TOWARD SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE
A
Buddhist Look at Trends in Scientific Development
By P. A. Payutto
Translated
by Bruce Evans
Translator's Foreword
When transmitting any set of ideas
from one culture to another, we are confronted not only with a difference of language,
but a disparity of backgrounds and cultural values. This is particularly so when
the ideas stem from an examination of one culture through the eyes of another.
This book is one such examination: a collection of reflections and suggestions
on a traditionally Western domain -- science -- from a traditionally Eastern point
of view -- that of a Buddhist monk.
Many of the ideas and concepts presented
here may seem strange to the Western reader uninitiated into traditional Buddhist
thinking, which necessitates some initial guidance. I advise the reader to open
up to a new set of values -- not necessarily agreeing with or denying them, but
trying to see the meaning within them.
The contents of the book are taken from
the National Science Day Lecture given by Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto at the Faculty
of Science, Chiang Mai University, in August 1991, which was recorded and later
printed in the Thai language as Buddhasasana ny Thana Pen Rahk Than Korng Wityasaht
(published by the Science Faculty, Chiang Mai University, 1992). For this third
revised edition I would like to express my thanks to Venerable Jayasaro Bhikkhu,
who gave many helpful editorial suggestions. They have helped to produce a more
polished product than the first edition, which was somewhat rushed.
It may
be helpful to appreciate the vast disparity between the cultural context in which
the talk was given and that in which the book will be received. The talks were
given at one of Thailand's major universities to an audience of highly educated,
modernized Thais. Like many people in modern times, many members of the audience
had drifted away from their native religion, Buddhism, because of the unscientific
stigma attached to religion from the West. Venerable Payutto takes the position
of a concerned father chiding his children, pointing out to them the great value
of that which they have left behind. In the process he gives us as Westerners
some invaluable insights into our own ways of thinking and confronts our whole
cultural development with questions that, particularly at this time, demand answers.
Essentially,
then, the talk was given to Thai Buddhists. Now, in book form, it is being presented
to Westerners. I hope the reader will be open and at the same time discerning,
taking heed of those teachings which are relevant to our situation (not just agreeing
with those that we like or disagreeing with those that we don't) and making a
sincere effort to benefit from them. In the final analysis, the teachings lead
only to benefit, not to harm. The question is, are we ready to benefit from them?
Bruce
Evans
Introduction
In this modern, scientific age the sciences and technology
have enjoyed remarkable progress, leading to the rapid and exciting changes we
see around us. One of the most important factors in this progress is the expertise
resulting from specialization, which has enabled human beings to utilize profound
and highly detailed stores of knowledge. This knowledge has in turn been used
to answer mankind's needs on a practical level, which is a concrete and tangible
fruit of scientific research. Science is at the vanguard of this specialized approach
to research, and the exciting developments of technology are a concrete manifestation
of it.
Before embarking on this quest for specialization, human beings lived
surrounded by innumerable natural forces, all of which had a great effect on their
lives. Human beings were ignorant of the causes for these natural phenomena, how
they affected their lives, or how they were related to each other -- all of nature
was a mysterious enigma.
In order to know and understand the natural world,
human beings were motivated to begin searching for answers, with a variety of
different people searching in a variety of ways, amassing knowledge in ever-increasing
detail. But the more they learned, the more there was to learn, and the search
for knowledge went deeper and deeper into specialized channels. The world has
long been absorbed in this specialized search for knowledge and delighting in
the knowledge found. Now we find ourselves immersed in a mass of minutiae, and
we tend to think, speak, act and try to solve problems in a specialized way.
We
seem to have forgotten that the original objective of this meticulous and compartmentalized
search for knowledge was an understanding of the relationship which natural phenomena
have on human life, both from a specialized perspective and from a holistic one.
With researchers drowning in the data of their own isolated fields of research,
human knowledge becomes fragmented and disjointed. We have till now concerned
ourselves mainly with the wonders that all this knowledge has enabled us to produce,
to the neglect of the fundamental problems with which humanity is still faced.
Ultimately,
an impasse has been reached, and we are beginning to see warning signals. This
impasse can be seen on two levels:
1. In the search for knowledge: some of
the branches of learning, especially physics, which is leading the race for knowledge,
seem to have reached the limits that depth and detail can take them. They are
incapable of understanding the basic truths of nature, because such an understanding
demands an awareness of other fields of learning. This has forced researchers
to look for ways to transcend their self-imposed specialized limitations and integrate
their knowledge with other fields. At the very least, they are beginning to realize
that research in any one specialized field will not lead to realization of the
truth.
2. In the application of knowledge: the practical application of knowledge
has been geared mostly to responding to human needs and desires. This has led
to many problems, which the funnel vision arising from specialization prevented
us from foreseeing. These problems are becoming increasingly urgent, even threatening
the destruction of the human race. The most obvious and urgent of them is the
destruction of the environment, which is forcing us to search for a solution based
on a more integrated approach to knowledge.
One of the most important indications
of the extent to which the specialized approach to knowledge has developed is
the human ability to synthesize both knowledge and new products. Such developments
have caused many scientists to delude themselves into believing that they have
penetrated reality and conquered nature.
But in fact such knowledge of causal
factors and relationships is still limited to the confines of specialization.
Beyond these confines, in the whole natural order, such knowledge is inadequate,
and the practical application of it leads to problems. It has led to an impasse,
one that has awakened humanity to its limitations. The realization of this impasse
and its implications is itself one of the most recent advances of research.
From
this realization and awareness of the insufficiency of human knowledge, movements
have begun to try to integrate the knowledge of these various specialized fields
and arrive at a more holistic understanding of the natural order, one which includes
both mankind and the natural environment, both the physical world and the mental.
This step beyond the confines of specialization and the attempts to integrate
diverse bodies of knowledge is a change in direction for mankind, one that has
been very difficult to make.
In the context of a holistic understanding of
the natural order, the human position within it, and the development of a beneficial
human society, the extremely detailed knowledge of specialization has in effect
led nowhere, and human beings are still very much in the dark. Science, as the
major actor in this scenario, the leader of the quest for knowledge and specialization,
is in a most opportune position to help the world in this regard, by integrating
its research and knowledge with other fields of learning in order to arrive at
a more holistic understanding of the natural order.
That the Science Faculty
of Chiang Mai University invited me to present a lecture, which is the source
material for this book, and organized the printing of editions of the book in
both Thai and English, is a beginning in this direction. It is a gesture of open-mindedness
and willingness to consider ideas about the field of science in the eyes of a
field, which is traditionally regarded as its direct opposite -- religion.
It
is worth mentioning here that Buddhism has never seen science as an antagonist.
Buddhism welcomes scientific knowledge, recognizing it as another branch of learning
about the natural order. Many Buddhists are in fact hopeful that the truths unearthed
by science will serve to support and verify the timeless teachings given by the
Buddha thousands of years ago. At the very least scientific knowledge may reveal
the truths of the physical world, which can only help to improve our understanding
of life and mankind's place in the natural order, especially when such knowledge
is incorporated with knowledge about the mental world or human world as explained
through the teachings of Buddhism.
From the perspective of academic research,
this book represents a step toward a more integrated approach to academic learning,
broadening the fields of research by recognizing that religion is one branch of
the humanities. It is not only academic learning which stands to gain, but human
civilization, society and the whole human race.
I would like to extend my appreciation
to Ajahn Chatchawal Poonpun, of the Science Faculty of Chiang Mai University,
who diligently took upon himself the task of helping the Science Faculty realize
its objective, and also saw to the subsequent extension of that first initiative
into the printed page. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Khun Yongyuth
Dhanapura, the Director of the Buddhadhamma Foundation, who tirelessly dedicates
himself to the task of spreading the Buddha's teachings.
I would like to express
my thanks to Venerable Phra Kru Palat Insorn (Cintapañño) who has
given of his time and energy in the preparation through the Desk Top Publishing
process of the original Thai text, which was the source from which the English
translation was taken.
Last but not least, I would like to extend my appreciation
to Bruce Evans, who brought to the English translation of the Thai book not only
a fluency in both the Thai and English languages, but an understanding of the
Buddha's teachings and a dedication to the work, resulting in this admirable English
version of the talk in book form. For any inaccuracies, which may be remaining
in the text, I myself take responsibility.
Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto
November
30,1993
Toward Sustainable Science
Preamble
{National Science Day Lecture,
given at Chiang Mai University, Northern Thailand, on August 16, 1991, entitled,
"Buddhism as the Foundation of Science."}
To many people, the notion
of a Buddhist monk talking about science may seem surprising or incongruous, but
I feel that such a reaction is unwarranted. It might be necessary to come to some
understanding with each other before beginning the subject matter proper of this
book in order to establish a better frame of mind.
The perception of me as
a religious scholar talking about scientific matters may be a result of modern
tendencies. Our age is one of specialists. We tend to put people into pigeonholes
-- religious, scientific, economic and so on -- each specializing in his or her
own particular field. But I don't think of myself as a religious scholar, and
I don't want to be called one. I am simply a Buddhist monk.
To be a Buddhist
monk is not necessarily to be a religious scholar, and vice versa. To be a Buddhist
monk means to live a certain way of life. To use current terminology, we could
say that it is a "specialized" way of life. Religion, on the other hand,
is a specialized branch of knowledge. One who has a specialized life style has
a role to play, defined by the constraints of that life style, which, in this
case, is designed to allow him to live as skillfully as possible on both the personal
and social levels. Specialized academic disciplines result from dividing knowledge
up into categories. There is no consideration of life style involved; it is a
purely academic concern. In this light it is inaccurate to call a Buddhist monk
a religious scholar.
Today's lecture, "Buddhism as the Foundation of Science,"
should not be looked on as a meeting between two disparate academic disciplines.
This kind of attitude leads to the impression that you are about to witness some
kind of strange confrontation. Let us remember that science is our subject of
discussion, our meeting ground. Scientists are the owners of this branch of knowledge,
the ones most conversant with it, and now the scientists are allowing me, an outsider,
to give some reflections about science. If it is understood in this way, the spirit
of the lecture will be more easily grasped.
Thus it isn't necessary for the
speaker, an outsider, to have such a vast knowledge of the subject of science.
He may know some things about science, of much he may be ignorant, he may speak
rightly or wrongly, but nonetheless there is something to be gained from the lecture,
even if only an idea of how scientists are viewed by outsiders. And of what use
is that? Practically speaking, it is impossible to live or act completely alone.
We must interact with other ways of thinking and with events around us. We must
be able to interact with other people and other branches of knowledge. If such
interaction is successful, then the quality of our own work is enhanced. If it
is not successful, our own activity or field of knowledge suffers accordingly.
So
this lecture is about science through the eyes of an outsider, in this case a
Buddhist monk. As to how a Buddhist monk views science, this will become clear
as the lecture proceeds.
A second point that I would like to clarify is in
relation to the title of the lecture. Not only is a religious person talking about
science -- he is even claiming that his religion is the foundation of science!
I won't go into the reasons for this title at present, but would simply like to
state that it is inspired by the words of a scientist, and an eminent one at that.
He didn't use the exact words I have used, but I don't think I have misrepresented
him. In any case, I don't put too much weight on the matter, and as I will be
explaining it in the progress of the talk, I don't think you need trouble yourselves
over whether Buddhism really is the foundation of science or not. Any benefit
you obtain from today's lecture, or whether Buddhism really is the foundation
of science, are things that you can each decide for yourselves at your own discretion.
I
would like to clarify the meaning of two of the words that will be used throughout
this talk, and they are "Buddhism" and "science." By Buddhism
here I do not mean the institutional form of Buddhism, but its essential teaching,
which is an abstract quality. As for science, we may have a problem. Some scientists
may feel that in this context, only pure science should be considered, not applied
science or technology. But whenever the average person thinks of the word "science,"
he thinks of the whole totality, not this narrow definition. I myself am an average
person, an outsider like most people. I speak of science in a very general sort
of way, including both the pure and the applied sciences.
