Buddhism and science

The 14th Dalai Lama, for example, in a speech to the Society for Neuroscience,[12] listed a "suspicion of absolutes" and a reliance on causality and empiricism as common philosophical principles shared by Buddhism and science.

Buddhist modernists consider this passage to show that the Buddha promoted a skeptical empirical investigation which rejected faith, dogma, scripture, Revelations and even rationalistic metaphysical speculations.

Jayatilleke argue that this and other passages from the Buddhist scriptures indicate that early Buddhism promotes an "honest, impartial search for truth" as well as "critical investigation and personal verification" which is compatible with a scientific outlook.

[44] According to Martin J. Verhoeven, Buddhist modernists downplay mythic and religious elements such as traditional Indic cosmology, belief in Miracles and rituals in favor of the rational and psychological aspects of Buddhism.

"[2] The Buddhist modernist view has also been expounded by a variety of western intellectuals, including Nobel Prize–winning philosopher Bertrand Russell, who described Buddhism as "a speculative and scientific philosophy.

"[note 2] In the late 20th century and the early 21st, numerous publications discussing Buddhist ideas and science were released (such as James H. Austin's Zen and the Brain and works by Francisco Varela and Daniel Goleman).

This view sees Buddhism as using "nonconceptual modes of intuitive understanding that emerge as the result of the practice of meditation" which is different from the objective and conceptual scientific method and leads to self transformation.

[53] The discourse of complementary can also be found in the work of Daniel Goleman, who writes regarding Buddhism and psychotherapy that "when you put the two psychologies together, you get a more complete spectrum of human development.

"[60] Bhikkhu Ñanajivako, citing Bertrand Russell's An Outline of Philosophy, writes that modern science's rejection of substance theory in favor of processes or events is commensurate with the Buddhist impermanence (anicca) doctrine, which sees the world made up of transient dhammas.

According to McMahan, this discourse should not be dismissed entirely, since modern Buddhist traditions have gone through "a concrete and highly significant transformation", which includes adapting to the scientific worldview and creating new forms of Buddhism.

"[44] Similarly, Martin J. Verhoeven thinks that "we might better advance the discussion not by highlighting where Buddhism and science see eye-to-eye, but precisely where they do not, perhaps forcing each to confront its own contradictions and shortcomings.

As a founding figure of modern science, Francis Bacon contributed towards the enlightenment movement by popularizing the term ''knowledge is power'', which implicitly sanctions not only the manipulation, but also potentially the exploitation, of the natural world.

[89] Lopez has also described the historical development which led to the idea that Buddhism was compatible with science, which began in the Victorian era, with the European study of Buddhist literature in Indian languages (Sanskrit and Pali).

According to Waldron, "the Buddhists and biologists thus largely concur that the very forms and structures of human life result from the accumulative actions of innumerable beings over countless generations.

"[97] David P. Barash (who describes himself as a Buddhist atheist) has written a book about Buddhism and biology, which according to him, "complement each other like a pair of powerful searchlights illuminating the same thing from different angles".

According to Lopez, the main reason these views are at odds is that Buddhism reserves a central place for consciousness and volition in the production of all sentient life, while this is not the case with modern biology.

[100] In The Universe in a Single Atom (2005), the 14th Dalai Lama similarly points outs that while biological theories generally attempts to explain things solely from the perspective of physical causes (and are often reductive), Buddhist thought focuses on the role of consciousness.

"[105] The Dalai Lama cites his conversations with David Bohm and Anton Zeilinger, both physicists who supported the idea that the Buddhist view of emptiness (the lack of any independent and fixed essence) was consistent with the insights of modern quantum physics.

[128] The Dalai Lama sees the falsehood of this traditional cosmology as not affecting the core of Buddhism (the teaching of the Four Noble Truths and liberation) since it is "secondary to the account of the nature and origins of sentient beings".

According to José Ignacio Cabezón, this idea "has been put forward most clearly and forcefully" in Transformations of Consciousness (Wilber, Engler, and Brown 1986), a collection of essays from the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology.

A more recent overview of related research findings can be found in Davidson and Goleman's Altered Traits, which discusses studies done with the aid of Buddhist monks like Matthieu Ricard and Mingyur Rinpoche.

[152] Similarly, David McMahan thinks that Buddhist meditation practices are situated in specific religious, conceptual and socio-cultural contexts, that is, ways of being-in-the-world (referring to "Lifeworlds" and "social imaginaries").

He further argues that "there is as yet no scientific basis for such a categorical claim," since neuroscience mainly studies correlations between brain states and first person pare "grounded in the phenomenology of experience" and "include the contemplative techniques of meditation" could assist in the development of a more holistic cognitive science that makes use of introspection.

[156] This idea is also supported by B. Alan Wallace, who argues that modern cognitive science is held back by materialist assumptions and its desire to study consciousness (which is subjective and qualitative) through quantitative measuring of its physical correlates.

[158] Wallace argues that the contemplative skills found in traditions like Buddhism can aid in the development of a rigorous form of introspection which could be used in cognitive science to deliver a better understanding of the mind.

[44] He suggests that the question of personal identity and the self "might provide an important starting point" for a critical revision of the assumptions of modern science which focuses on the study of individual brains.

[161] Furthermore, Cabezón also notes that neither animism nor a cyclic theory of time "acted as deterrents to the acceptance of science in these various cultures since its movement east, something that would be expected were Jaki's thesis true."

According to Unno, David Bohm "suggests that mind and matter, thought and thing, are mutually implicit, as are all other phenomena, such that there is a wholeness to the universe in which all distinctions ultimately dissolve.

The analogy rather shows that, at a sufficiently accurate level of analysis and careful attention, the negative conclusions of experimental physicists and contemplative Buddhists are bound to be similar: both realize the approximative status of the reified entities of everyday life, and both must cope with the high amount of instability and lack of self-sufficient existence (Śūnyatā) of phenomena.

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.