Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Difference between revisions of "Buddhism and science"

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{GenerateImages|6}} <poem> Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and Buddhism has entered into the science and religion di...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{GenerateImages|6}}
 
{{GenerateImages|6}}
 
<poem>
 
<poem>
[[Buddhism]] and [[science]] have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and [[Buddhism]] has entered into the [[science]] and [[religion]] dialogue. The case is made that the [[philosophic]] and [[psychological]] teachings within [[Buddhism]] share commonalities with {{Wiki|modern}} [[scientific]] and [[philosophic]] [[thought]]. For example, [[Buddhism]] encourages the impartial [[investigation]] of [[Nature]] (an [[activity]] referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the [[Pali Canon]]) — the principal [[object]] of study being oneself. Some popular conceptions of [[Buddhism]] connect it to {{Wiki|discourse}} regarding [[evolution]], {{Wiki|quantum theory}}, and [[cosmology]], though most [[scientists]] see a separation between the [[religious]] and [[metaphysical]] statements of [[Buddhism]] and the [[Wikipedia:scientific method|methodology]] of [[science]]. In 1993 a model deduced from Jean Piaget's {{Wiki|theory}} of [[Wikipedia:cognition|cognitive]] development was published arguing that [[Buddhism]] is a fourth mode of [[thought]] [[beyond]] [[magic]], [[science]] and [[religion]].
 
  
[[Buddhism]] has been described by some as [[rational]] and non-dogmatic, and there is {{Wiki|evidence}} that this has been the case from the earliest period of its history, though some have suggested this aspect is given greater emphasis in {{Wiki|modern}} times and is in part a reinterpretation. Not all [[forms]] of [[Buddhism]] eschew {{Wiki|dogmatism}}, remain [[neutral]] on the [[subject]] of the [[supernatural]], or are open to [[scientific]] discoveries. [[Buddhism]] is a varied [[tradition]] and aspects include [[fundamentalism]], devotional [[traditions]], supplication to local [[spirits]], and various {{Wiki|superstitions}}. Nevertheless, certain commonalities have been cited between [[scientific]] [[investigation]] and [[Buddhist]] [[thought]]. [[Tenzin Gyatso]], the [[14th Dalai Lama]], in a [[speech]] at the meeting of the {{Wiki|Society}} for {{Wiki|Neuroscience}}, listed a "[[suspicion]] of absolutes" and a reliance on [[causality]] and {{Wiki|empiricism}} as common [[philosophical]] {{Wiki|principles}} shared between [[Buddhism]] and [[science]].
+
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[Buddhism]] and [[science]] have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and [[Buddhism]] has entered into the [[science]] and [[religion]] {{Wiki|dialogue}}. The case is made that the [[philosophic]] and [[psychological]] teachings within [[Buddhism]] share commonalities with {{Wiki|modern}} [[scientific]] and [[philosophic]] [[thought]]. For example, [[Buddhism]] encourages the impartial [[investigation]] of [[Nature]] (an [[activity]] referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the [[Pali Canon]]) — the [[principal]] [[object]] of study being oneself. Some popular conceptions of [[Buddhism]] connect it to {{Wiki|discourse}} regarding [[evolution]], {{Wiki|quantum theory}}, and [[cosmology]], though most [[scientists]] see a separation between the [[religious]] and [[metaphysical]] statements of [[Buddhism]] and the [[Wikipedia:scientific method|methodology]] of [[science]]. In 1993 a model deduced from Jean Piaget's {{Wiki|theory}} of [[Wikipedia:cognition|cognitive]] [[development]] was published arguing that [[Buddhism]] is a fourth mode of [[thought]] [[beyond]] [[magic]], [[science]] and [[religion]].
 +
 
 +
[[Buddhism]] has been described by some as [[rational]] and non-dogmatic, and there is {{Wiki|evidence}} that this has been the case from the earliest period of its history, though some have suggested this aspect is given greater {{Wiki|emphasis}} in {{Wiki|modern}} times and is in part a reinterpretation. Not all [[forms]] of [[Buddhism]] eschew {{Wiki|dogmatism}}, remain [[neutral]] on the [[subject]] of the [[supernatural]], or are open to [[scientific]] discoveries. [[Buddhism]] is a varied [[tradition]] and aspects include [[fundamentalism]], devotional [[traditions]], supplication to local [[spirits]], and various {{Wiki|superstitions}}. Nevertheless, certain commonalities have been cited between [[scientific]] [[investigation]] and [[Buddhist]] [[thought]]. [[Tenzin Gyatso]], the [[14th Dalai Lama]], in a [[speech]] at the meeting of the {{Wiki|Society}} for {{Wiki|Neuroscience}}, listed a "[[suspicion]] of absolutes" and a reliance on [[causality]] and {{Wiki|empiricism}} as common [[philosophical]] {{Wiki|principles}} shared between [[Buddhism]] and [[science]].
  