Chapter One
Science
and Technology
At the outset we must acknowledge the innumerable blessings
bestowed on us by science. Nobody will dispute the enormous value science has
for us. In order to be able to give this lecture, I have traveled all the way
from Bangkok to Chiang Mai in only one hour. Back in the days of King Rama I,
you would have had to wait three months for me to get here, and for that matter
I probably wouldn't have come at all. For this we must acknowledge science's contribution
to travel.
Looking around at communications, we see radios, telephones, fax
machines, televisions, videos and satellites, all of which have arisen from scientific
and technological developments. Other obvious areas of development are in the
medical world, where so many contagious diseases have now been virtually eradicated.
Cholera is now quite rare, bubonic plague no longer exists, and smallpox has all
but vanished. We no longer have to fear these infectious diseases. In olden times
one could die from an infected appendix, but nowadays an appendectomy is a relatively
simple operation. Even brain operations are getting easier. Sophisticated tools
for accurate examination and diagnosis are more and more accessible. X-Ray machines
are being replaced with computer X-Ray machines, and now we have ultra sound and
MRI. It's almost no longer necessary for the doctor to examine the patient; the
machines do it for him. These are all examples of extremely valuable technological
advances.
But on the other hand, when we really look into it, we find that
science, and in particular technology, has created a great many problems for humanity
as well. In the present time, particularly in the highly developed countries,
there is even a fear that the human race, and indeed the whole world, may meet
destruction at the hands of this technological progress. It might be a very instantaneous
kind of destruction, at the flick of a switch, so to speak, or it could be a slow
and gradual kind of destruction, as the gradual deterioration of the environment.
Even
within the immediacy of our everyday lives we are threatened by dangers. We can't
be sure whether our food has been contaminated with chemicals or not. Sometimes
the plants and animals used for our food supply are treated with hormones to boost
their growth. Hogs are given special additives to make their meat turn an appealing
red color. Poisonous substances are sometimes used in foods as preservatives,
flavor enhancers or dyes, not to mention the uncontrolled use of pesticides. Some
of the people who sell these foods wouldn't dare eat them themselves!
Two Kinds
of Technology
The application of science, which effects the changes in the
natural world is called technology. Technology is dependent for its existence
on the knowledge obtained through science. It is the tool, or channel, through
which humanity has worked to manipulate nature in the pursuit of material comfort.
But at the same time, the dangers, which threaten us are also contingent on this
technology. Technology is thus both an instrument for finding happiness and a
catalyst for danger.
Now in answer to all this, scientists may counter that
by "science" we mean only pure science. Pure science seeks to discover
and explain the truth, its concern is primarily the search for knowledge. Whatever
anybody wants to do with this knowledge is their business, not the concern of
science. Pure science tends to shake off responsibility in this regard.
Technology
has been accused of using scientific knowledge to its own ends, but this is not
entirely true. Initially, technology was aimed at bringing benefit to humanity,
but nowadays there are two kinds of technology. One is the technology, which is
used to create benefit, while the other is used to seek personal gain. What we
need is the technology that is used to create benefit, but the problems of the
present time exist largely because modern technology is of the kind that seeks
personal gain.
If we constrain ourselves to creating benefit, the repercussions
arising from technological development will be few and far between, but whenever
technology is used to seek personal gain, problems arise. Thus we must clearly
distinguish between these two kinds of technology.
The Place of Ethics
Be
it the wrong utilization of scientific knowledge, the utilization of technology
for personal gain, or even utilization of technology to destroy the earth, all
these problems have arisen entirely as a result of human activity, they are a
matter of utilization. Because they are rooted in human activity, their solutions
are an ethical or moral concern.
These problems can only be simply and directly
solved through moral awareness. Only then will technology and science be used
for constructive purposes. With moral awareness, even though there may be some
harmful consequences arising from lack of circumspection or ignorance, the prevention
and rectification of problems will be on the best possible level.
Mankind has
looked to science and technology to bring benefit to human society, but there
is no guarantee that science and technology will bring only the benefit that humanity
hopes for. These things can be used to create harm or benefit. How they are used
is entirely at the disposal of the user.
If we ignore morality or ethics, instead
of creating benefit, the most likely result is that science and technology will
bring problems, stressing as they do:
1. The unrestrained production and consumption
of goods with which to gratify the senses, feeding craving and greed (raga and
lobha);
2. Escalation of the power to destroy (dosa); and
3. Increased availability
of objects, which lure people into delusion and carelessness (moha).
In so
doing, technology tarnishes the quality of life and pollutes the environment.
Only true moral awareness can alleviate these destructive influences.
Without
morality, technological progress, even the beneficial kind, tends to increase
the propensity for destruction. The more science and technology advance, and the
more keenly destruction seems to threaten mankind, the more is morality necessitated,
and the more will the stability and well-being of humanity be dependent on ethical
principles.
In any case, this subject of ethics, although a simple and straightforward
one, is largely ignored in modern times. Most people want to live without problems,
but they don't want to solve them. As long as ethics are ignored like this, problems
will persist.
Science and Technology Cannot be Separated
It is not only
science that has fostered technology's growth -- technology has also been a decisive
factor in the development of science. It is the scientific method that has enabled
scientific learning to progress to where it is now, and an essential part of the
scientific method is observation and experiment. The earliest forms of observation
and experiment were carried out through the five senses -- eye, ear, nose, tongue
and body, particularly the eyes for looking, the ears for listening and the hands
for touching. However, our sense organs have their limitations. With the naked
eye we can see a limited number of stars and a limited portion of the universe.
With technological development, the telescope was invented, enabling science to
make a Great Leap Forward. Microscopic organisms, invisible to the naked eye,
were made visible through the invention of the microscope, allowing science to
once again make great advances. Pure science, then, has relied heavily on technology
for its progress.
The tools used for scientific research are products of technology
that is why science and technology have been inseparably connected in their development.
In the present day, scientists are looking to the computer to further their quest
for truth. Capable of collecting and collating vast amounts of information, much
more than the ordinary human mind, the computer will be indispensable in the testing
of hypotheses and the formulation of theories.
The benefits of science appear
to the mass of people through technology. Humanity must, however, learn to choose
between technology for creating benefit and technology for seeking personal gain.
Reaching
the Limits and Finding No Answer
Science has advanced so far-reaching that
it seems to be approaching the limits of the physical universe and, as it approaches
the limits of that world, it is turning to the mysteries of the mind. What is
mind? How does it work? What is consciousness? Does it arise from a physical source,
or is it entirely separate from the physical world? These days computers have
Artificial Intelligence. Will the development of Artificial Intelligence lead
to computers with minds? This is a question some scientists are speculating about.
Modern
methods of observation and verification seem to have transcended the limitations
of the five senses. We have developed instruments to expand their limited capabilities.
Whenever the senses are incapable of perceiving any further, we resort to these
technological instruments. Now, even with these instruments, we seem to have reached
our limit, and scientific investigations are reduced to mathematical symbols.
As
observation, experimentation and analysis enter the sphere of the psyche, science
retains its basic attitude and experimental method, and so there is a lot of guesswork
and preconception in its operation. It remains to be seen whether science can
in fact enter into the domain of the mind, and by what means.
Values and Motivation
Even
though pure science tends to be distinguished from applied science and technology,
pure science nevertheless shares some of the responsibility for the harm resulting
from these things. In fact, in the last hundred years or so, pure science has
not really been so pure. There are values implicit within pure science which the
scientific fraternity is unaware of; and because it isn't aware of these values,
scientific research comes unwittingly under their influence.
What is the source
of science? All sciences, be they natural or social sciences, are based on values.
Take economics for example. What is the origin or source of economics? It is want.
What is want, can it be observed with any of the five senses? It can't, because
it is a quality of mind, a value. The discipline known as science claims it is
free of values, but in fact it can never be truly value-free because it involves
mental qualities.
Where is the source of the physical sciences? The source
of science is the desire to know the truth of nature, or reality. This answer
is acceptable to most scientists, and in fact it was given by a scientist. The
desire to know nature's truths, together with the belief that nature does have
constant laws, which function according to cause and effect, are the two foundations
on which science bases its quest for nature's secrets.
The source of science
is within this human mind, at desire for knowledge and faith. Without these two
mental qualities it would be impossible for science to grow and develop. The motivation
which drove the early developments of science, and which still exists to some
extent was the desire to know the truths of nature. This was a relatively pure
kind of desire. In later times, during the Dark Ages, this desire to know was
actively suppressed by the Christian Church and the Inquisition. Those who doubted
the word of the Bible, or who made statements which cast doubt on it, were brought
before the court and put on trial; if found guilty they were punished. Galileo
was one of those brought on trial. He had said that the earth revolved around
the sun, and was almost put to death for his beliefs. At the last moment he pleaded
guilty and was absolved; he didn't die, but many others were burnt alive at the
stake.
At that time there was overt suppression of the search for truth. But
the stronger the suppression, the stronger the reaction, so it came about that
the suppression and constraint of the Dark Ages had the effect of intensifying
the desire to know the truths of nature. This desire has fired the thinking of
Western cultures.
This drive can still be considered a relatively pure desire
for knowledge. The science we have nowadays, however, is no longer so pure. It
has been influenced by two important attitudes or assumptions:
1. That the
prosperity of mankind hinges on the subjugation of nature.
This attitude stems
from the Christian belief that God created mankind in his own image, to take control
of the world and have dominion over nature. God created nature, and all of the
things within it, for man's use. Mankind is the leader, the hub of the universe,
the master. Mankind learns the secrets of nature in order to manipulate it according
to his desires, and nature exists for man's use.
One Western text [1] states
that this idea is responsible for Western scientific progress. The text states
that in ancient times, people in the East, particularly China and India, were
scientifically more advanced than the West, but owing to the influence of this
drive to conquer nature, the West has gradually overtaken the East.
So the
first major value system is the belief in Man's right to conquer nature. Now we
come to the second major influence:
2. That well-being depends on an abundance
of material goods.
This line of thinking has exerted a very powerful influence
on Western industrial expansion. It has been argued that industries in the West
were created to address the problem of scarcity, which is found throughout Western
history. Life in Western countries was beset by hostile elemental forces, such
as freezing winters, which made farming impossible. People in such places had
to live exceedingly arduous lives. Not only were they subject to freezing temperatures,
but also food shortages. Life was a struggle for survival, and this struggle led
to the development of industry.
The opposite of scarcity is plenty. People
in Western countries saw that happiness hinged on the elimination of scarcity,
and this was the impulse behind the Industrial Revolution. The awareness of scarcity
and the desire to provide plenty is in turn based on the assumption that material
abundance is the prerequisite for happiness.
This kind of thinking has developed
into materialism, and from there, consumerism, a significant contribution to which
has been made by industrialists working under the influence of the first line
of thinking mentioned above. Coupled with the assumption that happiness is dependent
on an abundance of material goods, we have the belief that nature must be conquered
in order to cater to man's desires. The two assumptions support each other well.
It
seems as if the pure desire for knowledge mentioned earlier has been corrupted,
coming under the influence of the desires to conquer nature and to produce an
abundance of material goods, or materialism. When these two values enter the picture,
the pure desire for knowledge becomes an instrument for satisfying the aims of
these secondary values, giving rise to an exploitative relationship with nature.
The
assumption is that by conquering nature, mankind will be able to create unlimited
material goods with which to cater to his desires, resulting in perfect happiness.
The search for methods to implement this assumption naturally follows, leading
to the marked material progress we have seen in recent times, especially since
the Industrial Revolution. It has been said that the science, which has developed
in the Industrial Age is a servant of industry. It may be claimed that science
has paved the way for industry, but industry says, "Science? That is my servant!"
Together
with the development of industry we have observed the gradual appearance, in ever-increasing
severity, of the harmful effects contingent on it. Now, with the danger that threatens
us from the destruction of the environment, it is all too clear. The cause for
this destruction is the powerful influence of these two assumptions: the desire
to conquer nature and the drive for material wealth. Together they place mankind
firmly on the path to manipulating, and as a result destroying, nature on an ever-increasing
scale. These two influences are also the cause for mankind's internal struggles,
the contention to amass material comforts. It might even be said that modern man
has had to experience the harmful consequences of the past century of industrial
development principally because of the influence of these two assumptions.
