by Prof. Arjuna De Zoysa(February 05, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Why look at modern science from a Buddhist standpoint and not the other way around? That is, rather than Buddhism from a Scientific perspective. The reasons are twofold. In the first instance, the total knowledge system spawned by the teachings of the Gautama Buddha and by 2500 plus years of Buddhist philosophy, debates, controversies and ethical practices, remains broader and more open than today’s science is, I will justify this in the course of this lecture. Secondly and more importantly, although right knowledge, that is freedom from Avijja (ne-science) is central to the Buddhist doctrine, knowledge remains, firmly in service to ethical goals. This particular connection between ethics and knowledge is of importance to the modern world with its peculiar human predicament of material affluence, inequity of distribution and a creeping psychological despair even amongst the affluence. This connection between ethics and knowledge was broken in Europe, at the beginning of the period known as the ‘Enlightenment’ by scientific methodologists such as Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who firmly advocated a separation, and a secular revolution which denied the creator principle, but failed to resolve the ethical dilemmas thus created. What then is this ‘thing called science’?
I will here briefly examine the nature of today’s science. There has been much debate and discussions on this topic, and the writings about science are prolific and has spawned a minor industry amongst scholars. Many would have heard of names of philosophers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant. More modern philosophical commentators on science such as Karl Popper (1950’s), Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend (1960’s), plus a host of lesser known collection of writers, who have looked at this ‘thing called science’ from a cultural, political or feminist point of view, I will here view science from a Buddhist cultural perspective.
‘A paradigm’
I will draw on two key insights from the modern discourse on science to show as to why science may not be as universal and open, as it is popularly thought to be. The first is the concept of ‘a paradigm’, introduced by Thomas Khun, Science it was pointed out by Kuhn, comes with a host of beliefs, prejudices and assumptions that is shared by the society and culture that it stems from. He pointed out that routine science functioned with this literally hidden framework, and a scientist is usually quite unaware of these hidden assumptions. During periods of revolutionary growth however, the underlying paradigm was changed or replaced, by a process which he showed was by and large irrational. Examples of such revolutionary change were the replacement of Newtonian ideas on space and time by Einstein’s in his theory of Relativity (1905), and Darwin’s theory of evolution and its overthrow of creationism (1860’s). What Kuhn termed ‘Normal Science’ is what ninety nine per cent of scientists engage in, and here, there is hardly any questioning of the underlying paradigm. As example, today’s science is a form of Materialism. It assumes de-facto that all phenomena that occurs can be explained on the basis of what we Buddhists term as ‘materiality’, that is pancha-skandha as experienced by the five senses. Any ‘new phenomena’ such as electromagnetism is considered to be an extension of this ‘materiality’, the Mind, is considered to be an epiphenomena of this materiality. It is assumed, just as in popular belief that this phenomena of Materiality is the result of the existence of a Material substance, and whether one talks of cosmological dimensions or the micro world, metaphors (e.g. particles and waves) are derived from the experience of materiality for theory construction. Such a substantiality is directly rejected by an understanding Buddhist. I may at this stage hasten to add that much of modern physics (Quantum Realities) has undermined this belief, but modern scientists tenaciously cling to this belief despite their own observation. There are good economic and cultural reasons for this clinging (Upadana). The lack of openness is not internal to science, but is external in the sense that it is cultural and economic forces that constrain science to such a course.
‘Theory Leadenness of Observation’
The second idea of importance about the nature of science, made first by Kuhn and extensively elaborated upon by Paul Feyerabend, is that of the ‘Theory Leadenness of Observation’. That is that scientific observation is not a neutral, objective process that we popularly assume it to be, but rather that the theoretical framework within which a scientist functions prejudices his/her observations. This could apply to the selection of observations on the natural world that a scientist may choose to examine, or, it could be in the manner in which he may interpret his observations. Naturally the underlying paradigm heavily colours his observations and theory building. A number of examples are described from the history of science to show this to be so, by Paul Feyerabend. Feyerabend once complained thus, ‘I am bored to tears by astrological theories, yet the way science rejects astrology and its observations is based on sheer prejudice, rather than on any serious examination of it’. This should not be surprising to a Buddhist, if one remembers that sciences is a human endeavour, carrying with it the limitations of a collective human effort. Science cannot do better than extend the principle of individual prejudice, to that of a collective social or cultural bias. The collective effort does make science somewhat better than individual subjectivity, but the socio-cultural milieu that science is embedded in, inevitably influences both its selection of observations and its theory formation. Let us take a striking example, which affects the very essence of Buddhist practice.
