, responded were consistent with the public health protocols of most secular institutions at the time: the compulsory use of masks, hand-sanitizing, and temperature-taking at entry points, as well as total closure monastic facilities to the public—a measure that seemed drastic at the time. However, alongside these measures, there was a distinctly religious and ritual response to pandemic: the coordination of massive pūjās at the Boudhanath stūpa, often sponsored by wealthy international donors, conducted to avert the further spread of the virus both local...

Chinese Buddhists saw modern science as an effective means for the investigation of knowledge but critiqued its underlying social ethic. Kristian Petersen talks with Erik Hammerstrom, Associate Professor of East Asian and Comparative Religions at Pacific Lutheran University, about his new book The Science of Chinese Buddhism: Early Twentieth-Century Engagements published by Columbia University Press in 2015.