 
[[Buddhism]] and the [[scientific method]]
 
[[Buddhism]] and the [[scientific method]]
  
 
More consistent with the [[scientific method]] than [[traditional]], faith-based [[religion]], the [[Kalama Sutta]] insists on a proper assessment of {{Wiki|evidence}}, rather than a reliance on [[faith]], hearsay or speculation:
 
More consistent with the [[scientific method]] than [[traditional]], faith-based [[religion]], the [[Kalama Sutta]] insists on a proper assessment of {{Wiki|evidence}}, rather than a reliance on [[faith]], hearsay or speculation:
“ "Yes, [[Kalamas]], it is proper that you have [[doubt]], that you have perplexity, for a [[doubt]] has arisen in a matter which is [[doubtful]]. Now, look you [[Kalamas]], do not be led by reports, or [[tradition]], or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of [[religious]] texts, not by mere [[logic]] or inference, nor by considering [[appearances]], nor by the [[delight]] in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the [[idea]]: 'this is our [[teacher]]'. But, O [[Kalamas]], when you know for yourselves that certain things are [[unwholesome]] ([[akusala]]), and wrong, and bad, then give them up...And when you know for yourselves that certain things are [[wholesome]] ([[kusala]]) and good, then accept them and follow them." ”
+
“ "Yes, [[Kalamas]], it is proper that you have [[doubt]], that you have [[perplexity]], for a [[doubt]] has arisen in a {{Wiki|matter}} which is [[doubtful]]. Now, look you [[Kalamas]], do not be led by reports, or [[tradition]], or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of [[religious]] texts, not by mere [[logic]] or {{Wiki|inference}}, nor by considering [[appearances]], nor by the [[delight]] in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the [[idea]]: 'this is our [[teacher]]'. But, O [[Kalamas]], when you know for yourselves that certain things are [[unwholesome]] ([[akusala]]), and wrong, and bad, then give them up...And when you know for yourselves that certain things are [[wholesome]] ([[kusala]]) and good, then accept them and follow them." ”
  
 
The general tenor of the [[sutta]] is also similar to "Nullius in verba" — often translated as "Take no-one's [[word]] for it", the motto of the {{Wiki|Royal}} {{Wiki|Society}}.
 
The general tenor of the [[sutta]] is also similar to "Nullius in verba" — often translated as "Take no-one's [[word]] for it", the motto of the {{Wiki|Royal}} {{Wiki|Society}}.
Line 14: Line 19:
 
Main article: [[Buddhism and psychology]]
 
Main article: [[Buddhism and psychology]]
  
During the 1970s, several experimental studies suggested that [[Buddhist meditation]] could produce [[insights]] into a wide range of [[psychological]] states. [[Interest]] in the use of [[meditation]] as a means of providing [[insight]] into mind-states has recently been revived, following the increased availability of such brain-scanning technologies as fMRI and SPECT.
+
During the 1970s, several experimental studies suggested that [[Buddhist meditation]] could produce [[insights]] into a wide range of [[psychological]] states. [[Interest]] in the use of [[meditation]] as a means of providing [[insight]] into [[mind-states]] has recently been revived, following the increased availability of such brain-scanning technologies as fMRI and SPECT.
  
Such studies are enthusiastically encouraged by the present [[Dalai Lama]], [[Tenzin Gyatso]], who has long expressed an [[interest]] in exploring the connection between [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] and regularly attends the [[Mind]] and [[Life]] Institute Conferences.
+
Such studies are enthusiastically encouraged by the {{Wiki|present}} [[Dalai Lama]], [[Tenzin Gyatso]], who has long expressed an [[interest]] in exploring the [[connection]] between [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] and regularly attends the [[Mind]] and [[Life]] Institute Conferences.
  
