Buddhism and developments of science.

[Sovietnik]

As I am a pan-European patriot and also an admirer of Buddhism, I got one question that has been baffling me for a long time.

As we know, the civilization that is the most advanced in terms of science is the Western civilization. For the last 500-600 years we have been at the forefront of just about every field of human knowledge imaginable - science, technology, arts and political theory. At no point in human history has any civilization achieved such a great advantage over all others, initiating an explosion of knowledge.

Historians are still confused about why such a revolution took place in Europe and not elsewhere, even though before 16th century all of them were equal and had their own basis of knowledge to start their own scientific revolution.

Now my question is related specifically to Buddhism - what is the stance of Buddhists towards the scientific inquiry about the nature of the world? As scientific method requires some specific philosophical stance to be invented, not all cultures may be able to invent it and make the use of it. Buddhism for example is universal and has a solid and very simple moral framework, but many people have found it to be very passive, almost fatalistic.

I've read claims that modern science could have never developed in a society based on Buddhism. In Christianity for example, the world was created by a rational, orderly being so it is orderly and can be explored. There is also a divine command to inquire about the world and make it a better place. On the other hand, many people think that Buddhism views the world as an inherently evil place and also as a kind of illusion. To make scientific discoveries, you must first assume that the world is real.

What do you think? I'm not talking about science in Buddhist texts (no religious text has any science in it) but about the very mindset that is needed for scientific method to develop. So far I haven't found any indigenously Buddhist scientific tradition. Science in India was done by Hindus and Jains and Chinese scholars were more inspired by Taoism.

[purple planet]

Hi welcome to the forum - dont stop using this forum just because maybe some post of yours might get censored - as the moderators here take there job very seriously - its a very good forum

I think its a great forum to learn about buddhism without anyone trying to convince you to become buddhist

i know the answer but cant explain it well - so im just saying hi - its a very good question by the way

[Sam Vara]

You ask some very interesting questions.

what is the stance of Buddhists towards the scientific inquiry about the nature of the world?

As you rightly point out, there is no Buddhist "blueprint", so different Buddhists will probably have different stances. I would think the important question is whether particular ways of doing science and talking about science are in accordance with what the Buddha taught. Using science to grow more food in an ecologically responsible way would be desirable; conversely, weapons technology would not.

It doesn't really matter, so far as I can see, whether scientific advances or a scientific worldview could arise in a predominantly Buddhist society. The point is, they have arisen in my world, and it is up to me to deal with them in accordance with my view of the Dhamma.

I'm not sure whether I agree with you about assuming the world to be real before one can do science. All that is required is to see it as being in some respects regularly ordered. There is no need for there to be a material substrate behind appearances, providing the appearances are predictable. Hence some non-material psychologists - and indeed some Buddhists - are happy with phrases like "The science of the mind", or "The science of happiness".

[Sovietnik]

By science I mean the inquiry about the natural phenomena, using the method that is as objective and detailed as possible (math etc.). How we use scientifc discoveries is a completely different thing.

These are the philosophical precepts that are needed for science to arise, according to me (some people may disagree)
1. Belief that there is only one truth (in science there is only one truth, two mutually exclusive theories can't be true at the same time)
2. Belief that the world is predictable and it's nature can be understood
3. Belief that understanding the world can make it a better place.

Ancient Greeks for example had problems with the precept #1 - even though they developed a fantastic scientific method, they never realized that only one theory can be true. For example, there were several competing astronomical theories and they didn't see anything bad in this.

[Sam Vara]

These are the philosophical precepts that are needed for science to arise, according to me (some people may disagree)
1. Belief that there is only one truth (in science there is only one truth, two mutually exclusive theories can't be true at the same time)
2. Belief that the world is predictable and it's nature can be understood
3. Belief that understanding the world can make it a better place.

I can't see anything here that Buddhists would take issue with.

[chownah]

I'd be interested in the divine command to inquire about the world...do you have a Biblical reference for that?
chownah

[pulga]

I don't know what sort of trajectory Buddhist intellectual culture would have followed, but the devastation brought on by Muslim conquest set it back irreparably. The library of Nalanda University is the most well known of the great losses:

Nalanda was ransacked and destroyed by a Turkish Muslim army under Bakhtiyar Khilji in 1193. The great library of Nalanda University was so vast that it is reported to have burned for three months after the invaders set fire to it, ransacked and destroyed the monasteries, and drove the monks from the site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda

The Russian Buddhist scholar Scherbatskoy had such high regard for Dharmakirti that he referred to him as the "Indian Kant", recognizing some commonality in his epistemology with that of transcendental idealism. It's hard to imagine what sort of culture India would have had if it hadn't have been plundered.

[purple planet]

On the other hand, many people think that Buddhism views the world as an inherently evil place and also as a kind of illusion

Buddhism for example is universal and has a solid and very simple moral framework, but many people have found it to be very passive, almost fatalistic.

just to clear this - if i understand correctly :

the buddha thought that all things are :

impermanence (anicca); suffering or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha); non-self (Anatta)


so the buddha didnt say the world is an evil place - but that everything is dukkha - and why everything is dukkha ? because everything is anicca and anatta -

some way i was explained about anatta - is that its actually how you cant control nothing in life - for instance you can control your thoughts you can only have good thoughts you can control your body or your feelings ect ... and that everything is always changing thats why because whenever you try to cling to something because you cant control it and because its changing than you will suffer - now the buddha said this is the natural state - and that he teaches a systematic system to show you this reality and help you "let go" and not attache to things ( for instance you can be happy because of a nice tasting apple but you wont feel sad when you finish eating it ) - so its actually a technique to make you feel happy - but somehow it is seen as a dark theory - but actually it says you are now suffering and the buddhas teaching will show you how to be very very happy

he also said dont believe what he said on faith alone but to see for yourself if he speaks the truth - so he first layed a very well planed technique - an action plan and he also said to not trust him on faith alone but research reality for yourself - this are both very scientific ideas

