Science and Buddhism

oThe following quote by Einstein is sometimes abbreviated or misquoted to make it sound like Einstein was promoting Buddhism.

"The beginnings of cosmic religious feelings already appear at an early stage of development, e.g. in the early Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned from Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling."

The Dalai Lama wrote an Op-Ed article, “Our Faith in Science,” published in New York Times, before he talked at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Washington, November, 2005.  It is a well-grounded, not so spiritual article that contains the following quote: 



He takes the view that science and Buddhism both search for 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."

"...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." 

Later in the same article he writes,

"... 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."

It would take a lot of work to see whether scence can enrich a Buddhist world view.  Is it realistic to expect Buddhists to change?

Last Sunday I went with a friend to hear a talk by Tulku Lobsang at the Native Centre.  Lobsang was born into a farming family in the Himalayas in 1976 and enthroned as the reincarnation of 'the Speech of Nyentse Lama' (not the body or mind), at age 13.  

Two years earlier the male oracle of the monastery advised the monks that Tulku Lobsang was the eighth reincarnation of their Nyentse Lama, once head of their monastery.  When Lobsang did not stay to become the new head amazingly another monk was identified as the reincarnation of 'the Mind of Nyentse Lama' and stayed to lead the monastery.



Tulku Lobsang's website says that he mostly lectures in medicine, Buddhism, and astrology.  During his talk, with a qualifying remark, he gave the abbreviated quote from Einstein to suggest Buddhism was the religion best suited to become universally adopted one day. 

He clarified that Buddhism is not a faith or cultural belief but all about nature and the science of how to align with nature.  This amplifies what the Dalai Lama wrote in the New York Times' article.

This strikes me as odd.  When you read pamphlets and books on Buddhism they encourage increasing or deepening our knowledge and experience of Buddhism.  They do not say anything about deepening our knowledge of reality.  Neither do books on science.  Science provides us with understanding of what's been discovered by applying the scientific method.  Buddhism and science are both cultural products that promote specific practices. 

Lobsang urged those in attendance to get rid of the self.  This is a major departure from science where a pattern called self-organization is how everything in the universe comes into existence.  The self is sometimes used interchangeably with the ego or a conditioned mind. 
Lobsang could conceivably have meant that we need to get rid, or get beyond our social and cultural programming. 

Without a scientific or spiritual practice that studies and reveres the self we have no way to apply an understanding of self-organization to attune society with nature.  We could be organizing society based on what we've learned about organization in nature.

The self has been big in psychology since the second half of the 20th century.  It is a little known fact that the Catholic Church counsels or ministers to the needs of its members based on Jungian understanding of the self.  

Understanding the self can perhaps lead to a more advanced science that engages more of our inherent neurological capacity to grasp wholeness.  This means moving beyond linear and analytical 'left-brain functioning' to explain nature.  It is our ego or socially and culturally programmed way of thinking at this time.  But linearity and sequence are blunt tools for understanding reality.

We were penalized in school and sometimes soon became economically marginalized if we could not think straight or function linearly day after day.  Now that society is desperate for innovation we are learning to think outside the box.  This is called insight, or holistic thinking which engages the 'whole brain', or at least more of the brain's functioning.

I found Tulku Lobsang's comments fascinating when he talked about how Buddhism starts to build an understanding of reality.  Buddhism begins with a concept of space and volume, the 'element' traditionally called ether.  I thought of how Newton started with explanations of cause and effect which are clearly linear.  

Science sets a cultural limit on what is of interest, or what scientists can study.  The ideal that is applied to restrict our thoughts is called determinism.  This is a big word that means putting your faith in what is predictable.  We are urged to believe in the 'element' traditionally called earth.  We give no consideration to what is free and unpredictable - like water, air, or fire.

Buddhism does not accept linearity.  It places a huge emphasis on the experience of freedom which follows from enlightened thinking.  It considers the traditional 'elements' as 'directions' that exist simultaneously as if on a plane.

Tulku Lobsang explained that ether is seen as enclosing everything and containing the other four 'elements' inside it.  Buddhism does not accept the idea of a beginning state, a sequential development where the four other 'elements' somehow build towards the formation of ether.

By way of contrast Newtonian science is a culture for studying things that are predictable.  This can never lead to ways of being free of consequences in our lives.  That is why linear thinking produces so many problems and why science is so effective in promoting today's culture of end-of-pipe solutions or EOP.  Science wont get us out of this civilization of EOP, or stop us from being conditioned pEOPle.  Its scary to think that science will prevent us from enjoying freedom from consequences.  Freedom lies outside the scope of this prevailing belief system.

Holistic thinking in terms of directions is definitely out of fashion in scientific inquiry.  And the notion of liberation and freedom from predictable or conditioned behaviour has never been within the range of interests prescribed for science by professional bodies of what amount to scientific initiates or a priesthood. 

Yes, this notion of volume and states existing simultaneously across an area is very interesting.  It could be very useful in revitalization of science and society.  Holistic notions can sometimes be explained linearly but this only limits our interest in the whole and encourages us to think unrealistically.

When Tulku Lobsang and I met I suggested that by using a model based on the seven levels present in the periodic table in chemistry we can now align with nature and heal society.  He did not engage in conversation but gave words of gratitude and one those great smiles of his.

With the motivation of a better, more inclusive international society we can look for ways to accommodate what we read and hear about in science, psychology and various spiritual disciplines.  We might find that these fit within a unifying framework that makes our enterprises for understanding of reality, or realities, less divisive academically and socially. 

We can discuss things within a scientific, psychological or spiritual framework without discarding the framework when we realize it needs to expand to embrace more of what we read and hear.  Any frameworks of reality can surely expand.  Discarding a framework altogether, whether it is spiritual, psychological or scientific, comes as a last resort.

At Social Creator events in fall of 2014 we will discuss whether a seven stage framework can be usefully applied to model how our neurological functioning develops.  Our neurology is the tool with which we perceive reality.  It must have some importance in how we understand reality.  

We'll take a look at a framework based on science, values and purpose.  Values could be similar to what the Dalai Lama refers to as 'the principles we share as human beings'.  As an artist however, I believe each one of us differs in terms of values.  A framework that acknowledges that we differ in terms of our views and values is important in an era for realizing a vision of everyone becoming increasingly fulfilled and free.