In 1974 the [[Kagyu]] [[Buddhist]] [[teacher]] [[Chögyam Trungpa]] predicted that "[[Buddhism]] will come to the [[West]] as {{Wiki|psychology}}". This [[view]] was apparently regarded with considerable {{Wiki|scepticism}} at the [[time]], but [[Buddhist]] [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] have indeed made most in-roads in the [[psychological]] {{Wiki|sciences}}. Some {{Wiki|modern}} [[scientific]] theories, such as Rogerian {{Wiki|psychology}}, show strong parallels with [[Buddhist]] [[thought]]. Some of the most [[interesting]] work on the relationship between [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] is being done in the area of comparison between [[Yogacara]] theories regarding the [[store consciousness]] and {{Wiki|modern}} evolutionary {{Wiki|biology}}, especially {{Wiki|DNA}}. This is because the [[Yogacara]] {{Wiki|theory}} of [[karmic seeds]] works well in explaining the nature/nurture problem. See the works by William Waldron on this topic, e.g. Waldron (1995), (2002) and (2003).
+
In 1974 the [[Kagyu]] [[Buddhist]] [[teacher]] [[Chögyam Trungpa]] predicted that "[[Buddhism]] will come to the [[West]] as {{Wiki|psychology}}". This [[view]] was apparently regarded with considerable {{Wiki|scepticism}} at the [[time]], but [[Buddhist]] [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] have indeed made most in-roads in the [[psychological]] {{Wiki|sciences}}. Some {{Wiki|modern}} [[scientific]] theories, such as Rogerian {{Wiki|psychology}}, show strong parallels with [[Buddhist]] [[thought]]. Some of the most [[interesting]] work on the relationship between [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] is being done in the area of comparison between [[Yogacara]] theories regarding the [[store consciousness]] and {{Wiki|modern}} evolutionary {{Wiki|biology}}, especially {{Wiki|DNA}}. This is because the [[Yogacara]] {{Wiki|theory}} of [[karmic seeds]] works well in explaining the nature/nurture problem. See the works by [[William Waldron]] on this topic, e.g. Waldron (1995), (2002) and (2003).
  
{{Wiki|William James}} often drew on [[Buddhist cosmology]] when framing {{Wiki|perceptual}} [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]], such as his term "stream of [[consciousness]]," which is the literal English translation of the [[Pali]] vinnana-sota. The "stream of [[consciousness]]" is given various names throughout the many [[languages]] of [[Buddhadharma]] {{Wiki|discourse}} but in English is generally known as "[[Mindstream]]". In Varieties of [[Religious]] [[Experience]] James also promoted the functional value of [[meditation]] for {{Wiki|modern}} {{Wiki|psychology}}. He wrote: "This is the {{Wiki|psychology}} everybody will be studying twenty-five years from now."
+
{{Wiki|William James}} often drew on [[Buddhist cosmology]] when framing {{Wiki|perceptual}} [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]], such as his term "{{Wiki|stream}} of [[consciousness]]," which is the literal English translation of the [[Pali]] vinnana-sota. The "{{Wiki|stream}} of [[consciousness]]" is given various names throughout the many [[languages]] of [[Buddhadharma]] {{Wiki|discourse}} but in English is generally known as "[[Mindstream]]". In Varieties of [[Religious]] [[Experience]] James also promoted the functional value of [[meditation]] for {{Wiki|modern}} {{Wiki|psychology}}. He wrote: "This is the {{Wiki|psychology}} everybody will be studying twenty-five years from now."
 
[[Buddhism]] as [[science]]
 
[[Buddhism]] as [[science]]
  
[[Buddhist]] [[teacher]] S.N. Goenka describes [[Buddhadharma]] as a '[[pure]] [[science]] of [[mind]] and matter'. He claims [[Buddhism]] uses precise, analytical [[philosophical]] and [[psychological]] {{Wiki|terminology}} and {{Wiki|reasoning}}. Goenka's presentation describes [[Buddhism]] not so much as [[belief]] in a [[body]] of unverifiable {{Wiki|dogmas}}, but an active, impartial, [[objective]] [[investigation]] of things as they are.
+
[[Buddhist]] [[teacher]] S.N. [[Goenka]] describes [[Buddhadharma]] as a '[[pure]] [[science]] of [[mind]] and {{Wiki|matter}}'. He claims [[Buddhism]] uses precise, analytical [[philosophical]] and [[psychological]] {{Wiki|terminology}} and {{Wiki|reasoning}}. Goenka's presentation describes [[Buddhism]] not so much as [[belief]] in a [[body]] of unverifiable {{Wiki|dogmas}}, but an active, impartial, [[objective]] [[investigation]] of things as they are.
  
 
What is generally accepted in [[Buddhism]] is that effects arise from [[causation]]. From his very first {{Wiki|discourse}} onwards, the [[Buddha]] explains the [[reality]] of things in terms of [[cause and effect]]. The [[existence]] of [[misery]] and [[suffering]] in any given {{Wiki|individual}} is due to the presence of [[causes]]. One way to describe the [[Buddhist]] [[eightfold path]] is a turning towards the [[reality]] of things as they are right now and [[understanding]] [[reality]] directly, although it is [[debated]] the {{Wiki|degree}} to which these investigations are [[metaphysical]] or {{Wiki|epistemological}}.
 
What is generally accepted in [[Buddhism]] is that effects arise from [[causation]]. From his very first {{Wiki|discourse}} onwards, the [[Buddha]] explains the [[reality]] of things in terms of [[cause and effect]]. The [[existence]] of [[misery]] and [[suffering]] in any given {{Wiki|individual}} is due to the presence of [[causes]]. One way to describe the [[Buddhist]] [[eightfold path]] is a turning towards the [[reality]] of things as they are right now and [[understanding]] [[reality]] directly, although it is [[debated]] the {{Wiki|degree}} to which these investigations are [[metaphysical]] or {{Wiki|epistemological}}.
  
[[Zen master]] [[Thich Nhat Hanh]] has written the following on [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] "In [[Buddhism]] there are two kinds of [[truth]]: [[conventional truth]] (S: samvṛti-satya C: 俗諦) and [[ultimate truth]] (S: [[paramārtha-satya]], C: [[真諦]]). In the framework of the [[conventional truth]], [[Buddhists]] speak of [[being and non-being]], [[birth]] and [[death]], coming and going, inside and outside, one and many, etc… and the [[Buddhist teaching]] and practice based on this framework helps reduce [[suffering]], and bring more [[harmony]] and [[happiness]]. In the framework of the [[ultimate truth]], the [[teaching]] transcends notions of [[being and non-being]], [[birth]] and [[death]], coming and going, inside and outside, one and many, etc… and the [[teaching]] and practice based on this [[insight]] help practitioners liberate themselves from {{Wiki|discrimination}}, {{Wiki|fear}}, and {{Wiki|touch}} [[nirvana]], the [[ultimate reality]]. [[Buddhists]] see no conflict between the two kinds of [[truth]] and are free to make good use of both frameworks.
+
[[Zen master]] [[Thich Nhat Hanh]] has written the following on [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] "In [[Buddhism]] there are two kinds of [[truth]]: [[conventional truth]] (S: samvṛti-satya C: 俗諦) and [[ultimate truth]] (S: [[paramārtha-satya]], C: [[真諦]]). In the framework of the [[conventional truth]], [[Buddhists]] speak of [[being and non-being]], [[birth]] and [[death]], coming and going, inside and outside, one and many, etc… and the [[Buddhist teaching]] and practice based on this framework helps reduce [[suffering]], and bring more [[harmony]] and [[happiness]]. In the framework of the [[ultimate truth]], the [[teaching]] {{Wiki|transcends}} notions of [[being and non-being]], [[birth]] and [[death]], coming and going, inside and outside, one and many, etc… and the [[teaching]] and practice based on this [[insight]] help practitioners {{Wiki|liberate}} themselves from {{Wiki|discrimination}}, {{Wiki|fear}}, and {{Wiki|touch}} [[nirvana]], the [[ultimate reality]]. [[Buddhists]] see no conflict between the two kinds of [[truth]] and are free to make good use of both frameworks.
  
Classical [[science]], as seen in Newton’s theories, is built upon a framework reflecting everyday [[experience]], in which material [[objects]] have an {{Wiki|individual}} [[existence]], and can be located in [[time]] and [[space]]. {{Wiki|Quantum physics}} provides a framework for [[understanding]] how [[nature]] operates on subatomic scales, but differs completely from classical [[science]], because in this framework, there is no such thing as [[empty]] [[space]], and the position of an [[object]] and its momentum cannot simultaneously be precisely determined. Elementary particles fluctuate in and out of [[existence]], and do not really [[exist]] but have only a “tendency to [[exist]]”.
+
Classical [[science]], as seen in Newton’s theories, is built upon a framework {{Wiki|reflecting}} everyday [[experience]], in which material [[objects]] have an {{Wiki|individual}} [[existence]], and can be located in [[time]] and [[space]]. {{Wiki|Quantum physics}} provides a framework for [[understanding]] how [[nature]] operates on subatomic scales, but differs completely from classical [[science]], because in this framework, there is no such thing as [[empty]] [[space]], and the position of an [[object]] and its momentum cannot simultaneously be precisely determined. Elementary {{Wiki|particles}} fluctuate in and out of [[existence]], and do not really [[exist]] but have only a “tendency to [[exist]]”.
  
