Join our Mailing List

"We Tibetans are looking for a legitimate and meaningful autonomy, an arrangement that would enable Tibetans to live within the framework of the People’s Republic of China."

Exploring the nature of reality

September 28, 2009

Buddhism and science are not always in agreement, but they still have much
in common

By Peter McKnight
Vancouver Sun - September 26, 2009

A first glance at Buddhism -- and most Westerners have had at most a quick
glance at this ancient religion -- suggests that it has little in common
with science.

For example, we most frequently hear the Dalai Lama preach about the
importance of love and compassion. These subjects, while not at odds with
science, concern how the world ought to be, not how the world is, and are
therefore not the proper subjects of scientific study.

Given the different interests of scientists and Buddhists, then, it might be
surprising to learn that some practising scientists are also practising
Buddhists, and that the Dalai Lama himself has a longstanding interest in

Consequently, with the support of His Holiness, a series of "Mind and Life"
dialogues between scientists and Buddhists began in 1987. This led to the
development of the Mind and Life Institute in 1990, under the initial
direction of neuroscientist and Buddhist practitioner Francisco Varela.

Varela died in 2001, but the Institute and the dialogues live on, with
world-renowned scientists and Buddhist monks meeting regularly at
conferences in Dharamsala, India, the residence of the Tibetan government in

In the recently released book, Mind and Life: Discussions with the Dalai
Lama on the Nature of Reality, University of Rome biologist Pier Luigi Luisi
recounts the details of one conference, which probed deeply into physics,
among other subjects.

In so doing, the conference illuminated much about the current scientific
understanding of the nature of the material world, as well as Buddhism's
conception of this aspect of reality. And while it revealed that Buddhism
and science are not always in agreement -- largely as a result of
philosophical, rather than scientific assumptions -- it also revealed that
science and Buddhism have much in common.

But perhaps more than anything, the conference's discussions reveal how
one's world view -- that is, how one understands the world -- often deeply
influences one's views on how the world ought to be -- that is, how we ought
to act. In fact, the Tibetan Buddhist view of the physical world directly
informs its commitment to love and compassion.

To see this, let us look at Luisi's recounting of the discussions at the
Mind and Life Conference. Luisi begins by detailing the address given by
Steven Chu, the Nobel Laureate physicist at Stanford University. It was
Chu's job to explain our current understanding of the nature of matter -- no
easy task, particularly given that the address had to be translated into
Tibetan for the benefit of the monks in attendance.

And indeed, the monks didn't seem comfortable with the discussion, though
their objections weren't simply a matter of problems with translation. Two
areas of controversy in particular help us to understand both the nature of
matter and the nature of Buddhism.

First, Chu discussed the nature of elementary particles -- indivisible
particles that are not made of other particles -- such as electrons and
quarks. Almost immediately, an apparent paradox arose. While we can bounce
electrons off each other, which suggests they have size, Chu also said that
electrons have no spatial dimension, no size: "They are just points. The
particle becomes the field."

This is the wave-particle duality familiar to physics and chemistry
students -- the idea that matter displays both wave-like and particle-like
properties -- and a problem various interpretations of quantum mechanics
have sought to explain.

Needless to say, the monks were none too comfortable with the paradox
either. And the Dalai Lama noticed another problem.

Referencing the fourth-century Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu, His Holiness
argued that indivisible, dimensionless particles can't possibly be the
building blocks of the universe. After all, an aggregate of points is still
a point, and hence we can never build the matter of everyday life by
amassing a bunch of points.

A second problem

The second problem arose when Chu discussed the properties all electrons
have in common: charge, mass, and spin angular momentum. The monks, clearly
more interested in theory than experiment, immediately asked about the
reality of the electron apart from these properties.

In other words, the Buddhists were asking whether scientists believed that
there is something -- which we call an electron -- that actually possesses
these properties, or whether scientists just use the term "electron" to
describe these properties that they measure.

As an experimental scientist, Chu replied that this is not a question he
asks. But it happens to be of fundamental importance to Buddhists since they
reject the notion of "intrinsic" properties. The Dalai Lama put it this way:
"Things and their properties are mutually dependent ... one can speak of an
entity only in relation to attributes, and one can speak of attributes only
in relation to an entity. Once you have conceptually removed all the
attributes, it is nonsensical to speak of what remains."

These two difficulties -- the impossibility of constructing the world out of
indivisible particles and the questionable existence of things apart from
their properties, or of intrinsic properties -- led some Buddhists in
history to deny the reality of matter (some say Buddha himself denied the
reality of matter.)

This thoroughgoing "anti-realism" -- which says our theories don't really
refer to anything since there is nothing to refer to -- is in stark contrast
to the "realism" of most scientists, who believe their theories do refer to
real objects in the world. And this suggests a fundamental discord between
science and Buddhism.

But there is a third alternative to realism and anti-realism, one discussed
at the conference by Michel Bitbol, a physician with a doctorate in physics
and training in philosophy. According to this view, commonly known as
"instrumentalism," theories are seen as ways of explaining, predicting and
controlling phenomena, and concepts like electrons are viewed as constructs
that help us to make predictions and control nature.

Instrumentalism therefore doesn't deny reality. If it did, there would be no
chance of making accurate predictions because there would be nothing to
predict and nothing to control. Rather, instrumentalism merely says that our
scientific theories don't get to the ultimate truth about reality. But they
work, and that's what's important.

The majority of scientists reject this instrumentalist philosophy, convinced
as they are that their theories refer to real objects in the real world. But
some eminent scientists, including celebrated Cambridge physicist Stephen
Hawking, do espouse instrumentalist ideas.

And there is good reason for this, since as Bitbol explained, when
physicists "talk about particles as little bricks of matter, [it] is only a
way of speaking that is used to allow some connection between physics and
everyday forms of thought."

Indeed, the "stuff" of the world seems exceptionally strange, nothing like
the way non-physicists typically conceive of it: We already mentioned the
wave-particle duality, and to this Bitbol adds that particles "are only
fleeting phenomena that emerge in the context of an interaction with" an
experimental apparatus. (Bitbol was here referring to the "observer effect,"
which states that the act of observing a particle will have an effect on the
particle. This is a simplified way of stating Werner Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle.)

In other words, how we define the objects of our knowledge -- in this case,
particles -- depends on the capacity we have to know about them. This
instrumentalist view has a deeply Kantian flavour: Kant taught that our
knowledge of phenomena is a product of the relation between things and our
ways of knowing about them, rather than about things themselves.

This emphasis on relations also bears more than a passing resemblance to the
Buddhist perspective. We saw earlier that the Dalai Lama rejected the notion
of intrinsic properties, as he maintained that things and their properties
are mutually dependent -- that is, we can speak of a thing only in relation
to its attributes and vice versa. In effect, His Holiness was saying that
everything is relational.

Matthieu Ricard, who completed a doctorate in cellular genetics before
becoming a Buddhist monk, suggested the wave-particle duality buttresses
this relational view -- since neither the wave-like property nor the
particle-like property can be taken as intrinsic -- and then concluded, in
Kantian fashion:

"All properties, all observable phenomena, appear in relationship with each
other and dependent on each other. This view of interdependence -- one thing
arising in dependence on another, and their relationship -- actually defines
what appear to us as objects. So relations and interdependence are the basic
fabric of reality. We participate in that interdependence with our
consciousness; we crystallize some aspect of it that appears to us as

Considerable sympathy

While this perspective wouldn't likely gain the allegiance of most
scientists, Luisi did offer a quote from Neils Bohr, one of the fathers of
quantum mechanics, which suggests he would have had considerable sympathy
for this position: "In our description of nature, the purpose is not to
disclose the real essence of phenomena, but only to track down, as far as
possible, relations between manifold aspects of our experience."

Suffice it to say, then, that the Buddhist view is not entirely antithetical
to science, and is closely related to the views of some scientists, even if
it would be rejected by the majority. But whatever its scientific merit, the
Buddhist world view -- as one of relations and interdependence -- is
crucially important for Buddhist ethics. In effect, for Buddhists, how the
world is, or at least how it is understood, bears directly on how we ought
to behave.

In support of this idea, Alan Wallace, who received a doctorate in religious
studies from Stanford, trained as a Buddhist monk and is now president of
the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies, reiterated the
Buddhist disbelief in intrinsic properties and emphasized the fact that
everything is constantly in flux, constantly changing.

Despite this, Wallace noted that people tend ascribe intrinsic properties to
things, to see things as constant and discrete, rather than to recognize
"the intimate interdependence of constantly changing phenomena." The
consequence of this, Wallace said, is that people see themselves as separate
from the world, and develop attractions or revulsions toward things or

This inevitably leads to toxic mental states, including pride, jealousy and
animosity, and people lose sight of what it takes to make themselves or
others happy. Ultimately, said Wallace, this leads to suffering because the
world can't match our desires, "so there is a very close relationship
between our first misapprehension of the nature of phenomena -- finding
solid, intrinsic properties in an increasingly fragmented vision of the
world -- and suffering."

The Buddhist prescription for this malady is, of course, to see things the
other way around. Wallace maintained that if we perceive interdependence and
impermanence, we can recognize that enemies can become friends, and that we
ourselves are constantly changing.

In fact, there is no "we" or "me" to speak of. Perceiving things in a
Buddhist fashion means literally losing yourself, but Wallace insisted this
is a good thing, since you are merely losing that which ties you to
suffering, which allows for the infiltration of toxic mental states.

More importantly, Wallace noted that recognition of interdependence leads
to -- indeed, is essential to -- compassion, because you realize that your
happiness is dependent on the happiness of others. And it means you can
never attain lasting happiness by causing the suffering of others.

Wallace summed up his talk by emphasizing just how important is the
relationship between the Buddhist understanding of the world and Buddhist

"[A] correct understanding of reality -- the absence of any intrinsic nature
of phenomena, and their interdependence -- is said to be the ultimate view
of the Buddhist teachings, referred to as wisdom. And that is intimately
linked with compassion, love and altruism, which are the expression of this
understanding and the quintessence of Buddhist ethics or behaviour.... We
have to keep wisdom and compassion in union all the time, from beginning to
end, uniting understanding with ethical thoughts, words and actions."

According to Luisi, Wallace's final words resulted in a spontaneous ovation
from the monks and scientists in Dharamsala. At last there was complete

Was this because everyone agreed on the importance of love and compassion?
Perhaps. Or perhaps it was because whether religious or secular, monk or
scientist, Eastern or Western, all could agree on a deep truth -- that
understanding the world is the first step toward changing it.
CTC National Office 1425 René-Lévesque Blvd West, 3rd Floor, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3G 1T7
T: (514) 487-0665
Developed by plank