Behind
the prosperity...
These two assumptions are not the whole picture. There are
also two major trends, which have served to support them:
1. Specialization:
The Industrial Age is the age of specialization. Learning has been subdivided
into specialized fields, each of which may be very proficient in its respective
right, but on an overall level they lack integration.
The purpose of the specialization
of learning is to obtain knowledge on a more detailed level, which can then be
brought together into one integrated whole, but the specialists have become blinded
by their knowledge, producing an unbalanced kind of specialization. In the field
of science there are those who feel that science alone will solve mankind's problems
and answer all his questions, which gives them little inclination to integrate
their learning with other fields of knowledge.
This kind of outlook has caused
the belief that religion and ethics are also specialized fields of learning. Modern
education reduces ethics to just another academic subject. When people think of
ethics, they think, "Oh, religion," and file it away in its little compartment.
They aren't interested in ethics, but when it comes to solving the world's problems,
they say, "Oh, my discipline can do that!" They don't think of trying
to integrate their learning with other disciplines. If they really were capable
of solving all problems as they say, then they would have to be able to solve
the ethical ones, too. But then they say that ethics is a concern of religion,
or some other specialized field. This brings us to the second trend:
2. The
belief that ethical problems can be solved without the need for ethics. Supporters
of this idea believe that when material development has reached its peak, all
ethical problems will disappear of their own accord.
According to this view,
it is not necessary to train people or to develop the mind. This is a line of
reasoning, which has recently appeared in the field of economics. Economists say
that when the economy is healthy and material goods are in plentiful supply, there
will no longer be any contention, and society will be harmonious. This is to say
in effect that ethical or moral problems can be solved through material means.
This
is not entirely wrong. Economic situations do have a bearing on ethical problems,
but it is a mistake to oversimplify the situation by believing that ethical problems
would somehow disappear of their own accord if the economy were healthy. It might
be said, however, that this line of reasoning is true in one sense, because without
morality it would be impossible for the economy to be healthy. It could also be
said that if ethical practice was good (for example, people were encouraged to
be diligent, generous, prudent, and to use their possessions in a way that is
beneficial to society), then economic problems would disappear.
The statement,
"When the economy is good, ethical problems will not arise," is true
in the sense that before the economy can be healthy, ethical problems must be
addressed. Similarly, the statement, "When ethical problems are all solved,
the economy will be healthy," is true in the sense that before ethical problems
can be solved, economic problems must also be addressed.
The phrase "ethical
problems" takes in a wide range of situations, including mental health and
the pursuit of happiness. Thus, the attempt to solve ethical problems through
materialistic means must also entail dealing with moods and feelings, examples
of which can be seen in the synthesization of tranquillizers to relieve stress
and depression. But it would be a mistake to try to solve ethical problems through
such means. This kind of relief is only temporary; it soothes the problem but
does not solve it.
Many branches of academic learning strive to be recognized
as proper sciences, but the specialist perspective causes funnel-vision and discord,
and in itself becomes an impediment to true science. Specialization is inimical
to true science. Even physics cannot be called true science, because it lacks
integration; its facts are piecemeal, its truth is partial. When truth is partial,
it is not the real truth. Without the whole picture, our deductions will not be
in accordance with the total reality. The stream of cause and effect is not seen
in its entirety, so the truth remains out of reach.
These two trends, specialization
and the belief that ethical problems can be solved through material means, pervade
the Age of Industrialization. Coupled with the two assumptions previously mentioned,
they intensify problems accordingly.
Many of the points I have mentioned so
far come within the domain of religion, and in order to see this more clearly,
I would like to enter the subject of religion itself. I have been speaking about
science, its origins and development, now let us take a look at the origins and
development of religion and try to integrate the two.
Footnote
1. Encyclopedia
Britannica, 15th Ed., (1988), s.v. "Science, the History of," by L.
Pearce Williams (vol. 27, p.37).
Chapter Two
Religion and Science
From
Common Beginnings to Separation
It is commonly asserted that religion arose
from the fear of danger, particularly natural dangers, such as lightning, floods,
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes. These dangers have threatened
human beings throughout the ages. Ancient man, ignorant of the workings of nature,
could not understand the causes of these natural forces. Terrified at the threat
they presented, he began to search for answers. This quest precipitated an interest
in the nature that surrounded man, and a desire to find some solutions to his
problems.
This awareness of danger is the common origin of both religion and
science. The desire for security was the motivating force for the birth of religion.
Together with the fear of danger arose a sense of wonder at the marvels of nature,
which led to the desire to know its truths. This was no idle curiosity: human
beings were forced to find out about nature in order to address the dangers which
threatened them. Thus the aspiration to be free of danger, which was based on
fear, indirectly led to the desire to know nature's truths, which gave birth to
science. Religion was born from the desire to escape danger, and science was born
from the desire to know nature's truths.
History tells us that the earliest
forms of scientific research, in such cultures as in Egypt and Mesopotamia, were
in fact conducted by priests. They were the first people to take an interest in
nature and to devote time to finding solutions to the dangers that threatened
them.
However, the common origin of science and religion is also the point
at which they parted. The reason they parted lies within the nature of truth itself.
The natural dangers, which threaten humanity, are immediate concerns, matters
of life and death. The threat is tangible and urgent. Do what you will; we must
have an answer right now. Because all people are faced equally with the same dangers,
answers must be relevant to the whole of society. In such a situation, it is necessary
to come up with answers, which can be acted upon immediately, answers, which put
an end to the urgent demands for security. When an answer appears that is acceptable,
it is institutionalized as religion.
The practical answers thus provided might
take forms, such as mystic ceremonies, which to the modern eye would seem absurd,
but even so, they are something which can be acted upon immediately. For the mainstream
of society, this is what becomes religion.
Now there are others who take the
time to gradually collect facts, experiment and analyze. These people, through
observation and experiment, arrive at a different set of answers. This is what
is known as "science," the knowledge that comes from gradual and systematic
observation.
Here religion and science diverge. One answer serves as a remedy
for an immediate need, for the masses, and, relying heavily on faith and belief,
lacks systematic observation. This is religion. Religion, then, is tied to faith.
Science, on the other hand, is a discipline of gradual and systematic investigation.
It is not concerned with finding immediate answers, and is available only to the
few who are so inclined, not the whole of society. The systematic observation
of natural facts has been carried on through the ages by interested parties, and
the resulting institution has become known as "science."
At this
juncture we have one clear distinction between religion and science: religion
is for the masses, whereas science is for a select few. It may be questioned how
religion manages to maintain uniformity in the letter and the practice of its
teachings. This is achieved through faith. Religion has its roots in faith, and
uses faith to preserve its teaching. Religion provides an unchanging belief system,
a dogma, which must be adhered to and upheld, one that is unquestionable.
Science
is accessible to those who are capable of understanding it, the thinkers. Its
essence is preserved through verifiable truths and valid methods of experimentation.
Science thus preserves and propagates its truths through wisdom, or, more specifically,
the scientific method.
Religion seeks to convey an all-embracing, absolute
truth, an answer that addresses an immediate need. It might be more accurate to
say that the answer thus provided is what becomes known as religion, rather than
that religion provides the answer. There is no institution of religion, as such,
which comes up with these answers. It is rather that the answers proposed by humanity
have become institutionalized as religion.
In one sense, religion seeks to
provide one absolute answer to the fundamental questions of life, covering all
levels, from the highest to the lowest. Science, on the other hand, attempts to
observe truth from its individual manifestations, piece by piece. It is a collection
of piecemeal facts, which are hoped will gradually lead to an overall picture.
Even
though science, too, wants general principles, its general principles are conditional.
They are confined to specific situations and conditions, and are only part of
the overall, or fundamental, truth. We could say that religion gives a total answer,
science a piecemeal one.
Owing to the limitations of both science and religion,
there arose a third group, which, too, aspired to find answers to the fundamental
questions of life and the universe. They were dissatisfied with religion because,
although it gave such an answer, it was not one that appealed to reason. Science,
on the other hand, although providing answers that were verifiable and appealed
to reason, had not yet come up with any absolute answers. Scientific research
had still not reached the fundamental level of reality. This third group did not
want to wait for science's answers, so they attempted to find answers to those
fundamental questions through reasoned analysis, without the need for verification.
This system of thought became another science, known as philosophy.
We could
compare these three disciplines, using the fundamental questions of nature as
a measuring stick, in this way:
1. Science: is still in the process of verification
and observation and is yet to come up with an answer.
2. Philosophy: attempts
to give an answer pending verification by using reasoned analysis.
3. Religion:
provides an absolute answer, which needs no verification.
Both science and
philosophy appeared after religion, and both attempt to give clearer answers.
However, both of them fail to give answers that are satisfactory and fulfilling
for everyday life, and that is why religion still exists and answers a need through
faith.
Because religion offers this comprehensive and immediate truth, an answer
that is suitable for the masses, but which at the same time is not verifiable
through any of the five senses, it must hinge on faith. And because these answers
are unverified, they will be constantly changing. At one time one kind of answer
is given: people don't know whether it is true or not, because it can't be verified.
If they believe it they accept it. At a later time a new answer is given. Nobody
knows whether this new answer is true or not either -- it, too, can't be verified.
It boils down to preference. Some prefer the older belief, some the newer one.
Religions, built as they are on faith, vary in accordance with that faith. For
this reason we can see at any one time many different religions. This is because
an all-embracing, absolute answer cannot be verified it rests on belief. When
a new answer arises there may be some who believe that, but others won't, and
all the answers are equally unverifiable.
In contrast, science answers slowly
and methodically, verifying each point as it goes. It solves problems rationally.
At any given time there is only one science. It is often said, "There are
many religions, but only one science." However, from a historical perspective
it can be said that there are many sciences, because science doesn't give a total
view of truth. Theories about the nature of the universe vary from time to time.
For example, at one time science favored the Ptolemaic universe, which portrayed
an earth-centered model. Then came the Copernican system, with the heliocentric
solar system, and then there were the Cartesian and Newtonian systems, and now
we have the universe of the new physics. Science's picture of reality has been
constantly changing. Nature, or the universe, according to the modern theories
of physics, whether the quantum or relativity theories, is completely different
from the universe in the time of Newton. In this sense there have been many sciences.
It
is not only from the historical perspective that there have been many sciences.
In the present age there also seem to be many sciences existing together. There
are scientists who now say that the time has come for science to reappraise some
of its basic premises. They reject some of the old scientific premises and talk
of a "new physics" and a "new science."
Science deals with
the outside world, which is measured by the five senses. Here religion differs
yet again. It not only looks at the outside world, but also the human being, the
one who is observing. While science concerns itself solely with the objects of
observation, religion concerns itself with the observer, the one who is using
these five sense bases. Thus, religion is not confined to data observable through
the five senses, but is directly related to the level of development of each individual.
The way religion is perceived is directly related to the level of mental development
of the perceiver, which gives it an added level of complexity.
In any case,
as far as religion goes, even though it lays emphasis on the human being, it does
so only insofar as the human being is experiencing a problem, and that problem
needs to be dealt with. When looking for the causes of that problem, however,
most religions look, like science, to the external environment. In this respect,
most religions are similar to science: they look to the external natural world
as the source of problems or suffering.
Religion's search for truth is in order
to solve the human problem, while science's search for truth is in order to satisfy
the thirst for knowledge. For most religions, which are compelled to have ready
answers, the causes of problems, whether internal or external, are seen as existing
behind that natural world, in the form of spirits, deities, gods or other supernatural
forces. For external disturbances, such as lightning, earthquakes and so on, sacrifices
and prayers are prescribed. For internal disturbances, such as sickness, mental
disease or hysteria, mediums or spirit healers perform mystic ceremonies. Meanwhile
science, not being compelled to find any immediate remedies, slowly and systematically
goes about its search for data.
The natural religions, Buddhism in particular,
have a special interest in the human condition, but they do not see the source
of problems entirely in the external world. Buddhism looks for the source of problems
within the entire process of causes and conditions -- including those within the
human being, such as wrong ways of thinking -- be they internal or external, material
or immaterial, physical or mental.
Among ordinary religions, there are many
that teach the treatment of problems by appropriate means, through morality or
ethics, which seems to indicate an understanding of the internal factors contributing
to them, but this is not necessarily the case. In fact, such practice is often
done not with real understanding of these factors, but out of obedience to some
external, supernatural force. The relationship is one between mankind and an external
power. Ethical behavior in these religions is usually done in order to avoid punishment,
or to gain favors or blessings, rather than through awareness of the factors occurring
in the natural processes.
Religions, many and varied at the one time, address
the needs of different levels of people. At any one time society consists of many
different levels of virtue and understanding, thus the need for many religions,
answering many different levels of need.
In the past, scientific truths were
verifiable through the five senses, but this is no longer the case. With the passage
of time it has become necessary to develop instruments, such as the telescope
and the microscope, to extend the capabilities of these senses. Nowadays even
those instruments have reached their limits, making it necessary to develop even
more complex instruments and test hypotheses with mathematics. Mathematical languages
and computers are the newest instruments of verification.
Science's development
of increasingly complex means of verification has caused it to become a highly
specialized field, accessible to very few people. It has become impossible for
the average man to observe the truths of science, because the instruments are
not available to him.
Religion, on the other hand, belongs to the masses. It
is available for the average man, who is free to accept or reject it without the
need for proof. Although it is true that some religions, like science, reserve
their truths for a select few, the priests or monks, and even reserve the right
to spiritual attainments, this is more a result of manipulations by certain individuals
than the nature of religions themselves. In the natural religions, such as Buddhism,
there is no such distinction or exclusion, because nature is its own master. How
can truth be monopolized? Each individual has a right to understand and attain
the truths of nature, depending on intelligence and discernment.
Note that
there are two kinds of inability to verify truths. One is through an inability
to access the instruments of verification, while the other is because such truths
cannot be verified through the means being used. In the present time science is
experiencing problems on both counts, especially when attempting to make a statement
of ultimate truth, or delving into the realm of the mind.
If the scope of science
is not broadened, it will arrive at a dead end. In science there is a very strong
aspiration to answer the fundamental and ultimate questions of the universe, but
we never seem to get near them. Just as scientific research seems to be getting
on the verge of an answer, the truth seems to slip beyond reach once more.
A
Clarity that is Not Free of Confusion
In addition to the new science and the
classical science, or the new physics and the classical physics, we have one science
for the specialists and one for the average man. Many of the concepts spoken of
in science are completely beyond the ability of the average man to visualize.
Not only can he not verify them for himself, he can't even grasp the concepts
in question. And this applies not only to the average man: some of the concepts
of science are even beyond the ability of most scientists to visualize! One can
only take their word for it.
Let us take an example. According to science,
light is at once a wave and a particle. Scientists were trying to define the nature
of light itself: it's a particle, right? One group said, "Yes, that's right.
It's a particle, a stream of photons." But another group said, "No,
light is a wave." In the end it seems that it is both a particle and a wave.
But what's that? It has to be proven with mathematics. This kind of thing is beyond
the grasp of the ordinary human mind.
Let's look at some more examples: astronomers
tell us that there are black holes scattered throughout the universe. These are
stars with such extremely high gravitational pulls that even light cannot escape
them they are absolutely dark. Now what does the average man make of that? Something
that even light cannot escape from? Now they say that in these black holes both
matter and energy are compacted to such terrific densities that nothing on this
earth of ours can compare. As an illustration, they say that if all the empty
space were somehow pressed out of a skyscraper, like the Empire State Building,
102 stories high, its mass and energy could be compacted into the size of a needle!
A skyscraper! Now what is the man in the street going to make of that?
Scientists
say that this is how a black hole is. In fact it's even stranger, because, apart
from being the size of a needle, at the same time it would still weigh as much
as the original Empire State Building. It's inconceivable -- all we can do is
believe them. We've trusted the scientists for so long, we give them the benefit
of the doubt. But deep inside we're all wondering, "Huh? How is that possible?"
Science
is not yet able to provide an explanation of the totality of life and the world,
it is still engaged in the process of collecting and verifying pieces of data.
It can still not explain many of the basic questions of the universe, such as
the nature, or even existence, of the basic particle.
Science has gone beyond
the point where it can be proven with the five senses. Hypotheses are proven through
mathematics, which is then interpreted by physicists. The truth is reduced to
algebraic equations, which are not in themselves the truth, and don't really clarify
the truth in a convincing way. Mathematical symbols have become the new objects
of faith. They are interpreted without a direct awareness of reality, which is
very nearly the condition that Sir Arthur Eddington spoke of. Sir Arthur Eddington
was an English scientist, credited with being the first person to devise a way
to prove Einstein's Theory of Relativity, on account of which he was knighted.
He said:
"Science is incapable of leading mankind directly to the truth,
or reality as such, it can only lead him to a shadow world of symbols."[2]
Even observable phenomena are not a certainty. Scientists use the scientific
method as a means of testing their observations. The main factors of this method
are observation and experiment, which must be done until there is no longer room
for doubt. But, even then, the matter is not closed, because of the limitations
of the experimental method and the instruments used.
Let's take as an example
Newton's Law of Gravitation. This was a universally accepted truth, a Law, until
Einstein came along and said it was not entirely correct. On the subatomic level,
the Law of Gravity no longer applies. In Newton's time, however, there were no
instruments to observe the subatomic level. Mankind had to wait until the twentieth
century and the arrival of Einstein, using mathematical equations and reasoning,
to perceive this truth. So we must be careful. You cannot ultimately believe even
experimentation.
I am reminded of the story of the chicken and Farmer Brown.
Every morning that the chicken sees Farmer Brown, Farmer Brown is carrying some
food for him. He sees this every single morning, so it follows that whenever he
sees Farmer Brown the chicken gets fed. Chicken sees Farmer Brown = gets fed ...
this is the equation. But there comes a morning when the chicken sees Farmer Brown
and doesn't get fed, because Farmer Brown isn't carrying food in his hand, he's
carrying a knife. The equation "Chicken sees Farmer Brown = gets fed"
becomes "Chicken sees Farmer Brown = gets throat cut." So it seems that
even verification based on repeated observation cannot be completely trusted,
it's still not a foregone conclusion.
Towards a Unity of Science and Religion
Science
is of little direct use to the masses. The function through which science should
really help the people is in the field of understanding, but the role it in effect
plays is by and large through technology, which does not improve understanding
by any means. In what direction does technology assist humanity? Mostly in consumption,
often nourishing greed, aversion, or delusion. Television is invented, and so
we are able to watch that. But when people watch television they don't look at
things, which are going to increase their understanding and intelligence, they
prefer to look at things which make them more indulgent and heedless. We have
communications technology, but rather than using it for developing wisdom and
discernment, it is too often used to encourage delusion.
Science takes no responsibility
for the uses its knowledge is put to, leaving technology to help the masses. Technology,
however, doesn't always help; sometimes it is downright harmful. As I said, instead
of becoming a tool to create benefit, it becomes a tool for seeking personal gain.
Thus, science leaves the people in the hands of religion. Who can you blame? One
may ask, "Why does religion make people so gullible?" but then it can
be countered, "Why does science abandon the people to religion?"
Very
few people have access to the more profound levels of science. All most people
can do is believe it, they can't really know it. Nowadays science has become more
and more a matter of faith, not knowledge, which puts it on much the same standing
as most religions.
When science is finally able to arrive at the truth, to
answer mankind's ultimate questions, it will be perfected. Many religions will
no longer be sustainable. Conversely, a religion, which points to the highest
truth, to reality, will be in a position to unify with science. At that time science
and religion will have reached another meeting point, their last one, where religion
becomes science and science becomes religion, the division between the two gone
forever.
Too little, too Late
The real-life problems in society are in need
of an immediate answer or remedy -- now, in this present life. As individuals
we are only on this earth for a limited time. The situations threatening us give
no time for procrastination.
Even though science is capable of providing many
efficient ways of answering our problems, it is hampered by being "too little,
too late." By being "too little," I mean that the knowledge of
science is insufficient to solve the fundamental problems of life. It cannot make
people good, it cannot make them happy, it cannot show them how to rectify bad
habits, it cannot heal suffering, sadness, anger, sorrow, depression and so on.
It can't even solve social problems.
Scientists may counter that science has
helped in many ways. People with insomnia, depression and mental problems are
all helped by drugs. Science is of great benefit in these areas. It must be conceded
that applied science and technology in the medical fields have helped vast numbers
of people. People with severe mental problems are indeed helped to some degree
by science, and scientists may even believe that in the future it will be possible
to make people happy through the use of drugs. Whenever you feel unhappy, just
pop a capsule and the suffering is gone ... but this is no longer medicine, it
is hedonism. Scientists may conduct research into the nature of the brain, ascertain
which particular chemicals are secreted when certain emotions, such as happiness,
are experienced, isolate the chemical agent and synthesize it. Then, whenever
people have a feeling of depression or sadness, they can take this drug and be
immediately relieved. With chemicals like this as freely available as food, people
will always be happy, and never again have to experience depression.
But then
again, reflecting on the dangers of chemicals, there are enough problems in the
world already with food additives and pesticides, without adding any more. However,
this is not the most important point. Even more important is the perspective of
values, or quality of life. The objective of religion is to lead people to freedom.
Freedom means the ability to be happy without the need for external agents, to
be more and more independently happy and less and less dependent on externals,
to develop a life free of enslavement to a mass of external trappings. But the
use of drugs forces people to lay their happiness and their fate more and more
into the hands of externals, making them less and less able to live with themselves.
In
causing people to depend increasingly on externals, science is not unlike the
ancient religions, which led people to invest their fate in the gods with sacrifices
and supplications. In both cases, the happiness and suffering of human beings
is offered up into the hands of external agents, and in essence they equally destroy
man's independence.
This is what I mean by "too little." Science
on its own is not capable of solving mankind's problems. To use Buddhist terminology,
we could say that science and technology do not encourage people to have good
behavior (síla), do not encourage quality in the mind, or inner well-being
(samádhi) and they suffer from "funnel vision," in that they
seek to amass data, but they do not provide us with the knowledge of how to lead
a happy life (paññá). [*]
The second objection to science
is that it is "too late." Scientific truth is not whole or complete,
it is not yet able to give us definitive and final answers, and there is no indication
of when it will be able to do so. Scientific knowledge is constantly changing.
At one time the truth is thought to be one way, later on it is found to be otherwise.
If we had to sit and wait for science to come up with a final answer to the nature
of the universe, we would all die first without ever finding out how to conduct
our lives.
Scientists are always looking for a general principle, but they
can only arrive at "sub-principles," only pieces of the overall picture.
In the meantime, while we are waiting for science's explanation of fundamental
truth, we are using it, through technology, to enhance our lives and pander to
our desires. For the moment, it is technology that is actually giving concrete
results rather than science itself. But technology cannot answer mankind's fundamental
questions. For an answer to the truth (or non-truth) of the natural world, mankind
must first rely on religion, using science only for the convenience offered through
technological progress. This is the situation at the present time.
Religion
is still present in this world because mankind is still waiting for a complete
and absolute answer, one that is right for the situation and which is immediately
practicable. Because such answers cannot be verified, and because science cannot
verify them, most people are forced to resort to belief.
Although science has
made such great advances, all it has done is expand the perceivable limits of
the material world. In terms of answering mankind's fundamental questions and
showing man's proper relationship and position in the world, science seems to
have been running in circles and made no real progress.
Not above Blunders
It
is not only in the field of pure science that the problem of mistakes arises from
time to time. Within the field of applied science and technology, mistakes are
common. They are usually not wrongdoings as such, but blunders that arise out
of ignorance, oversight or lack of circumspection.
Take for example the drug
chloramphenicol. At one time this drug was very widespread. It was reputed to
be a wonder drug it seemed to cure everything. Whenever you were sick, all you
had to do was just go and buy some chloramphenicol they sold it everywhere. Later
on, after about ten years, it was discovered that this drug would gradually build
up in the body and cause bone marrow to cease production of blood corpuscles,
and many people had died of leukemia.
