At my zendo, I fill the role of the ‘science guy’. The majority of our sangha are either artists, therapists, teachers, or are at least hugely interested in arts and culture. I’m more interested in evolution and quantum physics. But we all like to sit quietly in meditation. And even during our discussion sessions, no one seems to object when I bring up something from the scientific perspective (thus far, anyway). <\/p>\n
So, it seems to be my responsibility to verse myself in the literature regarding the connections and interplay between Eastern spiritual tradition and modern science. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a lot of good, thoughtful writings on that topic. There is of course Capra’s “Tao of Physics” and Lukav’s “Dancing Wu Li Masters”, but those seemed kind of mushy. They note the surface similarities between certain ancient Buddhist and Taoist doctrines and the wavy, abstract views of reality that science has developed over the past 80 years or so between relativity theory, quantum mechanics, chaos and fractal analysis, and the study of large on-going systems with their complexity, emergence and self-organization. But these authors beg the question as to whether the ancient sages were really on to something about the true nature of reality (and just how and why they gained such wisdom), or did they just get lucky in espousing a philosophy of life that worked in the world that they knew.<\/p>\n
Not long ago, I got a recommendation from a sangha member who I greatly respect regarding the writings and thoughts of a Buddhist teacher named Wes Nisker<\/a>. I checked out some of his videos and talks, and he seemed to say some insightful things. So I decided to invest a few dollars and some time in one of his books, i.e. \u201cBuddha’s Nature: A Practical Guide to Discovering Your Place in the Cosmos\u201d<\/a><\/strong>. I recently finished the book, and to be honest, Nisker turned out to be another dippy Buddhist wishful thinker. In \u201cBuddha’s Nature\u201d, Nisker focuses on modern evolutionary science and neurobiology. He zooms in on what they tell us about how our bodies and brains shape who we are and how the world looks to us. <\/p>\n Well, I’ve been interested in scientific and philosophic studies regarding the nature of human consciousness for quite a while now, so I was very hopeful that Nisker might have had something interesting to say. But I also hoped that he wouldn’t simply parrot the standard Buddhist doctrines and mix and match them with various scientific factoids so as to herald the triumph of the ancient teachers (and to vindicate those modern types like Nisker himself who have invested their lives into study of the ancient Eastern ways). <\/p>\n But of course, that is exactly what Nisker does in Buddha’s Nature. I made some notes on what he said, and I’ll share some of my reactions:<\/p>\n Nisker: \u201cThe Buddha’s Fourth Noble Truth is the most important one . . . because it tells us how to end our suffering.\u201d Is Nisker really sure that we should \u201cend our suffering\u201d? I’m not a big fan of suffering (in fact, I do my darnest to avoid it!), but would a life devoid of all suffering really be worth anything? I see suffering and joy as two essential dynamic components in our lives, a yin and yang in the Taoist fashion (as I’ve said before, I am much more sympathetic to Taoist thought than Buddhism). A life of all suffering would be a broken life (and there are too many of those, admittedly); but on the other hand, no pain, no gain. Nisker and the Buddha say that suffering is ultimately a product of desire; so we need to eliminate desire. But without desire, what are we? Robots, machines? Too much desire is certainly a bad thing, but no desire is . . . basically dead!<\/p>\n Nisker: \u201cIt is very important . . to see the principle of karma, the fact that nothing arises independently of causes and conditions.\u201d Ah yes, karma, that messy knot of ancient Buddhist magic and metaphysics that hundreds of modern gurus have tried to untangle (or sweep under the rug) through their wise words. So Nisker tried to explain it all as a matter of cause and effect, and what could be more scientific than that? Well fine, but if karma is ultimately a matter of cause and effect, then the Buddha is stuck in the 17th Century with Newton. Since the early 20th century, quantum physics has clearly established that reality, at its smallest level, is NOT completely about \u201ccauses and conditions\u201d. So, perhaps Buddhism isn’t so modernist and post-Enlightenment after all?<\/p>\n Nisker on death: \u201cRemember that death may come to you in an ordinary living moment . . . wouldn’t it be ironic if you were making some long-term plans or worrying over some trivial pursuit?\u201d Ah yes, the usual Buddhist disdain for thinking ahead, for not simply enjoying the moment \u2013 all enjoyment, all the time. The end of suffering! Well, to be honest, that just doesn’t sound like life, human life anyway. I think that we humans were made to think ahead, to plan, to integrate the future in our everyday awareness. <\/p>\n Not that we shouldn’t sometimes just take a break and savor a beautiful situation, even if it’s just a nice warm cup of tea or a ray of orange sunlight at the end of an otherwise dreary day. But being human to me means believing in time and the future. This moment is great, but it becomes unbearably sad if we know there will be no more such moments. Is that what I want to know at the \u201chour of my death\u201d? Do I want to die unbearably sad? I’d rather be planning and maybe even worrying a bit right up to the last breath. Once again, the Buddhist path to end suffering seems to offer nothing more than an eternal numbness. That seems to me the best description of what \u201cNirvana\u201d means in the Buddhist lexicon (but admittedly, Nisker doesn’t weigh in on Nirvana).<\/p>\n More Nisker on death: \u201cyou might even try looking at the upbeat or brighter side of death . . . you will no longer have to work in order to pay for shelter or to feed and fuel this particular form.\u201d That’s supposed to be amusing, I think (Nisker tries to be amusing in this book). But can you see what I’ve been saying? Buddhism seems so pessimistic about life, and offers nothing much more than numbness in its place, as an \u201cend to suffering\u201d. And Nisker just keeps on smiling in his unwavering defense of it. Just what we need, Wes Nisker’s Prayer for a Happy Death! Why is this so much better than the Catholic \u201cHappy Death\u201d<\/a> that modern types scowl at? <\/p>\n Even more Nisker on death: \u201cWhat a deep rest it will be! . . . we have nothing to fear from death but nothing \u2013 and nothing is the best thing that ever happens to us.\u201d Hey, speak for yourself, buddy. I’m with Descartes on this one: I think, therefore I am. Again, Buddhism seems so pessimistic, despite all the beatific smiles and seeming profundity with which it is presented by proselytizers like Nisker.<\/p>\n Nisker on evolution: \u201csome neuroscientists believe that we are not using the full neural capacity of our brain . . . perhaps evolution is planning ahead and the extra capacity means that we are in transition to another level of consciousness.\u201d Whoa, now! Evolution, driven by the great roll of the biophysical dice, can \u201cplan ahead\u201d? And a Buddhist saying that evolution has some sort of consciousness behind it, a consciousness seeking to transition our own human consciousness to a ‘higher level’? What happened to all the Buddhist disdain for self, the great eastern wisdom that consciousness is an insubstantial ‘aggregate’<\/a>?<\/p>\n Oh, yea, Nisker will get to that. But despite the fact that we have no selves and aren’t really conscious, Buddhist meditation moves our selves onward to greater levels of consciousness. <\/p>\n Nisker on emotions: \u201cemotions are nothing more than the feelings associated with basic survival\u201d. Hmm, Yogi Berra might like that one. Emotions are nothing more than feelings, and maybe vice versa. Got it?<\/p>\n Nisker: \u201c[Buddhist] mindfulness allows us to see that persistent mind-states are not self-created . . our basic timidity or aggressiveness comes from some other life\u201d. Some other life? Just what other life is that? This is modern science? That’s news to me.<\/p>\n Nisker: \u201cregard your personality as a pet . . . give it a name and make friends with it.\u201d This sounds a bit schizophrenic! Whatever happened to non-dualism and self-integration? Oh, that’s right, there is no self to integrate, according to the Buddha. Just an illusion. So whatever it is rattling around in our skulls making us — opps! sorry, there is no ‘us’ – making something think that it exists and think that it has a self and a personality, it might just as well separate that personality from whatever that rattling stuff is . . . Sorry, this is way too weird and dualistic for me.<\/p>\n