This week's readings from the Dalai Lama and Thurman served as an excellent conclusion to the course reading and provided many satisfying contextualizations of Buddhist teachings in the "real world."

Dalai Lama's Universe in a Single Atom demonstrates his commitment to science and his desire for a synthesis of science with Buddhism. Right away, he explains his utmost loyalty to science by saying,

"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims" (DL 3).

I was impressed by this statement, as I think it shows an admirable level of maturity on the Dalai Lama's part: Buddhist teachings were instilled in him since he was a young child, yet he would be willing to abandon any of them if science were to prove any of them to be false. Actually, the Dalai Lama sees some parallels between the scientific method and Buddhist practice, both of which place experience and reason above scripture/existing theory. Faith, whether it is in science or Buddhism, should never be entirely blind (DL 24).

He goes on to argue that both science and spirituality will be necessary to alleviate suffering on physical and psychological levels and seems to be of the belief that no amount of scientific discovery will render spirituality obsolete. Similarly, he advocates for the inclusion of human empathy in all scientific endeavors. He implores the scientific community to remember the primary goal of science--the alleviation of suffering for all--at every point in the scientific process.

For all of the Dalai Lama's dedication to science, he acknowledges certain aspects of the human experience which are beyond the scope of science. For one, it is impossible to contain questions about the meaning of life into a framework which describes humans as biological machines whose constituent parts can all be reduced down to pure, seemingly lifeless matter:

"There is more to human existence and to reality itself than current science can ever give us access to" (DL 13).

Many members of the scientific community argue that science will eventually be able to tell us everything about the universe and the human experience, and that we will continue to make incremental progress until we reach a perfectly secular society; the Dalai Lama wholeheartedly disagrees and maintains that there are certain things which science will never be able to explain (DL 38-39).

I was fascinated by the Dalai Lama's discussion of the things Buddhism can tell us about the mind. While the human body has certain maximum limitations (no amount of steroids can give us the strength to lift truly massive objects), the mind does not, according to the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama believes that the mind has limitless capacities, most importantly for compassion, and he hopes that neuroscience can help to demonstrate the expansiveness of some of these capacities. He describes how neuroscientists have taken an interest in studying the brains of highly skilled Buddhist meditators, and recounts how he had to convince those meditators that assisting the scientists would be an exercise in compassion and could lead to the reduction of suffering of others. The Dalai Lama uses attention as an example of a capacity which meditation can expand beyond its ostensible limits: while the average human attention span is a few minutes, that of skilled meditators can be hours or longer (DL 161). I am curious to see how this relationship between neuroscience/psychology and Buddhism will continue to develop as our technology and understanding improves.

I was also interested in the Dalai Lama's discussion of karma and natural law. He explains that not all events are explained by, or even related to, karma; a forest can simply catch fire as a result of a natural process, and this does not have any karmic causes or effects. Only when the forest is set on fire by an individual does the action have a relation to karma (DL 90). The Dalai Lama began to describe a link between karma and natural law, but I was a bit confused by this discussion. What exactly is the entanglement between karma and natural law, and how do they relate to each other?

koan

The final chapter, epilogue, and appendix of Inner Revolution were illuminating and relate nicely to our conversation in discussion section last week. Specifically, the appendix is an ambitious and inspiring look at what an enlightenment-based approach to government could look like. In it, Thurman provides 10 points which would create the ideal conditions for a society which have their foundations in the teachings of Buddhism. I enjoyed reading this list, and in my eyes it is a satisfying and strong proposal. I especially liked Thurman's emphasis on the fact that real and necessary change should not be considered out of reach--it should be considered easy and do-able. I think Americans have a tendency to say things like "we could never do that" when we see compassionate and effective policies in other countries. Thurman suggests that this defeatism is not the right way to approach our problems, and I think it is a compelling argument. My reservation is the question of why this type of government has not been attempted, or if it has, why it has not been able to succeed and persist (Tibet came close, yet continues to have countless atrocities committed against it which hinders its progress). Is the cool revolution which would be necessary to implement this system even possible, or is there something about human nature which will always cause us to turn to war, colonization, and genocide?