The Scientific Buddha: His Short and Happy Life
by
3.84 · Rating details · 49 ratings · 12 reviews
This book tells the story of the Scientific Buddha, "born" in Europe in the 1800s but commonly confused with the Buddha born in India 2,500 years ago. The Scientific Buddha was sent into battle against Christian missionaries, who were proclaiming across Asia that Buddhism was a form of superstition. He proved the missionaries wrong, teaching a dharma that was in harmony with modern science. And his influence continues. Today his teaching of "mindfulness" is heralded as the cure for all manner of maladies, from depression to high blood pressure.
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)
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)
Hardcover, 168 pages
Published September 25th 2012 by Yale University Press
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
Ask the Goodreads community a question about The Scientific Buddha
Be the first to ask a question about The Scientific Buddha
This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »
Showing 1-30
This is a follow up Lopez's earlier book "Buddhism and Science". Recommend reading that first for a fuller picture of the Scientific Buddha premise. This book is a push back against a modern conception of the Buddha's teaching as the only religion compatible with science. Statements about the compatibility of Buddhism and science go back to at least to the 1860s. But, "it is clear that the Buddhism that is compatible with science must jettison much of what Buddhism has been, and is, in order to claim that compatibility."
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)
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)
This book is not what I expected to find but the history and the author's writing style got me hooked. For a while, I had fallen into the conviction that Buddhism is a Science, and that the Buddha was a Natural Philosopher - or what we used to call scientists. Well, this book challenged that very perspective, in which I naively picked up the book thinking it will confirm my own bias. The narrative that Buddhism is a Science was first introduced to the West by Buddhist elites in the 19th century as a counter-claim from Christianity's attacks on Buddhism. European missionaries asserted that science is what powers "Western civilization" - a reason for conversion - something which Buddhism lacks. Later on, as Western Orientalists learned more about Buddhism, they portrayed it as a scientific religion due to its assymetric nature with Christianity. Buddhism has no creator, it uses reason instead of faith, philosophy instead of dogma, meditation instead of prayer, and the Buddha is a human instead of a divine power. Despite all of that, equating Buddhism with Science is not only ignorant but also misleading. Buddhism as a Science is merely one perspective on a vast and ancient tradition. Ironically, that perspective was engrained by Christianity, therefore it's also a product of colonialism. Buddhism might win the contest of "which religion is the most compatible with Science", thanks largely to the Buddhist elites and Western Orientalists from the 19th century. However, it should not be the only religion that's compatible with science. It all depends on how we choose to view religion and science, for each has their own place. Whereas one can use the similarities between Buddhism and Science to further enhance one's attitude and understanding to both disciplines, one should refrain from equating both as a singular entity. One should aim to pursue both religion and science and do not take side. Like Einstein had said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". (less)
Lopez seeks to dispel the myth of the correspondence of Buddhism with any particular scientific theory, whether in neuroscience or quantum physics. He goes back to the beginning of this myth, to the 1800s of the Orientalists, and chronicles how it evolved out of colonialism and Christian missionary’s philosophical attacks on Buddhism. He similarly shows the respectability obtained for Buddhism in the West by claiming it to concord with the latest science and how that game has sometimes been played by Buddhist leaders themselves. Lopez analyzes how the Buddhist doctrine of karma was read into Darwin’s theory of evolution and shows how shoehorned that comparison was. He then goes on to survey the wildly varied Buddhist practices that have been lumped under “meditation” in the West, and argues for a better understanding of what neuroscience can and cannot tell us about this practices. Lastly, he makes the argument for recognizing the value of the Buddhist insights on the human mind regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the latest science. (less)
This series of expertly researched and argued essays has broadened my understanding of the Wellness Proliferation. This slow building movement to remove all that was 'unscientific' from the Buddha's biography and champion him as almost the template of a scientist began in the late 18th century. The public perception of the Buddha, at least among many ill-informed western minds, is that he jjst helped people feel better by removing stress. Donald Lopez argues that this is not, in fact, the historical Buddha but a new hybrid figure invented by those who were uncomfortable with certain truths that were not in line with the new scientific rationalism. A fascinating read. (less)
Dec 30, 2015P. Es rated it really liked it
Very enlightening read, and one I would share. I know the author doesn't intend that i leave the book feeling blanket skeptical of the value of Buddhism for more than a nice set of notions with no truth claim value that lead me to ethical, orthoprax behavior - and not simply (as he probably intended with the mind he may or may not 'have'...;-) ), cautious when engaging representations of "modern buddhisms" - but that's how I left it.
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)
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)
I picked this book up because I'd noticed I was becoming slightly annoyed at the recent and increasing proliferation of 'mindfulness', and I wanted to read what a Buddhist expert might have to say about that.
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)
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)
Oct 11, 2014Peter rated it liked it
The first part detailing the history of the interaction between the Westerners and Buddhism is quite interesting, as his explanations of basic concepts of karma and meditation. His thesis though -- that the push to make Buddhism more palatable to science and to Westerners over the past 200 years (e.g. trying to show how karma resonates with evolution, or using mindfulness meditation as a self-help technique) distorts the historical Buddha and traditional teachings of Buddhism -- seems to go too far.
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)
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)
Apr 29, 2014S. Kumar rated it did not like it
An exercise in illogic resulting from a forced attempt to connect superficial knowledge of the subject (both Buddhism and Science). Still useful if you are interested in developing an understanding of how misplaced intent can lead us astray. Conclusions drawn in the book are as valid as the theory of African origin of Buddhism.
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)
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)
Apr 26, 2013Graham rated it it was amazing
Make sure you read Lopez with a playful grin on your face, this is fun history with a point to make. It's pleasurable to see him craft such a truly original argument while telling the story of our "Scientific Buddha". This is a true cultural critique that crosses swords with both scientists and Buddhists, both historians and practitioners. Lopez gives us cause to give more serious attention to reconsidering how we approach colonials, Buddhisms (of all times and places), and the westerners who write about them; not forgetting our place in it all. (less)
Mar 23, 2014Josh rated it it was amazing
Lopez right on point, as he tends to be. A very sharp cultural critique sure to stir up emotions in those who view Buddhism as a refuge from the choice between religion and science. Dr. Lopez' prose makes for another very captivating read, and while his arguments are sure to challenge many, his extensive knowledge on history and doctrine also provides a very thorough primer into Buddhism(s) as they exist textually and culturally. (less)
