Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground

What have Buddhism and science to say to each other? At first sight, very little. On the one hand Buddhism is a world religion offering a way of salvation that promises the relieving of the suffering that is endemic in the human condition. On the other hand science is a method for the investigation of the natural world, and aims at an objectivity achieved through observation and formulation of testable hypotheses. Yet strangely ever since Buddhism emerged into European consciousness in the middle of the nineteenth century there have been persistent attempts to draw them into dialogue. This dialogue was largely carried on in the early days between Western thinkers, and usually reflected Western preoccupations. The rise of science as an ideology, leading to a clash with Christianity, encouraged some to view Buddhism as a more amenable partner with science than Christianity; the marriage of East and West promised a more happy union between religion and science. This conjunction was given special impetus by the rising spectre of evolution theory which, while contributing to the crisis of Christian faith in the late nineteenth century, was seen by some as perfectly compatible with Buddhist philosophy. What seemed especially attractive about Buddhism was that it rested its case on experience rather than faith, and appeared to require little metaphysical commitment, even supposedly taking up an agnostic position on the existence of a divine creator and the persistence of individual existence after death. Moreover, this early interest in Buddhism from a scientific standpoint was seen to stretch into the human sciences, with Paul Carus and Caroline Rhys Davids recognising that Buddhist scriptures contained important methods for the investigation of the human mind. This interest in the psychological implications of Buddhism has expanded enormously in recent years, particularly with the proliferation of meditation practice, with the renewed interest in the multi-disciplinary study of the phenomenon of consciousness, and with postmodern analyses of the idea of the self. On the side of the physical sciences, quantum theory has become a major point of comparison with Buddhism, and post-mechanistic biology and environmental thinking have been drawn into close dialectical contact with Buddhist ideas of the interdependence of phenomena. Much of this is a welcome antidote to the parallel and persistent belief that Buddhism, along with other 'oriental' traditions betrays an inherently mystical bent that locates it at a polar extreme from modern science, and for that reason cannot measure up to it in rational terms. Buddhism and Science represents an important contribution to an understanding and a continuation of this dialogue, and it is a token of the vigour of recent developments in this area that one of the books contributors, José Ignacio Cabezón, can claim that "Buddhism's sophisticated phenomenology of experience allows it to confront science on equal terms....and ultimately as a corrective to science" (p.55). The opening section of this fascinating book - a collection of writings by distinguished philosophers, Buddhist scholars, physicists, and cognitive scientists - offers some interesting new perspectives on the history of the encounter between the worlds of Western science and Eastern spirituality. Of particular note is the inclusion of writings from the Buddhist point of view, an angle which is often conspicuously absent in the 'dialogue' between East and West. Thupten Jinpa introduces us to the Tibetan perspective on the theme of the book. He points out that in earlier times Western science was often looked upon with deep suspicion as a materialist doctrine that rivalled their own indigenous philosophy. However there has emerged a counter movement seeking some kind of rapprochement with science. This was initiated in the early part of the last century by the Tibetan philosopher and historian Gendün Chöphel who sought to persuade his fellow Tibetan thinkers to engage positively with modern science. A more recent voice in this dialogue has been that of the Dalai Lama himself who is now well-known for his participation in public debate on the relationship between Buddhism and science. In his contribution to this book he gives special emphasis to the way in which both Buddhism and science rely on logical analysis and empirical investigation in their attempts to go beyond subjective illusions and to represent the nature of objective reality. And he goes so far as to say that, should Western science ever find anything that contradicts Buddhist teaching, then that teaching must be changed. The second section of the book addresses the issue from the point of view of the cognitive and biological sciences. Several contributors focus their attention on questions concerning the nature of self and identity, and it is here that we can see that the Buddhist-science dialogue is not just a cosy conversation but a robust debate that faces up to differences as well as welcoming convergences. David Galin, for example, points out that professional psychology in the West has no more coherent view of the self than the lay person. To be sure, we all normally have some sense of our self as distinct from the not-self, and thus experience ourselves as a single unity. But this can easily lead to a reification - Galin says 'entification' - of the self, a process which is indispensable in everyday life, yet which can lead to craving, aggression, and endemic dissatisfaction. If we turn to traditional Buddhist thought on this question we find, first of all, an implicit deconstruction of this reified notion of the self, a rigorous analysis of our traditional notions of self and identity as heuristic and provisional rather than absolute. While we have come to view ourselves as independent, unchanging, unitary entities, and have had to suffer the consequences of this view, Buddhism can help us to view a person as a dynamic system of ever-changing activity in open relationship, and so help to release us from the attachments and hostilities that attend on our standard views. Nevertheless, as Galin points out, our reified view of ourselves is grounded in an essential evolutionary adaptation, and hence cannot simply be dismissed as a delusory misconception. This point is developed more fully in the contribution by William S. Waldron. Like Galin, he sees a growing consensus towards the view that the world in general and human persons in particular must be conceived as interconnected patterns of relationships rather than of substantial, enduring entities. But as well as pointing towards common ground, he draws attention to significant differences between traditional Buddhist thought and modern evolutionary biology in their assessment of the discontents of the human dondition. While Buddhists, typically, see this condition as a pervasive consequence of craving, and hence of a misconception of the true nature of the self, a deep-seated attachment to our sense of a permanent identity, evolution theory teaches us that the sense of a permanent I or self is not simply a disastrous mistake, but is a necessary condition for survival. A strong distinction between self and not-self is essential to life and is intrinsic to adaptive success in the struggle for survival. Thus, while a strong sense of selfhood, and hence the capacity to suffer, is most fully developed in human beings, it is a factor of evolutionary development at all levels. It is true, as Waldron points out, that our absolutised and reified sense of selfhood is also a product of social evolution and conditioning. Our sense of self-identity is not simply a genetic inheritance, but is processed and forged in the developmental processes of growth, maturation and socialisation. Similarly our identification with wider social and cultural realities such as family or religious groups is powerfully ingrained, and while these often impinge on us as absolute and inescapable, they are at the same time mere constructs and human fabrications. It is here, perhaps, that Buddhist soteriology holds out hope for an amelioration of our condition, at the very least an analytical tool for overcoming conditioned ignorance concerning the constructed and inherently conflictual nature of human identity. In bringing Buddhist and scientific perspectives into encounter with each other we open up two different yet converging perspectives on the tragically ambivalent quality of human selfhood. As Wallace points out, it is at conjunctions like this that we can see emerging crucial points of dialogue and collaborative research between Buddhist traditions and recent scientific developments. This impetus towards collaborative research is explored further in chapters on the role of imagination in cognitive life, and the phenomena of lucid dreaming and dream yoga. It is a dominant theme, too in the third section of the book which is concerned with the relationship between Buddhism and the physical sciences. Here the significance of quantum theory for this relationship takes a major role. William Ames offers an intriguing comparative analysis of Buddhism and physics, looking at it across an historical spectrum within both traditions. He points out that, despite some significant differences, there are some intriguing similarities between classical physics on the one hand and on the other some of the early Buddhist teachings contained in the Abhidharma. Both construe the world in terms of the relationship between simple units which are causally related to each other, an analysis which trades on the contrast between a level of conventional truth and a more fundamental, underlying level which is taken to be ultimately real. If we move to later developments within the Mahayana tradition, in particular the Madhyamaka school founded by Nagarjuna, we find another parallel with modern science, this time with quantum theory. In both, the traditional view is challenged by a more radical understanding, one in which the ultimate constituents of the world no longer appear to have an independent, self-contained existence, no intrinsic nature that can be isolated beyond their interactions with all other phenomena. Moreover in each case we have what John Wheeler calls a 'participatory universe', in which subject and object, knower and known can no longer be identified other than in relation to each other. There are of course major differences of methods and goals, but in spite of this it is "all the more remarkable that they have produced some very similar ideas" (302). Apart from intrinsic interest of this analysis, Ames' discussion points to a wider issue concerning the need for a coherent world view that enables us to make sense of recent developments within physics on the wider stage of human value and meaning. This is a major concern of Victor Mansfield. Rather les sanguine than some commentators about the usefulness of detailed comparisons between Buddhism and physics, he believes nonetheless that a fruitful dialogue between the two can occur at a more philosophical level where the Buddhist idea of the interdependence of all phenomena is not only reflected in the principles of contemporary physics, but is a world-view that provides a motivation for compassion and altruistic service both for each other and for the whole of nature. This kind of inter-cultural dialogue, crossing boundaries not merely between varied histories and civilisations but between distinct disciplines and modes of discourse, inevitably provokes difficult questions of principle, and these are examined by several of the contributors, in particular by Alan Wallace in his introduction to the collection. These questions include: Are we in danger of falling into the 'orientalist' practice of judging the cultural 'other' in our own Western terms, particularly when we seek to understand Buddhism by means of terms such as 'religion', 'philosophy' and 'science'? In the light of this, is there a danger of Buddhism being swallowed up by a Westernised scientific discourse? Are religion and science completely autonomous, and hence incommensurable universes of discourse? Does the examination of meditation practice by scientific means dehumanise and despiritualise it? The importance of this book lies in the fact that it confronts questions such as these, and offers us a wide range of studies that seek to answer them by showing ways in which seemingly diverse cultural traditions can enrich an enliven each other.