Sunday October 9, 2005
A few weeks ago, I wrote something on how neuroscientists might have something to learn from Buddhism. It seems to me, however, that the reverse is also true, and that Buddhists have much to learn from science.
Wikipedia gives the following useful working definition for ‘science’:
- Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or
- The organized body of knowledge gained by such research.
It is because of its systematic, methodical and reasoned inquiry that the scientific world picture has been so successful. It is certainly an incomplete picture. It is certainly open to rethinking and to (using the philosopher Karl Popper’s term) falsification. But, as a method of investigation it has proved highly potent; and the resulting picture of the universe, and of who we are within that universe, is one that has never been equalled in its elegance, its beauty, and its power. When it comes to explaining the world, science is simply the best game in town.
Much of Buddhist thought today seems to me to be enmired in ancient Indian cosmologies and doctrines that are, in the face of this scientific world-picture, simply untenable. The traditional Buddhist world view – with its various realms of existence, its Buddha fields, its gods and titans and hungry ghosts – may have a poetic, allegorical or symbolic power, and this is no doubt of some value; but as a picture of how things actually are, as a description of the universe, it simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
Shakyamuni, the historical Buddha, did not spend much time engaging in cosmological speculation. It seems as if he took contemporary Indian ideas of rebirth and the cosmology of the time at more or less face value; but this cosmology seems to me to be in no way central to his teaching. If there is anything of value in the traditions of Buddhism – and I am sure that there is – if these traditions have anything to say to us, here and now in the 21^st^ century – as I am sure that they do – then what is of value is not this cosmological background: it is the insights into the absence of subsisting selfhood, into the delusions of selfhood that we weave, into the processes of ahamkara and mamamkara – “I making” and “mine making” – that cause so much suffering for ourselves and for others.
There have been many initiatives for building bridges between Buddhism and science, for example those at the Mind and Life Institute. But I think it is important to do more than build bridges. To build a bridge allows the coming and going between two territories, but in the dialogue between Buddhism and science, it may be necessary to do more than just coming and going. It may be necessary to give up a great deal of territory. And as the Buddhist world-picture is less well-founded than the scientific world picture, it may be that it is the Buddhists, in the end, who have to renounce some of their home ground. But even that great enthusiast of dialogue with the sciences, the Dalai Lama, seems curiously unwilling to give up any territory to science. In his own words:
With the ever growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other.
But what if there are contradictions between the two, as there surely are? Can there be a real engagement without at least the possibility of contradiction? What is this ‘humanity’ of which ‘religion and spirituality’ remind us? Is it a truthful picture of our humanity or not? Doesn’t this need to be considered, rather than just asserted? Might it not be important to weigh up the different truth-claims of these two systems and, perhaps, to give up one or the other?
What I am saying is this: for Buddhism to truly engage with science, it may be necessary to pay more than lip service to some kind of dialogue. If Buddhism were to truly engage with science, it might find that its very foundations seemed to crumble away. In this engagement, Buddhism might be required to cede a great deal of territory to the scientific world view. It But it might be here, in this crumbling-away of those things that seem most important, in the ceding of territory and in the giving up of ideas that are inherited, untested and untenable, that Buddhist thought and practice might be freed from their traditional constraints, and take on a new relevance.
What I am saying, I think, is that in the end Buddhism can only remain relevant if it gives up its authority as a ‘religion’, with all of the delusion-mongering that goes along with this, and returns to being a method for systematically overturning our delusions about ourselves. Otherwise this ancient, pragmatic and insightful body of thought risks becoming nothing other than a colourful, but irrelevant, cultural curiosity.
Comments are turned off for this article.
Today's Most Popular
The Dalai Lama and Brain Science: Tuesday August 2, 2005
Scientists protest against Dalai Lama’s invitation to a conference on neuroscience. Is such a protest justified?
Meditation in Schools?: Monday August 6, 2007
Should meditation be taught in schools?
Awakening to Awakening: Friday September 15, 2006
Slippery metaphors and debased coinage…
Me, me, me, me, meme...: Monday November 14, 2005
Review of Susan Blackmore’s “The Meme Machine”
On Advertising: Wednesday January 14, 2009
“There are a lot of things in this world / You are going to have no use for…” Tom Waits.
Lightness of Touch: Friday September 5, 2008
Governing oneself the way one cooks a small fish.
Buddhism and Philosophy Part III - Practices of Wisdom and Love: Friday December 16, 2005
Philosophy: the love of wisdom… or the wisdom of love???
Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is...: Friday January 29, 2010
Bob Dylan and the cognitive unconscious.
Dennett's Modest Proposal: Tuesday November 14, 2006
Dan Dennett, religion and science.
Buddhism Without Buddhism?: Friday July 29, 2005
From Buddhism without Beliefs to Buddhism without Buddhism…
Zen, Brains and Making Friends With Your Own Head: 10 Nov, 2008
It’s a complicated business having a brain.
Lies in Which not Everything is False: 10 Sep, 2008
Stories – they are nothing but a pack of lies.
The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: 30 Oct, 2007
Aidan Delgado on Buddhism, ethics and the war in Iraq.
Baboon: 06 Jun, 2006
Feeling like a grumpy old baboon?
Meditation as Unphenomenology: 07 Feb, 2008
Meditation, cartography and the territory of the mind.