Advertisement

When Buddhism Meets Biology

Can practitioners of the Eastern religion learn from biologists, or vice versa?

By | February 1, 2014

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, NOVEMBER 2013The connection—or disconnect—between science and religion has been a matter of debate as long as the two constructs have existed. Some scientists accept the late Stephen Jay Gould’s suggestion that the two are “NOMA” (nonoverlapping magisteria), claiming that science and religion occupy distinct realms, the former concerned with what is, the latter solely with what should be. Others (including myself) reject the NOMA notion, pointing out that religion makes many claims about the real world that are frequently contradicted by scientific fact.

There is, however, an intriguing exception: Buddhism. Perhaps this is because Buddhism is as much philosophy as religion. Science and Buddhism have met, and they get along remarkably well. Instead of NOMA, think “POMA” (productively overlapping magisteria). That is the premise underlying my most recent book, Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science.

Consider, for example, the extraordinary overlap between Buddhism and ecology. People who study ecology may not realize that they are also embracing an ancient spiritual tradition. Many who espouse Buddhism—succumbing, perhaps, to its chic, Hollywood appeal—are also endorsing a pragmatic worldview with implications that go beyond giddy adoration of the Dalai Lama.

“If you are a poet,” wrote the contemporary Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, “you will see that there is a cloud in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper.” The ecological concept of food webs is remarkably similar to the fundamental insight of Buddhism: the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things (pratitya-samutpada in Sanskrit; paticca-samuppada in Pali).

Theravada Buddhists have long been advised to practice self-restraint and consideration for others; Mahayana Buddhists are enjoined to liberate all beings from suffering. Throughout, the underlying principle is compassion, which means something quite different from mere sympathy or facile assertions about feeling another’s pain.

The foundation of such compassion is a Buddhist teaching that is among the most difficult for Westerners to grasp: the concept of “not-self.” For Buddhists there is no self as an internalized, permanent core of isolated individuality, because each of us arises in conjunction with others, dependent on and inseparable from one another. Everyone is composed entirely of non-self stuff, atoms and molecules that each of us shares with everything. For Buddhists and ecologists alike, all living things are created from spare parts scavenged from the same cosmic junk heap, from which “our” components are merely on temporary loan, and to which they will eventually be recycled. The Buddhist suggestion that an organism’s skin does not separate it from its environment, but joins it, could just as well have come from a physiological ecologist, had any existed 2,000 years ago.

The late 19th-century British poet Francis Thompson said it this way: “All things . . . / Near or far, / Hiddenly / To each other linkèd are, / That thou canst not stir a flower / Without troubling of a star.” And proto-ecologist John Muir glimpsed the same basic principle: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” For ecologists, no less than poets or Buddhists, it is the basic rule.

At one point in Origin of Species, Darwin speculated playfully that by keeping cats, spinsters made London a more flowery place. His idea was that cats eat mice, and mice occasionally destroy the nests of bumblebees, which pollinate flowers. So more cats, fewer mice. Fewer mice, more bumblebees. More bumblebees, more flowers. No one has ever tested Darwin’s proposal, but many other such ecological connections have been elucidated; scientific embodiments of Buddhist philosophy.  

The joke goes: “What did the Buddha say to the hot-dog vendor?”

“Make me one with everything.” But it’s no joke: we already are.    

David P. Barash, an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington, is the author of 34 books and more than 200 peer-reviewed research articles. Read an excerpt of Buddhist Biology.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: James V. Kohl

James V. Kohl

Posts: 152

February 4, 2014

Re: "People who study ecology may not realize that they are also embracing an ancient spiritual tradition."

My model of chemical ecology links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. I've embraced de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in the context of the holy grail of evolutionary biology. 

I think the experience-dependent de novo creation of genes is more akin to the beliefs of Christians in Biblical Genesis, and the beliefs of Islamic Creationists like one who has a free book: The Miracles of Smell and Taste  and chapter "Evolutionists Cannot Account for the Origin of the Sense of Smell." Perhaps I am not familiar enough with Buddhism to understand how Darwin's 'conditions of life' or any other conditions of existence might be linked from sensory input to genes and behavior and back -- except via ecological variation and the epigenetic effect of odors on the creation of olfactory receptors.

I'm convinced that 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled because the involvement of food odors in the food web is clear in all species with physiology of reproduction controlled by pheromones, such as birds, bees, cats, mice, nematodes, yeast, bacteria, humans et al. I doubt that I share any Buddhist beliefs as much as I doubt that I share any beliefs of evolutionary theorists who seem to believe that mutation-initiated natural selection makes more sense than ecological adaptations in the context of speciation.

Now that Horton et al (2014) attests to the role of genetic diversity and chromosomal rearrangements in morphological and behavioral phenotypes of sparrows, the biological facts may make others think about whether geographical and ecological factors should be ignored in attempts "... to clarify the roles of mutation and selection in the evolution of reproductive isolation..." No matter what your religious beliefs may be, the biological facts are not likely to change.

As this article indicates, the biological facts tell us that ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations sans mutation-driven evolution. Fortunately, however, mutation-driven evolution seems to make sense to atheists. Otherwise, that theory might not make sense to anyone, not Buddhists; Christians, Muslims.... no one.

Avatar of: ironjustice

ironjustice

Posts: 28

February 27, 2014

Sort of like the argument against windfarms off the coast to deflect hurricane strength? One argument being, if we deflect hurricanes by windfarms they will lower the wind in the farming heartlands, causing droughts, soaring food prices and starvation?

Avatar of: saneed

saneed

Posts: 2

March 1, 2014

Religion and science have a deep relation as it is mentioned in holy quraan about the pairs of every thing:

“And of everything

We have created pairs.”

Al-Qur’an 51:49

“Glory to Allah, Who

created in pairs

all things that the

earth produces,

as well as their own

(human) kind

and (other) things of which

they have no knowledge.”

Al-Qur’an 36:36

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
Life Technologies