Then there was the case of DDT. At one
time it was thought that with DDT, our problems with the insect world were over-ants,
mosquitoes ... all gone. People thought that they could eradicate these creatures
and no longer have to be bothered by them. Many years later it was found that
DDT was carcinogenic, an insidious substance which could prove fatal even to humans.
What's more, while the humans were suffering ill effects from the drug, the insect
population was becoming immune to it. In time it has become less effective as
an insecticide, and is now more likely to kill the human beings. Many countries
have banned the use of DDT, but Thailand is still using it, even now.
Then
there was the case of thalidomide. Thalidomide was a painkiller and tranquillizer,
which was highly praised by the medical profession. It was reputed to have passed
the most rigorous tests, and was trusted so highly that it was announced as an
exceptionally safe drug. It was so lauded that even the developed countries, which
are normally very cautious about drugs and medicines, allowed the drug to be bought
without a prescription. It was sold for about five years, up until 1961, at which
time it was found that this drug, when taken by pregnant women, caused deformities
in babies. Before the danger was realized and the drug recalled from the market,
about 8,000 children were born deformed.
Let's take one more example, the case
of CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons). This group of chemicals is widely used in refrigerators,
air conditioners and "pressure-pack" spray cans, and they have been
used for a long time with complete confidence. By the time we knew what was going
on, these chemicals had risen up into the upper levels of the atmosphere and caused
gaps in the ozone layer, causing great concern among scientists and environmentalists
the world over. And so a new piece of knowledge arises -- what we thought was
a good thing turns out to be not so good after all.
The emergence and development
of science has undoubtedly helped to improve understanding and the human intellect,
about this there is no argument. But at the same time, if we look closely we will
see that it has also caused human intelligence and understanding to decline. Previously,
when science was just beginning to develop, people were very impressed with its
achievements. There was a great deal of excitement over the discoveries and technological
achievements of science, and people put all their hopes into science and technology.
All of nature's mysteries were going to be revealed, and science would lead humanity
into an age of perfect happiness. Those who wholeheartedly trusted science began
to doubt religions and the answers provided by them, and many people lost faith
entirely and discarded religion.
Unfortunately, the truth dealt with by science
is only a partial one. It deals only with the physical world. Science has no answers
to the questions dealing with internal human problems, the answers for which mankind
had previously turned to religion. This renunciation of religion in modern times
would not be such a big loss if by religion we simply meant the institutional
forms of religion, but it means that the part of religion, which deals with solving
internal human problems has also been discarded. With science taking no interest
in these matters, and people ignoring them, there arises a break in the stream
of knowledge. The answers, which had previously been provided by religions have
been ignored, and mankind's mental and spiritual growth has been retarded and
even, in some areas, gone into decline.
The nature of the world, life and human
problems, will not allow mankind to ignore the need for religion. Fundamental,
practical and immediate answers are still as much in demand as ever before. When
science is seen to be incapable of providing an answer to this need, and when
human beings tire of their fascination with science, they may come to their senses
and remember this fundamental need within. They may then turn once more to religion
for their answers. But because the stream of mental development has been interrupted,
or set back, their searching will be very erratic, and a fresh start may have
to be made. Indications of this can be seen in some of the religious developments
in highly developed countries, where there has been a persistence of religious
superstition and gullibility in spite of being surrounded by a high level of scientific
sophistication.
However that may be, science is not without its merits and
blessings in leading to better understanding within religious circles. The active
role religion, especially in its institutional forms, has taken on occasion in
suppressing the development of human intelligence is well known. Some religions
have clung blindly to absurd beliefs and practices, even in the face of their
own fundamental principles.
The development of science and its attitudes and
methods has had some measure of good influence on religions and religious attitudes
in society. At the very least, it has prodded religions to reevaluate some of
their teachings and attitudes. It has also served as a gauge with which to appraise
the answers offered by different religions.
However, from the point of view
of the masses, especially in countries in which outlooks and methods have been
heavily influenced by science, science does not seem to have had a significantly
beneficial effect on life-styles and mental well-being. Science itself is of not
much interest to most people. While they look at science favorably, their belief
in it is really no different from the beliefs of former generations in magical
forces and the occult. It is naive, not based on knowledge. This is "scientism."
When most people think of science, they look straight past it at technology, which
they look on as a means for gratifying their desires. For that reason, the development
of science has had little ennobling influence on the knowledge, understanding,
or attitudes of society.
On the brighter side, people seem to be getting over
their excitement about science and are beginning to look at their needs in relation
to religion. Many religions are addressing these needs on different levels. At
the same time, some members of scientific circles are becoming aware of the limitations
of orthodox science, and are expanding the horizons of their research to include
more religious perspectives, which suggests the possibility of a fully-developed
science merging with a fully-developed religion, together to lead humanity to
reality, peace, and a life free of foolish attachments.
On the other hand,
it may be that science is trying to prove what religion has already predicted.
While humanity cannot wait for an answer, we must provide one of some kind, and
this answer has become religion. As long as the answer is not proven, we must
accept it, while science slowly and methodically tests it out. In this scenario,
science is that effort on the part of humanity to prove the truths (or non-truths)
of religion. Looking at it in this way, the two fields harmonize; having arisen
from a common origin, they eventually merge once more.
As time goes on, the
limits of the scientific method will once again be felt. Science will be unable
to prove the truths presented by religion. A number of leading scientists are
now beginning to realize that this final, ultimate truth spoken of by religion
is beyond the reach of science at any point in time.
Footnotes:
2. Sir Arthur
Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (New York: Macmillan, 1929),
p.282.
[*] Síla, samádhi and paññá, or moral
restraint, concentration and wisdom, are the threefold foundation of Buddhist
training.
Chapter Three
Science
and Buddhism:
A meeting or a Parting?
To talk of Buddhism we must first
talk about its origins. I have suggested that the origin of religion was the fear
of danger, but this is not true of Buddhism, which arose from the fear of suffering.
Please note this distinction. Dealing with the origins of religion we talk about
danger, but when dealing with Buddhism we talk about suffering, which has a more
specific meaning. The fear of danger has its object in external factors, such
as floods, earthquakes, and so on, but suffering includes all the problems experienced
in life, including those within the mind.
What is suffering? Suffering is the
condition of stress and conflict inherent within the human predicament. Simply
speaking, suffering (dukkha) is difficulty (pañha), because difficulty
is what causes stress and conflict.
In the religious quest for protection from
danger, people saw that in human society events were caused by human agents. They
thought that there must be someone directing things in the natural world also,
and so religions proposed God, a "someone," a supernatural source for
all natural events. Applying the human social model to the forces behind nature,
they came up with God. This is why some contemporary psychologists, reversing
a well-known Christian teaching, have said that mankind created God in his own
image. Mankind reasoned that it was necessary to appease the God, just as for
an earthly leader, and this gave rise to various techniques and ceremonies for
paying homage to the deity.
" The essential factor in determining events
in the world, according to these ancient religions, was the will of God.
"
The factor, which tied humanity to god or the supernatural was faith.
"
That faith was demonstrated through sacrifices, prayers, and ceremonies.
So
we have an overall picture here of a director of events -- the will of God; we
have the human connection -- faith; and we have the method of interaction -- sacrifices,
prayers and ceremonies. This is the general picture of the role of faith in most
religions.
Now, let's see how these factors relate when it comes to Buddhism.
As I have mentioned, Buddhism is based on the desire to be free of suffering.
To be free of suffering, you must have a method. To know the method, you have
to look at the source of suffering. Whereas other religions taught that the source
of danger was in supernatural forces, Buddhism says that the source of suffering
is a natural process, which must be understood.
Suffering has an origin, which
is subject to the natural processes of cause and effect. Not knowing or understanding
this natural cause and effect process is the cause of suffering. Buddhism delves
into the origin of suffering by encouraging keen investigation of this law of
cause and effect, or Law of Nature.
At this point we have arrived at the source
of Buddhism. Just now I said that the origin of other religions was the awareness
of danger, the origin of danger in turn being the will of God or supernatural
forces; but the source of Buddhism is the awareness of suffering, and the origin
of suffering is ignorance of the Law of Nature.
Now we come to redressing the
problem. When ignorance of the Law of Nature is the cause, the remedy is its exact
opposite, and that is knowledge and understanding of it, which we call wisdom.
Up until the emergence of Buddhism, religions had relied on faith as the connection
between human beings and the source of danger. Buddhism shifted the human connection
from faith to wisdom, and this is a salient characteristic of Buddhism. According
to Buddhism, human beings must know and understand the process of cause and effect,
and treat problems according to such knowledge.
Finally,[*] the work of correcting
the factors involved in the creation of suffering is a human responsibility, and
lies within human potential. Responsibility for solving the problem has shifted
from the will of God to human endeavor.
Three points are highly significant:
1. Theistic religions concern themselves with the source of danger, which
is said to be God (or divine), but Buddhism concerns itself with the source of
suffering, which is said to be ignorance.
2. The tie to this source in theistic
religions is faith, but in Buddhism it is wisdom.
3. The director of results
in theistic religions is a divine or supernatural power, but in Buddhism this
responsibility has been placed back into human hands, with the emphasis on human
action.
The emphasis in Buddhism shifts from faith to wisdom, and this is a
revolutionary change. Such wisdom begins with the desire to know, or the desire
for knowledge -- before there can be wisdom, there must be an aspiration for it.
But this aspiration differs from the aspiration for knowledge in science, as I
will presently point out.
Another important shift in emphasis in Buddhism is
from the directives of a deity to human endeavor. This is one of Buddhism's cornerstones.
No matter where Buddhism spreads to, or how distorted the teaching becomes, this
emphasis on human endeavor never varies. If this one principle is missing, then
we can confidently say that it is no longer Buddhism.
The principle of human
endeavor is expressed in Buddhist circles as the law of kamma. People may misunderstand
kamma, there may be many misconceptions about it, even within the Buddhist world,
but no matter how the teachings of Buddhism may vary from place to place and time
to time, kamma always deals with human endeavor.
Buddhism's combination of
adherence to the Law of Nature, proclaiming man's independence, and putting wisdom
to the fore instead of faith, is a unique event in the history of religion. It
has even caused some Western scholars to wonder whether Buddhism is a religion
at all, and Western books on Buddhism often state that Buddhism is not a religion.
Summarizing,
we have these three important principles:
1. A Law of Nature
2. Proclaiming
man's independence
3. Replacing faith with wisdom
The Natural Religions:
Understanding Nature through Wisdom
I would like to describe here some of the
basic characteristics of Buddhism. Firstly I would like to present some of the
teachings from the Buddha himself, and then expand on them to see how they relate
to science.
1. Adherence to the Law of Nature: Truth is the Law of Nature,
something that naturally exists. The Buddha was the one who discovered this truth.
At funerals, Buddhist monks chant a Sutta called the Dhammaniyama Sutta. The meaning
of this Sutta is that the truth of nature exists as a normal condition, whether
a Buddha arises or not.
What is this Law of Nature? The monks chant uppada
va bhikkhave tathagatanam, anuppada va tathagatanam: "Whether Buddhas arise
or not, it is a natural, unchanging truth that all compounded things are un-enduring,
stressful, and not-self." [Dhammaniyama or Uppada Sutta, A.I. 286]
Un-enduring
(anicca) means that compounded things are constantly being born and dying, arising
and passing away.
Stressful (dukkha) means that they are constantly being conditioned
by conflicting and opposing forces, they are unable to maintain any constancy.
Not
self (anattá) means that they are not a self or intrinsic entity, they
merely follow supporting factors. Any form they take is entirely at the direction
of supporting factors. This is the principle of conditioned arising, the most
basic level of truth.
The Buddha was enlightened to these truths, after which
he declared and explained them. This is how the chant goes. This first principle
is a very important one, the basis of Buddhism. Buddhism regards these natural
laws as fundamental truths.
2. The interrelation and interdependence of all
things: Buddhism teaches the Law of Dependent Origination. In brief, the law states:
When
there is this, this is; when this is not, neither is this.
