We can ask many questions about the relevance of science* - and scientific findings - in Buddhism. Science provides us with information about the state of the planet? It seems we are in the midst of a terrible ecological crisis. We have the problems that are ‘with us’ due to human-induced climate change. How should Buddhists respond to these scientific findings? What relevance do these findings have to Buddhism - now and in the future?
There is a problem that arises when people have dogmatic views about science. Science is an important method of investigation but it is often misunderstood. It is meant to help us to understand our world and improve our quality of life. It was never meant to be seen as a dogma or a philosophy of life. When science is abused in this way it can lead to a misunderstanding of Buddhism.
Buddhism is categorised as a world religion and some believe that religion is the antithesis of science. This is an important issue that arises in relation to science and its findings. One of the life-worlds that many human beings inhabit involves religion. Misunderstandings arise when there is an unclear understanding of Buddhism as a religion and as an alternative approach to scientific inquiry - a contemplative-science*.
It is hard to establish a clear correlation between Buddhist cosmology and the vision of the cosmos revealed through modern astronomy. I cannot see a necessary connection between the shape of the Earth and the Buddha’s teachings on ‘kamma’ and rebirth - and other aspects of his liberation teachings so we need not be overly concerned. The purpose of Buddhism is liberation - the hearts sure release. I find the teachings on kamma interesting and informative. I keep an open mind about rebirth - I don’t pretend to be certain about things that I am uncertain about.
It is not a problem that the Buddha’s cosmological teachings are not confirmed by scientific findings. What the Buddha ‘saw’ or did not see ‘out there’ in our solar system and beyond is not necessarily false or incorrect. It is not an either/or situation!
The Buddha may have had a ‘way of looking’ at the universe that does not correspond to our own. That would seem likely in various ways. If this is so, it would mean that beings with an entirely different perceptual framework may be aware of phenomena that is completely beyond the range of our sensory and perceptual abilities.
We do not ‘know’ exactly how the Buddha arrived at his vision of the cosmos. It may have been the result of his cultural background or his direct realisation. Possibly, a mix of both? We can only practice sincerely and find out for ourselves where the practice leads. Then we may be able to see these teachings in a different light?
As our minds develop through the practice of the eightfold path unprecedented ways of seeing and being may unfold. We may then have the prerequisite mind-training to understand the Buddha’s profound knowledge and vision?
Reasoning - if it is accurate - gives rise to an understanding of facts and fictions. For instance, it is an actual fact that the Earth is the 3rd planet from the sun. There is a difference between (Truth, actuality and, our personal reality). Much confusion arises as a consequence of not seeing and understanding the differences involved in these 3 areas of inquiry.
From our frame of reference the universe is seen to contain a spheroidal planet we call home. The best evidence for this is when we leave our planet’s surface in a rocket and look back on it from space. We have figured out something similar when it comes to other planets by circling around them etc. The Buddha might have been referring to a completely different way of seeing the structure of the universe. That way of seeing does not falsify our commonplace understanding of the world around us - and vice versa?
The Truths that the Buddha tried to share with us are not just information. They are not realised through thinking about the nature of reality. This is a valid and necessary process but Truth - with a capital T - is not like this! It is not revealed through reflecting on topics we feel are important or appraising different points of view - choosing that which resonates with our preset conclusions. It is not a product of discursive activity - related to discourse or modes of discourse. This includes religious, philosophical or, scientific theories and conjectures.
When we have preset conclusions about the unknown we lose the capacity for surprise. For people like this ‘life, the universe and, everything’ is a known quantity. They can still learn, but when they encounter anything that does not conform to their fixed ideas of the (way it is) they are faced with a choice - accept or reject? I have met more than a few religious and non-religious people - including many scientists - who suffer from this malady.
If we are capable of remaining comfortable with the unknown with an open heart - but with a critical and reasonably informed mind - we remain completely open to surprise, to novelty. This is a prerequisite for insight.
As practicing Buddhists our central concern is the threefold training. A prerequisite for profound and liberating insight is samadhi. Samadhi takes place when there is a natural stillness that arises spontaneously.
When there is no reactivity, awareness, and complete openness to that which comes and goes - and then vanishes completely - samadhi happens! An openness to the unknown is required for samadhi and awakening! How could it be otherwise?
If we are serious about learning - wanting to understand things - it is best not to view anything from a fixed and intransigent position. This is a really bad habit! This is why we are in the pickle we are in on this spheroidal planet - with its atmospheric gases and fragile ecosystems. There is to much resistance to change based on fixed, intransigent and, misinformed ideas.
We need to have a good understanding of the nature of ignorance/blind conformity - how and why it is reified - before we can apply ourselves to the path in a way that leads to freedom.
I need to clarify my views regarding problematic attitudes towards science. Where I believe the problems begin!
Hard science helps us to understand the ‘actual’ state of the natural environment. It provides us with the methods and tools to understand human-induced climate change and various other environmental threats to our long-term survival - en masse!
Social science is also a valuable tool for the analyses of the environmental crisis - as it pertains to social dynamics. In Psychology, we could understand the problem in terms of human conditioning and the problems this gives rise to when it comes to embracing meaningful change.
I make a distinction between different areas of inquiry that may help you to understand what my views are regarding hard science as a means for understanding the natural world. There are other forms of inquiry and understanding that are vitally important to our long-term survival.
As human beings we inhabit the natural environment and the noosphere*.
Hard science exists within the noosphere but it provides us with information about the Earth’s actual physical environment - that includes the lithosphere, biosphere and the atmosphere.
The Dhamma teachings are also in the noosphere. These teachings provide us with information about ‘liberation’ (moksha) and the path of purification.
We need to enter another area of direct inquiry to ‘discover’ the liberating Dhamma. Buddha-Dhamma includes - and goes beyond - the subtle spheres of the formless absorptions.
The liberating Dhamma is a consequence of insight. Insight - in Buddhism - is a direct and immediate seeing and knowing. It is not a form of discursive activity i.e. it is not found in the noosphere.
When referring to the noosphere it is important to point out that the "word derives from the Greek νοῦς (nous “mind”) and σφαῖρα (sphaira “sphere”), in lexical analogy to “atmosphere” and “biosphere”. - Wikipedia
The ‘litho/bio/atmos - spheres’ are not analogical in nature i.e. they are not merely conceptual. They are ‘actual’ physical phenomena that are studied in the hard sciences. An analogy is an abstraction whereas the atmosphere etc. is not!
The perceptions we call the ‘formless absorptions’ belong to a domain of inquiry that is different from the hard sciences. They are not accessible through the ‘noosphere’ either! They are transpersonal in nature - they have nothing to do with our personal ‘reality’. They are part of the field of ‘direct’ Dhamma inquiry and experience - they are non-subjective experiences. As a consequence of this it is important to point out that the Buddha’s teachings include areas of inquiry that are inaccessible from a secular vantage point.
Secular Buddhism does not have the requisite ‘language game’ to incorporate a discussion of the ‘transpersonal’ teachings of the Buddha. It could indirectly reference the Buddha’s transpersonal teachings in a way that detracts from the ‘lived’ experiences in and of themselves. Jhanic experiences are a fundamental requirement for the direct ‘knowledge and vision’ of the liberation teachings of the Buddha.
When different areas of inquiry get confused we get lost in the thicket of views! The liberating Dhamma is like a lost city in a dense wilderness. The Buddha found a path in that wilderness that leads to the lost city of liberation. This was a simile that the Buddha used to help us understand what he was trying to share with us for our welfare and liberation.
From Wikipedia:
*Noosphere
The noosphere (/ˈnoʊ.əsfɪər/; sometimes noösphere) is the sphere of human thought. The word derives from the Greek νοῦς (nous “mind”) and σφαῖρα (sphaira “sphere”), in lexical analogy to “atmosphere” and “biosphere”. It was introduced by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in 1922 in his Cosmogenesis. Another possibility is the first use of the term by Édouard Le Roy (1870–1954), who together with Teilhard was listening to lectures of Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky at the Sorbonne…
*http://legacy.earlham.edu/~jacksmi/content/narrow_and_broad_science.html