Buddhism and "Mind Science"

 

Mingyur Rinpoche (YMR)
Latest reincarnation of Yongey Mingyur Dorje
(This is a "flower", watch the "flower", you are feeling mindful ...)


"... as a Buddhist, you don't think of Buddhism as a religion. You don't think of a type of science ..."

Everybody wants to claim the mantle of Science so we should not be surprised that YMR's best known book "The Joy of Living" is long on Scientific references and gives wide birth to the elephant in the room, his claim to be a reincarnation of an illustrious teacher. To a skeptical reader such as myself, it is also remarkable that YMR has taken over the family business: both is father and grandfather were well regarded Buddhist monks.

As a child of the 60's I'm familiar with the way ancient Eastern religions were cleaned up for Western consumption. I'm also familiar with the shock one gets when one sees these ancient superstitions on their home ground, whether it is Taoism in China, Hinduism in India or Buddhism in Nepal and Tibet. Of course, there is no discussion of prayer wheels and reincarnation in YMR's "Joy of Living".

Let me briefly remind the reader what we mean by Science. In the last 500 years, actual Science has discovered our place in the Universe, what makes the stars shine, galaxies, DNA, descent with modification (evolution), quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, geology, ...

The list goes on. One of the really remarkable things about real Science is how little is left of "ancient" wisdom. Even Euclidean Geometry doesn't apply to the actual universe, nor simple intuitive ideas such as cause and effect. Ancient "science" is pretty well gone.

The advance of real Science is characterized by the rejection of old theories and adoption of new ones. The challenge of existing authority is not exceptional but at the very core of what a Scientist does all day. Famous Scientists are famous because they discover of unexpected facts about the world, not memorize old text books. It is remarkable that, for example, in re-constructing the history of life on Earth, we use biology, quantum physics, geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology and virtually every Science known to man in a way that produces a deep and consistent story. All these disciplines overlap and confirm each other daily, even though the details seem to constantly shift.

On the other hand, the constant theme of religion (sorry YMR) is appeal to unchanged ancient wisdom. The teachings of Buddha are constantly memorized, re-copied, elaborated and explained but never challenged. Great emphasis is placed on the continuity of the teaching to the absurd extent of claiming that the teachers are actually the same people, repeatedly reincarnated.

So what is this teaching? What is this Science? Well of course nobody who hasn't been reincarnated for a few times could ever claim to really understand it, so the core is immune to questioning from mere mortals (the mark of non-Science). To an outsider, it seems to be about discovering one's inner nature -- the true nature of the "mind". A thread that runs through the book is the assumption that, if (real) Scientists are also investigating the same issues, then Buddhism must also be a Science. That's pretty silly when you say it out loud, but the assumption is on virtually every page of YMR's book. I've met many people who have swallowed the similar claim made by astrology which "must" be a science because it talks about planets. Astrology is also an important part of Buddhism, by the way, but I digress ....

We find frequent mention of the fact that Buddhist monks are subjects of Scientific experiments and that they actually produce different and interesting brain patterns. This does not make them Scientists any more than having a heart attack makes you a cardiologist.

YMR has a very shaky grip on real Science, but he sprinkles interesting (usually misunderstood) Scientific "facts" throughout the book then says something like, "Well Buddha said exactly that about whatever". I was unable to find a single clear connection or sensible analogy, partly because one side of the analogy was more or less real (sophomore) Science and the other side was just bla bla bla.

YMR seems to know a bit more about what real Science has discovered about the brain than the average American High School Graduate, but not more than, say, readers of Scientific American or the publications that actual Scientists read (Science, Nature, medical journals etc). His attempts to connect Buddhist Science of the Mind to neurology are unconvincing. However, the average reader will feel he is learning a lot about neurology and since it's coming from a Buddhist monk, it must mean that Buddhists know something about neurology other than what they could learn from any popular book on the subject. I saw no evidence whatsoever of this additional knowledge. I was constantly reminded of what was said of Freud: "what's true ain't new and what's new ain't true".

Throughout YMR's book (which has a reputation as an instructional guide) we find him saying, "do this, but don't worry if it doesn't work, the fact it doesn't work means it's really working". You never find him clearly stating a principal of Buddhist "Science" that could be disproven by any means, experimental or logical. This fact alone disqualifies Buddhism as a "science". He repeatedly emphasizes the fact that there is no fundamental difference of opinion among various schools of Buddhism. A reader of the (real) Science literature will be familiar with the universal mention of such differences of opinion mentioned along with every paper announcing a new discovery. Controversy is the life blood of real Science.

But let us put aside the embarrassing claims of Buddhism to be a science and not a religion. Just what, exactly, does Buddhism offer its practitioners? The bottom line seems to be peace of mind. If you do certain things (which are simultaneously too easy to describe in words yet only understood by super-human beings reincarnated down the ages), you will be able to see that you have no real problems at all. Your problems are illusions. Starving to death? Change your ideas. Bombed by drones? Look on the bright side. Dying of Polio? Don't worry, your body is just misconception. Oh, and be sure to buy the books, attend the lectures, pay for the retreats ...

Now the professionals of my tradition (the Christian one) are not immune from making things complicated and expensive for believers. I admit it. But, as one who has made a serious effort to separate wheat from chaff for 40 years or so, I can say that Christianity has little to say about the "mind". It is basically about how we treat others -- "love" if you will.  Stripped of the hocus pocus, Christianity basically give you the Western system of social justice. The message is so simple that there is no need to be reincarnated over centuries to understand it.

So is Buddhism bullshit? Well, probably not. It's a religion. It's not Science. It is no more or less "skeptical" or "open" than, say, Catholicism. Like Catholicism, it can make a big positive change in the life of a believer, if practiced with tolerance, common sense and moderation. If you take the "spooky" stuff out of religion (like monks, the priesthood, ancient authority, God, the Saints and reincarnation) you are left with something that no longer qualifies as a "religion". What is left is called a "tradition", not a "science" (I often need to explain to readers that I write in the Christian tradition, not as a defender of the Christian "religion" or the church).

I'm often reminded of the fact that yoga exercises are very close to what a physiotherapist would recommend. They really are good for you even if Kundalini and all of Hindu metaphysics can be safely put aside. I expect it's the same with meditation. It does seem to help some people -- perhaps not for reasons that anybody understands at the moment. However, the claim that we would all be better off if we all meditated regularly is nothing more than religious dogma. At most, this claim (valid or not) is about effectiveness, happiness and wellbeing. The fact is that a person who is loved, busy, well fed, healthy and secure in his community is quite likely to be happy.  Human beings are unhappy because of a wealth of real problems in the real world. The real problems do not exist because we are unhappy.

Buddha, whose lifelong project was to discover the source of human suffering was wrong about this.