Suffering
The Buddha bases his first noble truth on a simple observation. That of suffering or the unsatisfactoriness of existence (Existential Angst). In Buddhism, biological death does not put an end to this suffering, but a soulless (anatma) process is said to go on conditioned and driven by that which has transpired. Thus, the Buddha it is said, observed the arising and passing away of thousands of beings in different world systems, and this cyclic farering on, is known as Samsara. Rebirth of beings is very much a cornerstone of Buddhist belief, and much of Buddhist ethical practice would loose meaning without such a theory of Karma and Rebirth. Empirical evidence of memories of ‘previous lives’, and the action of a conditioning similar to Karma has been brought to the notice of the scientific world for at least a hundred years. This has come from both, cultures like ours, which have such a belief, and from the Western world where such a belief is absent. One can quote the much researched case of Bridie Murphy or the more modern investigations of Prof. Ian Stevenson (University of Virginia). There have also been a number of cases of what are now known as out of body experiences (OBE’s), which are well documented, with objective events inside operating theatres being described by persons who were reportedly unconscious during that time. The empirical evidences is overwhelming, but a science based on empiricism, simply ignores all of this. It deals with such evidence in two ways; either by a process of debunking, belittling the researchers and providing ad-hoc explanations which stretch the credulity of even its most ardent advocates; or by what I term the filling cabinet approach; that is by storing such evidence away without comment. Such, evidences have been taken as the normal fare of what is known in the USA as ‘New Age Religions’, and has been used as material for Hollywood movies (the Ghost), and also in TV soap operas such as the ‘Bold & Beautiful’. The reasons for this rejectionist approach by modern science is obvious, and stem from its underlying Materialism. What it chooses to observe and acknowledge is only that which can be used for its theory building. It is particularly harsh on evidence which may upset, the assumed paradigmatic structures that it has grown with. After all, as the prestigious science journal Nature commented, one cannot throw away around three centuries of its theory building, overnight. Recently, this same journal severely castigated Rupert Sheldrake, an eminent Botanist who suggested that memories of life processes that have been, may be imprinted in what he termed as a non-material morphogenetic field (1997). The Buddha commenting on similar materialistic advocates in ancient India had this to say.
"Herein, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view ‘The self good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originate from father and mother. Since this self good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the break-up of the body, and does not exist after death, at this points the self is completely annihilated’. In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being." Brahmajala Sutra (p.79, trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1992, BPS).
The above would be a close description of the modern scientific viewpoint. One may ask as to why science cannot give up its materialism and substance theories, perhaps through another episode of a scientific revolution? The reason is simply that the supporting culture of rationalism constraints its ability to change, and its economic paymasters are infatuated with material growth, and not much else. This situation is described in ancient India, in a commentary on the materialists position taken, from the Brahmajala Sutra, thus,
"The non-possessor adopts the annihilationist position (Ucchedavada) because he does not understand that there is a world beyond this, due either to his nihilistic scepticism or to his stupidity. Or he holds ‘that the domain of the world extends only as far as the range of the senses’, due to his greed for sense pleasure, like the king who took hold of his own daughters hand" (p184).
Sophisticated extensions
Despite the social constrain that I have pointed to, science encompasses a wide range of knowledges, which has been arrived at using varying methodologies. A cosmologist examining a distant corner of the observable universe, use different methodologies from that of a medical scientist examining the human body. Again it should be emphasised that the idea that there is something called a unique scientific method is only a popular myth, which is not accepted by any serious scholar of science today. Firstly, the practitioners of science use a number of methodologies and secondly these are not particular to only science. The underlying methods are merely sophisticated extensions of methods that we commonly use. The sophistication is given by the extensive use of mathematics and instrumentation (technology). Admittedly it is a two-way process, science in turn breeds new mathematics and technologies, adding to its own sophistication. What we need today is to bring a strong coupling of ethics to these scientific methodologies. The goal itself need not be ethical, as in the case of a spiritual quest like in Buddhism, but a realisation that a separation of ends and means is not desirable. As example, one cannot further human well being, by inflicting suffering on animals as in a vivisection medical science. Neither can you protect the well being of one sect of humanity by threatening the other with nuclear destruction. Science has helped in the discovery of many wonders which have resulted in the material well being of at least a section of humanity, and this must not be forgotten, however the worship of such modern wonders need to be tempered.
One is reminded of a story here from the Buddha Charitaya; Once the Buddha and some bhikkhus were patiently waiting for the ferryman to cross a river, when a brahmin recluse, who supposedly possessed supernormal powers arrived and proceeded to walk across the water to the other side. The bhikkhus then wanted to know why the Buddha did not do so, as he too possessed powers which were even greater. The Buddha is supposed to have then asked as to how much the ferryman would charge? and it was a paltry sum. The feat that the recluse performed he said, has therefore the same value. Perhaps this is an apt proverb for our times.
(The writer senior lecture in the Open University of Sri Lanka)
 Why look at modern science from a Buddhist standpoint and not the other...){kind=link}
Post a Comment