Buddhism and Science

　　Singapore August 10, 1988

　　Revised excerpt from

　　Berzin, Alexander and Chodron, Thubten.

　　Glimpse of Reality.

　　Singapore: Amitabha Buddhist Centre, 1999.

　　Question: Could you speak more about the relationship between Buddhism and science, and give some specific examples of points that they share in common

　　Answer: The dialogues between Buddhist masters such as His {H.} the {D.} Lama and scientists have focused so far primarily on three areas. One is astrophysics, concerning primarily how the universe developed. Does it have a beginning

　　 Was it created or is it part of an eternal process

　　 Another topic is particle physics, regarding the structure of atoms and matter. The third is neurosciences, about how the brain works. These are the main areas.

　　One of the conclusions that both science and Buddhism reach in common is that there is no creator. In science, the theory of the conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Buddhists totally agree and extend the principle to mind as well. "Mind" in Buddhism means awareness of phenomena – either conscious or unconscious – and awareness of phenomena can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Thus, rebirth is simply a transformation in the ongoing continuity of an inpidual”s awareness of phenomena, but now with the physical basis of another body.

　　Particle physicists emphasize the role of the observer in defining anything. For example, from a certain point of view, light is matter; from another point of view, it is energy. What type of phenomenon light seems to exist as depends on many variables, particularly on the conceptual framework the investigator is using to analyze it. Thus, phenomena do not exist inherently as this or that from their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

　　Buddhism asserts the same thing: what things exist as depends on the observer and the conceptual framework with which the person regards them. For example, whether a certain situation exists as a horrible problem or as something solvable depends on the observer, the person involved. If somebody has the conceptual framework, "This is an impossible situation and nothing can be done," then there really is a difficult problem that cannot be solved. However, with the frame of mind that thinks, "This is complicated and complex, but there is a solution if we approach it in a different way," then that person is much more open to try to find a solution. What is a huge problem for one person is not a big deal for another. It depends on the observer, for our problems do not inherently exist as monstrous problems. Thus, science and Buddhism come to the same conclusion: phenomena exist as this or that dependent on the observer.

　　Similarly, neurologists and Buddhists both note the dependently arising relationship of things. For example, when the neurologists examine the brain in an attempt to find what makes our decisions, they find that there is no separate "decision-maker" in the brain. No little person called "me" sits inside the head, receiving information from the eyes, ears and so on, as if on a computer screen, and makes decisions by pushing a button so that the arm does this and the leg does that. Rather, decisions are the results of complex interactions of an enormous network of nerve impulses and chemical and electrical processes. Together, they bring the result, a decision. This happens without there being a distinct entity that is a decision- maker. Buddhism emphasizes the same thing: there is no "me" which is permanent and solid sitting in our heads, which makes our decisions. Conventionally, we say, "I”m experiencing this. I”m doing that," but actually, what occurs is the result of…

《Buddhism and Science》全文未完，请进入下页继续阅读…