https://www.scribd.com/document/379542918/Barash-Buddhist-Bio
Follow the Author
David P. Barash
Follow
Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science 1st Edition
by David P. Barash (Author)
3.9 out of 5 stars 30 ratings
3.8 on Goodreads
98 ratings
Many high-profile public intellectuals -- including "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens -- have argued that religion and science are deeply antagonistic, representing two world views that are utterly incompatible. David Barash, a renowned biologist with forty years of experience, largely agrees with them, but with one very big exception: Buddhism.
In this fascinating book, David Barash highlights the intriguing common ground between scientific and religious thought, illuminating the many parallels between biology and Buddhism, allowing readers to see both in a new way. Indeed, he shows that there are numerous places where Buddhist and biological perspectives coincide and reinforce each other. For instance, the cornerstone ecological concept -- the interconnectedness and interdependence of all natural things -- is remarkably similar to the fundamental insight of Buddhism. Indeed, a major Buddhist text, the Avatamsaka Sutra, which consists of ten insights into the "interpenetration" between beings and their environment, could well have been written by a trained ecologist, just as current insights in evolutionary biology, genetics and development might have been authored by the Buddha himself. Barash underscores other notable similarities, including a shared distrust of simple cause-and-effect analysis, an appreciation of the
"rightness" of nature, along with an acknowledgment of the suffering that results when natural processes are tampered with. Buddhist Biology shows how the concept of "non-self," so confusing to many Westerners, is fully consistent with modern biology, as is the Buddhist perspective of "impermanence." Barash both demystifies and celebrates the biology of Buddhism and vice versa, showing in a concluding tour-de-force how modern Buddhism --shorn of its hocus-pocus and abracadabra -- not only justifies but actually mandates both socially and environmentally "engaged" thought and practice.
Buddhist Biology is a work of unique intellectual synthesis that sheds astonishing light on biology as well as on Buddhism, highlighting the remarkable ways these two perspectives come together, like powerful searchlights that offer complementary and stunning perspectives on the world and our place in it.
Editorial Reviews
Review
"I'm skeptical of attempts to reconcile religion with science. At worst the two are incompatible. At best the reconciliation seems superfluous: why bother, why not just go straight for the science? But if you must essay this difficult reconciliation, Buddhism is surely religion's best shot, at least in the atheistic version espoused by David Barash. And the task is an uphill one, so you'd better pick a very good writer to attempt it. David Barash, by any standards, is certainly a very, very good writer." -- Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion
"Most atheists turn from religion with emotions between disdain and relief. Not so David Barash. He is convinced that traditional Western religions fall because they are refuted by modern science, especially in the evolutionary realm of which he is a master. Nevertheless, in Buddhism he finds deep insights about human nature and our obligations to others and to our environment. Barash is sometimes wrong, and sometimes even irritating. But as this provocative and stimulating book shows, he is never boring." -- Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University and Editor of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolution
"All who are motivated to search for life's meaning will be stimulated and guided by David Barash's exploration of similarities and differences between Buddhism as a philosophy and modern evolutionary biology. He demonstrates that combining modern biology with that ancient philosophy can yield a deep and satisfying foundation for enjoying a world that does not care about us." -- Gordon Orians, Former President of the Ecological Society of America
Mentioned in the Wall Street Journal.
"Barash's volume is a fascinating personal manifesto, full of humor and intellectual historical references that mark an exploration of Buddhism from the perspective of a trained scientist embedded in Western culture." --The Quarterly Review of Biology
"The discourse on Buddhism and science has mainly engaged the former with physics, psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Trained as a biologist, Barash brings a new perspective with a focus on ecology and evolution." --Religious Studies Review
About the Author
David P. Barash, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington. A long-time evolutionary biologist as well as an aspiring Buddhist, he has been involved in the development of sociobiology as well as the field of Peace Studies, and is the author or co-author of 33 books.
Product details
Publisher : Oxford University Press; 1st edition (December 2, 2013)
Language : English
Hardcover : 216 pages
Customer Reviews:
3.9 out of 5 stars 30 ratings
David P. Barash
David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist (Ph.D. zoology, Univ. of Wisconsin) and professor of psychology emeritus at the University of Washington. He has written, co-authored or edited 41 books, dealing with various aspects of evolution, animal and human behavior, and peace studies. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and has received numerous awards. He is most proud, however, of his very personal collaboration with Judith Eve Lipton, his three children, five grandchildren, and having been named by an infamous rightwing nut in his book "The Professors" as one of the "101 most dangerous professors" in the United States. His dangerousness may or may not be apparent from his writing!
