11.14.05
Buddhism and Antiscience
The Dalai Lama has a short piece in the Times echoing his recent Universe in a Single Atom, Our Faith in Science. We can be delighted that Buddhists, by and large, have an openness to science that is too often lacking in the monotheisitic traditions with their reason wrecking metaphysical baggage. On the other hand it is important to consider that Buddhism conceals a lot of hidden aspects that won’t/don’t sit well with current scientific reductionism, and it is science that is going to be a problem, not Buddhism. Thus, our lama, now Tenzin Gyatso, gives his apparently abject allegiance. Noticeably absent is the controversial potshot at Darwinism that was present in the book. I should say at the onset that I am not a Buddhist, and have quite another problem on this issue, but for the moment, it should be said that the legacy of Buddhism is an immense outstanding ‘evolutionary stream’ that is beyond the ability, apparently, of modern science to get straight. This is not some metaphysical ideology about to get secularized out of existence by Darwin groupies.
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
A number of science commentators have made a big deal out of this, e.g. Michael Shermer. As if it was the proper evidence of cowling humility, as scientists reprogram man, and arbitrate all issues of reality. But scientists are totally blind to what is involved here, and don’t get the final say, please don’t be that big of an idiot. It is possible to go to t he Library these days and actually study what is afoot with all that.
What could be more reasonable, though? In a world of fundamentalists, Buddhists need this kind of thinking to keep their smarts about them, and be willing to assess the realm of modern science. In one way they have done so, in another they have not, and we often fail to see the way ‘Buddhists’ operate behind fronts, a classic one being Theosophy, and the Madame Blavatsky shenanigans. It is all very well to take the Dalai Lama as a spokesman for Buddhistm, but the reality is quite different, and conceals some ferocious operators who don’t consider modernity anything but a blip on the samsara screen.
Anyway, the Dalai Lama is trying hard, but in the end this strategy won’t work (which doesn’t mean abandoning its partial validity, Buddhists ought to sit down and study a lot of science). Buddhists have no intention of yielding to science on some key issues. It is scientists who should consider their limits.
Thus, there is another side to this: if Buddhism shows something lacking in current science, then scientists ought to wake up and realize they are dragging us into a view of man that won’t do justice to the greater totality of the human tradition. This is not a plea for Buddhism, but a demand to get to the bottom of the traditions of consciousness that source most visibly in the history of India, so laden with their own problematic, but not something that dogmatic neuroscience is going to explicate, that is, explain away. Let’s face it. The typical unstated view of those trained in current science is that a secular age should debunk Buddhism, undermine and destroy it, look the other way at the convenient destruction of Tibet, and reduce Buddhism to a nine to five fake that does noone any good, a safe neutralizing phooey for droids like current Christianity. So there is a reckoning to come here, because secularists aren’t going to succeed in their current strategy. They will find Bible Belt creationists a mere sideshow nuisance compated to the occult war they will unleash if they attempt to destroy the greater tradition here, Buddhism being another irrelevant ‘ism’ about which Buddhists frequently could care less themselves.
Science needs a new and broader mindset to deal with this question, and in any case, sweet smiles from the Dalai Lama are merely an opening round.
In the meantime, one would do well to consider the content of the Buddhist traditions of consciousness and if they really going to press the Delete button on all of that. Delete buttons quite properly have a little prompt window that comes up to ask if you really meant it. Are you really sure you want to delete that?
Our Faith in Science
By TENZIN GYATSO
SCIENCE has always fascinated me. As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious about how things worked. When I got a toy I would play with it a bit, then take it apart to see how it was put together. As I became older, I applied the same scrutiny to a movie projector and an antique automobile.
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.
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
For many years now, on my own and through the Mind and Life Institute, which I helped found, I have had the opportunity to meet with scientists to discuss their work. World-class scientists have generously coached me in subatomic physics, cosmology, psychology, biology.
It is our discussions of neuroscience, however, that have proved particularly important. From these exchanges a vigorous research initiative has emerged, a collaboration between monks and neuroscientists, to explore how meditation might alter brain function.
The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong - or even to bring people to Buddhism - but rather to take these methods out of the traditional context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone who might find them helpful.
After all, if practices from my own tradition can be brought together with scientific methods, then we may be able to take another small step toward alleviating human suffering.
Already this collaboration has borne fruit. Dr. Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin, has published results from brain imaging studies of lamas meditating. He found that during meditation the regions of the brain thought to be related to happiness increase in activity. He also found that the longer a person has been a meditator, the greater the activity increase will be.
Other studies are under way. At Princeton University, Dr. Jonathan Cohen, a neuroscientist, is studying the effects of meditation on attention. At the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, Dr. Margaret Kemeny has been studying how meditation helps develop empathy in school teachers.
Whatever the results of this work, I am encouraged that it is taking place. You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our interconnected world.
One of my first teachers of science was the German physicist Carl von Weizsäcker, who had been an apprentice to the quantum theorist Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Weizsäcker was kind enough to give me some formal tutorials on scientific topics. (I confess that while listening to him I would feel I could grasp the intricacies of the full argument, but when the sessions were over there was often not a great deal of his explanation left behind.)
What impressed me most deeply was how Dr. Weizsäcker worried about both the philosophical implications of quantum physics and the ethical consequences of science generally. He felt that science could benefit from exploring issues usually left to the humanities.
I believe that we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry.
Rather, I am speaking of what I call “secular ethics,” which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.
Today, our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic level has reached a new level of sophistication. Advances in genetic manipulation, for example, mean scientists can create new genetic entities - like hybrid animal and plant species - whose long-term consequences are unknown.
Sometimes when scientists concentrate on their own narrow fields, their keen focus obscures the larger effect their work might have. In my conversations with scientists I try to remind them of the larger goal behind what they do in their daily work.
This is more important than ever. It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals.
This is a point I intend to make when I speak at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience today in Washington. I will suggest that how science relates to wider humanity is no longer of academic interest alone. This question must assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned about the fate of human existence.
A deeper dialogue between neuroscience and society - indeed between all scientific fields and society - could help deepen our understanding of what it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share with other sentient beings.
Just as the world of business has been paying renewed attention to ethics, the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity.
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is the author of “The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality.”