Convergence and Divergence of Buddhism and Modern Science
H.H. the Dalai Lama in his science book 'The Universe in a Single Atom' says:
“I believe that spirituality and science are complementary
but different investigative approaches
with the same goal of seeking the truth.”
The world now a days has turned so small where all disciplines like
science, philosophy and so forth are heavily interconnected to each
other. No one discipline can stand independent anymore; Buddhism and
science are no exceptions. While all these systems evolved with the
primary purpose of rendering benefits to humanity, just as other
systems, Buddhism and science also have enormous roles to play and
strikingly more if they work hand in hand. The basis for the possibility
of this vision and endeavor is that the two share a lot in common while
exploring the reality and the methodology by resorting to rational
thoughts, paying credence to empiricism and above all the openness to
all possibilities of ideas and concepts.
The common approach of these two systems which very much accords with
basic human nature and human intelligence indeed is what made these two
the sources of hope for inner joy and prosperity for humankind. Buddhism
is a medicine and aid for mental health and modern science for physical
health and comfort. Given that we human beings are but psychophysical
complex consisting of physical bodies and minds, we inextricably need
both science and Buddhism.
For the two working closely, we need both sides to have a sound insight
into the other discipline and more importantly the rigor to see through
their similarities and their differences. New knowledge in the form of
emergent properties will surely find ample room if the two are analyzed
closely and in an unbiased fashion. They can mutually boost and even
contribute towards further development of each other.
With this in mind, through the initiative of H.H. the Dalai Lama,
Francisco Varela, a world celebrated neuroscientist, and Adam Engle, the
Mind and Life Institute was founded in the year 1987. The institute
generally holds conferences biannually where scientists and Buddhist
scholar-practitioners meet for discussions to learn from each other and
more importantly to study how the two systems each offer their own
perspectives on the same topic. So far the areas of discussion have
included
quantum physics, astronomy, cosmology, philosophy of science,
neuroscience, biology/ evolution, cognitive science, psychology, dream
science, economics and health sciences.
With the same initiative from H.H. the Dalai Lama, science workshops are
given to young monk-scholars for more than 10 years. To the amazement
of the Western teachers including some scientists, they found a great
degree of sharpness of the monk-scholars when they pose questions in the
classes. For sure this is due to their trainings in Buddhist logic and
philosophy in the Monastic Universities. Finding a great light of hope
in these young monks, through the advice of H.H. the Dalai Lama, science
lessons are now on their way to being introduced as one of the formal
subjects in the program of the major Tibetan Monastic Universities.
These programs are being undertaken jointly by Emory University, USA and
the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives.
Driving motivation
Science owes its birth to the great thinkers such as Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle and so forth, although their works are treated more as
philosophy than pure science now a days. There exists an innate desire
in the human mind to know the answers to the barrages of questions
striking their consciousness. Some so peripheral as “Why vapors in a
kettle lift the lid?” Others very sophisticated as “What could be the
origin of Universe?” “Why are some objects in this world animate such as
humans, while others are inanimate such as trees and rocks?” The surge
in the desire for answers to these questions triggered the birth of
modern science. This took the form of a gradual cumulative progression,
which included numerous thinkers and experimentalists; the later ones
refining and adding to the thoughts and findings of the formers.
Contrary to this, Buddhism came into being as a system in complete form
within one person's lifetime, not something that evolved over many
centuries. Overall speaking, it simply reflects the ideas of one
historical enlightened being known as Shakyamuni Buddha. Its driving
force is not simply to seek answers to any questions, but to a very
specific one i.e., “What is the solution to all our problems?”
It is because of the difference, at least to some extent, in the
motivating intention, of the two systems that science involves its
search in matters, whereas Buddhism primarily with mind which forms the
basis of our experience of pains and happiness. Given that the modern
science deals with matter alone, it has its beauty in emphasizing the
need for features such as quantifiable, repeatable, observable and
empirical, without which a system is precluded from being a science.
Whereas Buddhism on the contrary, because it primarily espouses the
study of mind, it may not emphasize the facets such as quantifiable and
repeatable in order to qualify a principle as authoritative. Yet it has
its own charms in profound and rigorous wisdom and experience in the
world of mind and the depth of human knowledge of dependent origination
and emptiness which now a days attract a great deal of attention of
modern scientists particularly since the advent of Quantum mechanics and
the Theory of Relativity.