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
David B Richman
4.0 out of 5 stars An Interesting Take on Biology and BuddhismReviewed in the United States on April 30, 2015
Verified Purchase
David Barash is a surprising individual. He would have been the last person I would have expected to write a book on Buddhist philosophy, but in "Buddhist Biology" he has tackled one of the most difficult questions posed by life - how should one live? based on an amalgam of science and Buddhist philosophy. I am a biologist who is sympathetic to the Buddhist view, especially as expressed in Zen, so I found this argument to be quite interesting. The fact is, given what we know about how life evolved, we are somewhat at sea in devising a reason for our existence. Most people cling to some sort of theology or other, even if it is a state-sponsored worship of a personality, to give meaning to their lives. I'm inclined to believe, with the existentialists, that we have to make that meaning for ourselves, but it is not always an easy thing to do. In this book Barash explores the problem invoking a non-theistic form of Buddhism (most Buddhists don't get too hung up on gods, although in some traditions they exist) and biology. In my mind he mostly succeeds in his quest and I found the book to be well-written and based on a deep understanding of the problems involved.
I recommend this book as a exploration of the interface between science and philosophy. Well worth the read, even if one disagrees with Barash!
6 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
M. Miller
5.0 out of 5 stars I tried to explain the amazing convergence between these two world views without successReviewed in the United States on October 29, 2014
Verified Purchase
I am a retired biology teacher and a committed Buddhist (also past teacher). I tried to explain the amazing convergence between these two world views without success. Barash has absolutely succeeded in showing this wonderful connection in a well written and enjoyable style. I wish everyone seriously interested in Buddhism would read this book. The Buddha did not teach mysticism. He taught about life here on this planet which is, after all, based in biology.
5 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
Sally Malanga
5.0 out of 5 stars ... reading David's book with all its literary references and wonderful stories and explanationsReviewed in the United States on December 24, 2014
Verified Purchase
In reading David's book with all its literary references and wonderful stories and explanations, I developed a new view of the universe from where I stand as a human being. We don't exist apart from all other living beings. Animals, I always cared about, but I have even more reverence for every other living being that co-exists with us. I am reading this book for the second time.
One person found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
Swamiwilly
5.0 out of 5 stars useful insights for living an engaged and meaningful life.Reviewed in the United States on August 8, 2014
Verified Purchase
The scientifically confirmed profound interconnectedness of all things; the human mind - the result of evolution - capable of a measure of freedom unlike anything else; and the modern transcendence of solitary enlightenment in favor of enlightened activism are some of the themes discussed and revealed in this well written book. I liked it better than most of the other books trying to explain the neuroscience of awakened living.
6 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
C. kane
4.0 out of 5 stars makes me thinkReviewed in the United States on November 16, 2015
Verified Purchase
i'm enjoying reading this book; it's very technical so i'm having to read it very slowly; it raises excellent points and makes me think
HelpfulReport abuse
Frequent Customer
2.0 out of 5 stars The Buddhist Biology connection is not illuminatingReviewed in the United States on February 1, 2017
Verified Purchase
Much Buddhism, not much biology. Author seems to thing Buddhism "validates" or prefigures current biological concepts. Example: Buddhist notion of connectedness and ecological concepts. The author also seems somewhat full of himself "It is my view, and I am confident Buddha would agree..." Not an enlightening book. Best gotten from your local library to see if it fits your needs.
4 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
chinh
4.0 out of 5 stars Four StarsReviewed in the United States on June 11, 2015
Verified Purchase
great analysis of complex issues; some editing needed.
HelpfulReport abuse
Louis Henry
4.0 out of 5 stars Four StarsReviewed in the United States on January 9, 2015
Verified Purchase
It made sense to me.
One person found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Translate all reviews to English
PG
5.0 out of 5 stars beautifully written and very informative even for someone who knows ...Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 28, 2017
Verified Purchase
This is an outstanding book, beautifully written and very informative even for someone who knows a bit about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism! It's filled with many fascinating observations and scholarly insights - you will learn all kinds of things from the Buddhist view of emptiness to the way Cholera changes your gut to advance itself.
Report abuse
Kindle Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Five StarsReviewed in the United Kingdom on January 21, 2015
Verified Purchase
Just up my sons street
Report abuse
ralunicol
3.0 out of 5 stars plutôt cool mais sans autreReviewed in France on July 24, 2022
Verified Purchase
Ecrit sur le modèle du physicien F Capra "le Tao et la physique".
Plutôt philosophique ...
Report abuse
Translate review to English
Cheryl Sacamano
4.0 out of 5 stars Four StarsReviewed in Canada on August 31, 2014
Verified Purchase
very interesting!
Report abuse
charles kodikara
5.0 out of 5 stars A GUID TOBUDDHISM AND BIOLOGY.Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 3, 2014
Verified Purchase
WELL WRITTEN BOOK BY A WESTERN BIOLOGIST. AN ATHEIEST LIKE RIHARD DOKINS SEEMS ADMIT IT. IT SEEMS DAWKINS DID NOT SEE THAT BUDDHISM IS NONTHEISTIC.BOOK GIVES GUIDENCE TO UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY AND BUDDHISM.
Chas HERBERT kODIKARA
Report abuse
==
Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science
David Philip Barash
3.79
98 ratings12 reviews
Many high-profile public intellectuals-such as the well-known "New Atheists" Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens-have argued that religion and science are highly antagonistic, two views of the world that are utterly incompatible. David Barish, a renowned biologist with thirty years of experience, largely agrees with them-with one very big exception. And that exception is Buddhism.
In this fascinating book, David Barash highlights an intriguing patch of common ground between scientific and religious thought, illuminating the many parallels between biology and Buddhism, allowing readers to see both in a new way. Indeed, he shows that there are numerous places where the Buddhist and biological perspectives coincide. For instance, the cornerstone ecological concept--the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things--is remarkably similar to the fundamental insight of Buddhism. Indeed, a major Buddhist text, the Avatamsaka Sutra-which consists of ten insights into the "interpenetration" between beings and their environment-could well have been written by a trained ecologist. Barash underscores other similarities, including a shared distrust of simple cause-and-effect analysis, a recognition of life as transient and as a "process" rather than permanent and static, and an appreciation of the "rightness" of nature along with a recognition of the suffering that results when natural processes are tampered with. After decades of removing predators to protect deer and elk herds, ecologists have belatedly come to a Buddhist realization that predation--and even forest fires--are natural processes that have an important place in maintaining healthy ecosystems.
Buddhist Biology sheds new light on biology, Buddhism, and the remarkable ways the two perspectives come together, like powerful searchlights that offer complementary and valuable perspectives on the world and our place in it.
216 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
This edition
Format
216 pages, Hardcover
Published
December 2, 2013 by Oxford University Press, USA
ISBN
9780199985562 (ISBN10: 0199985561)
Language
English
More editions
Book Cover
Kindle Edition
Oxford University Press, USA
2013
Book Cover
Paperback
Oxford University Press, USA
2017
Book Cover
Audio CD
Audible Studios on Brilliance Audio
2015
More information
Book statistics
Fewer details
10 people are currently reading
404 people want to read
About the author
Profile Image for David Philip Barash.
David Philip Barash
37 books58 followers
Follow
David P. Barash is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington, and is notable for books on Human aggression, Peace Studies, and the sexual behavior of animals and people. He has written approximately 30 books in total. He received his bachelor's degree in biology from Harpur College, Binghamton University, and a Ph.D. in zoology from University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1970. He taught at the State University of New York at Oneonta, and then accepted a permanent position at the University of Washington.
His book Natural Selections: selfish altruists, honest liars and other realities of evolution is based on articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education and published in 2007 by Bellevue Literary Press. Immediately before that was Madame Bovary's Ovaries: a Darwinian look at literature, a popular but serious presentation of Darwinian literary criticism, jointly written with his daughter, Nanelle Rose Barash. He has also written over 230 scholarly articles and is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, along with many other honors.
In 2008, a second edition of the textbook Peace and Conflict Studies co-authored with Charles P. Webel was published by Sage. In 2009, Columbia University Press published How Women Got Their Curves and Other Just-So Stories, a book on sex differentiation co-authored with Judith Eve Lipton. This was followed in 2010 by Strange Bedfellows: the surprising connection between sex, evolution and monogamy published by Bellevue Literary Press, and, in 2011, Payback: why we retaliate, redirect aggression and seek revenge, coauthored with Judith Eve Lipton and published by Oxford University Press. His book Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary puzzles of human nature appeared in 2012, also published by Oxford University Press, and in 2013, Sage published the 3rd edition of his text, Peace and Conflict Studies.
Show more
Readers also enjoyed
Page 1 of 7
Filters
Displaying 1 - 10 of 12 reviews
Profile Image for Vince Darcangelo.
Vince Darcangelo
14 books
·
19 followers
Follow
December 28, 2013
http://ensuingchapters.com/2013/12/27...
Forgive me a nostalgia trip to 1994, when alt-jazz rockers Soul Coughing released their debut album Ruby Vroom. The lead track was “Is Chicago, Is Not Chicago,” a hypnotic, oddly existential number allegedly inspired by a bad acid trip in which singer Mike Doughty must distinguish between himself and his surroundings.
It made for a great song, but any biologist will tell you it doesn’t hold up to modern science. Or, for that matter, not-so-modern philosophy.
But Doughty was working toward something significant in that trippy little tune: Where does the “I” end and the “everything else” begin?
It may very well be at the intersection of science and spirituality, according to scientist and self-described Buddhist atheist David P. Barash, author of the brilliant Buddhist Biology.
He admits at the beginning that his goal is an ambitious one: to locate common ground where science and spirituality may coexist. Whereas the Abrahamic religions have long been at odds with science, he argues that Buddhist thought is compatible with high school textbooks.
“Why? Because among the key aspects of Buddhism, we find insistence that knowledge must be gained through personal experience rather than reliance on the authority of sacred texts or the teachings of avowed masters, because its orientation is empirical rather than theoretical, and because it rejects any conception of absolutes.” (18)
That is to say, it allows for the scientific method.
Barash eloquently connects the principles of anatman (not-self), anitya (impermanence) and pratityasamputpada (interdependence) to current biological knowledge. Science has shattered the duality of the actor and the environment, and in doing so has validated thousands of years of Buddhist philosophy.
I am particularly interested in anitya, which leads us into discussions regarding the illusion of time and motion. In considering life as a sequence of moments, Barash distinguishes between the experiencing self and the remembering self (which is similar to Sartre’s Pre-Reflective Cogito, but don’t get me started on my boy Jean-Paul).
The main idea is that each moment is unique and temporary. Nothing lasts, except for in memory, through which we develop a narrative and impose continuity.
Now, I’ll leave the scientific explanations to Barash, as I’m not very qualified to give a proper breakdown, and only slightly more so to discuss eastern philosophy. What I am qualified to provide, though , is a recommendation of Buddhist Biology. Barash takes difficult concepts and presents them in a thoroughly readable and enjoyable narrative. You’ll learn new things, brush up on your philosophy and find it difficult to close this book.
You’ll come away with the realization that there is no distinction between Chicago and Not Chicago, Is and Is Not. There is only this moment.
Or more simply put, There Is.
existentialism
Bob Nichols
861 reviews
·
274 followers
Follow
September 19, 2015
Barash draws out the parallels between Buddhism and evolutionary theory. He argues that as life is impermanent and interconnected, there’s no permanent self. Barash then draws out the philosophical implications of these biological facts and their correspondence with Buddhist thought. As there is no biological self, he believes that humans are free to create their essence. Aligned with Sartre this way, Barash refers to his worldview as “existential bio-Buddhism.”
The impermanence of life is clear enough for those who are non-believers, but Barash pushes his other two themes to untenable extremes. First, as genes mutate over time and as we’re modified by our culture, experience, and ideals, Barash argues that there’s no self. But the other side of that argument is that we have inherent temperaments and dispositions that substantially influence what we do and even what we ought to do (i.e., to be “true” to ourselves). These differences can be seen early on in children, though many dispute that. Darwin began his “Origins of the Species” with a discussion of domestic breeding practices to create desired traits and its not clear why we would not have an inherited temperament as well that would constitute some sort of biological self. Even Barash himself lapses into language here and there that supports a notion of a permanent self. Evolution is “callously indifferent to anything but self and gene betterment,” he writes. Kin selection is about an “extended genetic self.” And, he wants us to control “our nature as contained in our genes.” What might these selves and this nature be if we are, in his Buddhistic terms, “not self”?*
In evolutionary terms, we are transformed through time, but what is it, exactly, that is transformed? If it is the replication impulse operating blindly, that still begs a larger question: replication favors certain behaviors and ways to go about the business of survival, in which case would these not be predisposed character patterns? Could it be that we have both a permanent self that essentially defines who we are and a variable self that fills underlying biological form with specific, cultural and experiential content? If we are fearful about death, for example, we can create various paths to eternity beyond death (e.g., Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism [later versions]).
Second, while we are interconnected with cosmic dust and energy it’s a stretch to say we can be (should be?) connected to it through some form of universal attachment. Given the variability that goes with Darwinian evolution, it’s likely as Barash believes that many are inherent nurturers with the capacity (via mirror neurons?) to identify with the plight of other humans, and even in some cases with life itself. But, acknowledging the obvious, it’s also likely that many are indifferent to the good of the whole and care (and can care) only about the self.
Third, Barash says biology can provide us with no ethical guidelines because of the naturalistic fallacy. Even if we could, he writes that the natural world does not provide “a model of how human beings ought to behave.” “It does no such thing,” he writes, because nature “is neither pleasant nor moral.” And so, Barash removes biology from his prescriptive theory. Going back to Plato,** he argues that we use reason to create our own essence and meaning. Well, in a way, that’s what Stalin and Hitler did. Of course, we can say that we are free to do X, but with Schopenhauer we can ask why choose X over Y? What does reason push off from? What direction do we go?
This is where underlying biological structures that form behavior take on a new significance. What might these biological structures contain? Sure, there’s ego and self-interest and all of that, but there are also those social instincts that make us compassionate, cooperative and considerate, at least for our own “tribe.”*** Even deeper, where do freedom and equality and justice come from if not our biology? Could it be that our need to survive is all about freedom, not only to seek what we need but to defend ourselves against threats to our freedom? Isn’t equality about our need to defend against imposition? Even if we are not inherent nurturers, we can even see that, as a pragmatic matter, and as a deduction from our biological need to be free, mutual respect is necessary to avoid disorder and harm for our own interests.
As a final point, Barash has to engage in a substantial reinterpretation of Buddhist thinking to make it work with biology. Early Buddhism was about withdrawing from the world whereas Barash wants it to be about our engagement with it. And, as another example, he reinterprets reincarnation to mean the literal recycling of our bodies at death. Barash calls his version Buddhism 2.0, which stands in contrast with what others see as the real Buddhism (version 1.0). Biology can stand on its own ground and talk about self, impermanence and interconnectedness in meaningful philosophical ways without redefining Buddhism in this way.
*Also, in a recent book review, Barash writes that sexual reproduction creates “genetic diversity.” Presumably, variability applies to temperament-behavior traits as well as physical traits. The topic of diversity, including variability of temperament and disposition, is covered extensively by Darwin’s associate, George John Romanes, in his “Mental Evolution in Animals” (1884). In writing this book, Romanes relied heavily on Darwin’s research notes.
** Barash uses Plato’s “Laws” to make a point that we use “reason” to reclaim our independence and our unique status as autonomous ‘entities.’ This is interesting as Plato’s divine, eternal, spiritual “reality” is everything that Barash opposes (Barash calls any belief in a spiritual world “a fairy tale”) and Plato’s “rationality” is about understanding that world and how to access it. And, except for an enlightened few, Plato’s “Laws” was about control of the populace, not its autonomy.
***Since we have no essence, Barash denies our biologically-based social nature, yet he presumes such a nature when he urges us to love all beings. Why would we do that if there’s no motivation to do so?
1 like
3 comments
Like
Comment
Profile Image for Jeannette.
Jeannette
3 books
·
15 followers
Follow
November 19, 2014
I found the first half -- in which Barash makes a case for the congruence between Buddhism and contemporary biological science -- to be quite fascinating and provocative, so much so that I bought the book in hardcover (to augment the digital form I originally read). I want to go back and review all that he covered. It certainly raises the question: so what? If the Buddha and modern biologists agree about the basic nature of life in the universe, what does that imply secular humanists (and students of biology) about how to live in that universe? I found Barash's suggestions in the second half to be less than electrifying, if interesting. But for the first time in my life, I'd like to learn more about Buddhism, thanks to him.
1 like
Like
Comment
Profile Image for Benjamin Felser.
Benjamin Felser
69 reviews
·
4 followers
Follow
January 1, 2021
Really compelling idea, but very dry and disjointed delivery. Felt like a he went along a buffet of science to choose what best aligned with Buddhist ideas. While I agree with much of what he says, I also feel he missed out on the opportunity to address that we don’t NEED science to validate Buddhism, as it as a system itself should be self-validating. Our system of western science can provide additional context and interrelate with it, but it is not necessary to prove Buddhism is “true” (as another writer has put it). Generally includes a broad array of relatively recent science as it pertains to inter being, delusion of selfhood, and origins of suffering.
1 like
Like
Comment
Forest
8 reviews
Follow
October 24, 2021
I really wanted to like this book - I love biology, and I'm interested in Buddhism. Unfortunately, I could barely make it through the first 30 pages, which Barash uses to detail all the ways that biology and Buddhism differ. This was a weirdly negative way to open a book specifically about the ways that they are similar!
The way Barash talks about certain Buddhist beliefs and traditions as "wacky" if they don't have a basis in modern Western science struck me as arrogant and racist. As another reviewer put it, Buddhism doesn't need to be corroborated by science in order to be valid.
Like
Comment
Profile Image for Rhea.
Rhea
244 reviews
·
2 followers
Follow
July 23, 2017
I guess I don't know this for certain, but it seems like a nice way to introduce Buddhism. Not being Buddhist, I can't say for sure. Would a Buddhist or a religious expert care to comment?
I went into this more expecting The Universe in a Single Atom but it's not exactly the same thing. It's similar, but it's not really: "the same book, but biology". So keep that in mind.
science
1 comment
Like
Comment
Profile Image for Fenton Kay.
Fenton Kay
13 books
·
11 followers
Follow
December 23, 2019
This is an interesting look at an approach to being a biologist. If I were young and just starting in the field, I would probably find the author's approach of interest and might even follow some of his leads. However, I'm a long-time already retired biologist.
====
Western Buddhist Review
Buddhism, Biology, Interconnectedness
On Fri, 7 March, 2014 - 12:15
Dhivan Thomas Jones
In this post I present a fine review by Ratnaprabha of a new book on the meeting of Buddhism and Biology - Dhivan.
David P. Barash, Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science, Oxford University Press USA, New York, 2014. 224pp., £20 hback, also available as ebook.
Review by Ratnaprabha
Through the nineteenth century, Western science gradually disengaged itself from Christian religion, and scientists set themselves up as rivals to churchmen in interpreting the world. Nevertheless, religion remains a force in our culture, and some scientists detect a spiritual vacuum in their own hearts, turning back in hope towards religious traditions, at least for their own personal solace. Yet to answer one set of needs through a religious allegiance, and a separate set of needs through the discipline of science leaves a frustrating split, despite Stephen Jay Gould’s recommendation that the two should be confined to ‘non-overlapping magisteria’.[1] David Barash joins the club of those scientists wanting science and religion to be at least on speaking terms with each other, better still to marry. His arranged bride for science is Buddhism.
Thus he proposes a ‘Science Sutra… [in which] not-self, impermanence, and interconnectedness are built into the very structure of the world, and all living things – including human beings – are no exception.… It can help animate – more precisely, humanise – this otherwise cold and dreadful skeleton of rattling bones’ (pp.27-8; the image of science as a rattling skeleton is from Bertrand Russell).
Barash is a psychology professor at the University of Washington who has been active in the field of peace studies, but by training he is an evolutionary biologist, and it is biology in particular that he wishes to give a Buddhist flavour. He is an avuncular and jaunty writer, and this being his 33rd book, you can see that his publishers give him some leeway. He admits that they wanted him to discard altogether a chapter that tries to add existentialism to the mix, and they’ve left him to his own devices to the extent that the Buddhist sections are riddled with, mainly minor, errors of fact and spelling. As for science, he discusses genetics, ecology and neuroscience as well as evolution, and he is on pretty firm ground here, though some mistakes do creep in – including the howler that Newton discovered the second law of thermodynamics (p.58).