Because this arises,
so does this; because this ceases, so does this. [As in the Natumha Sutta, S.II.
64-5]
This is a truth, a natural law. It is the natural law of cause and effect
on its most basic level.
It is worth noting that Buddhism prefers to use the
words "causes and conditions" rather than "cause and effect."
Cause and effect refers to a specific and linear relationship. In Buddhism it
is believed that results do not arise simply from a cause alone, but also from
numerous supporting factors. When the conditions are ready, then the result follows.
For example, suppose we plant a mango seed and a mango tree sprouts. The mango
tree is the fruit (effect), but what is the cause of that mango tree? You might
say the seed is the cause, but if there were only the seed, the tree couldn't
grow. Many other factors are needed, such as earth, water, oxygen, suitable temperature,
fertilizer and so on. Only when factors are right can the result arise. This principle
explains why some people, even when they feel that they have created the causes,
do not receive the results they expected. They must ask themselves whether they
have also created the conditions.
Note also that this causal relationship does
not necessarily proceed in a linear direction. We tend to think of these things
as following on one from the other -- one thing arises first, and then the result
arises afterwards. But it doesn't necessarily have to function in that way. Suppose
we had a blackboard and I took some chalk and wrote on it the letters A, B, and
C. The letters that appear on the blackboard are a result, but what is their cause?
We might answer "a person," but we might also answer "chalk."
No matter which factor we take to be the cause, it alone cannot give rise to the
result. To achieve a letter "A" on a blackboard there must be a confluence
of many factors -- a writer, chalk, a blackboard of a color that contrasts with
the color of the chalk, a suitable temperature, the surface must be free of excess
moisture -- so many things have to be just right, and these are all factors in
the generation of the result.
Now, in the appearance of that letter "A,"
it isn't necessary for all the factors involved to have occurred one after the
other, is it? We can see that some of those factors must be there simultaneously.
Many of the factors are interdependent in various ways. This is the Buddhist teaching
of cause and condition.
3. The position of faith: Just now I said that Buddhism
shifted the emphasis in religion from faith to wisdom, so why should we be speaking
about faith again? In fact faith plays a very important role in Buddhism, but
the emphasis is changed. Let us take a look at how faith in Buddhism is connected
to verification through actual experience. The teaching that is most quoted in
this respect is the Kalama Sutta, which contains the passage:
"Here, Kalama's,
"Do
not believe simply because you have heard it.
"Do not believe simply because
you have learn it.
"Do not believe simply because you have practiced it
from ancient times.
"Do not believe simply because it is rumored.
"Do
not believe simply because it is in the scriptures.
"Do not believe simply
on logic.
"Do not believe simply through guesswork.
"Do not believe
simply through reasoning.
"Do not believe simply because it conforms to
your theory.
"Do not believe simply because it seems credible.
"Do
not believe simply out of faith in your teacher. [Kalama or Kesaputtiya Sutta,
A.I. 188]
This teaching amazed people in the West when they first heard about
it, it was one of Buddhism's most popular teachings, because at that time science
was just beginning to flourish. This idea of not believing anything other than
verifiable truths was very popular. The Kalama Sutta is fairly well known to Western
people familiar with Buddhism, but Thai Buddhists have barely heard of it.
The
Buddha goes on to say in the Kalama Sutta that one must know and understand through
experience which things are skillful and which unskillful. When something is seen
to be unskillful and harmful, conducive not to benefit but to suffering, it should
be given up. When something is seen to be skillful, useful and conducive to happiness,
it should be acted upon. This is a matter of clear knowledge, of direct realization,
of personal experience -- it is a shift from faith to wisdom.
The Buddha also
gave some clear principles for examining one's personal experience: "Independent
of faith, independent of learning, independent of reasoned thinking, independent
of conformity with one's own views, one knows clearly for oneself, in the present
moment, when there is greed in the mind, when there is not greed in the mind;
when there is hatred in the mind and when there is not hatred in the mind; when
there is delusion in the mind and when there is not delusion in the mind."
This is true personal experience, the state of our own minds, which can be known
clearly for ourselves in the present moment.
4. Proclamation of mankind's independence:
Buddhism arose among the Brahmanical beliefs, which held that Brahma was the creator
of the world. Brahma (God) was the appointer of all events, and mankind had to
perform sacrifices and ceremonies of homage, of which people at that time had
devised many, to keep Brahma happy. Their ceremonies for gaining the favor of
Brahma and other gods were lavish. The Vedas stated that Brahma had divided human
beings into four castes. Whichever caste a person was born into, he was bound
for life. There was no way to change the situation, it was all tied up by the
directives of Brahma.
When the Buddha-to-be was born, as the Prince Siddhartha
Gotama, the first thing attributed to him was his proclamation of human independence.
You may have read in the Buddha's biography, how, when the Prince was born, he
performed the symbolic gesture of walking seven steps and proclaiming, "I
am the greatest in the world, I am the foremost in the world, I am the grandest
in the world." [Mahapadana Sutta, D.II. 15] This statement can be easily
misconstrued. One may wonder, "Why was Prince Siddhartha being so arrogant?"
but this statement should be understood as the Buddha's proclamation of human
independence. The principles expounded by the Buddha in his later life all point
to the potential of human beings to develop themselves and realize the highest
good, and so become the most sublime of all beings. The Buddha's own enlightenment
was the supreme demonstration and proof of that potential. With such potential,
it is no longer necessary for human beings to plead for help from external sources.
Instead they can better themselves. Even even the celestial beings and gods revere
a human being who becomes a Buddha.
There are many examples of this kind of
teaching in the scriptures. Consider, for example, the oft quoted:
Manussabhutam
sambuddham
attadantam samahitam ...
deva'pi namassan'ti
This means:
"The Buddha, although a human being, is one who has trained and perfected
himself ... Even the gods revere him." [Naga Sutta, A.III. 346; Udayitherakatha,
Khu. Thag. 689]
With this principle, the human position changes. The attitude
of looking externally, taking refuge in gods and deities, has been firmly retracted,
and people are advised to look at themselves, to see within themselves a potential
for the finest achievement. No longer is it necessary for people to throw their
fates to the gods. If human beings realize this potential, even those gods will
recognize their excellence and pay reverence.
This principle entails a belief,
or faith, in the potential of human beings to be developed to the highest level,
of which the Buddha is our example.
5. Remedy based on practical and reasoned
action rather than dependence on external forces: This principle is well illustrated
in one of the teachings of the Dhammapada:
"Finding themselves threatened
by danger, people take refuge in spirits, shrines, and sacred trees, but these
are not a true refuge. Turning to such things as a refuge, there is no true safety.
"Those
who go for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, who understand the Four Noble
Truths by seeing problems, the cause of problems, freedom from problems, and the
way leading to freedom from problems, are able to transcend all danger."
[Dhammapada, Verses 188-192]
This is a turning point, a shift in emphasis from
pleading with deities to responsible action. However, if unaware of this principle,
people can even see the Triple Gem as simply an object of devotion, in the same
way that members of theistic religions see deities.
The Triple Gem begins with
the Buddha, our example of a perfected human being. This is a reminder to humanity
of its potential, and as such encourages us to reflect on our responsibility for
its development. By taking the Buddha for refuge, we reflect on our responsibility
to develop ourselves and use wisdom to address the problems of life.
When we
think of the Dhamma, we are reminded that this development of potential must be
done through means, which conform to the Law of Nature and function according
to causes and conditions.
When we reflect on the Sangha, we think of those
who have used the Dhamma (teaching) skillfully, developing and realizing their
highest potential. They are living examples of the actual attainment of the truth,
and, through developing ourselves in right practice; we can become one of them.
These
are the Three Refuges. To believe or have faith in these refuges means that we
strive to solve problems like wise human beings. This tenet compels us to use
wisdom.
The way to solve problems through wisdom is:
1. Dukkha (suffering):
We begin with the problem, recognizing that there is one.
2. Samudaya (the
cause of suffering -- craving based on ignorance): We search out the cause of
that problem.
3. Nirodha (the cessation of suffering -- Nibbána): We
establish our aim, which is to extinguish the problem.
4. Magga (the way leading
to the cessation of suffering): We practice in accordance with that aim.
6.
Teaching only those truths which are of benefit: There are many different kinds
of knowledge and many different kinds of truth, but some of them are not useful,
they are not concerned with solving the problems of life. The Buddha did not teach
such truths and was not interested in finding out about them. He concentrated
on teaching only those truths which would be of practical benefit. This principle
is illustrated in the simile of the leaves, which the Buddha gave while he was
staying with a company of monks in the Sisapa forest. One day he picked up a handful
of leaves from the forest floor and asked the monks, "Which is the greater
number, the leaves in my hand, or the leaves on the trees?" An easy question,
and the monks answered immediately. The leaves in the Buddha's hand were very
few, while the leaves in the forest were of far greater number.
The Buddha
replied, "It is the same with the things that I teach you. There are many
truths that I know, but most of them I do not teach. They are like the leaves
in the forest. The truths that I do teach are like the leaves here in my hand.
Why do I not teach those other truths? Because they are not conducive to ultimate
wisdom, to understanding of the way things are, or to the rectification of problems
and the transcendence of suffering. They do not lead to the attainment of the
goal, which is Nibbána." [Sisapa Sutta, S.V. 437]
The Buddha said
that he taught the things he did because they were useful, they led to the solving
of problems, and were conducive to a good life. In short, they led to the transcendence
of suffering.
Another important simile was given in answer to some questions
of metaphysics. Such questions are among the questions, with which science is
currently wrestling, such as: Is the Universe finite or infinite? Does it have
a beginning? The scriptures mention ten stock philosophical questions, which had
been in existence from before the time of the Buddha. One monk went to ask the
Buddha about them. The Buddha refused to answer his questions, but instead gave
the following simile:
A man was shot by a poisoned arrow, with the arrowhead
still embedded within him, his relatives raced to find a doctor. As the doctor
was preparing to cut out the arrowhead, the man said, "Wait! I will not let
you take out this arrowhead until you tell me the name of the man who shot me,
where he lives, what caste he is, what kind of arrow he used, whether he used
a bow or a crossbow, what the arrow was made of, what the bow was made of, what
the bowstring was made of, and what kind of feather was attached to the end of
the arrow. Until I find out the answers to these questions, I will not let you
take this arrow out." [Chulamalunkyovada Sutta, M.I. 428]
Obviously, if
he were to wait for the answers to all those questions that man would not only
fail to find out the information he wanted, but also he would die needlessly.
What would be the proper course of action here? Before anything else, he would
have to have that arrowhead taken out. Then, if he still wanted to know the answers
to those questions, he could go ahead and find out.
In the same way, the subject
of the Buddha's teaching is human suffering and the way to relieve it. Metaphysical
questions are not at all relevant. Even if the Buddha had answered them, his answers
could not be verified. The Buddha taught to quickly do what must be done, not
to waste time in vain pursuits and debates. This is why he did not answer such
questions.
Good and Evil
I have already said that most religions see the
events of the world as the workings of God or supernatural forces. According to
them, if mankind does not want any unpleasant events to befall him, or if he wants
prosperity, he must let God see some display of worship and obeisance. This applies
not only to external natural events, but even people's personal lives. The deity,
God, is the Creator of the universe, together with all of its happiness and suffering.
He is constantly monitoring mankind's behavior to ascertain whether it is pleasing
to Him or not, and people are constantly on their guard to avoid any actions which
might displease Him.
According to this standard, all of humanity's behavior
can be classified into two categories. Firstly, those actions which are pleasing
to God, which are duly rewarded, and which are known as "good"; and
those actions which are displeasing to God, which He punishes, and which are known
as "evil." Whatever God approves of is "good," whatever He
forbids is "evil." The priests of the religion are the mediators who
inform mankind which actions are good and which are evil, according to God's standards.
These have been the accepted standards for defining good and evil in Western culture.
As
for science, from the time it parted with religion it interested itself solely
with the external, physical world and completely ignored the abstract side of
things. Science took no interest at all in moral or ethical issues, seeing them
as matters of religion, unfounded on facts, and turned its back on them altogether.
