Buddhism meets New Physics

A dialog of the members of the Thousand Stars Buddhism and Science Group

Room 708, Faculty of Arts Building, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand May 17, 2006, 1 - 4 pm

Soraj Hongladarom

This is the first closed meeting of the Thousand Stars Buddhism and Science Group (TSBSG), which is a group of scholars in science and Buddhism partially supported by the Local Societies Initiative, Metanexus Institute. The group is part of the Thousand Stars Foundation (www. thousand-stars.org). The topic today was 'Buddhism and the New Physics'; this was chosen because physics is the most basic of all the sciences and it is believed that a series of dialogs between Buddhism and science should start with physics because it deals with the basic structure of matter as well as the origin of the universe and material reality itself.

There were ten scientists, Buddhist scholars and philosophers who attended the meeting. All except one were faculty members of Chula, except for one who was specially invited for his expertise in the Abhidhamma, a branch of teachings dealing specifically with material and mental reality. The meeting was chaired by myself, and I told the Group about the whereabouts and rationale of the meeting as well as the Metanexus Institute and its activities in promoting dialogs between science and religion. Dr. Soraj mentioned the role of the Local Societies Initiative, and provided a brief detail of the activities of the TSBSG and the Thousand Stars Foundation, since many members who attended did not know of the Group nor the Foundation before.

Since there are many aspects in which Buddhism and physics can be related, the purpose of this meeting was to find out which topics are important and interesting enough so that the Group should take up and discuss them in more detail in later meetings. Hence the main agenda of this meeting was to find an agenda for the next meetings of the Group.

However, the three-hour meeting on May 17 was not entirely without structure. The opening talk was given by Prof. Ravi Bhavilai, a former member of the Department of Physics at Chula, and, at 80, still very active as a religious teacher and practitioner. Prof. Ravi is well known throughout Thailand *both* as an astronomer and a religious practitioner and scholar. He now heads the Dharma Center, the closest thing on campus to a place of worship. Prof. Ravi gave a detailed analysis of all aspects of reality as outlined in the Abhidhamma. Basically, the one reality is divided into ten categories. Some of them are basic in the sense that they exist in and of themselves; some, on the other hand, are derivative and depend on human beings to name them. Some are material; some are mental. These two are all subject to change and decay, while the reality in the basic category is not. These categories are actually mentioned in the text, and are not on the same level. Some can be subsumed under others. To put things simply, all the remaining nine categories are subsumed under the category of "All Things" or Sabbe Dhamma in Pali. "Sabbe Dhamma" are supposed to include everything there is, and within this category are entities like physical objects, mental episodes, clear thinking, language, meaning, etc.

Another member of the Group, Somparn Promta, a member of the Department of Philosophy at Chula and a noted Buddhist scholar, added that Prof. Ravi's categories are only mentioned in the Theravada version of the Abhidhamma, and in the Questions of Milinda, a Pali text included in the Theravada canon, there is a mention of the most basic category of reality being twofold, unlike Ravi's version. The two are matter and space. This was different because space was not specifically mentioned in the Theravada Abhidhamma. Then Mr. Wisit Chaisuwan, the sole member who was not Chula faculty, said that the Abhidhamma contained much that modern science could benefit and learn from. He presented elaborate diagrams to the Group containing the structure of human body, its origin from conception onward, analysis of the human mind, and the detailed Buddhist cosmology consisting of various levels of heavens, human realm, animal realm, and the various lower realms. These diagrams present a rich source that will certainly become a fodder for further digestion of how Buddhism and science are to be related and what kind of dialog and discussion could take place.

Apart from these substantive issues, many also raised a number of methodological points consisting of the question of how the dialog and comparison could arise. Dr. Pornchai Patcharintanakul, an astronomer, suggested that this seemed to be a serious matter because, in his view, Buddhism deals with matter of the mind and physics with material reality. Each is good in its own sphere, claims Dr. Pornchai, so Buddhism should leave the study of physical matter alone and physics should not interfere with the content of the Buddhist teachings. However, many disagreed, believing that both stand to benefit significantly from each other through the engagements and dialogs. Pornchai asked questions like, "Could Buddhism make a fluorescent bulb?", or "Could Buddhism build a rocket to the moon?", but these are obvious questions and are not precisely the objectives of the discussion group. During the discussion, the members raised a number of ethical issues, such as the responsibility of physicists in building the nuclear bomb. Pornchai, however, said that the knowledge of the nuclear structure of matter was one thing, and its application to build a bomb was another. This is an important issue that will surely be taken up in subsequent meetings of the Group.

Another physicist in the Group, Dr. Attakrit Chatputi, told the Group, especially the humanities scholars, not to put to much trust in the new physics. He cautioned that many in the humanities seemed to be too readily accepting whatever is written in the recent popular science books, whereas in reality the theories being presented there are nothing but models that could be discarded any time once a newer theory comes up or a new set of data contradict them. Attakrit reminded the Group that physics is nothing but "mathematical model of reality" and a physicist would be satisfied if his or her model works. He cautioned against the use of these theories as if they were accurate descriptions of reality and especially warned Buddhist scholars and practitioners not to put too much trust in them. "Buddhism should not follow physics to find out the basic structure of the universe or any other thing; instead physics can learn a lot from Buddhism," he said.

Dr. Abhisit Ungkijjanikit, another physicst, added that the teachings of Buddhism on material reality were in fact quite crude, which does not mean that they are false. In the Abhidhamma, for example, it is mentioned that the basic elements are four: the familiar earth, wind, fire and water. But as everybody knows there are now more than one hundred elements in the Periodic Table. Abhisit said that, should the Buddha be alive today, his teaching would be rather different in that the context, the vocabulary would be different and there would references to the teachings of modern science. This shows that Buddhism does not conflict with science, only that, since the canonical texts were written more than two thousand years ago, the writers had to rely on the state of physical knowledge available in their time.

Since the meeting was to find agenda. A number of agenda emerged during the course of the talk on Wednesday. Wisit mentioned cosmology, and indeed a very difficult point for the dialog would be how to account for the Buddhist teaching of heavens, hells and all other realms which are not yet available to science. Surely this is a very interesting topic. Another topic concerns the structure of matter. I myself raised this point to the Group. A teaching in Mahayana has it that, a piece of matter can be analyzed ad infinitum, and after it is analyzed, nothing really remains. And it might be in principle conceivable that physics could one day come up with the same thing. This is an area where the dialog could be particularly fruitful.

Consequently, the Group resolved that they meet again next time to discuss the structure of matter in detail, and Mr. Wisit was assigned to present a talk on what the Abhidhamma had to say on this, while Dr. Abhisit was to present the most uptodate view of physicists today on the topic. Many in the group also mentioned other topics, such as the relation between mind and body, and evolution of species, but we agreed that these topics should come later after we have thoroughly discussed things in physics.

Thus, the first closed meeting of the TSBSG well very well, and I will tell you what happened after our second meeting on structure of matter in the near future.