Science, religion and politics have converged on some hot-button issues in the U.S. Scientists, politicians and clergy are butting heads on such matters as teaching evolution in public schools and embryonic stem cell research. Religious factions are trying to use political power to interfere with the teaching or application of science.
Where does Buddhism stand on such issues? First, there is no other religion more compatible with science than Buddhism. Of course, you can find many examples of superstition and supernaturalism mixed into Buddhist practice. But the teachings of the Buddha do not require belief in anything supernatural. Indeed, some scientists have noticed that Buddhist teachings complement their work. Quantum physics is an example.
The creation versus evolution controversy does not exist in Buddhism. Buddhist "genesis" -- Dependent Origination -- has no creator God and no first cause. The inter-causality of environment and adaptation described by evolution science is entirely compatible with Buddhist understanding of how life "works."
Regarding embryonic stems cells -- I don't know if any Buddhist teachers have expressed an opinion on whether an egg fertilized in vitro and never implanted in a womb counts as an individual "life." However, I think a moral code that values surplus, eight-cell frozen blastocysts over children and adults who are sick and suffering is self-evidently screwy; see "Buddhism and Morality" for elaboration.
Buddhism is not a "revealed" religion. This means that the teachings are not claimed to have originated with an infallible God, but with a human being, the historical Buddha, who came to his understanding through his own efforts. For this and other reasons, Buddhism does not insist on unthinking loyalty to dogmas. In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha taught his followers to investigate the truth of the teachings for themselves.
For this reason, if scientific research proved some teaching to be false, it would be less of a crisis in Buddhism than in other religions. His Holiness the Dalai Lama was once asked what he would do if science disproved something written in the sutras. We would revise the sutras, His Holiness said.
This is an interesting topic for me. I have been reading a few reviews of Stephen Bachelor’s “Buddhism Beyond Beliefs” (I have yet to read the book, but it’s first on my Amazon wish list).
One of the things that keeps coming up in the last paragraph of the reviews is that Bachelor is “watering down” the Dharma in such a way as to spoil it. Other reviewers bring up the prophecy of how the Dharma will degenerate in “this age of decline,” and somehow materialism and the Enlightenment have something to do with it. I’m sure the Dalai Lama’s statement to change the sutras stirred the hornet’s nest.
I think that some people place so much stock into the “omniscience” of the Buddha that if the Dharma is changed to fit modern day discoveries that it would somehow negate it. This sounds very similar to how Christian fundamentalists try so hard to reconcile scientific discovery with the literal interpretations of the Bible.
But didn’t the Buddha say something about attachment in the second Noble Truth?
I’ve not read Batchelor’s books, only some interviews and articles. I do know that he originally was ordained a monk in a Tibetan tradition and then worked with Korean Zen.
The Tibetans are a bit more literal about things than are Zennies. I read a dialog between Batchelor and Robert Thurman in which Thurman was saying things about reincarnation that any Zen student would find laughable. It’s possible Batchelor’s views come from a rebellion against Tibetan Buddhism, which is pretty exotic. To each his own.
On the other hand, I don’t believe Batchelor is anyone’s dharma heir, so he’s not a “realized” teacher. He seems to be firmly attached to some fixed opinions about what Buddhism should or should not be, which is the flip side of being attached to supernaturalism.
As a Zen student, I’d say that beliefs are irrelevant. It’s as big a mistake to cling to not-belief as to belief.
this is a very is a very intersting page helping alot with my report!!
I agree with you, Barbara, about the attachment issue. I am inclined to tell people that 180° from something is still the same old rut.
However, as regards Batchelor, whatever one may feel regarding lineage, he does an excellent job of reducing Dharma to clean basics that are easily understood by lay people. I have recommended Buddhism Without Beliefs to at least a couple of dozen folks, and received many comments on how useful it was to them in sorting out their feelings as they pertained to looking further into Buddhism.
I have heard it said that Batchelor is a bit of a legend in his own mind, but I suspect that the folks who put him down are the same sorts who like to debate instead of practicing.
But what do I know?