 
Classical [[science]] seems to reflect the [[conventional truth]] and {{Wiki|quantum physics}} seems to be on its way to discover the [[absolute truth]], trying very hard to discard notions such as [[being and non-being]], inside and outside, [[sameness]] and otherness, etc.… At the same [[time]], [[scientists]] are trying to find out the relationship between the two kinds of [[truth]] represented by the two kinds of [[science]], because both can be tested and applied in [[life]].
 
Classical [[science]] seems to reflect the [[conventional truth]] and {{Wiki|quantum physics}} seems to be on its way to discover the [[absolute truth]], trying very hard to discard notions such as [[being and non-being]], inside and outside, [[sameness]] and otherness, etc.… At the same [[time]], [[scientists]] are trying to find out the relationship between the two kinds of [[truth]] represented by the two kinds of [[science]], because both can be tested and applied in [[life]].
  
In [[science]], a {{Wiki|theory}} should be tested in several ways before it can be accepted by the [[scientific]] {{Wiki|community}}. The [[Buddha]] also recommended, in the Kālāma Sūtra1, that any [[teaching]] and [[insight]] given by any [[teacher]] should be tested by our own [[experience]] before it can be accepted as the [[truth]]. {{Wiki|Real}} [[insight]], or [[right view]] (S: [[samyag-dṛṣṭi]], C: 正見), has the capacity to liberate, and to bring [[peace]] and [[happiness]]. The findings of [[science]] are also [[insight]]; they can be applied in technology, but can be applied also to our daily {{Wiki|behavior}} to improve the quality of our [[life]] and [[happiness]]. [[Buddhists]] and [[scientists]] can share with each other their ways of studying and practice and can profit from each other’s [[insights]] and [[experience]].
+
In [[science]], a {{Wiki|theory}} should be tested in several ways before it can be accepted by the [[scientific]] {{Wiki|community}}. The [[Buddha]] also recommended, in the Kālāma Sūtra1, that any [[teaching]] and [[insight]] given by any [[teacher]] should be tested by our [[own]] [[experience]] before it can be accepted as the [[truth]]. {{Wiki|Real}} [[insight]], or [[right view]] (S: [[samyag-dṛṣṭi]], C: [[正見]]), has the capacity to {{Wiki|liberate}}, and to bring [[peace]] and [[happiness]]. The findings of [[science]] are also [[insight]]; they can be applied in technology, but can be applied also to our daily {{Wiki|behavior}} to improve the [[quality]] of our [[life]] and [[happiness]]. [[Buddhists]] and [[scientists]] can share with each other their ways of studying and practice and can profit from each other’s [[insights]] and [[experience]].
  
The practice of [[mindfulness]] and [[concentration]] always brings [[insight]]. It can help both [[Buddhists]] and [[scientists]]. [[Insights]] transmitted by [[realized]] practitioners like the [[Buddhas]] and [[bodhisattvas]] can be a source of inspiration and support for both [[Buddhist]] practitioners and [[scientists]], and [[scientific]] tests can help [[Buddhist]] practitioners understand better and have more [[confidence]] in the [[insight]] they receive from their ancestral [[teachers]]. It is our [[belief]] that in this 21st Century, [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] can go hand in hand to promote more [[insight]] for us all and bring more [[liberation]], reducing {{Wiki|discrimination}}, separation, {{Wiki|fear}}, [[anger]], and despair in the [[world]]."
+
The practice of [[mindfulness]] and [[concentration]] always brings [[insight]]. It can help both [[Buddhists]] and [[scientists]]. [[Insights]] transmitted by [[realized]] practitioners like the [[Buddhas]] and [[bodhisattvas]] can be a source of inspiration and support for both [[Buddhist]] practitioners and [[scientists]], and [[scientific]] tests can help [[Buddhist]] practitioners understand better and have more [[confidence]] in the [[insight]] they receive from their ancestral [[teachers]]. It is our [[belief]] that in this 21st Century, [[Buddhism]] and [[science]] can go hand in hand to promote more [[insight]] for us all and bring more [[liberation]], reducing {{Wiki|discrimination}}, separation, {{Wiki|fear}}, [[anger]], and {{Wiki|despair}} in the [[world]]."
  
1 Aṅguttara [[Nikaya]] 3.65
+
1 [[Aṅguttara]] [[Nikaya]] 3.65
 
Notable [[scientists]] on [[Buddhism]]
 
Notable [[scientists]] on [[Buddhism]]
  
Niels Bohr, who developed the Bohr Model of the {{Wiki|atom}}, said,
+
{{Wiki|Niels Bohr}}, who developed the [[Bohr]] Model of the {{Wiki|atom}}, said,
 
“ For a parallel to the lesson of [[atomic]] {{Wiki|theory}}...[we must turn] to those kinds of {{Wiki|epistemological}} problems with which already thinkers like the [[Buddha]] and {{Wiki|Lao Tzu}} have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great {{Wiki|drama}} of [[existence]]. ”
 
“ For a parallel to the lesson of [[atomic]] {{Wiki|theory}}...[we must turn] to those kinds of {{Wiki|epistemological}} problems with which already thinkers like the [[Buddha]] and {{Wiki|Lao Tzu}} have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great {{Wiki|drama}} of [[existence]]. ”
  
Nobel-prize winning [[philosopher]] Bertrand Russell described [[Buddhism]] as a speculative and [[scientific]] [[philosophy]]:
+
Nobel-prize winning [[philosopher]] {{Wiki|Bertrand Russell}} described [[Buddhism]] as a speculative and [[scientific]] [[philosophy]]:
“ [[Buddhism]] is a combination of both speculative and [[scientific]] [[philosophy]]. It advocates the [[scientific method]] and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of [[interest]] as: 'What is [[mind]] and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the [[universe]] moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is [[noble]]?' It takes up where [[science]] cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the [[mind]]. ”
+
“ [[Buddhism]] is a combination of both speculative and [[scientific]] [[philosophy]]. It advocates the [[scientific method]] and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of [[interest]] as: 'What is [[mind]] and {{Wiki|matter}}? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the [[universe]] moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is [[noble]]?' It takes up where [[science]] cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the [[mind]]. ”
  
The American {{Wiki|physicist}} J. Robert Oppenheimer made an analogy to [[Buddhism]] when describing the Heisenberg uncertainty [[principle]]:
+
The [[American]] {{Wiki|physicist}} J. Robert Oppenheimer made an analogy to [[Buddhism]] when describing the Heisenberg uncertainty [[principle]]:
“ If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with [[time]], we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no.' The [[Buddha]] has given such answers when interrogated as to the [[conditions]] of man's [[self]] after his [[death]]; but they are not familiar answers for the [[tradition]] of seventeenth and eighteenth-century [[science]]. ”
+
“ If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the {{Wiki|electron}} remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with [[time]], we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the {{Wiki|electron}} is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in {{Wiki|motion}}, we must say 'no.' The [[Buddha]] has given such answers when interrogated as to the [[conditions]] of man's [[self]] after his [[death]]; but they are not familiar answers for the [[tradition]] of seventeenth and eighteenth-century [[science]]. ”
  
 
Nobel-prize winning {{Wiki|physicist}} {{Wiki|Albert Einstein}}, who developed the general {{Wiki|theory}} of [[relativity]] and the special {{Wiki|theory}} of [[relativity]], also known for his mass–energy equivalence, described [[Buddhism]] as containing a strong [[cosmic]] [[element]]:
 
Nobel-prize winning {{Wiki|physicist}} {{Wiki|Albert Einstein}}, who developed the general {{Wiki|theory}} of [[relativity]] and the special {{Wiki|theory}} of [[relativity]], also known for his mass–energy equivalence, described [[Buddhism]] as containing a strong [[cosmic]] [[element]]:
“ ...there is found a third level of [[religious]] [[experience]], even if it is seldom found in a [[pure]] [[form]]. I will call it the [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[sense]]. This is hard to make clear to those who do not [[experience]] it, since it does not involve an {{Wiki|anthropomorphic}} [[idea]] of [[God]]; the {{Wiki|individual}} [[feels]] the vanity of [[human]] [[desires]] and aims, and the [[nobility]] and [[marvelous]] order which are revealed in [[nature]] and in the [[world]] of [[thought]]. He [[feels]] the {{Wiki|individual}} [[destiny]] as an imprisonment and seeks to [[experience]] the {{Wiki|totality}} of [[existence]] as a unity full of significance. Indications of this [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[sense]] can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the {{Wiki|Prophets}}. The [[cosmic]] [[element]] is much stronger in [[Buddhism]], as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The [[religious]] geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[sense]], which [[recognizes]] neither {{Wiki|dogmas}} nor [[God]] made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a {{Wiki|church}} whose chief [[doctrines]] are based on the [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[experience]]. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the {{Wiki|heretics}} of all ages men who were inspired by this [[highest]] [[religious]] [[experience]]; often they appeared to their contemporaries as {{Wiki|atheists}}, but sometimes also as {{Wiki|saints}}.
+
“ ...there is found a third level of [[religious]] [[experience]], even if it is seldom found in a [[pure]] [[form]]. I will call it the [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[sense]]. This is hard to make clear to those who do not [[experience]] it, since it does not involve an {{Wiki|anthropomorphic}} [[idea]] of [[God]]; the {{Wiki|individual}} [[feels]] the vanity of [[human]] [[desires]] and aims, and the [[nobility]] and [[marvelous]] order which are revealed in [[nature]] and in the [[world]] of [[thought]]. He [[feels]] the {{Wiki|individual}} [[destiny]] as an imprisonment and seeks to [[experience]] the {{Wiki|totality}} of [[existence]] as a {{Wiki|unity}} full of significance. Indications of this [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[sense]] can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the {{Wiki|Prophets}}. The [[cosmic]] [[element]] is much stronger in [[Buddhism]], as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent {{Wiki|essays}} have shown us. The [[religious]] geniuses of all times have been {{Wiki|distinguished}} by this [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[sense]], which [[recognizes]] neither {{Wiki|dogmas}} nor [[God]] made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a {{Wiki|church}} whose chief [[doctrines]] are based on the [[cosmic]] [[religious]] [[experience]]. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the {{Wiki|heretics}} of all ages men who were inspired by this [[highest]] [[religious]] [[experience]]; often they appeared to their contemporaries as {{Wiki|atheists}}, but sometimes also as {{Wiki|saints}}.
 
</poem>
 
</poem>
 
{{W}}
 
{{W}}
 
[[Category:Buddhism And Science]]
 
[[Category:Buddhism And Science]]

Latest revision as of 08:30, 24 November 2023


Image-78.jpg
Kri0015.JPG
Amituofo14.JPG
Chicbest.jpg
Vajra ev93.jpg
12333 Fr.jpg






 Buddhism and science have increasingly been discussed as compatible, and Buddhism has entered into the science and religion dialogue. The case is made that the philosophic and psychological teachings within Buddhism share commonalities with modern scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of Nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon) — the principal object of study being oneself. Some popular conceptions of Buddhism connect it to discourse regarding evolution, quantum theory, and cosmology, though most scientists see a separation between the religious and metaphysical statements of Buddhism and the methodology of science. In 1993 a model deduced from Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development was published arguing that Buddhism is a fourth mode of thought beyond magic, science and religion.

Buddhism has been described by some as rational and non-dogmatic, and there is evidence that this has been the case from the earliest period of its history, though some have suggested this aspect is given greater emphasis in modern times and is in part a reinterpretation. Not all forms of Buddhism eschew dogmatism, remain neutral on the subject of the supernatural, or are open to scientific discoveries. Buddhism is a varied tradition and aspects include fundamentalism, devotional traditions, supplication to local spirits, and various superstitions. Nevertheless, certain commonalities have been cited between scientific investigation and Buddhist thought. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, in a speech at the meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, listed a "suspicion of absolutes" and a reliance on causality and empiricism as common philosophical principles shared between Buddhism and science.

Buddhism and the scientific method

More consistent with the scientific method than traditional, faith-based religion, the Kalama Sutta insists on a proper assessment of evidence, rather than a reliance on faith, hearsay or speculation:
“ "Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, not by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: 'this is our teacher'. But, O Kalamas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up...And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and follow them." ”

The general tenor of the sutta is also similar to "Nullius in verba" — often translated as "Take no-one's word for it", the motto of the Royal Society.
Buddhism and psychology
Main article: Buddhism and psychology

During the 1970s, several experimental studies suggested that Buddhist meditation could produce insights into a wide range of psychological states. Interest in the use of meditation as a means of providing insight into mind-states has recently been revived, following the increased availability of such brain-scanning technologies as fMRI and SPECT.

Such studies are enthusiastically encouraged by the present Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, who has long expressed an interest in exploring the connection between Buddhism and science and regularly attends the Mind and Life Institute Conferences.

In 1974 the Kagyu Buddhist teacher Chögyam Trungpa predicted that "Buddhism will come to the West as psychology". This view was apparently regarded with considerable scepticism at the time, but Buddhist concepts have indeed made most in-roads in the psychological sciences. Some modern scientific theories, such as Rogerian psychology, show strong parallels with Buddhist thought. Some of the most interesting work on the relationship between Buddhism and science is being done in the area of comparison between Yogacara theories regarding the store consciousness and modern evolutionary biology, especially DNA. This is because the Yogacara theory of karmic seeds works well in explaining the nature/nurture problem. See the works by William Waldron on this topic, e.g. Waldron (1995), (2002) and (2003).

William James often drew on Buddhist cosmology when framing perceptual concepts, such as his term "stream of consciousness," which is the literal English translation of the Pali vinnana-sota. The "stream of consciousness" is given various names throughout the many languages of Buddhadharma discourse but in English is generally known as "Mindstream". In Varieties of Religious Experience James also promoted the functional value of meditation for modern psychology. He wrote: "This is the psychology everybody will be studying twenty-five years from now."
Buddhism as science

Buddhist teacher S.N. Goenka describes Buddhadharma as a 'pure science of mind and matter'. He claims Buddhism uses precise, analytical philosophical and psychological terminology and reasoning. Goenka's presentation describes Buddhism not so much as belief in a body of unverifiable dogmas, but an active, impartial, objective investigation of things as they are.

What is generally accepted in Buddhism is that effects arise from causation. From his very first discourse onwards, the Buddha explains the reality of things in terms of cause and effect. The existence of misery and suffering in any given individual is due to the presence of causes. One way to describe the Buddhist eightfold path is a turning towards the reality of things as they are right now and understanding reality directly, although it is debated the degree to which these investigations are metaphysical or epistemological.

Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh has written the following on Buddhism and science "In Buddhism there are two kinds of truth: conventional truth (S: samvṛti-satya C: 俗諦) and ultimate truth (S: paramārtha-satya, C: 真諦). In the framework of the conventional truth, Buddhists speak of being and non-being, birth and death, coming and going, inside and outside, one and many, etc… and the Buddhist teaching and practice based on this framework helps reduce suffering, and bring more harmony and happiness. In the framework of the ultimate truth, the teaching transcends notions of being and non-being, birth and death, coming and going, inside and outside, one and many, etc… and the teaching and practice based on this insight help practitioners liberate themselves from discrimination, fear, and touch nirvana, the ultimate reality. Buddhists see no conflict between the two kinds of truth and are free to make good use of both frameworks.

Classical science, as seen in Newton’s theories, is built upon a framework reflecting everyday experience, in which material objects have an individual existence, and can be located in time and space. Quantum physics provides a framework for understanding how nature operates on subatomic scales, but differs completely from classical science, because in this framework, there is no such thing as empty space, and the position of an object and its momentum cannot simultaneously be precisely determined. Elementary particles fluctuate in and out of existence, and do not really exist but have only a “tendency to exist”.

Classical science seems to reflect the conventional truth and quantum physics seems to be on its way to discover the absolute truth, trying very hard to discard notions such as being and non-being, inside and outside, sameness and otherness, etc.… At the same time, scientists are trying to find out the relationship between the two kinds of truth represented by the two kinds of science, because both can be tested and applied in life.

In science, a theory should be tested in several ways before it can be accepted by the scientific community. The Buddha also recommended, in the Kālāma Sūtra1, that any teaching and insight given by any teacher should be tested by our own experience before it can be accepted as the truth. Real insight, or right view (S: samyag-dṛṣṭi, C: 正見), has the capacity to liberate, and to bring peace and happiness. The findings of science are also insight; they can be applied in technology, but can be applied also to our daily behavior to improve the quality of our life and happiness. Buddhists and scientists can share with each other their ways of studying and practice and can profit from each other’s insights and experience.

The practice of mindfulness and concentration always brings insight. It can help both Buddhists and scientists. Insights transmitted by realized practitioners like the Buddhas and bodhisattvas can be a source of inspiration and support for both Buddhist practitioners and scientists, and scientific tests can help Buddhist practitioners understand better and have more confidence in the insight they receive from their ancestral teachers. It is our belief that in this 21st Century, Buddhism and science can go hand in hand to promote more insight for us all and bring more liberation, reducing discrimination, separation, fear, anger, and despair in the world."

1 Aṅguttara Nikaya 3.65
Notable scientists on Buddhism

Niels Bohr, who developed the Bohr Model of the atom, said,
“ For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory...[we must turn] to those kinds of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence. ”

Nobel-prize winning philosopher Bertrand Russell described Buddhism as a speculative and scientific philosophy:
Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind. ”

The American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer made an analogy to Buddhism when describing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
“ If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no.' The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers for the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century science. ”

Nobel-prize winning physicist Albert Einstein, who developed the general theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity, also known for his mass–energy equivalence, described Buddhism as containing a strong cosmic element:
“ ...there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the heretics of all ages men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints.

Source

Wikipedia:Buddhism and science