Sunday, November 13, 2005

the dalai lama on science and spirituality

nov 12th

this reinforces my view that the dalai lama is perhaps the most impressive religious leader on earth. what a sensible, decent person!

i might not fully agree with him, but i have to respect his straightforwardness and lucidity.

btw, did anybody go see him at his sold-out event at stanford recently?

also jeff hawkins, founder of palm, has an interesting redwood neurosciences institute studying the workings of the neo cortex


November 12, 2005
Op-Ed Contributor
Our Faith in Science
By TENZIN GYATSO
Washington

SCIENCE has always fascinated me. As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious
about how things worked. When I got a toy I would play with it a bit, then
take it apart to see how it was put together. As I became older, I applied
the same scrutiny to a movie projector and an antique automobile.

At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which
I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized
that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to
show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I
had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted
its own light.

But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked
with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing
today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to
change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and
for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality
where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism
enriches its own worldview.

For many years now, on my own and through the Mind and Life Institute, which
I helped found, I have had the opportunity to meet with scientists to
discuss their work. World-class scientists have generously coached me in
subatomic physics, cosmology, psychology, biology.

It is our discussions of neuroscience, however, that have proved
particularly important. From these exchanges a vigorous research initiative
has emerged, a collaboration between monks and neuroscientists, to explore
how meditation might alter brain function.

The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong - or even to bring
people to Buddhism - but rather to take these methods out of the traditional
context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone
who might find them helpful.

After all, if practices from my own tradition can be brought together with
scientific methods, then we may be able to take another small step toward
alleviating human suffering.

Already this collaboration has borne fruit. Dr. Richard Davidson, a
neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin, has published results from
brain imaging studies of lamas meditating. He found that during meditation
the regions of the brain thought to be related to happiness increase in
activity. He also found that the longer a person has been a meditator, the
greater the activity increase will be.

Other studies are under way. At Princeton University, Dr. Jonathan Cohen, a
neuroscientist, is studying the effects of meditation on attention. At the
University of California Medical School at San Francisco, Dr. Margaret
Kemeny has been studying how meditation helps develop empathy in school
teachers.

Whatever the results of this work, I am encouraged that it is taking place.
You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in
opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with
scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds
can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to
generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our
interconnected world.

One of my first teachers of science was the German physicist Carl von
Weizsäcker, who had been an apprentice to the quantum theorist Werner
Heisenberg. Dr. Weizsäcker was kind enough to give me some formal tutorials
on scientific topics. (I confess that while listening to him I would feel I
could grasp the intricacies of the full argument, but when the sessions were
over there was often not a great deal of his explanation left behind.)

What impressed me most deeply was how Dr. Weizsäcker worried about both the
philosophical implications of quantum physics and the ethical consequences
of science generally. He felt that science could benefit from exploring
issues usually left to the humanities.

I believe that we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear
upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life
sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a
fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry.

Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics," which embrace the
principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of
others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles
transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they
belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.

Today, our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic
level has reached a new level of sophistication. Advances in genetic
manipulation, for example, mean scientists can create new genetic entities -
like hybrid animal and plant species - whose long-term consequences are
unknown.

Sometimes when scientists concentrate on their own narrow fields, their keen
focus obscures the larger effect their work might have. In my conversations
with scientists I try to remind them of the larger goal behind what they do
in their daily work.

This is more important than ever. It is all too evident that our moral
thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific
advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no
longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge
should be left in the hands of individuals.

This is a point I intend to make when I speak at the annual meeting of the
Society for Neuroscience today in Washington. I will suggest that how
science relates to wider humanity is no longer of academic interest alone.
This question must assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned
about the fate of human existence.

A deeper dialogue between neuroscience and society - indeed between all
scientific fields and society - could help deepen our understanding of what
it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share
with other sentient beings.

Just as the world of business has been paying renewed attention to ethics,
the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the
implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely
technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the
larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity.

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is the author of "The Universe in a
Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality."

4 comments:

S said...

Rajeev,
First of all thanks to your blog, It is informative. Thanks to you and your efforts. It pains me to appear to add anything to this spirited place, but I would add few things for a different perspective, I am sure great people here would discard anything that is ainappropriate, including mu posts.


The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

Where this convergence will happen is an important question that the lama didn't mention. [ On a funny side I didn't imply the scintists must do a Yagna in geographical or conceptual location, say the geography, and also symbol of Triveni Sangam :) ] The hindus shouldn't forget this question even in the days of turmoil when everybody is attacking them. Such convergenece for itself sounds good because of contemporary nature of science/political 'science', but It would change radically if science goes deep,[Needless to say in my opinion only] as the Lama suggests.

BTW I have read your post on self organization, it is far better than the Marxists slavery. Even though they banned some of these cults in Russia in earlier centiry , still they are taking a step towards these. So, There could be a guess of some little thing unholy about these :)


the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the
implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely
technically adept;


It sounds inspiring, we need inspiration to live. If I can add one more source, could the inspiration from world of self, as in deep occen be added for inspiration, the blessed and already benifitted world. Being from science background, I am comfortable with science inspite of the propaganda of scintific marxists, but why to leave a clue for possible argument to make a distinction between the world of science and world itself when the deficiencies could be attributed elsewhere, as Budha had done. The otherway to look at it is, why to bring in the science, when the word world is enough for expression, and science atleast has so much of understandable meaning in a world of confusion.

There is no confusion that The great Lama is on the track when he suggests the scintists to take a look at a new direction, and accept a few things after scintific rigours. The traditional Hegelian/Marxian philosophy have been discredited compared to the noise levels they generate in politics.

One hopes optimistically that the end match with the aim of the Lama.

Once again thanks for your blog. Have a good day.

Kalyani said...

dalai lama was once asked by Larry King:-

"What is the secret behind your holiness?" and dl replied:-

"good food and good sleep"!!

No wonder Smiling Buddha got Himself converted to Laughing Buddha!!!

The Chinaman who coined the word "useful idiot" was anything but an idiot.Once during a banquet the awarer
of useful idiots of the world,proudly and candidly declared:-

"If you want to attain salvation(Mukthi)you ought to be born in India".

It takes a wise man to know another;the Chinese had invited our Kanchi Shankaracharyar with earnest eagerness and with equally ardent fervour had said "NO" to we know who!

My all time favourite Chinaman is Bruce Lee and among Tibetans Milarepa and certain other illustrious ones.

Francis Bacon rightly says the worthless weightless junk visibly float on the top concealing the rarest
of gems and treasures deep within(Ocean).

Kalyani said...

btw,
he too is an eater of many many peaceful animals.

budda yes not Buddha!

S said...

Kalyani,
Dalai Lama is a net contributor to the world. The maoists/stalinists are arrogant killers, The Lama is is a learned and peaceful person. He may have trivial appearing arguments, answers, but in this politicized world, one has seen many aspects which are far from superficial. The Dalai Lama is an institution by himself who defends the tibetan culture, almost extinguished by the maoists. I thought you could have avoided words like 'worthless'.

Thanks
Have a nice day.