Favorite Quotes:

“My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: 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.” (3)

"One of the most important philosophical insights in Buddhism comes from what is known as the theory of emptiness. At its heart is the deep recognition that there is a fundamental disparity between the way we perceive the world, including our own existence in it, and the way things actually are. In our day-to-day experience, we tend to relate to the world and to ourselves as if these entities possess self-enclosed, definable, discrete, and enduring reality. For instance, if we examine our own conception of selfhood, we will find that we tend to believe in the presence of an essential core to our being, which characterizes our individuality and identity as a discrete ego, independent of the physical and mental elements that constitute our existence. The philosophy of emptiness reveals that this is not only a fundamental error but also the basis for attachment, clinging, and the development of our numerous prejudices.

According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of instrinsic, independent existence is untenable. All things and events, whether material, mental, or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence. To possess such independent, intrinsic existence would imply that things and events are somehow complete unto themselves and are therefore entirely self-contained. This would mean that nothing has the capacity to interact with and exert influence on other phenomena." (46)

"Efectively, the notion of intrinsic, independent existence is incompatible with causation." (47)

"To a Mahayana Buddhist exposed to Nagarjuna's thought, there is an unmistakable resonance between the notion of emptiness and the new physics. If on the quantum level, matter is revealed to be less solid and definable than it appears, then it seems to me that science is coming closer to the Buddhist contemplative insights of emptiness and interdependence." (50)

"Apart from misrepresenting reality, what is wrong with believing in the independent, intrinsic existence of things? For Nagarjuna, this belief has serious negative consequences. Nagarjuna argues that it is the belief in intrinsic existence that sustains the basis for a self-perpetuating dysfunction in our engagement with the world and with our fellow sentient beings. By according instrinsic properties of attractiveness, we react to certain objects and events with deluded attachment, while towards others, to which we accord intrinsic properties of unattractiveness, we react with deluded aversion." (50)

"From the perspective of modern science, apart from the question of misrepresentation, what is wrong with the belief in the independent existence of things? [David Bohm's:] response was telling. He said that if we examine the various ideologies that tend to divide humanity, such as racism, extreme nationalism, and the Marxist class struggle, one of the key factors of their origin is the tendency to perceive things as inherently divided and disconnected. From this misconception springs the belief that each of these divisions is essentially independent and self-existent. Bohm's response, grounded in his work in quantum physics, echoes the ethical concern about harboring such beliefs that had worried Nagarjuna, who wrote nearly two thousand years before." (51)

"And the world is made up of a network of complex interrelations. We cannot speak of the reality of a discrete entity outside the context of its range of interrelations with its environment and other phenomena, including language, concepts, and other conventions. Thus, there are no subjects without the objects by which they are defined, there are no objects without subjects to apprehend them, there are no doers without things done. There is no chair without legs, a seat, a back, wood, nails, the floor on which it rests, the walls that define the room it's in, the people who constructed it, and the individuals who agree to call it a chair and recognize it as something to sit on. Not only is the existence of things and events utterly contingent but, according to this principle, their very identities are thoroughly dependent upon others." (64)

"What we do and think in our own lives, then, becomes of extreme importance as it affects everything we're connected to." (69)

"Modern cosmology - like so much else in the physical sciences - is founded on Einstein's theory of relativity. In cosmology, astronomical observations taken together with the theory of general relativity, which reformulated gravity as the curvature of both space and time, have shown that our universe is neither eternal nor static in its current form. It is continuously evolving and expanding. This finding accord with the basic tradition of the ancient Buddhist cosmologists, who conceived that any particular universe system goes through stages of formation, expansion, and ultimately destruction." (75)

"In the 1960s background microwave radiation was detected throughout the universe; it came to be recognized as an echo, or afterglow, of the events of the big bang." (75)

"From the Buddhist perspective, the idea that there is a single definite beginning is highly problematic. If there were such an absolute beginning, logically speaking, this leaves only two options. One is theism, which proposes that the universe is created by an intelligence that is totally transcendent, and therefore outside the laws of cause and effect. The second option is that the universe came into being from no cause at all. Buddhism rejects both these options. If the universe is created by a prior intelligence, the questions of the ontological status of such an intelligence and what kind of reality it is remain." (82)

"The crux of Dharmakirti's critique involves demonstrating a fundamental inconsistency he perceives in the theistic standpoint. He shows that the very endeavor of accounting for the origin of the universe in theistic terms is motivated by the principle of causality, yet - in the final analysis - theism is forced to reject this principle. By positing an absolute beginning to the chain of causation, theists are implying that there can be something, at least one cause, which is itself outside the law of causality. This beginning, which is effectively the first cause, will itself be uncaused. The first cause will have to be an eternal and absolute principle. If so, how can one account for its capacity to produce things and events that are transient? Dharmakirti argues that no causal efficacy can be accorded to such a permanent principle. In essence, he is saying that the postulation of a first cause will have to be an arbitrary metaphysical hypothesis. It cannot be proven." (83)

"Asanga asserts that the origination of the universe must be understood in terms of the principle of an infinite chain of causation with no transcendence or preceding intelligence." (84)

"These theories describe, I have been told, what Darwin himself called a "descent" into the multiplicity and complexity of all forms of life from an original simplicity. Since all living beings belong to evolutionary lineages stretching back to a common ancestor, the theory stresses the original interconnectedness of living beings in the world." (98)

"The theory of karma is of signal importance in Buddhist thought but is easily misrepresented. Literally, karma means "action" and refers to the intentional acts of sentient beings. Such acts may be physical, verbal, or mental - even just thoughts or feelings - all of which have impacts upon the psyche of an individual, no matter how minute. Intentions result in acts, which result in effects that condition the mind toward certain traits and propensities, all of which may give rise to further intentions and actions. The entire process is seen as an endless self-perpetuating dynamic. The chain reaction of interlocking causes and effects operates not only in individuals but also for groups and societies, not just in one lifetime but across many lifetimes." (109)

"Because of this indivisibility of consciousness and energy, there is a profoundly intimate correlation between the elements within our bodies and the natural elements in the outside world." (110)

"According to Buddhist Vajrayana thought, there is an understanding that our bodies represent microcosmic images of the greater, macrocosmic world." (111)

"One empirical problem in Darwinism's focus on the competitive survival of individuals, which is defined in terms of an organism's struggle for individual reproductive success, has consistently been how to explain altruism, whether in the sense of collaborative behavior, such as food sharing or conflict resolution among animals like chimpanzees or acts of self-sacrifice. There are many examples, not only among human beings but among other species as well, of individuals who put themselves in danger to save others. For instance, a honeybee will sting to protect its hive from intruders, even though the act of stinging causes it to die; or the Arabian babbler, a type of bird, will risk its own safety to warn the rest of the flock of an attack." (112)

"Why does modern biology accept only competition to be the fundamental operating principle and only aggression to be the fundamental trait of living beings? Why does it reject cooperation as an operating principle, and why does it not see altruism and compassion as possible traits for th development of living beings as well?" (114)