THE UNIVERSE IN A SINGLE ATOM

The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

The Dalai Lama

Morgan Road Books

A Division of Random House, Inc.

New York, NY

Paper, 216 pages, $14

ISBN-10: 0-7679-2081-3

ISBN-13: 978-0-7679-2081-0

The Dalai Lama begins The Universe in a Single Atom with a quote from an ancient Buddhist text which says In each atom of the realms of the universe, there exist vast oceans of world systems. With this kind of open-minded approach, the Dalai Lama explores how Buddhism and science might converge for the better of humanity. This is something much needed in a world in which fundamentalist Christians and Muslims have closed their minds to reason and compassion, and have attempted to squeeze us into their narrow view of the world. The difference between the Dalai Lama s view and religious zealots appears to arise from the innate character of Buddhism itself by which objective evaluation and insight has long been honored.

My confidence in venturing in science lies in my 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.

It is impossible to imagine a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim taking such a view. But the Dalai Lama s immersion into science is buttressed by the Buddhist doctrine that our primary effort in life should be to alleviate suffering, and if science can advance our knowledge and ability to alleviate suffering, then all the better. He cautions, however, that while science might decrease physical suffering, we cannot forget mental suffering, which he contends Buddhism is better suited to handle because it can cultivate qualities of the human heart, transform our attitudes, and enhance the human quest for happiness.

Therefore, from the perspective of human well-being, science and spirituality are not unrelated. We need both, since the alleviation of suffering must take place at both the physical and psychological levels.

This marriage of science and spirituality is critical, he asserts, because unless science is guided by a consciously ethical motivation, especially compassion, the effects of science may cause more harm than good.

Perhaps the most important point is to ensure that science never becomes divorced from the basic human feeling of empathy with our fellow beings. Just as one s fingers can function only in relation to the palm, so scientists must remain aware of their connection to society at large. Science is vitally important, but it is only one finger of the hand of humanity, and its greatest potential can be actualized only so long as we are careful to remember this.

In advocating this view, the Dala Lamai rejects what he calls scientific materialism the assumption that the scientific view of the world should be the basis for all knowledge. While he does not disagree with a scientific, objective analysis of data a basic principle of Buddhism he does disagree with the assumption that an objective analysis is never colored by the bias, preconceptions, and experience of the scientist. For example, he is concerned that the assumption that psychology can always be reduced to biology, and biology to physics, will lead to nihilism, such that we will view ourselves, and justify our actions, as random biological creatures rather than special beings endowed with the dimension of consciousness and moral capacity. The danger is that we will reduce the view of ourselves to the chemical reactions of firing neurons, little more than biological machines, and the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes with no purpose other than reproduction. In such a world, how can good and evil be distinguished? Just as spirituality may be impoverished without science, science, too, is impoverished without the insights of spirituality.

While he does not say so, Buddhism appears better suited to a convergence with science than other religions. While fundamental Christians denounce evolution, and fundamental Muslims suppress half their population by suppressing women, Buddhism is not tied down by its scriptures but contains within it an innate flexibility that allows it to continue to evolve. In other words, the authority of Buddhist scripture cannot outweigh an individual s understanding based on reason and experience. The Buddha himself taught that his followers should test his own teachings based on reasoned examination and personal experiment. This is the model of scientific inquiry. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which hold that scripture contains the highest authority, if not the word of God himself, Buddhism accords greatest authority to experience, with reason second and scripture last.

So one fundamental attitude shared by Buddhism and science is the commitment to keep searching for reality by empirical means and to be willing to discard accepted or long-held positions if our search finds that the truth is different.

This kind of openness allows us to be receptive to new insights which can expand our horizons. Consider how the Dalai Lama applies this in practice. In the Buddhist view, nothing and no one are independent of the other. Rather, all is interconnected. The same is true of quantum physics. And just as Einstein propounded the theory of relativity, by which 20 years of travel in space at the speed of light could occur in the span of 40 years on earth, Buddhist philosophy also accepts the relativity of time.

Ancient Buddhist cosmologists also theorized that the universe must go through infinite stages of formation, expansion, and destruction, and while this contrasts sharply with the Big Bang theory, where nothing preceded the Big Bang, it fits well with the theory of repeated Big Bangs and Big Crunches, by which the universe has expanded and contracted infinitely.

Along these lines, the Dalai Lama also asks, just as some scientists ask, whether there are multiple if not an infinite number of universes, and whether a different universe might be governed by a different law of physics.

On a more basic level, but no less complex, is the scientific recognition that the atom in our body once belonged to stars far away in time and space. If so: What makes a body so different from a rock that it can support life and consciousness? The answer, according to science, is a process of natural selection by which higher and higher levels of complexity are obtained in the aggregation of atoms into molecules and genetic structures. One thing this means is that all living beings belong to evolutionary lineages stretching back to a common ancestor. Evolution therefore supports the original interconnectedness of living beings in the world, a concept not new to Buddhists. But to drive the point home, the Dalai Lama reminds us that humans and chimpanzees share 98 percent of the same DNA, and that the first organism on earth (and thus the last common ancestor of all living matter on earth) was composed of DNA, RNA, and a protein known as Luca.

Where the Dalai Lama differs with the theory of evolution and natural selection is that it does not answer the fundamental question of the origin of life. While evolution may explain how an organism, once it is an organism, might evolve into a different or more complex organism, it does not explain how an organism became an organism to begin with. Said another way, how does a piece of inert rock become a living cell?

The theory of evolution also does not explain why genetic mutations appear to be random. In contrast, Buddhist philosophy requires one to look for what caused something to occur. From the Buddhist perspective, the question is: what caused the mutation? This is a logical extension of the prior question: What caused the organism to exist in the first place? What is striking about the Dalai Lama s approach to these issues is that he does not fall back on the age-old solution that an intelligent creator caused these things.

Buddhism and science share a fundamental reluctance to postulate a transcendent being as the origin of all things. This is hardly surprising given that both these investigative traditions are essentially nontheistic in their philosophical orientations.

The kind of empirical study common to Buddhism and science has caused the Dalai Lama to further question why those who advocate a Darwinian view of the world have focused on the intrinsically selfish motive of survival and have failed to adequately study the positive emotions of compassion and altruism. He acknowledges the common explanation that compassion and altruism, even self-sacrifice, may enhance an individual s chance of passing on his genes to future generations but asserts that there has been insufficient scientific inquiry in this area to reach such a conclusion. He asks:

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 the development of living beings as well?

As the Dalai Lama says, to reject outright, without inquiry, a specific line of inquiry, is contrary to the very spirit of inquiry.

As I understand it, the scientific approach is not to modify the empirical facts to fit one s theory; rather the theory must be adapted to fit the results of empirical inquiry. Otherwise it would be like trying to reshape one s feet to fit the shoes.

The Dalai Lama concludes that the rejection of a line of inquiry is not a scientific decision. It is a philosophical decision based on a preconception of what kind of inquiry is appropriate. Such philosophical preconceptions can result in the misuse of scientific theory such as the idea of social Darwinism to justify the vast accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few to oppress the many.

The Dalai Lama stresses one more point about evolutionary theory it does not address in any detail the origin of consciousness. He notes that the Buddha, more than 2,500 years ago, identified consciousness as playing a key role in human happiness and suffering, and he criticizes science for focusing on purely objective data such that sensations and emotions are regarded as merely chemical reactions within the brain. He flips this theory upside down and asks if pure thought itself could cause a change in the chemical process of the brain? Rather than focus solely on what is objective, he urges neuroscientists to also study what is subjective.

Here I feel a close collaboration between modern science and the contemplative traditions, such as Buddhism, could prove beneficial. Buddhism has a long history of investigation into the nature of mind and its various aspects this is effectively what Buddhist meditation and its critical analysis constitute.

He advocates the study of the effect of the cultivation of a disciplined state of mind. Just as someone untrained in science would not know how to use the instruments in a laboratory, so, too, would someone with an untrained mind have no ability to apply the introspective focus on a chosen object and will fail to recognize when processes of the mind show themselves.

An example of combining Western, objective inquiry into the workings of the brain with the Buddhist, subjective discipline is the field of neuroscience called brain plasticity.

[E]xperiments have shown that experienced meditators have more activity in the left frontal lobe, the part of the brain associated with positive emotions, such as happiness, joy, and contentment. These findings imply that happiness is something we can cultivate deliberately through mental training that affects the brain.

The Dalai Lama also points to the philosophy of Dhamakirti from the 7^th century that opposing families of mental states interact in a constant dynamic, and that if one opposing state is stronger, then another is weaker.

So if one works to increase, reinforce, and strengthen the positive groups, one will correspondingly weaken the negative ones, thus effectively bringing about transformation in one s thoughts and emotions.

In other words, the cultivation of loving-kindness can over a period diminish the force of hate in the mind. A scientific study of this theory, and this phenomenon, might engender a larger good we currently cannot comprehend. On an individual basis, the Dalai Lama outlines a few simple techniques for meditation such as focusing on your breath, paying attention to a chosen object, simply observing one s thoughts without engaging or judging them, and not allowing the mind to become distracted by memory or hopes or fears of future events. To thereby focus on the present is to appreciate the preciousness of every moment of our existence.

The Dalai Lama suggests that ethical questions arising from science should not be resolved by a select few within the field of science alone, but should be resolved by society at large, and that, to make such decisions, more members of society must become educated to obtain a working knowledge of science and its ethical issues. He asks us to be guided by a moral compass which recognizes the interconnected nature of all things, the basic goodness of human nature, the preciousness of life, and that we are a single human family. He urges us to err on the side of caution, to check our motivation to ensure its foundation is compassion, to remain humble in the recognition of the limits of our knowledge and the consequences of our actions, and to remember the primary goal of the well-being of humanity as a whole and the planet we inhabit.

The earth is our only home. As far as current scientific knowledge is concerned, this may be the only planet that can support life. One of he most powerful visions I have experienced was the first photograph of the earth from outer space. The image of a blue planet floating in deep space, glowing like the full moon on a clear night, brought home powerfully to me the recognition that we are indeed all members of a single family sharing one little house. I was flooded with the feeling of how ridiculous are the various disagreements and squabbles within the human family. I saw how futile it is to cling so tenaciously to the differences that divide us. From this perspective one feels the fragility, the vulnerability of our planet ad its limited occupation of a small orbit sandwiched between Venus and Mars in the vast infinity of space. If we do not look after this home, what else are we charged to do on this earth?