The attachment to science has paid a heavy price for Buddhism, because Buddhism understood in this way has lost some of its most essential things. If Buddhism and science are brought together to make Buddhism a kind of scientific Buddhism, then it will be Buddhism that will fail in the long run.
Buddhists, as well as many people who have a good feeling for Buddhism, have probably seen these two passages in books or on the Internet, both of which are said to have come from Einstein:
(1) "If there is a religion in the world that not only does not contradict science, but every new scientific discovery verifies her view, it is Buddhism." Or "If there is any religion that can coexist with modern science, it is Buddhism." ”
(2) "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It will be a religion that transcends the personification of God and is far removed from all dogmas and theology. This religion embraces both the natural and spiritual aspects, and as a meaningful unity, it must be based on religious ideas arising from the practice and experience of things, whether spiritual or natural. Buddhism fits this characteristic. ”
For example, Sodagyi Khenpo quoted these words many times in his Buddhist Sciences, and other books have cited them frequently.
Sodagyi Khenpo, in fact, only secondary school culture
These words are said to have been published in the book Albert Einstein: The Human Side (sometimes called the Collected Works of Albert Einstein) published by Princeton University Press in 1954, but were never specifically numbered. In fact, Einstein never said such a thing, and these words are not found in the book at all. The only thing that is relevant to Buddhism in the book is a sentence on page 70: "It seems to me that figures like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus are more benevolent to humanity than all that has been accomplished by the mind of exploration and creation." Obviously, this has nothing to do with claiming that Buddhism best supports science.
When it comes to "Buddhism and Science," few people have seriously considered what "Buddhism," "science," or even "and" mean. The references to "science" are often vague: sometimes to the calm and rational method of research (in which the Buddha came to know deep truths about the inner and outer worlds), sometimes to specific theories such as mechanism, evolution, relativity, the Big Bang, etc. (the precursors of these theories can be seen in Buddhist teachings), sometimes to specific techniques such as microscopes, telescopes, spectrometers (used to discover things that the Buddha already knew without the help of these tools), and sometimes to the manipulation of matter (if not combined with the Buddha's compassion). , which will have terrible consequences for humanity). The truth of Buddhism is generally considered to be eternal, and the Buddha fully realized reality when he became enlightened, and since then nothing has been found to transcend this reality. From this point of view, all the Buddhist teachings and practices that have developed over the past two thousand five hundred years are aimed at revealing the content of the Buddha's enlightenment.
Whatever the understanding of "Buddhism" and "science," people who talk about "Buddhism and science" tend to think of some compatibility between Buddhism and science. The scope of this compatibility is widespread, with some arguing that the basic teachings of Buddhism are in no way contradictory to scientific discoveries, while others believe that the Buddha predicted many important scientific discoveries, and that the Buddha knew more than two thousand years ago what scientists are discovering now. Famous quote from Academician Zhu Qingshi, former president of the University of Science and Technology of China and former president of southern university of science and technology:
"When scientists climbed to the top of the mountain, the Buddhist masters had been waiting here for a long time." (From Mr. Zhu Qingshi's lecture "Physics Enters the Zen Realm: Dependent Voidness", published in the proceedings of the Second World Buddhist Forum, "Buddhism and Science", pp. 34-41)
It is a typical example of this view. Looking at domestic and foreign book and periodical websites, we can easily find a large number of titles such as "Quantum and Lotus", "Quantum Physics and Compassion", "Zen and the Brain", "Emptiness and Relativity", "Atoms and No-Self", "Einstein and Buddha: Similar Sayings".
But I want to emphasize that these understandings of science and Buddhism have all been shaped over the past three hundred years, and that science has played a key role in building a modern understanding of Buddhism (and Christianity, etc.). In order to understand the connection between "Buddhism" and "science," it is necessary to understand the history of this association.
In fact, according to the 2015 book The Territories of Science and Religion by the eminent scholar Peter Harrison, both "scientia" and "religio" initially referred to the intrinsic qualities or virtues of the individual. By the 16th century, it had gradually become something first understood through doctrines and practices, becoming a propositional system of external beliefs, and "science" and "religion" were concretized or objectified, which was the premise of the relationship between "science" and "religion". In fact, it was only from the 19th century that people first began to talk about "science and religion." "Buddhism" is no exception, and it has only been a century or so to talk about "Buddhism" and "science" together. The English word "Buddhism" was also coined by Westerners in 1801 based on their understanding of their religion. This concretization or objectification of "science" and "religion" causes "science" and "religion" (including "Buddhism") to gradually begin to seize the same neutral cognitive territory, just as the Buddhist cosmology and epistemology must be determined by the male and female with the scientific cosmology and epistemology.
Because of the strength of modern science, recourse to science has become a powerful strategy for religions to defend themselves. However, regardless of the specific defense, this strategy has two drawbacks:
First, it will inevitably consolidate the authoritative position of science, thereby indirectly increasing the credibility of scientific claims;
Second, it promotes, to some extent, a special understanding of "religion", that religion is something that can be supported by natural science.
However, once it can be supported by science, it can also be criticized by science. In order for this "Buddhism" to be compatible with "science", Buddhism must be severely restricted, and many of the essential elements of the tradition will be eliminated. Buddhism has become primarily something centered on textual teachings and external manifestations, while inner appeals and devotions have been downplayed.
Zhu Qingshi
Sodagyi Khenpo and Academician Zhu Qingshi are all people I respect very much, and some of their statements may be just for convenience and may be conducive to strengthening the faith of more people, but I still think that the attachment to science has paid a heavy price for Buddhism, because Buddhism understood in this way has lost some of its most essential things. If Buddhism and science are brought together to make Buddhism a kind of scientific Buddhism, then it will be Buddhism that will fail in the long run. A greater sensitivity to the concepts used and a greater understanding of the history of ideas would be conducive to the healthy development of Buddhism and other religions.
Author: Zhang Putian, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
<h1>Appendix: Einstein's only mention of Buddhism (excerpt</h1>).
Original link: Einstein's only mention of Buddhism
Without further ado, let's give you a picture:
The Collected Works of Einstein, Vol. I, p. 281
Information provided to the "Skeptical Explorers" from the Faculty of Humanities of the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences: The only mention of Buddhism in the Complete Works of Einstein, Einstein's Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 281.
Myth: Einstein said: The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. Buddhism fits this characteristic.
Truth: This text first appeared in 1965, 10 years after Einstein's death.
Author: Skeptical Explorer
<h1>Appendix: "A bowl of water, eighty-four thousand worms" proves that the Buddha had supernatural powers?
</h1>
In the answer area, there is an ID, called @Duan Lang please look at, he said:
[Buddha's view of a drop of water, 108,000 worms, before there is no microscope, you will feel inexplicable, with a microscope, you may suddenly realize. There are also three thousand worlds, three thousand worlds, three thousand small worlds, and so on. Do you think that the more developed technology is, some of the original myths and legends of some technologies have become a reality. It's terrifying to think about. 】
This is a false reference, because Buddhism has nothing to do with science.
In the new century, science and religion should not interfere with each other and respect each other, but some people want to demean science to achieve the purpose of elevating faith. To gain solace in faith by belittling science is to quench one's thirst by drinking. You know, the core foundation of religion is "faith", and the spirit of science is precisely to ignore all beliefs and conclusions, including scientific theories themselves; once religion tries to kidnap science, it will pay a price, mutate into "scientific Buddhism", and then no matter how to fight with science, the final loser will be Buddhism. And because of the mutation, Buddhism has lost the core of the "faith", which is an act that is not worth the loss.
Scientific conclusions themselves are not "ultimate truths" in one step, but the most reliable knowledge that "extends the scope of application" as a whole. Scientific theories, scientific theories, and mathematical models that explain natural phenomena are all phased statistical properties. For example, when the scope of application of Newtonian mechanics is difficult to meet the needs of large scales, scientists will further revise the scientific theory of Newtonian mechanics according to the needs, and Einstein's theory of relativity will be born. Once a scientific theory is revised, the Buddhist doctrine that originally kidnapped the scientific theory is forced to come up with a new so-called "scientific" explanation, so that it is exhausted. And scientific theories are endless, and their mysteries are not limited to scripture to measure. Moreover, most scientific theories themselves are incompatible with Buddhist doctrine, such as Buddhist doctrine that human beings come from the "light and sound heaven", while modern evolutionary theories use more and more conclusive evidence to prove that human beings are the products of evolution. The list goes on.
Buddhism solves the problems of "silence" and "liberation", while the purpose of science is to pursue reliable knowledge, and the two are not in line.
So, what is the truth of the "108,000 worms of the Buddha's view"?
First, the Buddhist allusion is "eighty-four thousand worms," not "one hundred and eighteen thousand worms." But it doesn't matter, it may be that the person who answered it misremembered, that's not the point.
Second, the idea of "eighty-four thousand worms" originally originated from Jainism in ancient India and has nothing to do with Buddhism. It was Jainism who put forward the idea that there are "eighty-four thousand worms" in a bowl of water, not Buddhism, so it has nothing to do with Buddhism. Buddhism only relays this thing when it tells stories, just to be the material for its story, in order to prove that its view of "taking the middle way" is good and correct. As for Buddhism itself, it does not admit that there are indeed so-called "eighty-four thousand worms" in a bowl of water, and naturally there is no Shakyamuni who has "heavenly eye communication" and "sees microorganisms in a bowl of water".
The Buddhist scriptures record a story that there is a Jain religion, and their teachings stipulate that believers are not allowed to kill, so when their disciples drink water, they must boil the water to drink, thinking that after these eighty-four thousand worms are cooked, they will not die in their stomachs, and he is not considered to be killing.
You may ask, what kind of strange logic is this? Not to die in one's own belly is not to kill? My brain was kicked by a donkey! Not surprisingly, in history, the three brothers have more strange ideas, and this logic is just a piece of cake. In short, we know that this "eighty-four thousand worms" can be proposed by them, and as for why it is proposed, it is not the article that cares.
At that time, in order to seize territory with jains, Shakyamuni's disciples went to provoke, and this Buddhist disciple said to one of Jain's disciples:
Hey, you guys say there are eighty-four thousand worms in a bowl of water, so you have to boil and drink, this idea of yours is too... It's too cerebral. Let me ask you, if one of your Jain disciples passes through the desert and is dying of thirst, and wants to see the old man of Yama, but he must drink cold water to survive, do you want to boil the water and drink it, or do you take the cold water and drink it directly to him?
The Jain disciple had never encountered this question, did not know how to answer it, and was a little depressed, so he asked the Buddhist disciple: How did your master Shakyamuni explain it?
Shakyamuni, who was standing nearby, replied, "Well, I only take the Middle Way."
Shakyamuni meant that things should not be extreme, but should be at ease with the situation, and if you encounter an inconvenient situation, such as a believer is about to die, there is no need to cook it and drink it because there are tens of thousands of worms in the bowl.
It turns out that this is how the allusion to the so-called 84,000 worms came from, and has nothing to do with "the Buddha had heavenly eyes and knew everything."
Lu Zhi drank deeply, and did not care how many worms were in the bowl.
Taking a step back ten thousand steps, even if Shakyamuni says "eighty-four thousand worms," it is only an allusion, a metaphor, which at best is a philosophical speculation and does not equal scientific facts and scientific evidence.
There are also Buddhists who like to say the so-called "one flower, one world" cloud.
This sentence is not very strong, and a five- or six-year-old child can also fantasize that the universe is the cell of a living body. It is useless to come up with "concepts", but also to conform to mathematical models and experimental methods. Otherwise, it will never be a scientific theory. Casually in the air, he said: Ten thousand years later, the earth and the moon will be built between the earth and the moon, then, if there is really a space passage between the day and the moon, is it the "father of the space channel"?
The so-called "one flower, one world" and "the universe is a cell" are, at best, unfounded, metaphysical speculations. But speculation cannot be equated with scientific theory, as Professor Tian Song said: We give priority to Copernicus in proposing the "heliocentric theory", not to Aristak in ancient Greece; to Dalton in proposing "atomism", not to Liukiber or Democritus. There is a world of difference between speculation and scientific theory.
As for what "Buddha said there are three thousand worlds", what is so rare? In fact, authoritative religious scholars have long verified:
With the concept that the universe has countless multiple dimensions, which is not original to Buddhism, india's early Brahmanism has a similar record, if the Brahmanical holy scripture "Bhagavad Gita" has been said that "the whole universe is divided into countless groups, aggregated into one", and later Buddhism only put forward the hypothesis of "three thousand worlds" on this basis.
As for the Buddhist cosmology, it has nothing to do with science and is mostly superstitious and absurd.
The Chang'aHan Sutra, volume XVIII, "Yan Fu Ti Zhou Pin" records: "The center of our 'one world' is Mount Meru, which is long and columnar, but the two ends are large and the middle is small, and this mountain is directly into the sea, with 672,000 kilometers of water and 672,000 kilometers of water, (1 is equivalent to 80 miles). It turned out that this "Mount Meru" was not half as big as the sun. He also said: "The world is supported by five wheels, from bottom to top: the wind formed on the void forms the "wind wheel"; the wind wheel floats with golden clouds, and the clouds give birth to rain, and the "water wheel" is integrated. The water condenses into a golden wheel, on which floats soil, is the "earth wheel". In the middle of the earth stands Mount Meru. Moreover, the twenty-second volume of the Chang'a Han Sutra and the twelfth book of the Century Sutra say that the sun is actually a palace, and it still revolves around the earth. The sun's city is 2,040 miles, and the moon's city is 1,960 miles each. The throne of the "Sun King" is 20 miles around, surrounded by countless gods. The light emitted by the "Sun King" shines through the palace and the castle to the earth. The moon's castle is square, and it looks round from a distance. The "Moon King" sat in the Seven Treasures Palace in The Square 20, and there were also countless celestial gods retinues. The inside and outside of the moon are very clear, and the light shines far away. Because the moon is obscured by a cyan sky, it looks round and missing. In the "Buddhist scriptures", it is clearly stated that the orbit of the sun changes every 6 months, which is the "cosmic reality" of the Buddhist buddhist scriptures! In the "Buddhist scriptures", it is clearly preached that there was the earth first, then there were human beings, and then there was a "great storm" that blew into the large sea water at a depth of 6,720,000 miles, floating out of the sun and the moon, and rotating around "Mount Meru". Similar ancient Indians' whimsy abounded in Buddhist scriptures.
Kidnapping science to prove Buddhism is a matter of cut-and-foot and logical sophistry.
The misunderstanding of Buddhism compared to the scientific method is that some scientists first put on the subjective glasses of faith, and in the process of their "research", they have consciously or unconsciously automatically filtered out the claims in the Buddhist scriptures that seriously contradict modern scientific concepts.
For example, in the Buddhist cosmic mythology, there are still "nine mountains and eight seas", "four major continents", and even the four heavenly kings, thirty-three days, etc. with Mount Meru as the center of the world, which obviously do not match the number of modern astronomy at all.
For another example, in Mr. Zhu Qingshi's view, "string theory" does have a certain degree of similarity with the Buddhist theory of "Raye dependent arising", as to how high the similarity is, the author has limited knowledge of contemporary theoretical physics and has no intention of asserting. However, it is said that Professor Zhu should know that there are four theories of dependent arising in different Buddhist schools, in addition to "Raya dependent arising", there are also "karmic dependent arising", "Rulai Tibetan dependent arising" and "Dharma dependent arising", and what is the relationship between the other three and "string theory"? At the very least, the "extremely subtle" theory of all the Buddhists we mentioned earlier that says that there is a part of "my void law has" is probably difficult to match this "string theory" no matter how you look at it.
In other words, the "similarity" between the science and Buddhism they are talking about is not really an essential similarity, but is determined by the one-sided cognitive tendency to cut enough.
In short, the spread of the contemporary erroneous concept that "Buddhism is science" not only seriously misleads the public and hinders the true popularization of the scientific spirit, but also seriously distorts and misunderstands Buddhism itself.
Author: Skeptical Explorer, Yao Binbin