People in Western countries, the countries that are technologically developed,
were captivated by the advances of science. In comparison, religion's teachings
of deities and supernatural forces seemed ill founded, and so they, too, turned
their backs on religion. At that time morals and ethics lost their meaning. If
God is no longer important, then morals or ethics, God's set of laws, are no longer
important. Many people today, especially those in scientific circles, view ethics
as merely the arbitrary dictates of certain groups of people, such as priests,
established at best to maintain order in society, but lacking any basis in ultimate
truth.
Those branches of science which study the development of human civilization,
especially sociology, and some branches of anthropology, seeing the success of
the physical sciences, have tried to afford their branches of learning a similar
standing, by using much the same principles and methods as the physical sciences.
The social sciences have tended to look on ethics or morals as values without
scientific foundation. They have tended to avoid the subject of ethics in order
to show that they, too, are pure sciences void of value systems. Even when they
do make studies about ethical matters, they look on them only as measurable quantities
of social behavior.
The physical sciences, the social sciences, and people
in the modern age in general, look on ethical principles as purely conventional
creations. They confuse ethics with its conventional manifestations, a grave mistake
in the search for authentic knowledge -- in trying to avoid falsehood they have
missed the truth.
Now let us come back to the subject of Buddhism. In regard
to ethics, both science and Buddhism differ from the mainstream of religions,
but while science has cut itself off from them, completely disregarding any consideration
of ethics or values, Buddhism turns toward them, studying and teaching the role
of ethical principles within the natural process. While most religions look at
the events of nature, both outside of man and within him, as directed by the will
of God, Buddhism looks at these events as a normal and natural process of causes
and conditions. These same laws apply as much to mental phenomena as to the physical
workings of nature. They are part of the stream of causes and conditions, functioning
entirely at the directives of the natural laws. The difference in quality is determined
by variations within the factors of the stream.
Buddhism divides the laws of
nature, called niyama, into five kinds. They are:
1. Utuniyama (physical laws):
The natural laws dealing with the events in the natural world or physical environment.
2.
Bijaniyama (biological laws): The natural laws dealing with animals and plants,
particularly heredity.
3. Cittaniyama (psychic laws): The natural laws dealing
with the workings of the mind and thinking.
4. Kammaniyama (karmic or moral
laws): The natural law dealing with human behavior, specifically intention and
the actions resulting from it.
5. Dhammaniyama (the general law of cause and
effect): The natural law dealing with the relationship and interdependence of
all things, known simply as the way of things. [DA.U. 234; Dhs A. 272]
In terms
of these five divisions of natural law, we can see that science has complete confidence
in the dhammaniyama (the general law of cause and effect), while limiting its
field of research to utuniyama (physical laws) and bijaniyama (biological laws).
As for Buddhism, practically speaking it emphasizes kammaniyama (the law of moral
action), although the Abhidhamma stresses the study of cittaniyama (psychic laws),
in their relation to kammaniyama and dhammaniyama.
The Law of Kamma And Scientific
Morality
A true understanding of reality is impossible if there is no understanding
of the interrelation and unity of all events in nature. This includes, in particular,
the human element, the mental factors and values systems, of those who are studying
those events. Scientists may study the physical laws, but as long as they are
ignorant of themselves, the ones who are studying those laws, they will never
be able to see the truth -- even of the physical sciences.
On a physical level,
human beings exist within the natural physical environment, but on an experiential
level the world is in fact more a product of our intentions. Our daily lives,
our thoughts, behavior and deeds, our communications, our traditions and social
institutions are entirely products of human intentional action, which is known
in Buddhism as kamma. Intention is the unique faculty, which lies behind human
progress. The human world is thus the world of intention, and intention is the
creator and mover of the world. In Buddhism it is said: kammuna vattati loko --
the world is driven by kamma. [Vasettha Sutta, Khu., Sm., 654] In order to understand
the human world, or the human situation, it is necessary to understand the natural
law of kamma.
All behavior, intentional action, ethical principles and mental
qualities are entirely natural. They exist in accordance with the Laws of Nature.
They are neither the will of God, nor are they accidental. They are processes,
which are within our human capacity to understand and influence.
Please note
that Buddhism distinguishes between the Law of Kamma and psychic laws. This indicates
that the mind and intention are not the same thing, and can be studied as separate
truths. However, these two truths are extremely closely linked. The simple analogy
is that of a man driving a motorboat. The mind is like the boat and its engine,
while intention is the driver of the boat, who decides where the boat will go
and what it will do.
Certain natural events may occur as a result of the workings
of different laws in different situations, while some events are a product of
a number of these natural laws functioning in unison. A man with tears in his
eyes may be suffering from the effects of smoke (physical law), or from extremely
happy or sad emotional states (psychic law), or he may be suffering anxiety over
past deeds (law of kamma). A headache might be caused by illness (biological law),
a stuffy or overheated room (physical law) or it could be from depression and
worry (law of kamma).
The Question of Free Will
When people from the West
start studying the subject of kamma, they are often confused by the problem of
free will. Is there such a thing as free will? In actual fact there is no free
will, in the absolute sense, because intention is just one factor within the overall
natural processes of cause and effect. However, will can be considered free in
a relative way. We might say it is relatively free, in that it is in fact one
of the factors within the overall natural process. In Buddhism this is called
purisakara. Each person has the ability to initiate thinking and intention, and
as such become the instigating factor in a cause and effect process, or kamma,
for which we say each individual must accept responsibility.
Misunderstandings,
or lack of understanding, in relation to this matter of free will, arise from
a number of more deeply rooted misconceptions, in particular, the delusion of
self. The concept of self causes a lot of confusion when people try to look at
reality as an actual condition with minds still trapped in habitual thinking,
which clings fast to concepts. The two perspectives clash. The perception is of
a doer and a receiver of results. While in reality there is only a feeling, the
perception is of "one who feels." (In the texts it is said: "There
is the experience of feeling, but no-one who feels.") The reason for this
confusion is ignorance of the teaching of anattá, not self.
Buddhism
doesn't stop simply at free will, but strives to the stage of being "free
of will," transcending the power of will, which can only be achieved through
the complete development of human potential through wisdom.
Within the process
of human development, the mind and wisdom are distinguished from each other. Wisdom
that is fully developed will liberate the mind. So we have the mind with intention,
and the mind with wisdom. However, this is a practical concern, a vast subject
that must be reserved for a later time.
Footnote:
[*] The allusion here,
and in the previous four paragraphs, is to the Four Noble Truths.
Chapter
Four
The Role of Faith
in Science
and Buddhism
Now let us take a comparative look at some of the qualities related
to Buddhism, science and other religions, beginning with faith.
Most religions
use emotion as the driving force for attaining their goals. Emotion arouses belief
and obedience to the teachings, and emotions, particularly those which produce
faith, are a necessary part of most religions. In other words, because faith is
so crucial to them, emotion is encouraged. In contrast to other religions, Buddhism
stresses wisdom, giving faith a place of importance only in the initial stages.
Even then, faith is used with reservation, as wisdom is considered to be the prime
factor in attaining the goal.
In order to clearly understand faith, it helps
to analyze it into different kinds. Generally speaking, faith can be divided into
two main kinds:
The first kind of faith is that which obstructs wisdom. It
relies on inciting, or even enforcing, belief, and such belief must be complete
and unquestioning. To doubt the teaching is forbidden, only unquestioning obedience
is allowed. This kind of faith does not allow any room for wisdom to develop.
Faith in most religions is of this variety. There must be belief and there must
be obedience. Whatever the religion says must go, no questions asked. This feature
of religion is known as dogma, the doctrine that is unquestionable, characterized
by adherence in the face of reason.
The second kind of faith is a channel for
wisdom. It stimulates curiosity and is the incentive for learning. In this world
there are so many things to learn about; without faith we have no starting point
or direction in which to set our learning, but when faith arises, be it in a person
or a teaching, we have that direction. Faith, particularly in a person, awakens
our interest and encourages us to approach the object of that interest. Having
faith in the order of monks, for example, encourages us to approach them and learn
from them, to gain a clearer understanding of the teachings.
An example of
this kind of faith can be seen in the life story of Shariputra, the Buddha's foremost
disciple. He became interested in the teachings of the Buddha through seeing the
monk Assaji walking on alms round. Being impressed by the monk's bearing, which
suggested some special quality, some special knowledge or spiritual attainment,
he approached Assaji and asked for a teaching. This is a good example of the second
kind of faith.
The second kind of faith is a positive influence, an incentive
for learning. It also gives a point of focus for that learning. Energies are motivated
in whatever direction faith inclines. A scientist, for example, having the faith
in a particular hypothesis, will direct his enquiry specifically in that direction,
and will not be distracted by irrelevant data.
These two kinds of faith must
be clearly distinguished. The faith that functions in Buddhism is the faith, which
leads to wisdom, and as such is secondary to wisdom. Buddhism is a religion free
of dogma.
The second kind of faith is found in both Buddhism and science. It
has three important functions in relation to wisdom:
1. It gives rise to interest
and is the incentive to begin learning.
2. It provides the energy needed in
the pursuit of that learning.
3. It gives direction or focus to that energy.
Apart
from these main functions, well-directed faith has a number of further characteristics,
which can be shown in the Buddhist system of practice. The goal of Buddhism is
liberation, transcendence, or freedom. Buddhism wants human beings to be free,
to transcend defilements and suffering. This freedom must be attained through
wisdom, understanding of the truth, or the law of nature. This truth is as equally
attainable by the disciples as it was by the Teacher, and their knowledge is independent
of him. The Buddha once asked Shariputra, "Do you believe what I have been
explaining to you?" Shariputra answered, "Yes, I see that it is so."
The Buddha asked him, "Are you saying this just out of faith in me?"
Shariputra answered, "No, I answered in agreement not because of faith in
the Blessed One, but because I clearly see for myself that it is so." [Pubbakotthaka
Sutta, Saim. S.V. 220]
This is another of Buddhism's principles. The Buddha
did not want people to simply believe him or attach to him. He pointed out the
fault of faith in others, because he wanted people to be free. This liberation,
or freedom, the goal of Buddhism, is attained through wisdom, through knowledge
of reality.
But how is wisdom to arise? For most people, faith is an indispensable
stepping-stone in the development of wisdom. (For clear thinkers, those who have
what is known as yoniso manasikara, [*] the need for faith may be greatly reduced.)
In
order to attain liberation it is necessary to develop wisdom, and that development
is in turn dependent on faith. This gives us three stages connected like links
in a chain:
Faith leads to Wisdom leads to Liberation
Faith is the initiator
of the journey to truth, which in turn leads to wisdom, which in turn leads to
liberation. This model of conditions is the defining constraint on faith in Buddhism.
Because faith is related to both wisdom and liberation, it has two characteristics:
1.
It leads to wisdom.
2. It is coupled with, and leads to, liberation.
Faith
in Buddhism does not forbid questions or doubts, nor demand belief or unquestioning
committal in any way. Both Buddhism and science use faith as a stepping-stone
on the journey to truth. Now the question arises, what kind of faith is it that
leads to wisdom? It is the belief that this universe, or the world of nature,
functions according to constant and invariable laws, and these laws are accessible
to man's understanding. This faith is the impetus for the search for truth, but
because faith in itself is incapable of leading directly to the truth, it must
be used to further develop wisdom. At this stage the faith of Buddhism and the
faith of science look very similar. Both have a belief in the laws of nature,
and both strive to know the truth of these laws through wisdom. However, the similarity
ends here. From this point on, the faith of Buddhism and the faith of science
part their ways.
I have said that the source of both religion and science is
the awareness of problems in life, the dangers of the natural world. In search
of a remedy for this problem, human beings looked on the natural environment with
trepidation and wonder. These two kinds of feeling led to both the desire for
a way out of danger, and the desire to know the truth of nature. From this common
origin, religion and science part their ways. Science, in particular, confines
its research exclusively to external, physical phenomena. Science does not include
mankind in its picture of the universe, except in a very limited, biological sense.
In other words, science does not consider the universe as including mankind, and
does not look at mankind as encompassing the whole of the universe.
Looking
at nature in this way, science has only one object for its faith, and that is
the physical universe -- the faith that nature has fixed laws. In brief we could
call this "faith in nature."
But the objective of Buddhism is to
solve the problem of human suffering, which arises from both internal and external
conditions, with an emphasis on the world of human behavior. At the same time,
Buddhism sees this process as a natural one. For this reason, Buddhism, like science,
has faith in nature, but this faith also includes human beings, because human
beings are a part of nature, and they encompass the whole of nature within themselves.
The
faith of science has only one object, but the faith of Buddhism has two objects,
and they are:
1. Nature
2. Mankind
In one sense, these two kinds of faith
are one and the same, because they are both beliefs in nature, the first kind
more obviously so. But the first kind of faith does not cover the whole picture;
it includes only the external environment. In Buddhism, mankind is recognized
as a part of nature. The physical human organism is as natural as the external
environment.
Moreover, human beings possess a special quality, which differs
from the external manifestations of nature, and distinguishes mankind from the
world around him. This is a quality peculiar to human beings. You could even say
it is their "humanness." This unique quality is mankind's inner world,
that aspect of nature, which has an ethical dimension.
In Buddhism we believe
that this abstract quality of human beings is also a natural phenomenon, and is
also subject to the natural laws of cause and effect, and as such is included
in natural truth. In order to know and understand nature, both the physical and
the mental sides of nature should be thoroughly understood.
Bearing in mind
that human beings want to know and understand nature, it follows that in order
to do so they must understand the ones who are studying it. Mental qualities,
such as faith and desire to know, are abstract qualities. They are part of the
human inner world, and as such must come into our field of research and understanding.
If mental qualities are not studied, any knowledge or understanding of nature
is bound to be distorted and incomplete. It will be incapable of leading to true
understanding of reality.
Although in science there is faith in nature and
an aspiration to know its truths, nature is not seen in its entirety. Science
ignores human values and as a result has an incomplete or faulty view of nature.
The scientific search for knowledge is inadequate and cannot reach completion,
because one side of nature, the internal nature of man, is ignored.
As in Buddhism,
the faith of science can be divided into two aspects, and has two objects. That
is, firstly there is belief in the laws of nature, and secondly, belief in the
ability of human intelligence to realize those laws, in other words faith in human
potential. However, this second aspect of faith is not clearly stated in science,
it is more a tacit understanding. Science does not mention this second kind of
faith, and pays little attention to the development of the human being. Science
is almost wholly motivated by the first kind of faith.
Buddhism differs from
science in this respect, in that it holds the faith in human potential to be of
prime importance. Buddhism has developed comprehensive practical methods for realizing
this potential, and these have come to form the main body of its teachings. Throughout
these teachings, faith is based on three interconnected principles:
"
The conviction that nature functions according to fixed laws;
" The conviction
in human potential to realize the truth of those laws through wisdom;
"
The conviction that the realization of these laws will enable human beings to
realize the highest good, liberation from suffering.
This kind of faith makes
a great difference between Buddhism and science. In Buddhism the search for truth
is conducted in conjunction with training to develop human potential. The development
of human potential is what determines the way knowledge is used, thus the probability
of using knowledge to serve the destructive influences of greed, hatred and delusion
is minimized. Instead, knowledge is used in a constructive way.
As for science,
a one-sided faith in the laws of nature is liable to cause the search for knowledge
to be unfocused and misdirected. There is no development of the human being, and
there is no guarantee that the knowledge gained will be used in ways that are
beneficial. Science's search for the truths of nature does not, therefore, help
anybody, even the scientists, to attain contentment, to relieve suffering, to
ease tension or to have calmer and clearer minds. Moreover, science opens wide
the way for undesirable values to subvert scientific development, leading it in
the direction of greed, aversion and delusion. Thus, the drives to subjugate nature
and to achieve material wealth, which have guided scientific development over
the last century or more, have caused exploitation and destruction of the environment.
If this trend continues, scientific development will be unsustainable.
It should
be stressed that human beings have minds, or, more specifically, their actions
are conditioned by the mental factor of intention. Faith in the laws of nature,
and the desire to understand those laws, implies a value system, be it conscious
or otherwise. Beliefs and attitudes will condition the style and direction of
methods used for finding the truth, as well as the context and way in which that
truth is seen.
According to the Buddha's teaching, the attainment of ultimate
truth is only possible with a mind, which has been purified of greed, aversion
and delusion. Such purification requires training, a central concern of which
is beliefs, attitudes and views. A search for truth blind to the assumptions on
which it is based will not only be doomed to failure (because it ignores one side
of reality) but will be overwhelmed by inferior values.
Simply speaking, the
knowledge of scientists is not independent of values. A simple example of these
secondary values is the pleasure obtained from, and which lies behind, the search
for knowledge and the discoveries it yields. Even the pure kind of search for
knowledge, which is a finer value, if analyzed deeply, is likely to have other
sets of values hidden within it, such as the desire to feed some personal need.
In
summary, we have been looking at two levels of values: the highest value and those
intermediate values, which are compatible with it. The highest value is a truth,
which must be attained to, it cannot be artificially set up in the mind. Scientists
already have faith in nature. Such conviction or faith is a value that is within
them from the outset, but this faith must be expanded on to include the human
being, which necessarily entails faith in the highest good, simply by bearing
in mind that the laws of nature are connected to the highest good.
With the
proper kind of faith, commensurate secondary values will also arise, or will be
further underscored by intentional inducement. This will serve to prevent values
from straying into undesirable areas, or from being overwhelmed by inferior qualities.
Faith,
which is our fundamental value, conditions the values, which are secondary to
it, in particular the aspiration to know. From faith in the truth of nature arises
the aspiration to know the truth of nature. Such an aspiration is important in
both science and Buddhism. From faith in the existence of the highest good and
in human potential arises the aspiration to attain the state of freedom from suffering,
to remedy all problems and pursue personal development.
The first kind of aspiration
is the desire to know the truth of nature. The second aspiration is the desire
to attain the state of freedom. When these two aspirations are integrated, the
desire for knowledge is more clearly defined and focused: it becomes the desire
to know the truth of nature in order to solve problems and lead human beings to
freedom. This is the consummation of Buddhism. With the merging of these two kinds
of aspiration, we complete the cycle, producing balance and sufficiency. There
is a clear definition for our aspiration for knowledge. It is firmly related to
the human being, and directed to the express purpose of creating a noble life
for the human race. This direction defines the way knowledge is to be used.
As
for science, from ancient times there has been merely an aspiration for knowledge.
When the aspiration for knowledge is aimless and undefined, the result is a random
collection of data, an attempt to know the truth of nature by looking further
and further outward. It is truth for its own sake. The scientific search for truth
lacks direction. However, human beings are driven by values. Since this aspiration
for knowledge is without clear definition, it throws open the chance for other
aspirations, or lesser values, to fill the vacuum. Some of these ulterior aims
I have already mentioned, such as the desire to subjugate nature and the desire
to produce material wealth. These two aspirations have created a different kind
of process. I would like to reiterate the meaning of that process: it is the aspiration
to know the truths of nature in order to exploit it for the production of material
wealth. This process has been the cause of innumerable problems in recent times
-- mental, social, and in particular, as we are seeing at present, environmental.
The
thinking of the industrial age has taken advantage of science's oversight, an
undefined aspiration for knowledge, and led to human action without consideration
for the human being. Looking closely, we will see that the reason science has
this lack of direction is because it looks for truth exclusively in the external,
material world. It does not search for knowledge within the human individual.
Science is not interested in, and in fact ignores, human nature, and as a result
has become an instrument of industry and its selfish advances on the environment.
Ignorance
of human nature means ignorance of the fact that pandering to the five senses
is incapable of making humankind happy or contented. Sensual desire has no end,
and so the need for material resources is endless. Because material goods are
obtained through exploitation of nature, it follows that the manipulation of nature
is also without end and without check. Ultimately, nature will not have enough
to satisfy human desires, and in fact the exploitation of nature in itself gives
man more misery than happiness.
Man-centered Versus Self-centered
Just now
I mentioned some important common ground shared by Buddhism and science in regard
to faith and aspiration for knowledge. Now I would like to take a look at the
object of this faith and aspiration, which is reality or truth. Our aspiration
and our faith are rooted in the desire for truth or knowledge. Having reached
the essential truth of nature through knowledge, our aspiration is fulfilled.
In
Buddhism the goal is to use the knowledge of truth to improve on life, to solve
problems and attain perfect freedom. The goal of science, on the other hand, is
the utilization of knowledge for the subjugation of nature, in order to provide
a wealth of material goods. This is perhaps illustrated most clearly in the words
of Rene Descartes, whose importance in the development of Western science and
philosophy is well known. He wrote that science was part of the struggle to "render
ourselves the masters and possessors of nature."[3]
With different goals,
the object of knowledge must also be different. The prime object of Buddhist enquiry
is the nature of the human being, and from there all the things with which the
human being must deal. Mankind is always the center from which we study the truth
of nature.
In science, on the other hand, the object of research is the external,
physical environment. Even though science occasionally looks into the human being,
it is usually only as a physical organism within the physical universe. Mankind
as such is not studied. That is, science may study human life, but only in a biological
sense, not in relation to "being human."
So the field of the Buddhist
search for knowledge is the human being, while that of science is the external
world. With this point of reference, let us take a look at the respective extents
of the nature that science seeks to know, and the nature that Buddhism seeks to
know.
Buddhism believes that human beings are the highest evolution of nature,
and so encompass the entire spectrum of reality within themselves. That is, a
human being contains nature on both the physical and mental planes. Therefore,
only through studying mankind is it possible to know the truth of all aspects
of nature, both the physical and the mental.
Buddhism puts mankind at the center
it is anthropocentric. Its express aim is to understand and to develop the human
being. Science, on the other hand, is interested primarily in the external world.
It seeks to know the truths of things outside of the human being. Over the years,
however, as science incorporated the intention to conquer nature into its values,
it once again put mankind at the center of the picture, but in a very different
way from the way Buddhism does. Buddhism gives human beings the central position
in the sense of recognizing their responsibilities toward nature, insofar as they
must develop themselves and redress problems. This outlook is of benefit; it is
aimed at the transcendence of suffering, freedom and the highest good.
Science,
in incorporating the view of the desirability of subjugating nature into its aspirations,
places mankind in the center of the picture also, but only as the exploiter of
nature. Man says, "I want this," from where he proceeds to manipulate
nature to his desires. Simply speaking, science's placing of man in the center
is from the perspective of feeding his selfishness.
Having looked at the aim
of enquiry, let us now consider the means or methods for attaining that aim. In
Buddhism, the method is threefold.
1. Impartial awareness of sense data, awareness
of things as they are.
2. Ordered or systematic thinking.
3. Verification
through direct experience.
How can we ensure that the awareness of sense data
will be unbiased? In general, whenever human beings cognize sense data, certain
values immediately become involved. Right here, at the very first arising of awareness,
there is already the problem of whether the experiencer is free of these values
or not.
Buddhism stresses the importance of seeing the truth right from the
first arising of awareness: when eye sees sights, ear hears sounds, and so on.
For most human beings, this is already a problem. Awareness is usually in accordance
with the way we would like things to be, or as we think they are, rarely as they
really are. We cannot see things the way they are because of distortions, biases,
and preferences. When there is awareness of a feeling, the workings of the mind
will immediately react with like or dislike. People build these reactions into
habits and they become extremely fluent. As soon as an experience is cognized,
these values of comfort, discomfort or indifference immediately follow, and from
there to love or hate, delight or aversion. Once like and dislike arise, they
influence the subsequent thought process. If there is attraction, thinking will
take on one form; if there is repulsion, it will take another form. Because of
this, experience is distorted and biased, awareness is false; only some perspectives
are seen, not others. The knowledge that arises form this sort of awareness is
not clear or comprehensive; it is not awareness of things as they really are.
In
Buddhist practice, we try to establish ourselves correctly from the beginning.
There must be awareness of things as they are, awareness with sati, mindfulness,
neither delighting nor being averse. Experiences must