Talk:Buddhism and science

message: 1) Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. and 2) Buddhism is the only religion able to cope with modern scientific needs – Einstein
As a Buddhist and physicist myself, I'd be delighted if this very widely-cited quote really could be attributed to Einstein, but regrettably there is no evidence that it can. It sometimes appears with a reference to Albert Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton University Press, 1954), but there is never a page reference - for the simple reason that the quote does not appear anywhere in that book. 
I have personally discussed the reliability of this quote with Einstein scholars (including John Stachel at Boston U, and founding editor of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein), and with the authors of compilations of Einstein quotations (Thomas J. McFarlane, author of Buddha and Einstein: The Parallel Sayings and Alice Calaprice, author of The New Quotable Einstein) - none of whom cite it. In short, neither they nor I know of any evidence that Einstein delivered a speech containing this quote. 
Of course, anyone who had unearthed a reliable citation shouldn't hesitate to reinstate the quote - and to inform these scholars, all of whom would be delighted to know about it (as would I)!. Robma 09:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume the putative quotes above (that I posted from your deletion) are what you are referring to. Does anyone know where one or both came from? Einstein's spirituality was most influenced by Spinoza, according to Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion (1999, Princeton, ) I find no references by Einstein to Buddhism in that volume, which I believe is the most comprehensive examination to date of Einstein's spiritual writings. Of course, Spinoza's and Einstein's "God" was impersonal (non-theistic rather than atheistic), so there are some points of congruence with Buddhism. --Blainster 08:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: fn reads "A. Einstein quoted in Thinley Norbu, 'Welcoming Flowers' in Across the Cleansed Threshold of Hope: An Answer to the Pope's Criticism of Buddhism, (New York: Jewel Publishing House, 1997)". So this is not cited directly from an Einstein source, but from a Buddhist source. Not available on Google Books so not checked further. Jayarava (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

text: NB: "...Schopenhauer and his famously inadequate reading of the words of Gautama" (emphasis added); see McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. OUP, 2008. p. 76. Jayarava (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Einstein and Buddhism: a widely-cited but spurious quotation 

message: Wonder if after some years, any update on this matter?  Pyll0 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up on the search of the original Einstein's quote

message: Buddhism "contains a much stronger element of [the cosmic religious feeling, by which] the religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished – Einstein
The quote listed in the article is stitched together from three different sentences.  What he actually wrote was, "The beginnings of cosmic religious feelings already appear at an early stage of development, e.g. in the early Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets.  Buddhism, as we have learned from Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling." - so he evidently came by his knowledge of Buddhism through Schopenhauer.  --Blainster 09:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks v much for digging this out. I'd argue that the quote as used in the main piece contains such a clunky parenthetical insert that it at best it should be replaced by something closer to what you've given here. I'd actually go further and say that as we seem to be quoting E's view of what Schopenhauer thought of Buddhism, and Schopenhauer's views of Buddhism are notoriously unreliable, the link with science, Buddhism and this Einstein quote is getting pretty thin (effectively a Chinese whisper) and might be better being put elsewhere in this entry. What do you think ? Robma 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the paraphrase in the article myself, to indicate that although the actual quote cited on many Buddhist websites (and previously in this article) is incorrect, Einstein did hold that sort of opinion about Buddhism, although he obviously wasn't very interested or he would have looked beyond Schopenhauer. Ashibaka tock 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times Magazine 1930 quote

message: I removed the following statement list from the intro:
"in psychology and studies of consciousness, as well as occasional applications to evolution, quantum theory, and cosmology"
While I know that scientists have said that Buddhism allows for fresh insights, I have yet to see a claim where Buddhism has actually affected these fields. It also seems to be a hodge-podge assemblage of fields that may be of interest to the Buddhist, but most scientists do not look to Buddhism to provide the "insights" in their work though other parts of their lives may be better complemented by Buddhism's hands-off approach to objectification. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original statement did not claim to identify areas which have been affected by Buddhist input, but simply stated specific areas of science where some scientists have said Buddhism can offer insight. Certainly they may seem like a "hodge-podge" assemblage of fields, but those specified are the subject of the various refereed papers and books cited at the end of the entry. As such, I'd argue they constitute NPOV information of value to disinterested users. Robma 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which scientists said that Buddhism offers insight into quantum theory? --ScienceApologist 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good starting point for finding out which scientists believe Buddhism offers insights into quantum theory and various other fields is Buddhism and Science: Breaking new ground(Columbia Univ Press 2003)". By the way, isn't an NPOV dispute a bit heavy-handed for an entry which (as far as I can see) makes the rather weak claim that _some_ scientists suggest Buddhism may be useful in offering "insights" ? But perhaps there are other statements that have prompted it ? I certainly feel increasingly unhappy with the direction the entry is taking....Robma 09:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know that there are many people who claim that their forms of Buddhism are useful to science, but I haven't read any papers or textbooks in quantum mechanics that make such references. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but at the risk of being repetitive, no-one contributing to this entry has claimed anything more than that _some_ scientists have said Buddhism may be useful. Again, I don't really see what is non-NPOV about all this. For example, I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't find a claim on (say) a Christianity-related page that "Some Christians claim to get benefit from their belief" consistutes a non-NPOV  Robma 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case, then please provide a citation to a scientist who says as much. Some scientists are Buddhists. Do these scientists claim that Buddhism helps their research? --ScienceApologist 19:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not exactly neutral

message: Not substantiated by Einstein's writings and based on a single conversation. I don't think this is worthy of mention. Einstein conversed with many people. --ScienceApologist 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an article he published, not a letter. Ashibaka tock 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Einstein collaboration

message: While people do see parallels as in What the Bleep Do We Know, I'm fairly certain that the primary opinion of the mainstream scientific community as that this kind of analysis represents junk science. What do other editors think? --ScienceApologist 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, that movie was totally hokey. Ashibaka tock 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The relationship between study of Buddhism and quantum mechanics

message: "Niels Bohr who developed the presently accepted model of the atom together with Ernest Rutherford says,"
I'm not a physicist, but isn't the currently accepted model of the atom based off of Erwin Schrodinger's model? Rapidflash 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schrodinger discovered the equation which governs the evolution of quantum systems over time. It was Bohr who produced the first quantum theoretical model of the atom. 90.205.92.249 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible inaccuracy

message: So far,I have read many Bertrand Russell's book but didn't see this quote on article page. Anyone can find reference on this quote?
Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind. 
202.80.255.227 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a ref. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Want reference on Bertrand Russell's Quote 

message: This article is so bad I nearly fell off my chair reading it. I am done with Wikipedia. 90.205.92.249 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I often fall victim to perfectionism too. When I start an article, I want it to be perfect from the start: fully cited and researched. Can create a kind of writers block for me sometimes though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's an example of what I mean: buddhist tube video about the supernatural - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Here are some of the problems with the version that you reverted to, itemized:
* "Buddhism and science are generally considered to be compatible with each other." - by whom exactly? where is the citation and attribution?
* "Buddhism, eschewing dogmatism, remains neutral on the subject of the supernatural and is open to scientific discoveries." - not all lineages and traditions of buddhism eschew dogmatism or superstition, it's a darn diverse tradition and there is a TON of superstition
* "most scientists see a separation between the religious and metaphysical statements of Buddhism" - who exactly? what is this referring to really? ontological statements in the mahayana sutras?
* Goenka's views on secularism are not universal, they need to be attributed to him specifically when mentioned.
* the structure of the article was haphazard in my opinion
You'll find most of my changes are structural though, and I preferred to tag things than outright delete them. I'm a fan of dialog, let's talk about them here instead of just reverting en masse. Did you have a problem with 'every' structural reordering that I made as well? - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Question, were the structural changes (moving content up or down or reordering things) problematic for you? Were my changes to the WP:LEAD paragraph? Which specific things were combative, stilted, and unhelpful to you? I'm only volunteering here with the intention to be helpful. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles like this unfortunately demonstrate the weakness at the core of the Wikipedia project. 

message: I'm going to slowly research the topic more from an academic viewpoint, as opposed to the view of buddhist teachers. Here are some citation ideas for everyone's review:
* Abe, Masao (1985) Zen and Western Thought Edited by William R. LaFleur. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press - In this one Abe proposes that Buddhism and Science are fairly compatible
* Austin, James H. (1998) Zen and the Brain Cambridge, MA: MIT Press - This book also proposes that there is much synnergy between buddhism and science
* Fair, Frank (2005)  Buddhism, Christianity, and Modern Science: A Response to Masao Abe Buddhist-Christian Studies 25 (2005) pp.67-74 - This response by philosopher Frank Fair to Masao Abe's earlier article is quite interesting. His main disagreement is around the notion of "karma", which he thinks is ultimately incompatible with science and he's unclear if Buddhism will be able to change in the 21st century to remove some of the classic interpretations of "karma".
* Snodgrass, Judith. (2007) Defining Modern Buddhism: Mr. and Mrs. Rhys Davids and the Pāli Text Society Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East - Volume 27, Number 1, 2007, pp. 186-202
any other suggestions? I'll look for more good ones. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may also find reliable critical references from the Actual Freedom webpage. - Nearfar (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More Citations

message: Who are the people mentioned? Why are their views notable? This absolutist conception of shunyata is not mainstream. On this topic see Richard King's "Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism," chapter 3. Mitsube (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. Please feel free to remove them if you feel up for fixing the section or others here. This article is orphaned and in need of TLC. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section seemed to contain pseudo-science from non-reliable sources promoting a non-orthodox view of shunyata together with a partial rebuttal of the latter view. It is not very intelligible or encyclopedic and I have removed it. Mitsube (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked at it , and it appears to approach Nondualism. Which in that article, science is addressed in the New Age section.  I'll take the original intention and suspect the section can be resorted with better sources.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism and physics section 

message: Buddhism is a mere name. There is no agreed definition for it. 
Dictionary definition of science is: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
Among the Ariyan Truths pointed out by Lord Buddha (Bhagwan Buddha) is an Ariyan Truth called Dukkha. This Truth is applicable to the life or existence of a human being (birth to death). 
Science divides a human being into two: mind and matter. Dukkha treats a human as MindMatter. 
Any comparison of Dukkha and Science is false.Dgdcw (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism and Science 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Buddhism and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhistethics.org/6/fenn991.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.plumvillage.org/events/view/60/4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The Heart Sutra explains that: "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is form", which fits closely Nottale's theory of quantum physics, which asserts that matter and space are not different" 
The idea that the two is connected is a personal opinion and the 'reference' given does not support that claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.161.9.251 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism and quantum physics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buddhism and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801130259/http://investigatingthemind.org/ to http://www.investigatingthemind.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Moving this section here for discussion. I don't know why two of the most popular books claiming that Buddhism and Science have a unique relationship wouldn't be relevant to this page. The Wilber book is less known, but since it is a compendium of the founders of QM talking about mysticism, I thought it was relevant. That they have been largely discredited is also relevant to the topic.  DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are surely relevant materials for the article. Obviously it would be helpful if the missing citation were to be supplied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum Mechanics

message: In this edit  has stated:
: 
Arsenal cites a paper by Abishek Majhi as the basis of this claim. In the paper, Majhi has performed a personal thought experiment in which he concludes that physics and Buddhism are related. I have argued that this singular paper, by a single author, hardly constitutes an concrete demonstration that Buddhism forms the foundation of the logic-linguistic basis of physics (if, indeed, the phrase "logico-linguistic basis of physics" can be said to have any real meaning at all.) Please discuss. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you, in fact, Mr Majhi, such that the effort spent to write the two articles precludes you from further explaining them here? The point here is that you have cited two articles by a single author, and claim that these two articles demonstrate that Buddhism forms a foundation of physics. At the very best, all we can claim from this source is that one singular scientist has proposed that Buddhism can be thought of as a foundation of physics. Since neither of Mr Mahji's articles has any citations (except citing each other -- a neat trick if you ask me), this proposition does not appear to have found wide acceptance. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I do not know whether disclosing identity here is allowed. Since you have asked, I may reply, yes. My name is Abhishek Majhi and if you are interested, you can find me here (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abhishek-Majhi). Since I have rested my case, I am not going to write a single word to deny your judgement which is just as accurate as you have the ability to analyze the truth. Such relational nature of human reasoning forms the essence of relational truth discussed and demonstrated by Buddha and then by Nagarjuna among other Buddhist scholars of the far past. 
Just for your information, the two articles resulted from the split of a single article and the split was suggested by the Editor of the journal. Since those two articles are companions to each other, the citations are there. So, I hope, you now understand that what is ``trick`` and what is ``truth``, it very much depends on how the judge is able to relate to the fact. And then the judgement becomes mostly the reflection of the judge's mindset. 
Further, as far as ``citations`` and ``wide acceptance`` are concerned, you are very much correct about this. But, then I found that there are several other articles and books in the references of the page ``Buddhism and Science`` which are not well cited and not widely accepted. I do not have any intention to look down on somebody else's work and therefore, I do not want to pin point any particular one or more of such documents. However, what I intend to demonstrate is the essence of the middle way in your way to make judgment. So, let me consider the following proposition:
    P: A document that is not well cited and not well accepted can not be incorporated as a reference in the Wiki page ``Buddhism and Science``.
The question is whether P is true or false. The answer is that, according to the middle way (madhyamarg), P can be true, P can be false, P can be neither true nor false, P can be both true and false. In a nutshell, the truth of P depends on the CONTEXT and the context is here mainly determined by the ``document`` and how the judge relates to that ``document`` -- this is the essence of relational truth. For you (the judge), P is true when the document is mine and P is false when the document is from somebody (some source) whom(which) you trust or you just believe in. 
Buddhism is not about only science, rather it engulfs all aspects of human reasoning and that can be realized if you can question your own sense of judgment irrespective of denying or accepting others' views. Quite astonishingly I do not find the mention of self-inquiry anywhere in the page ``Buddhism and Science`` and I can now understand, albeit speculatively, why. 
    
   Thank you for your effort and time in judging my work. I withdraw my attempt to edit the Wiki article ``Buddhism and Science``.
Regards
Arsenal03031986 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism as "foundation" of physics