The role of science in destroying Buddhism

I have the sneaking suspicion that Westerners who want to share their love of science with Tibetan monks (this is happening at Emory University) have found a clever way to attack Buddhism without overtly attacking its principles.  By this I mean these Westerners are selling Scientism to Tibetan monks which is really selling a species of materialism that is inimical to the overall teachings of the Buddha.  First, let’s look at the definition of “Scientism” which comes from the Oxford English Dictionary.

“A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences.”

What strikes me about this definition is the expression “physical science” which discloses a particular kind of science which is selling materialism.  In is not science, per se,  which the O.E.D. defines this way:

“The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute.”

The object of any physical science must exist materially in order to be known.  This is to say, a physical science’s object must have location and shape in order for it to be known.  This is different than living systems, or the same, having life, which falls into the spiritual.  

From the canon, we learn that the Buddha shows no positive interest in what exists materially since it is finite and ultimately, empty and illusory.  What concerns the Buddha is the substance or essential nature of life, itself, which is dynamic and without location (it has other names in Buddhism such as One Mind, Buddha-nature, Suchness, etc.).  In addition, he is concerned with those who have life, that is, sattvas, who wrongly cling to material structures in the belief that such can be a refuge from suffering.  

One would be accurate to say that the Buddha, if he were alive today, would not be a fan of Scientism, which indirectly champions materialism.  Teaching science in the form of Scientism to Tibetan monks is the thin end of the materialist wedge.  Again, I stress the Buddha did not teach any form of materialism.  Noteworthy, the Buddha declares in  the Lankavatara Sutra:

“Analysed down to atoms, there is indeed no form to be discriminated as such; what can be established is the [truth of] Mind-only, which is not believed by those who cherish erroneous views” (trans. D.T. Suzuki).

If this is unsatisfying to the modern ear then this quote from Max Planck, the great pioneer of quantum physics, might help.

“There is no matter as such.  All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force.  We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.  This Mind is the matrix of all matter (Dieser Geist ist der Urgrund aller Materie).” 

 

Comments

[Kojizen]

Bob, in defense of The Zennist he would argue there is a huge difference between a scientific assumption, sometimes called a theory, and fact. The Big Bang is a perfect example of such confusion.

[Bob Morris]

I think the Zennist must have had a poor science education or maybe a bad teacher, bad grades or something else that led to this aversion.

[Bob Morris]

WuWeiTV your dragging this blog down even further: Here are some of the more charitable comments from from the Nassim Harramein wikipedia delete discussion:

"Weak delete A Google scholar search reveals only 8 hits. He exists but isn't very notable for a scholar. Artene50 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, don't delete the article, but reword it to explain that he is another fringey new-age nutcase/crackpot with absolutely no academic credibility. Cgwaldman (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)"

[WuWeiTV]

Here is a link to a fascinating presentation entitled 'Sacred Geometry and Unified Fields' given by Nassim Harramein which provides an interesting scientific model with regard to this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE

[Jure]

Guru Steve:

1) The Zennist is not hero-worship he writes all the time about self-reliance ...

2) "He made NO assertions" - really? I think he made quite a few, about the eightfold path, about the skandhas, about samsara, nirvana, the luminous mind, - all of the Buddha-Dharma is "no assertion"? He also said what is WRONG many times, for instance, eternalism and nihilism. That was very assertive. Scientism is a form of eternalism (Western mataphysics) because it posits something as objectively existing "out there", independently therefore it basically says objectivity/matter has self-nature which is anti-Buddhist par excellence. The core teaching of the Buddha is that nothing objective has self-nature.

3) He was skeptical ONLY of SOME ontological projects, not of all. To quote the philosopher/psychoanalyst Lacan: "Everyone has an ontology, you can't avoid it." - Some have naive ontologies, some have complex; some have enlightened ontologies.

4) If you can predict something it doesn't mean you understand anything about it. For instance when they still believe the Sun gravitates around the Earth ,they could "predict" that the Sun will come up every day because it orbits around the Earth. like all universe does since "Earth is the center of the universe"

5) Zennist posted on his other - now defunct - blog very convincing proof that Nagarjuna's stuff was based on the Lankavatara Sutra.