The Scientific Buddha: His Short and Happy Life
In this potent critique, a well-known chronicler of the West's encounter with Buddhism demonstrates how the Scientific Buddha's teachings deviate in crucial ways from those of the far older Buddha of ancient India. Donald Lopez shows that the Western focus on the Scientific Buddha threatens to bleach Buddhism of its vibrancy, complexity, and power, even as the superficial focus on "mindfulness" turns Buddhism into merely the latest self-help movement. The Scientific Buddha has served his purpose, Lopez argues. It is now time for him to pass into nirvana. This is not to say, however, that the teachings of the ancient Buddha must be dismissed as mere cultural artifacts. They continue to present a potent challenge, even to our modern world. (less)
Be the first to ask a question about The Scientific Buddha
After the introduction, part two describes some of the history of how Buddhism was received by the West. For example, some thought the Buddha a Black African due to the the hair style on statues. Later, William Erskine (1773-1852) compared Buddha to Epicurus. This is around the time the Buddha begin to be seen as a man rather than a god. This demythologizing and humanizing phase was an important step toward scientific acceptance. Also important, scholars began to be able to read the source texts rather than simply judge based on what they saw. Lopez also points out several influential modern texts and reformers.
Part three presents an overview of Buddhist philosophy and how the central tenet of karma is at odds with natural selection. Next, an interlude considers the place of mediation. Lastly, part four "The Death of the Scientific Buddha" wraps up the story of the Scientific Buddha as an idea born in the nineteenth century that is a "pale reflection of the Buddha born in Asia". While science was once used by Christian missionaries against Buddhism, over time Buddhism has gained more scientific support. It is the translation of meditation states into scientific data that is key, but also so far rather inconclusive.
Lopez's gloss of Buddhist philosophy can certainly be picked at, and ideally better cited. I would rather Lopez focused on the more historically relevant Nikaya Buddhism. I largely agree that often how Buddhism is presented as science compatible is dubious. Still there are a range of reasons Buddhism is seen as compatible with science and Lopez hardly touches on many of them. Of course there will be some clash since Buddhism is basically pre-scientific. But, myths still have power and meaning. And what is considered science has changed over time. "If an ancient religion like Buddhism has anything to offer science, it is not in the facile confirmation of its findings." You can skip this one unless you have interest in the development of Buddhist modernism. Just read a summary article here:
http://www.tricycle.com/special-secti... (less)
A quick thought (since I would say more about the book but only a bit now) the only substantial comparison he makes between Buddhism and science to other "religion and science" conversations is a quick superficial quip about how the interaction between Christianity and science, specifically, has been represented as one of conflict; science was born in the West precisely because of Biblical and Christian presuppositions, and the Church was long a handmaid of science as it grew - however much over time people came to - as Lopez says - *present* the relationship as one of conflict. There were other opportunities for comparison to be made in the social sciences and others; to the degree manuscript evidence matters for historical, empirical questions about "what X-teacher really taught" to then think about 'scientifically' - it matters that most of the Gospels (the main sources of "what Jesus really taught"), are evidenced within one lifetime of Jesus' death [and Resurrection, etc - so far as is claimed by Christ and by extension, Christianity]. The same can't be said of the teachings of Buddha, which vastly post-date the life of the Buddha. That does not mean anything for the truth claim value of Jesus' teachings or The Buddha or the antiquity of the sources relied on to account their teachings, but when comparing "X-religion and science" - especially where Christian critics of Buddhism early on were responsible for the birth of the "scientific Buddha" - actual comparison matters. (less)
Lopez starts from the beginning. He briefly traces the history of the West's encounters and interaction with Buddhism, from early utter misunderstanding to the invention of, as Lopez calls it, the 'Scientific Buddha', the West's idea of who the Buddha was, what he stood for and what he taught.
The Buddha of Asian tradition, Lopez shows, is not so merely human, not so scientific. There are conveniently ignored supernatural powers and associations, which place Buddhism more in-line with what we think of as religion, not science. But the Scientific Buddha, with attendant mindfulness and focus on the relief of stress (not a Buddhist preoccupation!), now nearly 200 years old, has come to supplant the Buddha of the Asian tradition in the West - and even, to some extent, in the East.
There's a good 'primer' on Buddhist meditation here, and contained in chapter 2 is one of the the clearest articulations of the Buddha's dharma I've ever read (Lopez's knows his Buddhism and can express it clearly, as previously shown in his illuminating introductions to Penguin's collection, Buddhist Scriptures, edited by Lopez). Yet the comparisons for compatibility with science aren't very enlightening and the conclusions drawn are hesitant and limited, making this a modest contribution. But it has confirmed, for me, my previous convictions that mindfulness, as it has come to be known in the West today, bears very little resemble to proper Buddhism, and I think that's an important thing for people to know. (less)
Though he states that it "is not the role of the scholar to protect, preserve, and defend the religion that he or she studies," (p. 78), he seems to be doing just that. Though there will always be orthodox or fundamentalist (I'm not equating the two) traditions, it is in the nature of all religions and philosophies and their adherents and practitioners to evolve. Of course, I think he can point out where new innovations might be in conflict with traditional doctrines, but at times, his writing seems more polemical than historical.
But this demonstrates that there are several Buddhisms, not one. Just as there are various forms of Christianities and other religious traditions.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting read. As always when I read non-fiction books, I would have preferred more footnotes. (less)
Looking for a simple introduction to Buddhism - try What Makes You Not a Buddhist. Looking for a simple introduction to Quantum Mechanics - try Quantum Enigma. (less)