An enthusiastic Buddhist for most of his life, Barash’s chief inspiration is the Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh. Thus, along with impermanence and non-self, the main Buddhist concept he wishes to apply to his biology is interconnectedness, all things linked in a dance of mutual dependence, a teaching that Thich Nhat Hanh adapts for modern audiences from Chinese Hua Yen Buddhism. Ecology, too, demonstrates that organisms and their environments constitute a net of mutual dependence.
Buddhist teachings argue that anything which depends for its state on external factors must change when those conditioning factors change (anitya), and if no part of that thing is immune from dependencies, then to identify any essential protected nucleus of self must be mistaken (anātman). In biology, impermanence is the rule, and evolution superimposes long-term inter-generational changes on the short-term developments undergone by every organism, so that only the genes themselves are (according to Barash) comparatively stable. My impression here is that Barash’s popular writing has not yet caught up with advances in genetics that he must surely be aware of. The gene as an almost fixed sequence of bases in DNA that codes for some detectable feature of an organism is only one component of inheritance. Genes interact in complex ways determined partly by environmental influences, events can switch genes on and off according to circumstances, and survival-enhancing features innovated by a parent can pass to its descendants without changes to the genetic sequence. As I was reading the book, there was news of research showing that mice taught to become frightened when they smelt cherry blossom could pass that fear to offspring they had no contact with: the genetic basis of the offsprings’ smell receptors had changed as a result of their parents’ experience.[2] A process like this is termed epigenetic, and epigenetics increasingly seems to be a significant factor in evolution.
In highlighting anitya and anātman (just two of the traditional three marks), and then adding interdependence, Barash is already reframing Buddhism according to his own preferences. As well as downgrading the third mark (duḥkha, suffering), he adds pratītya samutpāda, which is indeed basic to a Buddhist understanding of human experience, though it is incorrect either to translate it or to sum it up as only interdependence. It refers to an understanding of how the apparent entities that we single out from our experience come into being and pass away, as well as how they relate with other entities in the present moment. (The Present Moment, incidentally, is the name of Barash’s campervan, named so that he can sometimes claim to be ‘in’ it).
Barash is happy to modify traditional Buddhist teachings, if the results serve the needs of his audience: modern Westerners who have confidence in the findings of science. Thus he would ditch many of the practices of Eastern Buddhists (he rather condescendingly views them as naive and superstitious), and many of the teachings of what he calls ‘originalist’ Buddhism. Someone has drawn his attention to David McMahan’s The Making of Buddhist Modernism, and since it is effectiveness and accuracy that motivate him, he is more than happy to confess that his grasp of Buddhism has come largely from the interpretations and revisions of westernised Buddhists. In fact he goes further, seeking to delineate what almost amounts to his own new religion, which he calls Existential Bio-Buddhism.
I think that this is fine, and it is very gratifying to see a popular scientist sharing an enthusiasm for Buddhism with his readers. Those whose interest is piqued can track down teachers and writers with a stronger basis in Buddhist traditions, and a deeper experience of practising them. But it is disappointing that he lacks the curiosity to further explore the aspects of Buddhism he is tempted to dismiss. (The ‘arrant nonsense’ (p.11) of rebirth, for example, he explains as a ‘silliness about [transmigration of] souls’ (p.138), and concludes that Buddhism must be ‘muddled’ to teach both rebirth and anātman.) One day, through a more daring dialogue than Barash risks, the interpenetration of Buddhism and biology is going to yield exciting fruit.
How is his biology informed by Buddhism? He uses it to speed up the defeat of essentialist and Platonic ideas in biology, and to support engagement with environmental issues, with its visions of interconnectedness and non-violence. Evolution confirms a kinship between humans and animals, hence a sense of solidarity with other forms of life, and a valuing of the natural world around us. Evolution and Buddhism also similarly agree that human beings are not special, indeed none of us as an individual ego is special either. In return, Barash is happy to contribute a conventional critique of Buddhism from a materialist scientific standpoint.
What other fruit could the dialogue yield? What interests me most is the mind as an evolved phenomenon. From a human point of view, which is the only viewpoint we have access to, the degree and scope of our awareness is unparalleled in the natural world. Somehow we have come to the ability to reflect on our own experience, sometimes holding the stream of our consciousness in the illumination of mindful awareness. And we can enhance our level of consciousness through working on the mind with the mind. Perhaps as a consequence of this reflexivity, we seem largely trapped in a sense of separation from the world, a subjective me peering out at its hostile or alluring surroundings, always other. The teaching of pratītya samutpāda states that this consciousness is dependently arisen, i.e. we can come to comprehend the evolutionary processes which gave rise to human consciousness, and thus understand our own minds better.
I feel that this understanding will not be well served by insisting on a materialist standpoint, as Barash and most scientists of standing do at present. Materialism seems to me to be primarily the rotting corpse of an old European debate, a debate that concluded first that mind and matter were two entirely distinct substances, and later that matter was the one real substance that made up everything in the universe, so that mind is nothing but patterns of electrical and chemical processes in the brain. The three truths that Barash imports from Buddhism – impermanence, not self, and pratītya samutpāda – undermine such strict bifurcations as that between mind and matter. And I would say that honest reflection on experience doesn’t allow one to agree that awareness is illusory. Like the objective world, the subjective or “inside” pole of experience must have arisen through law-governed causal sequences that can be understood. This is true of the whole range of minds found amongst animals, human and nonhuman, as well as this particular fleeting event of awareness that is my present moment. Buddhism wants to find evolutionary explanations (using the term ‘evolution’ in a general sense, not just as Darwinian natural selection). Buddhism has an evolutionary vision, as does biology. Biology is particularly interested in the evolutionary history of consciousness, Buddhism teaches its evolutionary potential, the further development of consciousness through contemplative methods.
Once mind or awareness is taken seriously as a genuine (though not substantial) phenomenon, we could consider its importance in the lives of animals as well as humans. It has arisen through evolution by natural selection: did its presence have any effects on the process of evolution? (Recall interdependence.) One possibility is through the Baldwin Effect, whereby innovative behaviours by animals (and behaviours have a mental origin) can propel them into new environmental niches where fresh selection pressures apply. For example, the Galapagos finches which now instinctively use cactus thorns to extract larvae from tree branches could not have started with a mutation for the behaviour – it is far too complex – they must have started with the novel behaviour, then passed it on through learning, until its different components were gradually selected for in the genes.[3]
Then there is the last of the three marks, duḥkha or suffering. Entrenched views don’t just inhibit scientific progress, they may also inhibit compassion, and even promote antisocial practices in science, from cruelty to animals to environmental destruction and involvement in the technology of warfare. I think that an acceptable ethical framework, to be discussed and adopted by scientific communities, has its most likely origin in Buddhist ethics, a natural ethics based in intention and the consequences of behaviour rather than in scriptural commandments. Currently, scientists tend to govern their work with one eye on the law and the other on public opinion, but with little genuinely humanitarian ethical guidance.
Barash gives the impression of being an ethical man, and perhaps in a future work he will attempt to apply Buddhist ethics to his science. It may be for others to investigate how a fresh view of mental processes and their role in evolution, stimulated by Buddhism, could open up new avenues of research, as well as more creative ways of interpreting experimental results. More generally, Buddhism suggests a very open and provisional approach to concepts such as the gene, the species, and the individual organism. Constant reminders of impermanence, not-self, and pratītya samutpāda could release the creativity of scientists when they are entrenched in the ‘normal science’ stage of struggling to fit research results into outdated theories, unwilling to let go of time-honoured biological concepts.
I would recommend Buddhist Biology to readers whose main allegiance is with science. It provides a friendly and engaging tourist guide to some of the features of Buddhism. We natives may chuckle at the guide’s simplifications and inaccuracies, but he points out impermanence, not self and interconnectedness; he shows how they apply to the biological sciences; and so he gives an authentic impression of Buddhism that may lead some of his readers to investigate it more thoroughly elsewhere, and to explore its practices in their own lives.
Ratnaprabha is director of the West London Buddhist Centre, and the author of The Evolving Mind: Buddhism, Biology and Consciousness, Windhorse, 1996, and of Finding the Mind: a Buddhist View, Windhorse, 2012.
[1] Stephen Jay Gould, ‘Nonoverlapping Magisteria,’ Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16–22.
[2] http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n1/full/nn.3594.html accessed 1/1/14.
[3] D. Papineau, ‘Social learning and the Baldwin effect’, in A. Zilhão (ed.), Cognition, Evolution, and Rationality. Routledge, 2005; see also Erika Crispo, ‘The Baldwin Effect and Genetic Assimilation’, in Evolution 61.11: 2469–2479 (2007).