However if one thinks closely, both are in search of reality, but from
different dimensions. Some modern scholars consider Buddhism not as
religion but a "science of mind" and by some as "Humanism." It is for
the reason that Buddhism offers extensive and detail explanation of mind
that it is referred to as science of mind. Because that the ultimate
concept underlying all Buddhist treaties is grounded on the reality that
the animals and particularly the human beings experience - least to do
with dogma - it is described as Humanism.
This is well reflected in what the Buddha has said:
Just as the goldsmith testifies the purity of gold
By cutting, rubbing and burning,
So too should you examine my words and practice them
But not simply because you respect me.
It is the testimony of this single verse that the renowned scientists
such as Albert Einstein were attracted towards the insight of the Buddha
who said this almost 2600 years ago. Also during one of my personal
encounters with a physicist in Cambridge, England who was full of
skepticism, thinking that it was only science and particularly physics
which was open to any questions and analysis, he was overwhelmed to hear
what the Buddha has said (the stanza quoted above) and remarked with
great admiration: “Oh! The Buddha must have been a great scientist.”
Einstein himself as well said: "Should there be any religion, which will go in hand in hand with science, it would be Buddhism."
Overview of Buddhism
Although vast and richly endowed with plural views, aspects, facets,
H.H. the Dalai Lama so tacitly classifies the whole Buddhism into three
categories - science, philosophy and spirituality.
Buddhist science:
In this section of Buddhism, there is extensive exploration into the
reality of the world in which we the beings live in. Given that the
reality or the world we live in comprises of the physical material world
and the world of animate beings which are characterized by the presence
of minds, Buddhism inquires into quite a detail about minute particles
which constitute the material part of the world; analyzing if there ever
exist subtlest particles which are part-less in nature. And as for the
mind, there is comprehensive analysis into the complex and large array
of classifications of mind or consciousness - course and subtle aspects,
mind and mental factors, valid cognition and invalid minds, sense
perception and conceptual thoughts, afflictive and non afflictive
thoughts, their functions and so forth.
Buddhist philosophy:
On the basis of rather a fine understanding of Buddhist science, one
then investigates into the infallibility of former and later lives and
the law of karma on the basis of understanding the nature of mind as
eternally self-perpetuating. This in turn fosters insight into the
possibility of purifying the mental pollutants altogether thereby
leading to the state of liberation and full enlightenment. Since mental
pollutants, in the form of afflictive disturbing mental emotions, are
rooted to the misconception of the reality of the world, the Buddha
eventually pointed to the need to eradicate this misconception which is
referred to as 'ignorance' for to achieve Nirvana - freedom from
suffering. Just as in a child, to eliminate the ignorance over the
alphabets, he or she needs to be introduced to the alphabets a, b, c
and so forth to newly instill in them the knowledge, it is only through
cultivating a proper knowledge of the reality which is directly in
opposition to the ignorance that we can undermine the ignorance and
suffering as its consequence. Thus, understanding what the reality is
becomes crucial.
Ignorance, by its very definition, is characterized by having in it a
disparity between reality and the appearance of the object. What is the
appearance and what is reality? Reality is of two-fold - gross and
subtle. Contrary to the reality which will be explained below is what
and how things usually appear to us. The grosser level of reality
constitutes the law of karma, the understanding of which helps remove
the ignorance over the efficacy of karma and its results. This gives
conviction in the person to engage in the practice of the ten virtuous
actions, the result of which will be ripened in the form of favorable
states. Whereas, the holistic concept of dependent origination/emptiness
of independent existence is the final level of reality. This entails
that nothing exists in real term as independently true. The wisdom which
understands this level of reality undermines the ignorance which
ensnares the sentient beings in samsara thereby leading the person to
the state of freedom from suffering altogether. Thus the understanding
of law of karma, dependent origination/emptiness and nirvana form some
of the major topics which fall under the category of Buddhist
philosophy.
Buddhist spirituality:
Venturing profoundly into the knowledge of Buddhist science and
philosophy, one gains confidence into the possibility of achieving
liberation from suffering. One is then able to integrate the actual path
by cultivating the positive mental qualities and abandoning the
negative ones, primarily through analytical meditation on the law of
karma and dependent origination/emptiness, tempered by single-pointed
meditation. Seeing that other sentient beings, just like oneself, suffer
greatly, one engages in the practice of compassion and Bodhicitta in
order to achieve the state of Buddhahood so to most efficiently help all
sentient beings by shedding the light of wisdom upon them. The
techniques of meditation and their associated rituals inclusive of the
esoteric tantric skills to get along the path to liberation and
Buddhahood constitute the Buddhist spirituality.
Methodology
Both science and Buddhism rely on objective inquiries. Science
emphasizes repetitive experiments, data and third person verification.
Buddhism, on the other hand is based primarily on reasoning and
experience whose verification involves both first and third person
experience. This system of logic and experience is what keeps Buddhist
concepts alive and unmodified even to this day. First person experience
connotes an experience which, although real, is not precisely verifiable
through repeated tests by another person. For example, when one has a
very disturbing dream, it is not what someone else can so precisely
predict what happened to you. It is only the person who had the dream
that will understand the experience. Whereas third person experience
includes those experiences which are precisely verifiable by another
person. An example would be two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of
oxygen, under a given situation, make one molecule of water. Everyone
can understand this precisely just as the original discoverer found it.
Convergence and divergence between the two systems
Basically there are two classes of science: hard and soft. Hard science
consists primarily of physics, chemistry and biology. Soft science
consists of psychology, behavioral science, cognitive science and so
forth. It is the Buddhist concept of ultimate reality and modern
concepts of physics which are the areas to look for intersections or
divergences, if any exist. This is not the case between Buddhism and
biology, and neuroscience. In most cases the Buddhism and neuroscience
overlap each other in their explaining mind and its functions. It is
like one discipline explaining the same coin from the side of the head
and the other on the basis of the tail. However the two can be great
aids to one another which will be touched upon later. As for chemistry
and Buddhism, there is nothing pertinent to discuss.
The dawn of modern physics marks a new light of compatibility between
science and Buddhism. It was Einstein (1879 - 1955) who started
formulating the Special and General Theory of Relativity to explain the
macro-world. Quantum physics, as expounded primarily by Niels Bohr (1885
- 1962), came into being with enchanting explanations of the
micro-world of subatomic particles and waves. Currently these two
theories don't go compatible with each other. Roger Penrose, one of the
leading physicists and mathematicians in the world today, in his book,
'The Large, the Small and the Human Mind', says: “The fact that they
(the laws which govern the small-scale behaviour of the world and those
which govern the large-scale behaviour of the world) seem to be so
different, and what we might have to do about this seeming discrepancy,
is central to the subject of the Chapter 3 – which is where the human
mind comes in.”
Before exploring the points of comparison between the Buddhist concept
of ultimate reality and Physics’ concept of the Theory of Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics, it would be helpful to have some introduction to the
Buddhist concept of dependent origination. The Buddha taught this on
varying levels and thus can be interpreted in different ways. Depending
on the facet by which one explains this concept of dependent
origination, the compatibility with the above two mentioned theories of
science can be seen.
Dependent origination can broadly be interpreted on three levels:
1) Dependent origination of causality
Everything which operates and sustains through dependence on their
causes and conditions, fall in this category. Where there is adequate
amount of water, soil, manure and healthy seeds, there are rich crops
growing. The crops here are the results which we seek to have. And the
other factors like water, soil, seed and so forth are the causes. The
relationship that we see between the causes and their results is known
as dependent origination of causality. This is relatively an easy
concept, and is unanimously accepted and well comprehended by all the
four Buddhist schools of thought along with people who may not
necessarily be familiar with the study of philosophy.
2) Dependent origination of parts and whole
The second level of dependent origination is found explained only in the
two higher Buddhist schools of thought - Mind Only and Middle Way
school. It highlights the relation between parts and the whole. A
person, if one examines well, is a psychophysical complex. The physical
body and the mind are the parts of the person and not the person. Yet we
cannot have a person which stands distinctly as a monolithic entity
aside from these parts. The whole, in this case the person, is simply
posited to be existent by dependence on its parts – the body and mind.
This relationship is so evident when we say and think, “I am in pain.”
Although it is your arms which are in pain and the arms are not you.
Here we see how I as the 'whole' is imputed in dependence on my parts -
the arms. Likewise, you are so happy and excited to see your beloved
parents after a long time apart. It is your mind which feels happy and
excited and your mind is not you. This entails you as a 'whole' coming
into being by dependence on its parts like your mind. But our innate
experience feels that there is a self totally independent of its parts.
This misconception, though relatively gross, creates lots of mental
disturbance and unease in us. One needs bit of reflection to gain
insight into this reality of the 'whole' depending on its 'parts.' This
understanding can be helpful in keeping us calm from the outburst of
emotions such as fear and anxiety.
3) Dependent origination through mere imputation
This level of dependent origination is the subtlest and the ultimate
purport of the Buddha's teaching. To some extent, we can say the
understanding of this level of dependent origination is the progressive
enhancement of the first two. When we see a seed growing to a shoot, the
seed is the cause and the shoot the result. Unlike the causal
relationship explained in the first category, where the result depends
on the cause, the third level of dependent origination renders a subtler
level of understanding where there is a reverse order of dependence
between the cause and the result, i.e., the cause depends on the result
not just the result depending on the cause. We might feel uneasy if we
were to think of this reverse relationship which is the seed's
dependence on the shoot or the result. This sounds so ridiculous to the
ears of ordinary people who are least introduced to such concepts.
However, without the seed's dependence on the shoot, the causal
relationship between the seed and the shoot itself will make no sense.
The seed, of course, does not depend on the shoot in the sense it is
given rise to by the shoot which is its result. It still depends on the
shoot but in a subtle sense. Without the presence of the shoot or the
result, the seed can not be designated as a cause of something. For
example, although a man is not the product of his child, but would not
be called a father without the child existing.
In a similar manner, things come into existence relationally. The boy
'B' who is 16 years old is designated as old in relation to boy 'A' who
is just twelve years old. But he is young in relation to the boy 'C' who
is 20 years old. This sounds quite simple. But our innate mind does not
even know this. We are constantly being fooled and deceived by our mind
through the appearance of characteristics such as beauty,
unattractiveness and so forth which seem to exist so independently and
non-relativistically. All characteristics like beauty, taste,
joyfulness, pleasantness, sadness, hopelessness, and so forth make no
sense at all unless one understands them in relation to something else.
Even more striking, which of course is really profound and obscured to
laities, is how things come into existence simply in relation to the
mind to which it appears. The existence of the mind as well depends on
the object it is perceiving. Subjects and objects exist through mutual
dependence. This is really so obscured and yet utterly profound.
Understanding this view in its depth can release us from the pangs of
samsara. This wisdom gives rise to a natural flow of compassion and
empathy towards all beings, which in turn creates a peaceful atmosphere
wherever you go. This is the ultimate answer to the basic question:
“What is the solution to all our problems?” And it is for the purpose of
teaching this level of reality to sentient beings, that the Buddha
Shakyamuni appeared on this earth.
Buddhist philosophy and the Theory of Relativity
Going back to the actual discussion of where science and Buddhism meet,
the theory of relativity addresses reality in the form of relativistic
world, where both space and time are relative. Through explaining the
idea of time dilation, where the concept of time is addressed only
relatively in relation to a frame of reference with the help of the
famous twins paradox example, it left Newtonian physics outdated. This
idea is truly profound. It is believed that there were only three
persons on this earth who understood this concept when Albert Einstein
first came up with it. Whereas in Buddhism, as described above in the
third level of dependent origination, everything exists relatively and
time is no exception. Things can only be spoken of relativistically, in
relation to something else. The reflection on this concept dismantles
our innate absolutist view, which underlines all disturbing thoughts
present in us. This understanding is the key to solve all our mental
disturbances.
Buddhist philosophy and the Quantum Theory
Quantum Theory, on the other hand, brings in a very interesting issue
with regard to how things exist. Especially Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle and Schrodinger's cat experiment delineate a revolutionary
description of the concept of randomness in the nature of reality. While
classical physics maintained the idea more deterministic in nature as
opposed to randomness and uncertainty, quantum mechanics rejected it
fully by introducing this new concept on the level of subatomic
particles like electrons. Simply put, the description of electrons and
their spin makes no sense, according to quantum physics, unless one
brings into consideration the observer of the object. In the language of
laity, it means objects cannot exist on their own independent of the
observer. The famous statement, “Does the moon exist when no one looks
at it?” gives a clear picture of this idea. Of course, Einstein was not
happy with this and refuted the idea through his famous statement, “God
does not play dice.”
So, where does the concept of quantum theory stand from the Buddhist
perspective? Does it fit into any Buddhist theory? If yes, in which?
And what would be the response from Buddhism towards Einstein's not
being happy with Quantum theory's idea of randomness?
In fact, the whole essence of quantum theory, for the convenience sake
of the discussion here, I will break into two – that the objects will
bear a sense only when they come in contact with an observer, and the
concept of randomness where knowing of an object in the previous moment,
by no means, can help predict precisely the state of the object, say an
electron, in the next moment, e.g. whether the spin of a particular
electron will be 'up' or 'down' the next moment is what we can not infer
on the basis of the information we have of the same electron a moment
ago. Again if we go back to reflect on the concept of dependent
origination on the third level, all objects exist merely through mental
imputation implying there is nothing existing objectively, independent
of the subjective mind. Quantum theory has a great resemblance with this
level of dependent origination. The two may differ in the usage of the
terminology. Buddhism calls 'the imputing mind' and quantum mechanics
calls 'the observer' to the subjective agent upon which the object
depends for its existence. Raja Raman, a celebrated Indian nuclear
physicist, once during a meeting with H.H. The Dalai Lama, remarked with
great astonishment, “The concept of quantum theory which the scientists
discovered for not more than hundred years is what Nagarjuna (2nd Cent.
AD), a Buddhist master has already elucidated so well since thousand
years ago.” In this respect, quantum theory goes well in conformity with
Buddhism. Still we have lots to explore if the two exactly converge in
their understanding or there still remain subtle nuances to tease apart
in their theses.
If the understanding of the concept of ‘randomness’ as intended by the
quantum theorists tallies with how it is understood by Einstein, the
causes are not accountable for their respective results. Buddhism would
surely have reservations towards this concept as it utterly contradicts
the principle of dependent origination on the first level – which is law
of causality – as pointed out above. Which means Buddhism conforms to
Einstein's rebuttal to the idea of randomness. Future will tell if there
is going to be a paradigm shift happening in quantum theory in the
reading of what it meant by randomness, which usually happens in
science, or the gab in the understanding between the two systems will
remain forever long.
Buddhist Psychology and Neuroscience
Now let us see what brain science and Buddhism have to say. Do they go in parallel to each other or are they divergent?
The two disciplines, in general, on the level of gross mental functions,
explain the same phenomena from two different perspectives. It is more
on the experiential level that Buddhism articulates the workings of
mind. Neuroscience on the other hand attempts to explain the same mental
phenomena, as best they can, purely on the basis of tangible neurons,
transmitters, ions, electrical impulses and so forth. There are areas,
particularly the workings of the subtle mental states, where Buddhism
offers candid explanations, which remain oblivious to the present
neuroscience. Brain science, of course, is presently still quite
primitive in the face of the prospect of its sparkling future
development.
From the ongoing present collaborative works of some renowned
neuroscientists and Buddhist scholars /contemplatives happening at
various renowned institutions such as the Mind and Life Institute,
Stanford University, Wisconsin University, and Emory University all in
the US and Oxford Center for Mindfulness Studies in UK, we are
witnessing how the Buddhist understanding of the taxonomy of mind and
the complexities of the workings of mind can help guide neuroscientists
to go through faster pace and greater expanse of research and
experiments. The former gives wonderful directions to the neuroscience.
Equally, neuroscience, through their undeniably observable and
immaculately precise research, while ushering new outlooks for the
Buddhist contemplatives and scholars on mind renders confirmation and
confidence in the already existing rich knowledge on mind which the
Buddha taught almost 2600 years ago. Eric Kandel's (2000 Nobel Laureate
in Medicine) book, 'In Search of Memory' is one such exemplary piece. We
thus find mutual benefits and assistance rather than there existing any
points of convergence or divergence.
Neuroscience at present attempts to explain on the level of neurons,
synapses and transmitters, the obvious mental activities like memory,
perceptions of color, language, responses and so forth - some of the
basic human characteristics - which the human beings are so well aware
of. The activities and functions of these neurons that the scientists
found so far are unquestionably very subtle, but the mental activities
that they represent are coarse and manifest, with least complexities and
multiplicities. They are still in the middle of their ordeal with the
prospect of refined experiments and findings with respect to the subtler
and more sophisticated workings of the mind. The reader of this essay,
for example, is vividly aware of his or her reading this article at this
moment and actively thinking about the subject matter of this, but has
no clue of the dynamics of the same on the brain level that is
accountable for your mental processes which are associated with this
reading, registering and imbibing; how the transmitters of which axon of
the neuron are sent to which other neuron, what kind of transmitters -
whether in the form of ions or electrical signal - are sent and so
forth. There are all too obscured to us the science laities. Whereas
neuroscience explains it so well. This is the success of the modern
neuroscience. It is indeed a great achievement of humanity.
Yet, they are presently, still in a period where they make more
speculative explanations than provide convincingly coherent accounts to
address the challenging questions such as, “What is the nature of
experience?” “Can the content matter of the thoughts of a person be
precisely read through seeing the observable neuron activities with MRI
image and so forth? Say a neuro-scientist tries to read and explain the
content matter of a particular thought of a person on the basis of what
he sees of the neuronal activities. Is the mental picture formed in the
said thought identically seen by the scientist? Obviously not! It is
what he speculated and inferred as very likely mental image formed when
he sees a particular brain activity. He is capable of doing this through
training by conducting the same test earlier on another person by
asking her what thoughts are coming when he either touched a specific
spot of her brain or saw a specific neuronal activity. While one may
rightly claim that mental activities can be inferred through brain
activities which we can see by our own eyes through the use of
sophisticated instruments, but what we saw directly is the brain
activities and not the mental activities. The latter was simply inferred
and can be experienced only by that person being tested. This in itself
is indicative of the two's (brain and mind) being not identical. The
mind is thus not reducible to brain. Whereas many neuroscientists who
limit themselves of their understandings to physical tangible objects
for their researches believe that the mind is reducible to brain; in
simple words they think mind is just brain. This further leads them to
believe that there is no rebirth. Indeed it would be helpful for them
and us all to understand the distinction between 'Seeing the
nonexistence of rebirth' and 'Not seeing the existence of rebirth.'
Presently when the neuroscience is still in the stage of maturing, the
involved scientists and those non-believers can at the most say, “We can
not see the existence of rebirth.”
The discussion does not end there. For Buddhists, it is their wider
understanding of such a mind which is distinct from the brain that lends
to their espousing the idea of rebirth. Whereas brain-science on the
other hand, as mentioned earlier, at least up to now, does not address
this issue of rebirth as their discipline so far limits their
exploration within the bounds of tangible brain and not beyond. However,
given that there is active exchanges happening now a days between the
two disciplines, the dawn of expanding their scope might soon uncover
many of the questions which remain unresolved.
Ethical considerations
His Holiness in his "Universe in a Single Atom" strongly suggests the
need for modern science to be tempered by ethical considerations; it can
potentially be of more harm than good. For example, genetic science,
which has made huge contributions to humanity, is neutral per se on the
question of ethics and benefit. Unless it is motivated ethically and
wisely, this intelligence can be used in a viciously hazardous manner
with the least consideration for the feelings of the lives involved in
their research and experiments. One such area is the partial human
beings which the genetic scientists might very likely create if there is
no moral constraints and using their biological organs so selfishly and
mercilessly as therapeutic means at the cost of many lives. The world
citizens need to be prudent. We have witnessed the disaster of the
Second World War, unimaginably evil which exhibited the consequence of
sheer misuse of modern science. Let us not destroy ourselves; instead
with the astounding wisdoms of science and Buddhism, extend our arms to
all beings with warmth and unconditional love.
-Geshe Dorji Damdul
____________________
Recommended books on dialogues between Science and Buddhism:
H.H. the Dalai Lama: The Universe in a Single Atom
H.H. the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman: Emotional Awareness.
The list of the books from the past Mind and Life conferences:
Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain
The Dalai Lama at MIT
The New Physics and Cosmology
Destructive Emotions
Visions of Compassion
Healing Emotions
Consciousness at the Crossroads
Gentle Bridges
Sleeping, Dreaming, and Dying
www.bodhiwisdom.blogspot.com