[Sati1]

Hello,

Very interesting question. I will speak from the perspective of a scientist with 12 years of working experience as a biochemist. The two reasons why I think that our understanding of the physical world did not evolve in the East as it did in the West and why mastery of the mind was not developed as far in the West as it was in the East are:

(1) in the West people tend to look outside themselves for satisfaction - in their jobs, their salaries, their cars, etc., whereas the Eastern mentality seems to focus more on the inside, on one's own mind. And science is ultimately the study of entities outside ourselves, even in medical research, where the test subjects are other people or animals.

(2) Meditation was not developed in the West, certainly not to the extent that it was in the East. The tool for ultimate cultivation of mind was therefore absent, leaving behind plenty of time to devote to study the outside world.

I would agree with Sovietnik that the East would probably never have advanced scientific knowledge as far as the West did, mostly because the topic was just not of much interest there. In the West, I believe there is room today for scientists to start taking the findings about the mind that came from the East (mostly from Buddha) seriously, and explore them critically.

Metta,

[Sovietnik]

Can someone write more about Nalanda University? How does it compare to medieval European institutions? Who taught there and what was taught? Was the institution independent from the state, with the ability to rule itself (appointing it's own teachers, designing it's own curriculum)?

Cause i was taught that medieval university was by all means unique - it was a corporation independent of political and religious influences, concentrated mostly on natural sciences (natural sciences were studied first, then one could choose either theology, law or medicine)

BTW: I agree that the Western spirituality isn't as deep as Eastern one, it looks superficial and is also more intellectual instead of mystical. But I like it's rationalism and dynamism - especially the puritan notion of work and learning as a form of religious practice (so far no Christian denomination went further into this). Also Jews are told to be a beacon of light for humanity and so far they have surpassed all nations of the world in achievements over the last 100 years.

[culaavuso]

Now my question is related specifically to Buddhism - what is the stance of Buddhists towards the scientific inquiry about the nature of the world? As scientific method requires some specific philosophical stance to be invented, not all cultures may be able to invent it and make the use of it. Buddhism for example is universal and has a solid and very simple moral framework, but many people have found it to be very passive, almost fatalistic.

Science requires the perspective that there is an orderly pattern of causation that can be learned and put to use through experience, which was part of the teaching of the Buddha.

SN 12.20

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality.

AN 10.92

"And which is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment?

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices: When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
...
"This is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment.

The Buddha also spoke against fatalism and considered it important to understand the efficacy of action:
MN 136

"Thus, Ānanda, there is action that is ineffectual and apparently ineffectual. There is action that is ineffectual but apparently effectual. There is action that is both effectual and apparently effectual. There is action that is effectual but apparently ineffectual."

The difference lies in the purpose at which this investigation is aimed. Western science aims these investigative methods at goals of sensual pleasure and becoming, while the Buddha aimed these investigative methods at the total ending of stress/suffering/unsatisfactoriness:

SN 22.86

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress

[Modus.Ponens]

By science I mean the inquiry about the natural phenomena, using the method that is as objective and detailed as possible (math etc.). How we use scientifc discoveries is a completely different thing.

These are the philosophical precepts that are needed for science to arise, according to me (some people may disagree)
1. Belief that there is only one truth (in science there is only one truth, two mutually exclusive theories can't be true at the same time)
2. Belief that the world is predictable and it's nature can be understood
3. Belief that understanding the world can make it a better place.

Ancient Greeks for example had problems with the precept #1 - even though they developed a fantastic scientific method, they never realized that only one theory can be true. For example, there were several competing astronomical theories and they didn't see anything bad in this.

I can only guess that one of the main reasons was that buddhism explores internal reality, instead of external.

Sometimes we assume that our western progression was entirely logical, or in other words, was the natural one. But one interesting thing to study is how mathematics evolved in Japan when it spent a very long time without contact with the exterior. And it is very idiossincratic when compared to our development. It's not, by any means, trivial. Its focus was completely different.

[Sovietnik]

Tell me more. What exactly was Japanese math like?

[Mkoll]

Now my question is related specifically to Buddhism - what is the stance of Buddhists towards the scientific inquiry about the nature of the world?

...

What do you think? I'm not talking about science in Buddhist texts (no religious text has any science in it) but about the very mindset that is needed for scientific method to develop.

Sovietnik,

Sati1 made a good post and I agree with both of the points he made. The Eastern mindset is more inward looking whereas the Western mindset is more outward looking. I would also agree that modern science probably would not have developed in a Buddhist world to the staggering extent that it has today, if much at all.

But the fact is that modern science did develop and it is here to stay. As a Buddhist, I'm in full support of science and the scientific method as inquiry into the nature of our shared and objective physical world. In terms of inquiry into one's own mental world, I'm in full support of the Dhamma.

[Sati1]

As a Buddhist, I'm in full support of science and the scientific method as inquiry into the nature of our shared and objective physical world. In terms of inquiry into one's own mental world, I'm in full support of the Dhamma.

Ditto that. No need to make the Eastern and the Western methods of enquiry compete against each other. We are fortunate to have had them both and to live in an age in which both are easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection.