What do you think?
Rate this book
Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed
Beginning in the nineteenth century and continuing to the present day, both Buddhists and admirers of Buddhism have proclaimed the compatibility of Buddhism and science. Their assertions have ranged from modest claims about the efficacy of meditation for mental health to grander declarations that the Buddha himself anticipated the theories of relativity, quantum physics and the big bang more than two millennia ago.
In Buddhism and Science, Donald S. Lopez Jr. is less interested in evaluating the accuracy of such claims than in exploring how and why these two seemingly disparate modes of understanding the inner and outer universe have been so persistently linked. Lopez opens with an account of the rise and fall of Mount Meru, the great peak that stands at the center of the flat earth of Buddhist cosmography—and which was interpreted anew once it proved incompatible with modern geography. From there, he analyzes the way in which Buddhist concepts of spiritual nobility were enlisted to support the notorious science of race in the nineteenth century. Bringing the story to the present, Lopez explores the Dalai Lama’s interest in scientific discoveries, as well as the implications of research on meditation for neuroscience.
Lopez argues that by presenting an ancient Asian tradition as compatible with—and even anticipating—scientific discoveries, European enthusiasts and Asian elites have sidestepped the debates on the relevance of religion in the modern world that began in the nineteenth century and still flare today. As new discoveries continue to reshape our understanding of mind and matter, Buddhism and Science will be indispensable reading for those fascinated by religion, science, and their often vexed relation.
In Buddhism and Science, Donald S. Lopez Jr. is less interested in evaluating the accuracy of such claims than in exploring how and why these two seemingly disparate modes of understanding the inner and outer universe have been so persistently linked. Lopez opens with an account of the rise and fall of Mount Meru, the great peak that stands at the center of the flat earth of Buddhist cosmography—and which was interpreted anew once it proved incompatible with modern geography. From there, he analyzes the way in which Buddhist concepts of spiritual nobility were enlisted to support the notorious science of race in the nineteenth century. Bringing the story to the present, Lopez explores the Dalai Lama’s interest in scientific discoveries, as well as the implications of research on meditation for neuroscience.
Lopez argues that by presenting an ancient Asian tradition as compatible with—and even anticipating—scientific discoveries, European enthusiasts and Asian elites have sidestepped the debates on the relevance of religion in the modern world that began in the nineteenth century and still flare today. As new discoveries continue to reshape our understanding of mind and matter, Buddhism and Science will be indispensable reading for those fascinated by religion, science, and their often vexed relation.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2008
13 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
Donald S. Lopez Jr.
71 books57 followersDonald Sewell Lopez, Jr. (born 1952) is the Arthur E. Link Distinguished University Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at the University of Michigan, in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures.
Son of the deputy director of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Donald S. Lopez.
Son of the deputy director of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Donald S. Lopez.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 22, 2017
Lopez does a stellar job at giving the context and complicating the assumptions behind modern interpretations and myths around Buddhism. His foray here into Buddhism and Science is particularly interesting focusing on both Western engagements and engagements in Asia and the creation of "Buddhist Modernism" in both Asia and the US through the 19th and 20th centuries and dipping into the 21st. Lopez picks representatives of Sri Lankan, Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese adaptions to science as well as Orientalist narratives about it and the current discourse around the Dalai Lama and his role in Buddhist modernism. Some has said Lopez does not let science speak for itself and capitalizes it as if it is an equal discourse on religion, but it appears to me that Lopez is pointing out that concepts of science being applied to Buddhism are not "science" as practiced at the moment and more science as abstraction divorced from practice. Strongly recommended.
September 18, 2013
I purchased this title thinking that the book compares our current understanding of science with Buddhist doctrine.
What it was really was an overview of the interaction between Buddhism and Western academics and Orientalist who sought to understand it in the 19th and 20th century.
The book comprises 5 essay each dealing with a slightly different topic. Overall I find the book balanced and well-referenced, neither polemical or apologist, although I found chapter 4 which covers the interactions between the Theosophy movement and Buddhism in the 19th century tedious and not relevant to those interested in Buddhism.
The final chapter offers tantalizing details on the scientific evaluation of meditation, however it is the shortest chapter and does not go into much detail. This was the sort of topic I was hoping the book would cover.
So this book really isn't about Buddhism and Science; a book with such a title would, to me, ideally cover the neuroscience and psychological effects of meditation (there's a good amount of literature on the effects of mindfulness therapies on depression, pain etc), and (my particular interest) how current understanding in neuroscience in relation to the construction of the self/ego relates to the Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (no-self)
The author however is a humanist and philosopher (judging by the short bio on the back cover), and what he has written is interesting, balanced and well referenced. If you're looking for a book that compares science and Buddhism, then I suggest looking elsewhere for now.
7/10
What it was really was an overview of the interaction between Buddhism and Western academics and Orientalist who sought to understand it in the 19th and 20th century.
The book comprises 5 essay each dealing with a slightly different topic. Overall I find the book balanced and well-referenced, neither polemical or apologist, although I found chapter 4 which covers the interactions between the Theosophy movement and Buddhism in the 19th century tedious and not relevant to those interested in Buddhism.
The final chapter offers tantalizing details on the scientific evaluation of meditation, however it is the shortest chapter and does not go into much detail. This was the sort of topic I was hoping the book would cover.
So this book really isn't about Buddhism and Science; a book with such a title would, to me, ideally cover the neuroscience and psychological effects of meditation (there's a good amount of literature on the effects of mindfulness therapies on depression, pain etc), and (my particular interest) how current understanding in neuroscience in relation to the construction of the self/ego relates to the Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (no-self)
The author however is a humanist and philosopher (judging by the short bio on the back cover), and what he has written is interesting, balanced and well referenced. If you're looking for a book that compares science and Buddhism, then I suggest looking elsewhere for now.
7/10
July 30, 2021
Чудова книга для знайомства із темою "Буддизм і наука". Автор добре співвідносить стиль, доступність інформації, історичні факти і власну аналітику. Щодо історії досліджень медитації, то у цьому розділі (найбільш цікавому мені) лише озвучено основні проблеми, які постають перед дослідниками, але наразі немає рішень. Також немає, по-суті, розкриття методик медитації, які найчастіше досліджують, ані згадок про інституції, які цим займаються фахово.
Історія співвідношення буддійського вчення (а часто конструкту західних популяризаторів) і науки (яка тут теж сприймається зазвичай дуже і дуже поверхнево) у книзі розкрита дуже добре.
Історія співвідношення буддійського вчення (а часто конструкту західних популяризаторів) і науки (яка тут теж сприймається зазвичай дуже і дуже поверхнево) у книзі розкрита дуже добре.
August 4, 2011
This is the first book of Lopez that I ever read. And I'm pleasantly surprised by it. Not only did it answer (at least partly) many of my questions regarding Buddhism, Science, modernization and social justices, but also it helps dispel many of the invented cultural myths around Buddhism. The interesting fact is that many of the aura surrounding Buddha were created by Western Orientalists. Such cyborgs of scientific appropriated Buddha were later re-exported back to Buddhism countries. Then Asian Buddhism apologists used and continue to use these cyborgs of Buddha in the process of modernizing Buddhism and participation of state-building enterprise. This book also impart reveals the rationale behind the continued fascination of Buddhism in the West. After all, what could be more attractive than an religion taken from the exotic east than appropriated according to the Western taste? However Lopez cautioned us that there maybe a price to pay for embracing such an ancient religion into the modern world. Exactly what is the price, is left for the reader to ponder upon.
January 13, 2011
Donald Lopez is a modern master of almost all thing Buddhist. This book should be the essential reading for anyone that wants to now about the deeper aspects of Buddhist thought. Not a light read though, which will discourage some, but do not fear, it will hook you.
July 14, 2021
I find all of Lopez's writing brilliant, and this book is no exception. Four stars only because the book is not very reader-friendly, with huge expanses of uninterrupted text and certain chapters where Lopez indulges his interests at the expense of a clearer through-line. But for those with a deep interest in Buddhist history and history of science, this book is filled with gems.
February 20, 2019
I need to reread this work. Professor Lopez is recognized English language scholar and expert on Buddhism. I have been collecting his works for several years but the range of his studies demands a lot. He deserves more focus and a greater range of his studies. Professor Lopez writes clearly but deals with complexity and speaks with authority.
April 24, 2024
A good book which I very much enjoyed. Dr. Lopez is a fun writer with all sorts of thought provoking anecdotes. I was particularly intrigued by Gendun Chopel and I'll probably check out the book he wrote about the man at some point. The long articulation of the sequences of the Tibetan visualization which begins Chapter 5 put me in the zone. When he delivered the punch line I was totally unprepared and literally burst out laughing.
All this said. I very much disagree with his central thesis.
The problem is not whether Buddhism and Science are identical, they aren't. The problem is where to draw the line. The book never gives any hints where that should happen. Instead it frets about how rationalization has gone too far. Buddhism and Empiricism are two things to be conceived of as separate and non-interacting. An irreconcilable dualism? I am hardly anywhere near as learned on Buddhism as Dr. Lopez but this seems untenable.
Even faith must have some sort of object. The protean quality of Buddhism can make that object difficult to define. This is complicated by the great variety of Buddhisms in the world which do not all agree even with respect to basic doctrine. Empiricism cannot ground the fundamentals of a faith but concessions to it are a necessary precondition to providing salient definitions of the objects to which faith refers to. The clash between empiricism and dogma cannot be resolved by absolute adherence to the latter. Some sort of synthesis is unavoidable.
He's telling on himself a bit here:
“This is not to suggest that Buddhism has an essence, as so many apologists for Buddhism and Science have sought to identify. At the same time, those who would account for the adaptability of Buddhism by recourse to some facile claim that Buddhism has always been antiessentialist run the risk of allowing Buddhism to be everything, and nothing. It is neither.”
As he himself mentions, Buddhism has changed a number of times in dramatic ways. It might be argued that it's nature as a religion is to be syncretic with preexisting spiritual signifiers (almost skillfully?). Secularized forms of Buddhism are just its latest syncretization with power. This might prove disastrous (as in medieval India) or highly propitious (as in Japan). The only thing that can be said for certain about the future of Global Buddhism is that it will continue to be diverse. The threat of secularization is overstated.
Of all my objections, perhaps my biggest gripe was Dr. Lopez's denial of historical linguistics. The Indo-European hypothesis is an empirical fact on par with the Germ Theory of Disease or General Relativity. It is a science evidenced by thousands of years of written documents showing regular sound changes. The misappropriation of it's terminology by Nazis and their conflation of language and race notwithstanding (would this argument not have some relevance to the Buddhist swastika if we are going to accept it?). This all might be fine (by the logic of the book) if there were some faith based necessity for the denial. Perhaps it clashes with the notion of Magadhi as the first language à la Theravada orthodoxy or Shingon's acclamation of Sanskrit as the uncreated language of reality? No. Indo-European is fake because it was discovered by an unsavory person. With this framing, it's even implied that Sinhala might be a Dravidian language.
With all this I sound pretty negative. I am but I'm not. The book was worth reading and I'll be sure to read more of his works.
All this said. I very much disagree with his central thesis.
The problem is not whether Buddhism and Science are identical, they aren't. The problem is where to draw the line. The book never gives any hints where that should happen. Instead it frets about how rationalization has gone too far. Buddhism and Empiricism are two things to be conceived of as separate and non-interacting. An irreconcilable dualism? I am hardly anywhere near as learned on Buddhism as Dr. Lopez but this seems untenable.
Even faith must have some sort of object. The protean quality of Buddhism can make that object difficult to define. This is complicated by the great variety of Buddhisms in the world which do not all agree even with respect to basic doctrine. Empiricism cannot ground the fundamentals of a faith but concessions to it are a necessary precondition to providing salient definitions of the objects to which faith refers to. The clash between empiricism and dogma cannot be resolved by absolute adherence to the latter. Some sort of synthesis is unavoidable.
He's telling on himself a bit here:
“This is not to suggest that Buddhism has an essence, as so many apologists for Buddhism and Science have sought to identify. At the same time, those who would account for the adaptability of Buddhism by recourse to some facile claim that Buddhism has always been antiessentialist run the risk of allowing Buddhism to be everything, and nothing. It is neither.”
As he himself mentions, Buddhism has changed a number of times in dramatic ways. It might be argued that it's nature as a religion is to be syncretic with preexisting spiritual signifiers (almost skillfully?). Secularized forms of Buddhism are just its latest syncretization with power. This might prove disastrous (as in medieval India) or highly propitious (as in Japan). The only thing that can be said for certain about the future of Global Buddhism is that it will continue to be diverse. The threat of secularization is overstated.
Of all my objections, perhaps my biggest gripe was Dr. Lopez's denial of historical linguistics. The Indo-European hypothesis is an empirical fact on par with the Germ Theory of Disease or General Relativity. It is a science evidenced by thousands of years of written documents showing regular sound changes. The misappropriation of it's terminology by Nazis and their conflation of language and race notwithstanding (would this argument not have some relevance to the Buddhist swastika if we are going to accept it?). This all might be fine (by the logic of the book) if there were some faith based necessity for the denial. Perhaps it clashes with the notion of Magadhi as the first language à la Theravada orthodoxy or Shingon's acclamation of Sanskrit as the uncreated language of reality? No. Indo-European is fake because it was discovered by an unsavory person. With this framing, it's even implied that Sinhala might be a Dravidian language.
With all this I sound pretty negative. I am but I'm not. The book was worth reading and I'll be sure to read more of his works.
March 22, 2023
AWESOME book!
November 26, 2012
Not as good as many think
Lopez does a solid job of backgrounding the century-plus of dialogue between Buddhists attempting to put their best foot forward to the West, along with some Western acolytes, and purveyors of Western science. (That said, other books cover this part of Lopez's acreage in more detail.)
From the historic overview, Lopez then looks at some specific Buddhist issues, such as meditation, or the idea of whether we can talk about a "science of Buddhism."
He does a good job of presenting Buddhist beliefs and texts in all of this, and explaining where the Buddhist approach comes from.
That said, contrary to claims that he is so academic that, like a Bart Ehrman, he in no way acts as an apologist for Buddhism, he indirectly does exactly that. And, that's where this book gets disappointing.
The dialogue or discourse Lopez presents is actually more of a monologue. Even when science gets to speak for itself, in the last and shortest chapter, on meditation. And, this is part of the book's disappointment.
Reading reviews on this site, I was hoping for more critical analysis of Buddhism's claims to be scientific, such as the Dalai Lama claiming Buddhism and science are totally compatible even as he holds onto beliefs in karma, reincarnation and other matters metaphysical and says he will never surrender those belies. Sure, Lopez tells us this is what the Dalai Lama has said, but, that's it.
Also, I do NOT like the consistent capitalization of the word "Science." To me, it seems like Lopez is implying it is itself a religion.
So, ultimately, this is a book about how Buddhism **wants to** interact with science. Except briefly in the meditation chapter, we are given little comment on the other side of the discourse.
Lopez does a solid job of backgrounding the century-plus of dialogue between Buddhists attempting to put their best foot forward to the West, along with some Western acolytes, and purveyors of Western science. (That said, other books cover this part of Lopez's acreage in more detail.)
From the historic overview, Lopez then looks at some specific Buddhist issues, such as meditation, or the idea of whether we can talk about a "science of Buddhism."
He does a good job of presenting Buddhist beliefs and texts in all of this, and explaining where the Buddhist approach comes from.
That said, contrary to claims that he is so academic that, like a Bart Ehrman, he in no way acts as an apologist for Buddhism, he indirectly does exactly that. And, that's where this book gets disappointing.
The dialogue or discourse Lopez presents is actually more of a monologue. Even when science gets to speak for itself, in the last and shortest chapter, on meditation. And, this is part of the book's disappointment.
Reading reviews on this site, I was hoping for more critical analysis of Buddhism's claims to be scientific, such as the Dalai Lama claiming Buddhism and science are totally compatible even as he holds onto beliefs in karma, reincarnation and other matters metaphysical and says he will never surrender those belies. Sure, Lopez tells us this is what the Dalai Lama has said, but, that's it.
Also, I do NOT like the consistent capitalization of the word "Science." To me, it seems like Lopez is implying it is itself a religion.
So, ultimately, this is a book about how Buddhism **wants to** interact with science. Except briefly in the meditation chapter, we are given little comment on the other side of the discourse.
March 16, 2009
This was a mostly interesting book on the discourse between Buddhism and Science. As Lopez makes abundantly clear, before taking on such a discourse, what "Buddhism" (or what is being referred to when speaking about "Buddhism") and which "Science" (what is being referred to by this term when in dialogue) must be made clear. That is, because among other things, over time, such terms and their referents change. Buddhists would say that's because they are 'empty' of inherent nature.
Despite that, Lopez himself bemoans some of the change he sees in how people perceive Buddhism -- and seems to think it too great a price that Mt. Meru and the pre-scientific Buddhist cosmology has been jettisoned by many contemporary Buddhists (including the Dalai Lama). Me, I say all that is interesting historical and mythical material, but should not stand in the way of aligning with what the best contemporary science shows us.
I go further than the Dalai Lama and say that not only when science disproves a dharmic point must dharma change, but when the overwhelming scientific evidence points away from dharmic belief, we should seriously question our belief. For instance, as far as I can tell, neuro science has the weight of evidence for the brain/consciousness link. Until the day the evidence shifts to a non-physical origin of consciousness, I do not see the justification for accecepting such a hypothesis. But that's just me.
Despite that, Lopez himself bemoans some of the change he sees in how people perceive Buddhism -- and seems to think it too great a price that Mt. Meru and the pre-scientific Buddhist cosmology has been jettisoned by many contemporary Buddhists (including the Dalai Lama). Me, I say all that is interesting historical and mythical material, but should not stand in the way of aligning with what the best contemporary science shows us.
I go further than the Dalai Lama and say that not only when science disproves a dharmic point must dharma change, but when the overwhelming scientific evidence points away from dharmic belief, we should seriously question our belief. For instance, as far as I can tell, neuro science has the weight of evidence for the brain/consciousness link. Until the day the evidence shifts to a non-physical origin of consciousness, I do not see the justification for accecepting such a hypothesis. But that's just me.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews