scientific analysis of buddhism and a comparative study of buddhism and science

Front. Philos. China (2006) 4: 594−629 DOI 10.1007/s11466-006-0027-2 d

Ma Tianxiang

Scientific analysis of Buddhism and a comparative study of Buddhism and science

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2006

Abstract As Buddhism spread into China, the Mahayana (Dacheng) and Hinayana (Xiaocheng) schools, as well as the kong 空 (empty) or you 有(being) schools, each developed separately, with all sorts of competing theories emerging. While Chinese Buddhism saw a revival in modern times, Western science also gained ground all over the country, and many scholars, technologists and monks sought to interpret the meaning of kong according the achievements and method of the natural sciences. They used science to interpret the content and methods of Buddhist teachings, ontology, and outlook on life. Of the scholars who did so, Wang Jitong (王季同) and You Zhibiao (尢智表) are the most excellent. Keywords Buddhism, Wang Jitong or Wang Xiaoxu (王小徐), You Zhibiao, science, experiment, testimony Science and religion are not, in their essential forms, antagonistic to one another. As the great scientist Albert Einstein said, science without Religion is lame, and religion without science is blind. In modern China, social concepts and ideals both old and new coexist with one another. Buddhism and the culture associated with it, is specifically distinguished in this regard with its significant accommodation of Confucianism and Daoism, Oriental and Occidental thought, and the transcendental and the mundane. In this vein,

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Translated from Pumen Xuebao 普门学报(Universal Gate) Vol. 27, 2005 (5) by KongXiangzhen, Ma Tianxiang, and Andrew Herron Ma Tianxiang( ) School of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China E-mail: [email protected]

Front. Philos. China (2006) 4: 594−629 595

a new theory has arisen to join earlier voices calling for the salvation of our nation. Buddhism and science are working hand in hand, under the conditions of the contemporary historical context, searching, on the one hand, for “experimental evidence” for Buddhism, and on the other hand, working, to a limited extent, to set in motion a renaissance in Buddhist culture. This renaissance will adopt Buddhist thought in the scientific investigation of the problems of society and human nature, as well as taking the achievements of the natural sciences and the scientific method as a basis for Buddhist rational cognition and transcendental argumentation. Among the proponents of this new theory, the influence of Western scientific theory is obvious, and corresponds strongly with the thought and work of F. Max Muller, using objective research to study religion in what is called the “science of religion”.

Tan Sitong (谭嗣同), the famous modern Chinese intellectual and scholar of literature, wrote his renxue 仁学 (the Study on Benevolence) specifically because he desired to “melt science, philosophy, and religion in the same furnace, adapting them to become more suitable for human society.” (Liang 1999, p.3102) His contemporary, the great Buddhist Monk Shi Taixu 太虚, also claimed that Buddhism and science were “correlated quite closely”, and suggested the adoption of physical scientific principles to “explain the doctrine of weishi 唯识 (the consciousness-only School)”. Further, he delivered several lectures advocating that the doctrine of weishi corresponded to scientific principles, and that science itself was closely related with weishi. He used discoveries in microbiology to explain tenets of the Buddhist doctrine of yuanqi 缘起(Pratityasamutpāda, lit. “genesis” or “origin”, karmic causation), such as “the human body is made up of a mass of micro-insects,” then using the nature of sexual sperm to prove that “the human body originates from ‘root insects’” etc. Moreover, he also attempted to use his knowledge of astronomy to prove the Buddhist theory of “the day differs from the night”, also taking new principles in optical science to interpret the Buddhist doctrines of consistent and uncertain change, and that “everything is born and perishes at any given moment, re-emerging repeatedly in twisted but harmonious ways.” On the basis of these applications Shi concluded that “The doctrine of weishi explores the truth, and in a more profound and extensive way than objective science.” (Shi 1956a, p. 25) Himself quite knowledgeable in the material sciences, Dr. Zhang Huasheng also drew on technological achievements in physics and chemistry to conduct a scientific analysis of Buddhism. He observed that the dichotomy of “Form” and “Emptiness” as related by Buddhism was really an abstract concept, while their counterparts in physics and chemistry, “Color” and “Empty”, had concrete reasons for distinction. As a result, he wrote the

596 Front. Philos. China (2006) 4: 594−629

article “Se Ji Shi Kong, Kong Ji Shi Se Zhi Li Hua tan” 色即是空，空即是色之理化谈 (A study on “Form is emptiness and emptiness is Form” in view of physics and chemistry), in which he used comparative methods to establish scientific evidence and experimental proof for the Buddhist concept of “Form and Void”. After reading the article, Shi Taixu exclaimed that the journal haichaoyin 海潮音 (The Voice of the Ocean Tide) had “become more energetic than ever” with the contribution of articles from such talented writers as Zhang and others. (Shi, 1956b, p.33) Mr. Liang Qichao (梁启超) also worked to melt Buddhism and science together in the interests of linking them together. His monograph Fojiao Xinlixue Qiance 佛教心理学浅测 (A slight testing of Buddhist psychology) attempted to use scientific knowledge to explain the Buddhist theory of “the wuyun 五蕴(the five skandhas) are all empty.” He emphasized that “the study of psychology should take Buddhist concepts as the principle objects of research” since the religious law of Buddhism “had proven the theory of ‘Selflessness’” to be true, and had long ago “thoroughly investigated the psychological state of mankind. Using this theory he asserted that “Buddhism is psychology.” (Liang 1999, p. 3898) Another contemporary, Jing Changji (景昌极), a professor in the philosophy departments of Dongnan and Dongbei Universities, even went so far as to replace the study of epistemology with the doctrine of weishi, expressing his intention of transforming the interpretation of Buddhism into a science.

Taking the above scholars as something like scientific “blind men touching the elephant”, often making strained and forced exegeses, then the following two scholars were certainly true scientists with ample technological knowledge: Wang Jitong (王季同), who wrote the masterpiece Foxue Yu Kexue De Bijiao 佛学与科学的比较 (Buddhism and science, a comparison), and You Zhibiao (尢智表) with his Fojiao Kexueguan 佛教科学观 (My viewpoints of Buddhism and science) and Yige Kexuezhe Yanjiu Fojing De Baogao 一个科学者研究佛经的报告 (A scientist’s report of research on Buddhism). Themselves technological specialists, they adopted scientific knowledge and technological discoveries to the analysis of Buddhism, using them to validate their preliminary theories in the field.

I Wang Xiaoxu’s comparative study of Buddhism with science

Wang Xiaoxu (王小徐), whose given name was Jitong (季同), was born in Wuhu City, Anhui Province in the year 1875, later living and working in Suzhou. In the later years of the Qing Dynasty he went to study electrical engineering in the United Kingdom, later serving as a trainee at the Siemens


Electric Factory in Germany, where he invented a new type of rotating transformer. He was not only a scientist who was well versed in the study of mathematics, but also had a very deep understanding of Western philosophy. He eventually returned to China to further the cause of technological advancement there, later acting as a professor at the renowned Peking University, writing the scholarly article “Dianwanglu Jisuan Fa” 电网路计算法 (the computing method of electric network), which won acclaim in both China and abroad.

In the 28th year of Emperor Guangxu’s reign (1902), Wang Xiaoxu began publishing the newspaper E Shi Jingwen 俄事警闻 (Alarming news from Russia) in collaboration with other scholars such as Cai Yuanpei (蔡元培) and Wang Yunzong (汪允宗 ) and others. The publication indirectly advocated the overthrow of the imperial system, and the creators became early revolutionary figures. During this same time, Wang also began studying Buddhism following his acquaintance with Yang Renshan (杨仁山). Wang put his efforts towards a wide investigation of Buddhism, not only studying the faxiang weishi 法相唯识 (the doctrines of phenomenal appearances and consciousness-only dharmas), which was the arcane, but popular fare of the contemporary scholarly class, but also studied yinming lun lixue 因明论理学 (Buddhist logic). In addition to producing famous works of his own, such as the Foxue Yu Kexue De Bijiao and Fofa Shengyao佛法省要 (Brief introduction to Buddhist law), he also followed the pattern of a traditional disciple of Buddhism, studying Buddhist literary works and meditating daily on a Buddhist mat in his home. It is said that he would sit absolutely still, contemplating in deep meditation, a practice perhaps not unlike the great Sir Isaac Newton watching apples falling down from a tree. He suggested that in both ancient and modern times, in both the East and the West, all invention originated from xian liang 现量(intuition), which would emerge from deep concentration, while those who were too busy to meditate would instantly sink into a state of bi liang 比量 (the perceived knowing). His work Foxue Yu dexue 佛学与科学 (Buddhism and science) was written from 1927–1928. Correlating Buddhism with science, and explaining old doctrines from a new viewpoint, the masterpiece was published in Haichaoyin magazine, a periodical introducing Western science and philosophy to the Chinese people, and using the former to conduct scientific study of Buddhism. After reading the piece, Guan Yici (管义慈), the husband of Wang’s niece, wrote an article condemning it, and so Wang published a second article Da Guan Yici Shu 答管义慈书 (A reply to Mr. Guan Yici), which was later combined with his other works such as Weiwu Shi Guan Yu She Hui Xue 唯物史观与社会学 (A materialistic interpretation of history and sociology) and Kexue Zhi Genben Wenti 科学之根本问题,


(Fundamental issues in science), as well a response to Ge Zhiliang (葛志亮), edited together into a single volume published together with the article Foxue Yu Kexue De Bijiao. Both Cai Yuanpei and the great scholar Hu Shi (胡适) both wrote prefaces to the work. Adopting the methods of a comparative study, the book took the achievements of modern science to attempt to prove Buddhism’s logical nature, demonstrating that Buddhism was essentially an applicable science, a positive philosophy, a fundamental truth and a reasonable religion. In his preface, Cai Yuanpei pointed out that,

Mr. Wang is a genius, at only 20 years of age he had already

published work in the field of mathematics that was well-praised by older scientists. Mathematics is both a scientific tool and a sort of thread leading to metaphysics, which explains the fact that many renowned scholars were concurrently mathematicians and philosophers, such as Pythagoras of Greece, René Descartes of France, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz of Germany and Baruch Spinoza of the Netherlands. Young Mr. Wang uses mathematics as a scientific tool, and is especially accomplished in the field of electrical engineering. He knows the superiority of science, but at the same time also understands its limitations. As a mathematician he has studied logic, and knows that Western logic can only be applied in science, while philosophy itself requires the Indian yinming 因明 (Indian logic). He has studied metaphysics and as a mathematician believes that xiangzong 相宗(one of the Buddhist school) does not conflict with science but can coexist with it without any contradiction. Since Buddhism is not contradictory with the sciences, when some issues cannot be explained by modern science, but can be explained perfectly by Buddhism, then why not rely on Buddhism for an explanation? That is the reason that the young gentleman has written this book.(Dongchu, 1984, p.569)

Cai Yuanpei thoroughly approved of Wang’s work, himself borrowing the

concept of explaining Buddhism with the help of the natural sciences and developing it further. Cai claims, “In the advocacy of Buddhism, we should take the doctrine of weishi as our basis and the practice of contemplation as our method. This is the modern philosophy developed by Henri Bergson.” Bergson supposed that the universe was itself really an original driving force of life, similar to the Alaiyeshi 阿赖耶识 (store consciousness) of Buddhist thought. This life is something long and unbroken, and existing in real time, and is called the “stream of life”, resembling running water in a brook. This is a similar concept to that in the saying “continuously born” related by Alaiyeshi. Bergon’s philosophy also holds that cognition is based on


intuition rather than the intellect, which is similar to the true xianliang. It is also said that Henri Bergson practices a habit of sitting quietly and observing which is similar to the Buddhist practice of contemplative meditation.” Cai also mentions various tales of occultism such as spiritual communication, the return of one’s soul after death into the body of another, memories from previous lives, etc. Obviously, the practices and beliefs of the time lead to a mixture of various truths and falsehoods. However, the inclusion of some of these cases, such as studies of clairvoyance and X-rays, and hypnotism therapy by radio, was undoubtedly done in line with the original purpose of verifying the feasibility of conducting a comparative study of Buddhism and science. At the end of his preface, Cai emphasized that “Mr. Wang has used his knowledge as a scientist to write this article, advancing the studies of the relationship between the Buddhist law and science. It is anticipated that this piece will promote scientific work in this field.” We can perceive from these words that Cai himself had a tendency towards the scientific analysis of Buddhism.

“It is a long cherished wish of mine that I might be able to use the theories of science to popularize Buddhism.” (see You 2003b, p.1) These words demonstrate that Wang’s aim in his comparative study of Buddhism and science was in popularizing Buddhist beliefs among the intellectual class, to build a faith rather than to exploit doctrine. As a result, though his work introduced scientific knowledge to the endeavor, it was a fragmented doctrine, without the full color of true faith, and at the same time also lacking the systemic analysis associated with the sciences. This being the case, Hu Shi – a historian who always demanded that people “bring proof” when making significant claims, in his preface to Wang’s article, took it upon himself to “boldly say a few words”, ultimately denying Wang’s efforts. Hu’s preface readily demonstrates his general lack of a sympathetic understanding of Buddhism, and also the tendency he had for studying “Buddhism simply as Buddhism,” a similar viewpoint to that held by the scholar Ouyang Jingwu (欧阳竟无), who said that “Buddhism is not science.” Hu Shi wrote,

All forms of academic thought are nothing but historical materials.

Buddhism is the system of thought and belief advocated by a certain set of human beings during a certain period of time. At the same time, science is also a system of academic learning engaged in by a certain set of people during a certain epoch. These two elements enjoy their respective statuses in human history, and as historians we need not draw them together needlessly. As a matter of fact, Buddhist believers also need not spend their efforts so vainly in bringing scientific materials


into their writing. (Dongchu, 1984, p. 575) It ought to be said that Hu Shi’s opinions had some merit, and that only

some parts of the preface were too caustic to be reasonable, such as his references to “eye-blinding tricks of superstition made by the most obscene Tuoluoni 陀罗尼(secret words)”, accusations of “worship of genitalia” and “the viewpoint of Buddhism is one of superstition,” etc. Like a single stone thrown into a lake, these opinions were not accepted by Hu Shi’s Buddhist contemporaries. In fact, the comparative work done by Wang Xiaoxu, despite its limitations, maintains a position of some significance. The following are some key points of the work:

1. Using the theory of relativity to interpret views of space and time, and the phenomena of speaking without words.

The doctrine of the yuan qi is both the underlying theory of Buddhist understanding of the universe, and also the way of thinking used to perceive the “Vicissitude and Multifarious World”. The theory is summed up as “all phenomena are born from causes and conditions,” all things are born in a correlative way, and perish when that correlation is broken. As one partner exists, its counterpart is also able to exist; and if one partner perishes, then its counterpart will soon cease to be. As a result, holding to only one end of something is considered an inadvisable path, and one’s perspective should never be partial – the so-called li xiang 离相 (diverge from phenomena). From the point of view of phenomena, it is empty, but in reality this is the essence of the Buddhist “Middle Way”. As the Buddhist saying goes, “fei you, fei wu, fei yiyou yiwu, fei feiyou feiwu 非有，非无，非亦有亦无，非非有非无(non-existing, non-perishing, not both existing and perishing, not non-existence and non-perishing.” This is the Ultra Binary Antinomy in a negative form. The three meditations of “Void”, “Unreality”, and “Middle” all represent precisely this same sense. However, the Middle Way is difficult to express with language, and so the “Inexpressible Absolute” is emphasized with the saying “when language is used in interpretation, the meaning and significance will become fundamentally different.” Wang handles this issue skillfully. When answering a question of Lu Bicheng’s about the basic principle of Buddhism that “time is infinite, space is boundless and all things are illusory”, Wang explained that this principle “was only interpreted literally by wen zi bo re 文字般若 (literal wisdom) as a matter of convenience. As for explaining the concept of shi xiang bo re 实相般若 (perfect wisdom), there is no alternative to reading “the way of non-dualities” in the Wei mo jing 维摩经 (a Buddhist Sutra); if one brings up the issue of illusoriness and truth then they have already gone off on their own way. Wang’s meaning is that Buddhism is neither “emptiness” nor


“existence”, and that the so-called “emptiness” was a part of the Binary Antinomy, which is only put into words for the sake of facilitating the exchange of ideas in speech. He further used the theory of relativity to explain,

I discussed the subject of Buddhism and science with friends recently,

and we realized that what had been learned by scientists in the modern era was exactly that everything is relative, there is no absolute good or evil, no absolute right or wrong. This is not perfect, this notion of relativism can still be applied to Buddhism. Materialism, so popular at present, is in fact the only weapon available for those scientists who want to overthrow religion, but the concept of relativism is easily broken. Why is the concept of “mind” regarded as wrong for Binary Antinomy? It is because this “mind” is thought of in absolute terms, only partially in accordance with the theory of relativity. (Dongchu, 1984, p. 575)

Developed by Albert Einstein, the theory of relativity concerns time,

space, material and materials movement. The theory demonstrates the united nature of material objects’ movement within space and time, and the relative nature of that movement, also denying the concept that time and space exist in an absolute sense. The theory led not only to the swift development of modern physics, but also gave new ideas to philosophers in the Western world. Wang Xiaoxu took relativity as his foundation, regarding everything in the world as relative rather than absolute, which allowed for an explanation of many Buddhist concepts of time and space of the yuan qi, as well as thought related to the Middle Way, such as “all things are in a constant state of incessant change”, and “the realms of reality are infinite,” etc., -- there is not only no absolute time and space, but also no absolute good or bad, nor any absolute right and wrong. In other words, it can be said that there is neither beginning nor completion because the universe is boundless and illusory without concrete substance. Wang went on to question “whether the very existence of relativism is relative or absolute. If it is relative, the theory itself is denied; and if it is absolute then it shall be self-contradictory. As a result, the theory is not as good as the yin ming zheng li men lun 因明正理门论 (the basic theory of Buddhism logic), which says that ‘all sayings are absurd’, a denial in itself.” He meant to say that although relativism correlates with Buddhism well, it still “leaves something to be desired.” If everything is said to be relativistic, then the Principle of Relativity itself will become non-existent. When one says that relativism is an absolute principle, then he shall be in contradiction of the


theory itself. So here again “when language is used in interpretation, the meaning and significance will become fundamentally different.” Only the Middle Way of Buddhism, which is unspeakable and ultimately impartial, is able to hold all of the real aspects of the da qian shi jie (大千世界, one billion worlds), and “interpret phenomena without words, bring about phenomena with a departed mind, neither exist nor non-exist, and be not the same and not different.” Here, with the help of the theory of relativity, Wang Xiaoxu explained the concept of time and space from the yuan qi. He also pointed out that it was unavoidable for the Principle of Relativity to have a contradictory Binary Antinomy which stresses “being” or “not-being”; while at the same time he emphasized that Buddhism was an ultra binary antinomy that departed from words and objects, the Middle Way being ultimately superior to relativism and relativity. In fact, relativism and Buddhist philosophy are ultimately perplexed and helpless when they are confronted with the issue of how to deal with infinity and ultra-relativism. The difference between the two lies in the concept of space held in the theory of General Relativity, that it is “infinite, but with a boundary”, that caused Wang to prefer Buddhism.

2. Using Physics and Biology to Analyze the Buddhist Concept of Breaking Attachment

The Sanskrit word for “I/me”, or “the self”, is “Atman”, originally meaning respiration, and later coming to mean “life”, the dominating force of the universe. Cheng wei shi lun 成唯识论 (the Theory of Consciousness-only) says “The self is dominant.” The Buddha said that all phenomena are the result of causes and conditions, therefore there can be no possibility of anything dominant, anything that allows the existence of other things, to not exist itself. The saying “all things are selflessness” is one of the san fa yin 三法印 (three seals) of Buddhist thought, and the basic theory of the cognitive world. According the Buddhism, the self produces a need to distinguish outward phenomena, which leads to ego-centrism, the ego-centric man then becoming foolish, greedy and lazy. The twenty-ninth chapter of the ju she lun 俱舍论(Buddhist sutra) sutra states that “relying on the self for strength will lead only to irritation…(and these) annoyances are not easily shed.” From this we see that ego-centrism is the very cause of suffering, the very fountain of evil. So, Buddha’s teaching is really all encompassing, “selflessness” is the treatment of all kinds of miseries. The Buddhist canon has a detailed analysis of the “ego” from the point of view of epistemology, pointing out that the “seventh consciousness” (Vijnana, or manas) is the origin of ego-centrism. On the basis of these facts, Wang Xiaoxu undertook the assimilation of the fa xiang ba shi 法相八识 (Eighth consciousness) with physics and biology, with the purpose of demonstrating


the rationality of Buddhist epistemology and the teaching of “breaking ego-centrism.” He said,

The seventh consciousness is in essence the cognitive philosophy of

the Rational Critical School, their so-called cognitions of “non-experience” and “non-logic” as descriptions of mankind’s relationship with time and space. The philosophy of the Experience School believes that the origin of this sort of cognition and awareness is in experience, but this is not correct. Neither “I” nor time is objective, and needless to say their origin is not in real experience. As far as the sense of space is concerned, it appears to be produced by the visual and touching organs, but after careful analysis, it has been found that there are only two types of nerves capable of transferring data on lighting, color, temperature, and hardness, etc., none of which contains an experience of space. On the contrary, concepts of geometry, such as distance and direction, are the foundation for recognizing space. If one wants to draw a picture, he should first of all have a piece of paper and a few drawing brushes!

In all, although the subjective “self”, as understood by ordinary people, and the objective universe itself are nothing more than the “eighth consciousness”, the eighth consciousness does not regard itself as an objective self. Since the seventh consciousness has an innate prejudice when observing the objective universe, and is the basis for normal cognition, we misidentify the eighth consciousness as another subjective self within the objective universe. The seventh and eighth consciousnesses have metabolisms, like the other six. However, the other six can be defined in terms of time, while these two are defined by one another, and are thus mistakenly assumed to be the “true” selves. (Dongchu, 1984, p.583)

According to Wang, the first six consciousnesses could be easily

understood by ordinary people, while the seventh and eighth would be difficult to comprehend. The eighth consciousness is further divided into two sections: xiang 相 (mark) and jian 见 (viewpoint), usually referred to by ordinary persons as “subjectivity” and “objectivity”, saying, “When carefully explored, these are one and the same consciousness.” The so-called subjective universe and objective self are in reality only effects of the eighth consciousness. “The xiang of the eighth consciousness is suo yuan yuan所缘缘 (an objective cause), itself producing the xiang and jian of the previous consciousnesses (feelings).” The seventh consciousness, which is non-experiential and non-logical, observes time and space with innate


prejudices, mistakenly interpreting visual messages and sensory impulses of the xiang of the eighth consciousness, the real self, which produces a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, which leads to ego-centrism. So, we find that the only way to wipe out this prejudice and break down ego-centrism is by transferring the seventh consciousness into Alaiyeshi.

Strictly speaking, such comparisons are senseless. Although the cognition of vision and touch feelings contain no real experience in time and space (as a matter of fact, the concept of time and space is formed by the very experiences themselves), it’s the relationship with the seventh consciousness lacks experimental proof, and is still “not comprehensible to ordinary people.” No wonder Hu Shi criticized Wang for “sparing so much effort to write such an article.” (Ibid, p.575) But from the angle of epistemology, Wang also compared Buddhism and Western philosophy, proving that the prejudices of the seventh consciousness were in fact the origin of “ego-centrism” when judged by the standards of cognitional form and rational judgment. He pointed out that,

The concept of consciousness in Western philosophy is roughly

equivalent to the san liang 三量 (the three ways of knowing), xian liang现量 (intuition), bi liang 比量 (the perceived knowing) and fei liang 非量 (non-knowing).

Xian liang is experience, bi liang is logic, and fei liang is prejudice. The first five and the eighth consciousnesses are all xian liang. The sixth consciousness possesses san liang. The seventh consciousness is merely fei liang.

The so-called ‘experience’ of Western philosophy is consciousness

(the sixth consciousness), and so is not legitimately xian liang, but is merely a pseudo-xian liang, and is in fact fei liang

Though the Western way of logical reasoning is identical to that of yin ming, their cognition is made on the basis of logic that directly or indirectly originates from the prejudices of the seventh consciousness. Therefore, their conclusions are not true bi liang, but are fei liang, or at best a pseudo-bi liang. (Ibid, p.589)

That is to say that both Western philosophy’s concept of experience and

logic are not true xian liang or bi liang since they both come, either directly or indirectly, from the seventh consciousness, and are thus nothing but “presumed, arbitrary and wrong prejudices,” i.e., fei liang. So, he gave his final conclusions as follows,


When evidence is not truly xian liang, or something concluded by Buddha himself or the Great Bodhisattva, then the evidence shall never be true bi liang. Scientists who do not work with the true xian liang shall never understand the subjective self or the nature of the objective universe, instead they are trapped by natural law. (Ibid, p.590)

The concept of a true xian liang was advocated by Buddha and the Great

Bodhisattva, but was not part of the Yin Ming logic system created by Chen Na (陈那). So we can tell that Wang was a strict follower of the Buddhist law, and had a tendency for emphasizing concepts like xian liang. His comparisons are reasonable from the standpoint of the san liang, and he obviously had adequate personal experience in the sciences as well. However, some of his thinking, such as the claim that scientific knowledge is not true xian liang but is instead a product of “ego-centrism” of the seventh consciousness discarded by Buddhism, was itself a product of his own prejudices rooted in his religious faith.

3. Using “consciousness” to understand ghosts and the soul. Although Buddhism preaches that deities are immortal and imperishable,

it refuses discussion of the soul. Wang believed that the concept of the soul is held only by the secular world and heathens. He further held that it was all the jian of the eighth consciousness, corresponding with the natural faculties in the natural world of the xiang, always remaining tied to consciousness. The so-called transmigration was in fact done by the eighth consciousness; in other words, the transmigration was that of the consciousness. As a result, Buddha never mentioned the soul, and never said that ghosts were spirits.

4. Using physical structures to discuss impermanence. The concept that “All things are impermanent” is one of the three seals of

Buddhist thought. The Buddhist looks at the world from the viewpoint that “at every moment, everything is instantly both being born and perishing”, and hence nothing can possess an unchanging nature. This phenomenon is termed “emptiness”. Wang used his knowledge of modern science to prove this Buddhist concept of impermanence.

Wang emphasized that any substance’s reality and permanency was merely a scientific illusion. In the past, chemists assumed that substances were comprised of atoms, for instance a molecule of water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one atom of oxygen. Scientists took for granted that the atom was a permanent particle that could not itself be further split. However, developments proved that a hydrogen atom is comprised of an electron and a proton, and that an atom of water is in fact made of 16 electrons and 16 protons. Hence, the previously held concept that the atom was unbreakable and permanent was broken, the electron and proton were the truly permanent


units. Wang went on to say that our offspring should see us in the way that we see our forefathers. Similarly, the electron and proton should not be seen as permanent things. Further scientific developments since then have indeed proven Wang’s conjecture to be correct. Using the partition of substances to explain that all things are impermanent is certainly within the realm of reason, revealing the scientific basis of Buddhism. However, Wang took this as the basis for arguing that the exterior environment is itself not concrete or real, a teaching of Buddha’s, not allowing scientific proof to the contrary to influence his belief. He even went on to assert the reality of the world captured in Buddhist sagas and myths, which is obviously idealism and not scientific at all. Of course, when regarded as ideological concepts, ideas like “infinity” and “the ultimate concern” naturally have rational values, but this is the realm of religion and philosophy, science has no means of proving them right or wrong.

5. Using the progress and advancement of science to explain the dissonance between Buddhist thought and science.

Many Buddhist myths relate tales of magical deeds and their effect on geography, e.g., flying dragons are the cause of rain, the fates of kingdoms are decided by mountains and rivers, etc. This sort of story is especially prevalent in lay works, and is obviously at odds with scientific knowledge. At first Wang emphasized that “the world of these Buddhist writings is plainly not the same as the one captured in modern works, but they are not totally dissimilar. For example, according to myth the sun surrounds xu mi shan 须弥山 (the Mount Sumeru), making day and night. If we regard xu mi shan as the North pole, then the myth becomes completely harmonious with the scientific theory that the self-rotation of the earth creates the phenomena of day and night.” (Dongchu, 1984, p.586)As far as the Earth Wheel, Gold Wheel, Water Wheel and Wind Wheel of Buddhist myth are concerned, he said that “the myths present the same reality that we know today—the earth is shrouded by a layer of air and water, wandering in the vast and empty void of heaven, hence the vivid picture composed by the human imagination.” (Ibid, p.586) Buddhist literature claimed that the so-called Saha World contained three thousand nations, each with their own vast territories, and billions of suns and moons with their own xu mi shan. Wang claimed that this depiction relates “roughly the same number of stars found in the Milky Way galaxy.” (Ibid,586) As for the points where the two sides of myth and science were not identical, Wang explained that modern astronomy was still unable to explain every astronomic phenomenon. In other words, modern science was not capable of exploring the reasons behind everything. Secondly, the Buddha’s intention was not to teach people astronomy, and was of course not instructing natural scientists, but was instead motivated to


educate the people and let them understand the world. Thirdly, people at that time did not possess the basic knowledge of astronomy that we enjoy today, and misunderstanding was therefore only too natural. Fourthly, so many years have passed since these texts were first put forth into writing, things could easily have been blurred by time. We must admit that each of these arguments holds water. Wang elaborated emphatically upon the first point, pointing out that,

Every object or thing can be talked about from any number of angles

or aspects. Let us take wired electrical engineering as our example—nobody understood at one time that electrical energy could be calculated with Ohm’s law as it passed through copper wiring, but when it was tried the results were identical to the hypothesis. I once read an article explaining the radio phenomena. It said approximately that the space around wire coils contains electrostatic equipotential surfaces, and that the number of these surfaces was equivalent to the voltage of the device, while the number of magnetic equipotential surfaces was equivalent to the current. There are these two types of surfaces positioned vertically opposite one another, and the space between them is filled with tube-shaped fields whose total number equals the power generated when the two sides are multiplied together. Each tube is a conductor that links the power generator with the electrical consumer, while the electricity consumed in a unit of time is equal to the ideal number of tubes. So, whether it is wired or wireless electrical engineering, we can see that the electrical energy is what is flowing through these tubes. This is contrary to the first explanation, but they can both explain the phenomena of electrical energy. Although the latter is not as popular as the former, the latter actually makes conceptualizing radio energy far easier. Therefore, whatever the matter or thing that we are dealing with, no proven method “A” can ever, by itself, prove that method “B” is incorrect. (Ibid, p.587)

This paragraph deals directly with Wang’s own discipline, and the

reasoning was thus very clear to him, though for ordinary people the theory is still difficult to comprehend. Simply put, the two methods of calculation differ from one another but arrive at the same answer, i.e., they both demonstrate that current (or electrical surface) multiplied by voltage (magnetic surface) equals the electrical energy or power generated. Why did Wang use so many examples and refer to so many different cases? His intention was simply to show that just because modern scientific knowledge has been shown to be true, that cannot prove that the religion of the past was


and is not itself true. On the contrary, the two should co-exist harmoniously, without repulsion. He also used the example of malaria. He pointed out that the disease was spread through mosquito bites, “micro-insects” (plasmodium), but that traditional Chinese medicine had regarded the disease the same as catching a cold, which can hardly be deemed off-track since no one caught the disease without catching a cold. In fact, malaria was called zhangqi 瘴气 (bad air), and before the plasmodium was discovered Western medicine also regarded the disease as catching a cold. “The original sense of the word can be borrowed for use in science. In essence, science and Buddhism are not contradictory, although they are not exactly the same.”(Ibid, p.569) Moreover, as science was developing ceaselessly, new theories often replaced the old, “The new structure of an atom overthrew the theory of the unbreakable atom, the theory of relativity overthrew Newtonian physics, etc.” (Ibid, p.569) So we can see that even science itself is not always correct. Another case he referred to was “the belief that the earth is still and the sun moving. Although this belief was disproved by the theories of Copernicus that the earth revolved around the sun, we can still say that relative to the earth, the sun is moving; while when seen relative to the sun, the earth is moving. It is actually impossible to distinguish which is correct and which is wrong.” (Ibid, p.569) His conclusion was that whether it is new theories or old theories, Buddhist preaching or scientific findings, there is no point in making a great fuss over small differences between them. (Ibid, p.569) Buddhism is nothing more than a convenient way of presenting things.

II You Zhibiao’s scientific analysis of Buddhism

You Zhibiao (尢智表) was born in the city of Suzhou in 1901. He graduated from the electrical engineering department of Shanghai Nanyang Industrial Technology School when he was 23 years old, taking a position as editor and translator at the Shangwu Yinshuguan 商务印书馆 (Commercial Publishing House). He established the Quick-learning School for Radio in Shanghai; using the money he earned to support his studies at Harvard University in radiology. Upon his graduation from Harvard he returned to China to serve as a teaching officer in the Zhongyang Hangkong Xuexiao (Central Aviation School at Hangzhou) and as a part-time professor at Zhejiang University. He later took a position as the senior teaching officer of the Zhongyang Jixie Xuexiao (Central Mechanic School), but was finally transferred by the Communication Ministry to a training office in the capital. After the Anti-Japanese War he was appointed as a special commissioner of the Hubei


Provincial Government, acting concurrently as the chief officer of the excavation commission of the Shen Nong Jia Forest Zone. He had converted to Buddhism in 1926 when the Chief Abbot of Shanghai’s Tai Ping Temple, Master Yin Guang (印光) accepted him as a disciple of the Buddhist religion. His scholarly contributions include Fojiao Kexue Guan (my viewpoint of Buddhism and science) and Yige Kexuezhe Yanjiu Fojing De Baogao (a scientist’s report of research on Buddhism), which were also broadcasted by radio. In the prefaces to You’s work, Wang Xiaoxu highly praised You’s scholarship, saying “You studies Buddhist literature in a scientific way,” and that “all of the words here are based on fact and reality, every sentence conforms to scientific principle. In short, every word in it is like a pearl, or a priceless jade stone, and every sentence that contains them is the real truth.” (You 2003b, p.1)

You Zhibiao’s conversion to Buddhism contained at least one theatrical anecdote. Before his conversion he was a proud product of modern scientific education, taking for granted that “science is omnipotent,” “his attitude towards reality was totally different from writers, artists, philosophers, and religionists.” (Ibid, p.3) Moreover, he believed that “religion is nothing more than a way to keep babies from crying.” (Ibid, p.3) Like the intelligentsia of that time, his uncle You Jingxi (尢景溪) had studied the religion openly as a Buddhist disciple for decades. You recalled that after he graduated from college, his uncle asked if he “was interested in exploring for the truth of the universe and human existence,” and went on to suggest that he “seek the truth in Buddhist literature.” (Ibid, p.5) You thought this was ridiculous, seeking the truth of the universe and human life from Buddhist literature was like feeding oneself on an illusory cake, and declared that he would never read it. The Uncle You criticized the young man for his prejudices, saying that “scientists regard facts as the most important thing…just the same as the Buddhist teaching that one should break his own obstinacy.” (Ibid, p.5) He asked the young man to break down his suo zhi zhang 所知障 (obstacles of knowledge), the preconceived notions of science. Instead, Young You should regard Buddhism “without any prejudice, giving no priority to either the religion and philosophy or to science, but instead taking the position of complete objectivity.” (Ibid, p.5) At first, You Zhibiao felt ashamed of himself, and upon reflection he realized that his uncle’s idea was reasonable—“If Albert Einstein did not discard the old clichés of Isaac Newton, how could he revise Newton’s law of gravity and invent his own principle of relativity?” (Ibid, p.5) He then began his studies of the Foxue Dagang 佛学大纲 (Outline of Buddhism) written by Xie Meng (谢蒙), then going on to read the Leng Yan Jing 楞严经 as annotated by Zhen Jian (真鉴) in the Ming dynasty. The Buddhist scriptures amazed You no less than


had the scientific knowledge he had been learning. He said that “Buddhism contains so much knowledge, it is nothing less than all of the different kinds of science I have learned put together.” (Ibid, p. 6) From then on he put his boat in the ocean of Buddhism, “personally giving lectures to the science adoring masses on his achievements in the study of Buddhist literature.” (Ibid, p. 6)

You Zhibiao carried out a meticulous scientific analysis of Buddhism which will be analyzed according to three aspects—type, method and content.

1. The Buddhist sutras are precise in structure and wording, and in this regard Buddhism is superior to science.

(1) The Six Demonstrative Prefaces and a scientific report Cutting straight to the point, You emphasized that Buddhist literature had

six major elements: trust, hearing, time, speaker, place and audience. He used concrete examples to prove that Buddhist writing was very much similar to scientific reports produced in laboratories. He pointed out that “the Leng yan jing 楞严经 (Shurangama Sutra) is not the only work where this is the case…all of the other sutras, except for excerpts and early translations, are written in a similar vein.” He also made some comparisons with other masterpieces of ancient Chinese literature, finding them disorderly and unsystematic, with topics that lacked scientific spirit. Examples were the Si shu 四书 (the Four Books of the Confucian canon: The Analects, Mengzi, The Daxue and The Doctrine of the Mean), the Wu jing 五经 (The Five Classics of the Confucian canon: The Book of Poems, The Book of Changes, The Book of History, The Book of Rites, and The Spring and Autumn Annals), Laozi & Zhuangzi 老庄 (of the Daoist canon) as well as the works of the hundred schools of the Spring and Autumn Period. For this reason, he believed that “Chinese books are not scientific books.” After he read the first words of the Six Prefaces to the Buddhist sutras, he “could not help but look at (Buddhism) with a pair of entirely new eyes.”(Ibid, p.7)

(2) Precise commentaries According to Yao’s point of view, scientists were not the only people who

emphasized scientific analysis, the Buddhist school did so as well, and in a way more elaborate than scientists themselves. For example, after he read the Leng yan jing as annotated by Master Zhen Jian he remarked, “I find the analysis so detailed and elaborate as to defy my expectations…it contains chapters and sections with their own titles, all using the heavenly stems and earthly branches as marks.” (Ibid, p.8) The whole book was made up of 22 separate stages: A1 denoted the preface, A2 was the titled text, and A3 was the current text, all the way up to Z1 and Z2. “Hence, the work is absolutely coherent.” As for the titles of the sutras and the various translators, “they


have also been annotated…(since) this was long ago felt to be a part of the annotators duty.” (Ibid, p.8) You meant that Buddhist literature was precise in structure and logic, and thus easy to understand through reading. Precise annotation and elaborate analysis allowed the masterpieces to explain profound things in simple and clear language, and for the reader to arrive at the correct conclusions. By so doing, the entire scope of the sutras is clear in a single glance, and the scientific nature of Buddhism is clearly visible.

That being said, the annotation structure has 22 steps, which is too elaborate to be used practicably.

(3) Concise language and comprehensive meaning with natural spontaneity—creative syntax and writing style

“The sentence structure of the Buddhist sutras is obviously influenced by the Sanskrit language, using neither the Parallel Four and Elegant Six” style of the Six Dynasties Period, nor the style of the Tang and Song Dynasty essayists, though they are somewhat near in structure to the simple style of the two Han Dynasties, designed for easy understanding rather than writing in a style making pronunciation and comprehension purposely difficult.”(Ibid, p.9) You Zhibiao commented on the distinguished syntax and style of the Buddhist sutras, explaining that the reason they were difficult to read was not their use of obsolete words, but rather the fact that the content was profound and the reasoning deep. For this reason, Buddhist literature had to “use the simplest language so that students would be able to understand it.” (Ibid, p.9) He used mathematics as a model: “mathematicians adopt many symbols to represent different causes and effects…mathematical formulae are all simplified language…similarly, the Buddhist sutras use the Sanskrit word a 阿 to represent the meanings of ‘non-born’ and ‘non-perishing’, similar to the way that mathematics uses ‘i’ to represent the imaginary number.”(Ibid, p.9) The shortcomings of both symbolic systems were also the same. You’s idea was that for both science and Buddhism “language has shortcomings of clumsiness, unlike the nicety and deftness of ordinary literature…many phrases have to be repeated, a clumsiness resulting from a restriction by theory, a blemish that leads some to consider the sutras inferior from a literary standpoint.”(Ibid, p.9) However, the literary beauty is not lacking as far as reasoning is concerned, which is to say that the sutras possess an aesthetically pleasing style despite imperfect wording. You took the lead sentence of many sutras, “like that I hear” as evidence that the sutras use a Buddhism created syntax since such a phrase “is not the customary usage in Chinese at all.” (Ibid, p.9) In the first translations some versions used “like as I hear”, but “in later times, since the translation of the Kumarajiva, all of the sutras used ‘like that I hear’.” (Ibid, p.9) Though the sutras were translated literally, “they were not in the mold


of modern translations, trying to make Chinese fit a foreign mold,” (Ibid, p.9) the most important thing was to promote the faith, and so “like that” was placed before “I hear.”

The ji 偈 (Verse) used in the Buddhist sutras was undoubtedly a new style of writing invented by the Buddhist school. The ji comprised of four-character, five-character or seven-character compositions that “regard neither tones nor rhyme sounds, and so are a kind of non-rhymed poem.”(Ibid, p.10) What were they written for if they had no rhyme? As a matter of fact, rhymed poetry in Chinese was elaborately regularized and stylized, difficult to remember in general, and hard to create in particular. Chinese poetry was only recited by the elite literati, while the ji was popularized in the grass-roots of society. Therefore, You theorized that the ji was like the “rhymed oral formulae of the abacus calculation, which was designed for easy memorization by learners.” (Ibid, p.9) This exclusive style had much to do with the development of Buddhism in China, demonstrating that it was not only a natural and creative style, but also a scientific achievement. One ji reads “All is orderly, like the dream and bubble, or like dew drops and lightning in the sky, all are revealed in the verse.” The pleasant meaning of the words, more so even than the fact that it was not restricted by either the obliqueness or over-regulated rhyme patterns of Chinese poetry, led to the innocence and naturalness of the verse. Though it was not rhymed, every word was powerful, even a literary master could thrive on them. Of course, there was also the mode of Buddhist quotation, which was totally different from the language of the Buddhist sutras. It was the “plain language used by the general masses,” and eventually the “quotations written by literary scholars in the Song Dynasty were developed from the Buddhist quotation.” (Ibid, p.9) As for beauty in wording, “its elegant writing style is fascinating for readers, and they will be reluctant to stop reading or part with it because of its well organized structure and marvelous reasoning.” (Ibid, p.9) As You said, “Since I laid eyes on the Leng Yan Jing, I no longer care to read any other books.” (Ibid, p.9) Idiomatic phrases, such as “one method, second to none”, use of a single advisable road, “give a quick blow right away”, meaning a sharp warning, and “well versed in the thee Samadhis”, meaning familiar with meditative practices, although they originated in the Buddhist sutras, they were very much a part of the common vernacular of the Chinese people. It is no wonder that You said, “I suddenly understood the depth of the influence of the Buddhist sutras on China’s literature.” (Ibid, p.9)

(4) Precise terminology in translation As a foreign religion, the Buddhist sutras had to be translated from the

Sanskrit and Pali languages into Chinese. Naturally, problems in translation


emerged often. You held that “Chinese scientists lag far behind the Buddhists in precision in translation and naming.” (Ibid, p.11) He said that 20 years earlier he had “edited and translated electrical terms for the Chinese Engineers’ Association,” and that he understood intimately the many problems that still existed. Specifically, terms were not uniformly defined, and there were no standards whatsoever for transliteration and free translation. For example, the Chinese words for “electric machine” were adopted as a free translation of the English word “motor”, but at the same time ma da 马达 was used as a transliteration, occasionally the two terms were used together with no demarcations. The metric weight scale “gram” could be either gong fen 公分, a free translation, ge lan mu 各兰姆, a transliteration, or ke 克, yet another transliteration, a confusing system to say the least. The number of nouns and terms necessary for translating the Buddhist canon exceeded those available in any sort of specialized dictionary. In fact, the hard work of the scholarly world cannot match that of religion. “There were two regulations in Buddhist translation: the so-called “Five Not-to-be-Translated, and the Six Interpretations of Compound Terms. This is further evidence for me to believe that Buddhism is superior to science…the Five Not-to-be-Translated is the standard for free translation and transliteration, and the Six Interpretations of Compound Terms is a good set of regulations for splitting and combining compounds in translation.” (Ibid, p.11) All of these were, according to You, “necessary for modern scientists to study.” (Ibid, p.11) He used the electrical generator (fadianji 发电机), as an example. Producing electricity (fa dian 发电) is the purpose of the machine (ji 机), so the final word is translated according to the principle of chi ye shi 持业释 (referring to the equality of dependence of both terms) used for translating the Buddhist sutras. A magnet (citie 磁铁) is a piece of iron (tie 铁) possessing the property of magnetism (ci 磁), the term is translated according to you cai shi 有财释 b(sign of possession). When translations were done according to these methods, terms were strictly analyzed and translated without any ambiguity, thus allowing for a correct understanding for the source text.

Since strict standards and regulations were enacted for translation of Buddhist literature, and a large scale but strict system of translation was established, it was only natural that the Chinese translations became “very similar to the original Sanskrit versions, both in their meanings and their significance. Some minute variations in pronunciation are even easily distinguishable…”(Ibid, p.12) For example, the Sanskrit terms “moheyan”, “prajñâ-pâramitâ”, “amitabha” and “sañgha” were exactly the same as the versions in the English language. “The only differences lie in the fact that the pronunciation of Chinese during the Tang Dynasty was different from


that used today.” (Ibid, p.12) The word nan wu, for example, was pronounced as “nang mo” 曩谟 during the Tang Dynasty. You stressed that “in one direction the scriptures were translated from Sanskrit to Chinese; in the other direction they were translated from Sanskrit to Bali to English. However, even after so many transformations, the English and Chinese versions are overwhelmingly alike, like a shadow accompanying a person.”(Ibid, p.12) This is a confirmation of the methods used in the translation of Buddhist literature.

You experimented by taking a contemporary novel written in English but with the subject matter related to China, and translating it into Chinese. The result was a “novel that told a totally different story, and the translated version was the laughingstock of the literary world.” (Ibid, p.12)

Beyond the translations themselves, “even the transcription, printing, and punctuation left little to be desired.” “In respect to the correctness of proofreading and punctuation, Buddhist literature is better than any scholarly publication….The last pages of every sutra publication invariably carry the total number of characters and punctuations.” “Before China adopted the new (Western) style of punctuation, Buddhist publications were innovative in placing a cycle between characters and using a cycle with a side piece to indicate a full stop.” (Ibid, p.13) As the saying goes, “Behold a speck and know a leopard”, the scientific nature of Buddhism really goes without saying.

It ought to be acknowledged that the translation of the Buddhist canon was not really as good as You claimed. When Kumarajiva read the previous translation of the Pancavimsati (大品般若经) he criticized it for having “too many mistakes and omissions to claim to be consistent with the originals.” (see Huijiao 1992, p.52) However, the translation of Buddhist literature does hold an important place in the history of translation in China, “It has been the cumulative work of hundreds of years, with the contribution of thousands of learned scholars,” and so was able to “combine numerous styles and glean the essence of each in order to establish a unique scholarly system according to the methods of scientific research….As a result, it has become a benchmark for systematic editing and translation.” (Liang 1984, pp.241−5) Its creativity and precision, let us call it “scientificity”, is worthy of our attention.

2. Buddhism’s similarity to science in respect to the experimental method You Zhibiao said, “Buddhism does not emphasize theory and ignore

practice.” (You 2003b, p.38) Instead, it regards theory and practice as being on the same footing, emphasizing a combination of the two, holding that “knowledge serves action and action proves knowledge. Furthermore, a complete knowledge will become enlightenment, and a thoroughly


enlightened person will become a Buddha.” (Ibid, p.38) You’s conclusion was that “the leng yan jing is not the only guidebook for experimentation, all of the san zang 三藏 (Buddhist canon), jing 经 (scripture), lu 律 (precept), and lun 论(treatise) emphasize experimentation, and are able to guide the practice.” (Ibid, p.38) According to You’s view, as soon as scientists “walk out of their studies, they enter the laboratories; and when they have finished the experiments in the laboratories, they go back to their studies to analyze their experiments and compare them with theory.” (Ibid, p.38) Buddhists behave in a similar way. After they have finished their reading of the sutras and study of the scriptures they go into the worship room to sit in quiet contemplation, or else write down their thoughts; occasionally they will chant Buddha’s name or perform Buddhist ceremonies and rituals. When they have completed these assignments they will return to their study of the scriptures so as to gain even more knowledge and get the testimony. In a word, the process of study for both science and Buddhism begins from theory, leads to practical application, and then back to practice. However, there are differences between the two—“Scientists use the fen bie zhi 分别智 (the discriminating wisdom) of the liu shi 六识(the Six Consciousnesses) to explore the reasons behind the phenomena of arising, ceasing, changing and yuan qi 缘起 (dependent origination), while in addition to Fen bie zhi the Buddhists also use the wu fen bie zhi 无分别智(the Non-Discriminating Wisdom) to observe the secular world, i.e., xin fa 心法 (the mental functions) and wuweifa 无为法(unconditioned existence), all beyond the liu chen 六尘 (the objects of six sense organs). You explained that the difference was a result of scientists “thinking that the mind is independent of the material,” and that “it is not necessary to research the effect of psychology when studying the material world,” or else “they research the mind as if it were a material thing.” (Ibid, p.38) Hence, they use conceptual thought instead of the wu fen bie zhi. Therefore, what modern psychology has arrived at is only “the various phenomena and reflections of psychology”, and are fruitless for the pure xin fa such as the xin wang 心王 (mind-king), xin suo fa 心所法 (the mental functions) and others among the bai fa 百法(one hundred elements). You declared, “Science has overlooked the research of the mind itself, and is therefore not as exquisite or profound as Buddhism.” (Ibid, p.38)

Let us analyze You’s viewpoint more concretely. He divided the experimental methods of Buddhism into four types: the san ye 三业 (the three karmas: body, speak and mind), of jie lu 戒律 (precept), chan ding 禅定 (Dhyana and Samadhi: meditation), and mi zong 密宗 (secret Mantra), as well as the chanting Buddha’s name of jing tu zong 净土宗( the school of Pure Land). Among the above, jie lu is a tool, chan ding is the primary


content of an experiment, while the san ye and chanting of Buddha’s name are both methods and results. He said that “it is not so, that the Buddhists do not seek the material civilization,” (Ibid, p.39) for they also yearn for the pure land where the roadways are paved with gold, with dignified and magnificent buildings along both sides of the road. However, too much desire on the part of the people “causes greedy and evil thoughts in their minds such as corruption, anger, lust and violence.” (Ibid, p.40) So the Buddhists “always only keep three pieces of clothing and one rice bowl. They eat vegetables and plain rice that are sufficient enough for their survival, lest nice meals and beautiful garments cause greed and lust in their minds and hinder the experimentation…. So discipline is a tool to change a person’s way of life so that he is more easily able to perform experimentation,” just like the “test tubes, gas lights and paper filters in a laboratory.” (Ibid, p.40)

Chan ding is not only “the basis of Buddhist psychological experimentation,” but is also “a practical tool that the author hopes to introduce to the world of science.” (Ibid, p.41) The doctrine of Buddhism is “to experience for oneself the zhen ru 真如 (absolute reality) that the Buddha talked about.” (Ibid, p. 41)

On the basis of Buddhist teaching, You concluded that ordinary people concern themselves with physical reality, while scientists pursue the objective truth. However, both of these mindsets are “simply illusions with biased origins, and are not realistic mindsets in the Buddhist sense.” (Ibid, p.42) If those presuppositions are not cast off then “there will be no way for the permanent and sustaining mind to emerge.” (Ibid, p.42) On the other hand, if greed and absurd desire are abolished, “people are able to rid themselves of the bondage of time and space, the pains of birth, oldness, sickness and death.” (Ibid, p.42) This is the origin of the common saying, “Monastic discipline gives birth to ding 定 (Samadhi: concentration), ding gives birth to wisdom.” The chan 禅 (Zen) is the same as monastic discipline, “it is only a means to seek wisdom.” Of course, “in contrast to the wisdom adopted by secularists, scientists and philosophers, it does not separate consciousness or the two minds of si 思(thinking) and xiang 想 (perception) that emerge from consciousness. “Only the wisdom produced ding is able to conduct reasonable observations in the search for truth….Once a man becomes apprehensive, his ability to give sermons and explicate the scriptures clearly and logically, even when using secular techniques such as poetry, calligraphy and painting, shall be in the manner of an original master, transcending the mediocre masses.” (Ibid, p.42) That is to say, the wisdom of a Buddhist can transcend the wisdom of the secular world, and it is able to not only achieve a person’s zhen ru, but also give


creative inspiration to scientists and artists. As a result, “Sitting in complete stillness (Concentrated Meditation) is not only suitable for practitioners of Buddhism, but is also a method to be adopted by any scholar who wishes to train his mind.” (Ibid, p.42) You provided an example, a student studying projected geometry whose imagination was so poor that he could not understand the lesson or draw a chart correctly. “If (the student) were to close his eyes and sit quietly for a while, letting his mind concentrate on a specific item, he would then certainly be able to observe all kinds of projections and sections clearly in his mind, the same as if he saw the charts with his own eyes.” (Ibid, p.44) This is what we mean by saying that ding produces wisdom in respect to both scientific and worldly skills.

The mi zong and jing tu zong schools are even more inclined to the personal exploration of the zhen ru. You Zhibiao reckoned that “unless people acknowledge the Zhen ru personally there is no way to explain it to them.” (Ibid, p.47) The mi zong school teaches its followers to value the Three Karmas, harmonizing deed, word, and thought so as to demonstrate the brightness of their essential nature. The practice of chanting the name of Buddha popularized by jing tu zong school “is totally consistent with the preaching of se 色 (Form), kong 空 (Void) and ‘the yuan qi’.” (Ibid, p.47) Once again using the magnet as an example You said, “The Amituofo阿弥陀佛 (one of Buddha’s names) is like a magnet, the prayer chanting multitude are like the irons... The iron is a yin yuan 因緣 (cause or condition) and the magnet is a zeng shang yuan 增上缘 (dominant condition). A mind of chanting is a yin yuan and the vow of Buddha is a zeng shang yuan.” (Ibid, p.47) “When a person chants Buddha’s name so earnestly that he is oblivious to all other things, his thought is thus aligned and the magnetic force is produced, he is drawn to the Pure Land. When a piece of iron becomes a magnet, the quality of the iron remains unchanged. Likewise, when a sentient being become Buddha, the nature of Buddha is still there…. So here we see that the reasoning of science proves the doctrine of jing tu zong.” (Ibid, p.47)

When we talk about methods and tools for exploring truth it is only natural to mention yin ming 因明 (Buddhist logic). You Zhibiao said that it was unavoidable to take a step back and adopt xian liang 现量 (intuition) and bi liang 比量(perception), and that “this logical form conforms to science.” (You 2003a, p.17) He used a comparative method to illustrate that the three steps of yin ming are similar to san duan lun 三段论法(Syllogism), only their orders are reversed. “Providing a verdict (conclusion) is the purpose of yin ming, the minor premise is a condition and the major premise is an example.” (Ibid, p.18) He once again used the example of “metal, aluminum and electric conductivity” to explain yin ming and Syllogism. He


concluded that “yin ming is a steadier and more reliable induction method than Syllogism because the word ‘fan’ 凡 (any), often adopted as the major premise is too arbitrary: If the electrical conductivity of aluminum is not verified, how can one then use the minor premise that aluminum conducts electricity to prove a major premise that all metals do so? It’s too risky.” His conclusion was that “Syllogism is not as good as yin ming so far as persuasion and accuracy are concerned.” (Ibid, pp.17-8) You’s analysis was certainly straightforward, but in fact yin ming shares this fault. Although Chen Na’s laws did not include the sheng jiao liang 圣教量 (the doctrine of learning from the teacher), the methods are still induced under a premise that made it unnecessary to testify impermanence, wu wo 无我 (no self-nature) and yuan qi. You, of course, had his reasons for preferring the Buddhist method.

It should be mentioned that in respect to method, You Zhibiao held that Buddhism not only advocated proper methods and the integration of practice with theory the same way that scientists did, but in fact had a complete set of experimental programs that was better developed than science, especially in the realm of xin fa 心法 (Buddhist teaching). He acknowledged the experimental achievements of Buddhism, verifying that the associated methods of san ye, jie lu, Chan ding, and chanting were in fact true. However, since most of the conclusions produced by them would require faith as a premise, experimental evidence was still lacking. You said, “Without personal experimentation…one should not willingly make baseless conjectures…instead, one should leave any claims alone until their possibility or impossibility has been proven.” (You 2003b, p.48) That is to say, personal testimonies and experiments are inferred when “faith” is taken as a premise, and so they are not the same as results produced by scientific research. Liang Qichao put it better, saying that since these religious “testimonies” transcended psychology they would naturally transcend the science as well. The better policy is probably to leave these tensions alone.

3. Buddhism as pure intelligence In the beginning of his book Fo Jiao Ke Xue Guan, You Zhibiao

explained that,

After science developed to a certain point, all narrow-minded religions, whether they are monotheistic or polytheistic, long ago found they were unable to withstand the impact of scientific criticism. Buddhism is the sole exception. The more developed science becomes, more popular the doctrines of Buddhism…the reason being that the theory behind Buddhism can be verified by science, and the more advanced ones personal knowledge of science is, the more capable they


are of understanding the difficult texts of the Buddhist canon. It is universally acknowledge that science is a product of intelligence, but we do not realize that Buddhism is also such a product. Since Buddhism is also a product of intelligence….when one looks at it from a standpoint of a scientist he shall see and understand it more clearly. (You 2003a, pp.2−3)

Obviously, You Zhibiao’s saying that “Buddhism is a product of

intelligence” corresponds to the viewpoint of Liang Qichao that Buddhism is an “intelligent faith” rather than superstition. Liang, however, believed that Buddhism was ultra-transcendent, a doctrine transcending science, while You emphasized the scientific nature of Buddhism and its concrete experiments. In this vein, You spent a considerable amount of time analyzing these three aspects of Buddhism: “Eradicating Superstition”, “Discarding Personal Feelings” and “Initiating True Faith” to prove that Buddhism was a product of the intellect.

Incorrect presuppositions must be cast off before superstition can be eradicated. In the past people believed that the Earth was flat, square and still while the Sun moved. Science has now proved that these were misconceptions, along with the mystic beliefs associated with other natural phenomena like solar and lunar eclipses. Modern astronomy now knows that the stars we see in the sky are “starlight emitted dozens of years ago. The light that we see today may be coming from a star that no longer exists, having passed away like the wind.” (Ibid, p.7) As for the sensation that our surroundings are static, “Scientists tell us that the atoms of all substances are in constant motion, electrons are flying around their nucleus like the planets in the Solar System. All of those elementary particles are revolving at light speed, and every atom is moving and vibrating ceaselessly.” (Ibid, p.7)Matter seems to be made of solid substances, but in fact “there are huge spaces of void between electrons and the nucleus, and between all atoms. The connections are in fact very loose indeed!” (Ibid, p.7)

Similar to science, “Buddhism has also corrected many misconceptions of the natural world.” (Ibid, p.7) Contrary to an ancient belief that “there is not a second sun in the sky…the Buddhist scriptures declared that there are a billion suns in the three thousand Multifarious Worlds…. We can see through a telescope that there is an uncountable number of fixed stars in the universe, each one of them a solar system.” (Ibid, p.7) You joked to say that it was fortunate that the Chinese emperors were tolerant enough not to “condemn the Buddhist scriptures as heresy” – the fate the Roman Catholic Church submitted the great astronomer Nicolas Copernicus to. The moon’s change of phases from “new”, to the crescent, and finally to a full moon


was also a source of confusion for ancient peoples. The sutras only spoke of a white moon and black moon completely in line with the actual phenomena of the moon reflecting rays of the Sun. One sutra declares that the human body is a “nestle of insects,” and that “there are eighty kinds of insects living there.” The ancient medical works Zhi Chan Bing Mi Yao Jing 治禅病秘要经 and Zheng Fa Nian Chu Jing 正法念处经, “also described the insects different movements and shapes,” which corrects the misconception that only the “I/me” self possesses the body. “When Buddha looked at a ladle of water, he saw 84 thousand insects.” (Ibid, p.7) Microbiology has made this common knowledge.

The next question is the breaking of the soul. In China and abroad, whether in the East or in the West, the majority of people believe in the existence of the soul. However, You Zhibiao said that “if we test this with logic or Yin ming, we will find that this is not true.” (Ibid, p.7) If the soul is material, “it must have length and weight,” and it must be visible in the physical world. An object cannot fly of its own accord; it is pushed by an outside force. The human body does not require an unknown substance to act as its dictator. If the soul is a non-material substance, “how then can it fly into and out of our bodies?” You pointed out the Buddhist teaching that the director of a person while they lived, and their identity during the transmigration after death, is in fact not the soul, but instead the shen shi 神识 (store consciousness) and Buddha nature within them. This belief removes the need for a superstitious belief in the soul. He said, “Shen shi is a pneuma covered by material desire, the Buddha nature is a pneuma not encumbered by material desire.” (Ibid, p.7) The doctrine of the two “pneuma” provided by You is obviously better than the explanation of the “consciousnesses” made by Wang Xiaoxu, and it also turned Buddhist doctrine into a superorganic concept.

Since Buddhism is able to eradicate superstition, it can therefore act as one of the “two bright lights”, illuminating the world together with science. (Ibid, p.7) You said, “Almost all knowledge that I have gained has come from the footnotes of the Buddhist scriptures, and it has led me to become a defender of the Buddhist faith.” (You 2003b, p.18) “It is a pity that the modern science is only able to look at the outer appearance of physical phenomena. For just this reason we must use the other light of Buddhism to deal with issues related to the mind. Failing that, superstition is not going to be eradicated.” (You 2003a, p.8)

Misconceptions and superstitions are the result of irrational feelings, which must be eradicated before the misconceptions themselves can be eliminated. The gravest misconception, deeply rooted in the human mind, is prejudice. Therefore, when the Buddha asks that we break down our


attachments, he means our prejudiced feelings. “Scientists do not bring feeling into their work, and imagination is highly regarded.” (You 2003b, p.10) The structure of the atom, the movement of the celestial bodies and transmission of electromagnetic wave – all of these scientific discoveries “relied on the imagination, which is able to supplement our inefficient eyes…. The value of a mechanical drawing is in its accuracy, not in whether it is handsome or not.” (Ibid, p.10) At the root, the feeling mentioned here is an “egocentrism” which must be broken down by Buddhism. From the standpoint of Buddhism, “all feelings should be cast off no matter what they are - public or private, small or big since they all have roots in the same prejudice.” (Ibid, p.11) You pointed out that Buddhism pays attention to the imagination the same way that science does. In the contemplative practices of Buddhism there are five kinds of observation, named the wu ting xin 五停心 (five ways to stop delusional hindrances). “The second type of observation teaches how to see the numerous figures and sights in the Pure Land. The same concept projected geometry.” (Ibid, pp.10-12)

You also tells us that Buddhism teaches us not only how to believe, but also how to doubt. He said, “Great doubt leads to greater awareness; lesser doubt leads to lesser awareness; with no doubt there can be no awareness.” (You 2003a, p.47) This is indeed true origin of Buddhism’s research spirit, for it both breaks down superstition and promotes investigation. Buddhism is truly a fellow traveler of science, both are heading for the same destination, just by different roads.

More concretely, You meticulously analyzed two aspects of the scientific nature of Buddhism:

(1) Looking at the yuanqi scientifically Buddha said that all phenomena are the result of cause and effect,

everything in this world is the result of combination of causes and conditions. You Zhibiao said that “in light of developments in modern science, the truth of yuanqi has been proven.” (Ibid, p.41) In his criticism of the four heresies: No-Causes, Unequal Factors, Fatalism and Mechanical Determination, You reiterated that in addition to the bian ji suo zhi 遍计所执 (all pervasive calculation and attachment) that Buddha spoke of, the yuanqi is also “a basic theory to explain the various changes in the universe” and a “Universal Law of Cause and Effect” suitable to explain “all kinds of changes – material changes, psychological changes and the mixed changes of the material and the psyche.” (Ibid, p.41)

Despite the passage of hundreds or thousands of jie 劫 (a sanskrit unit of time), the results of actions never perish. When the causes and conditions are all finally calculated together, the one committing the action will receive the effect of his behavior. You used a Buddhist hymn to give the basic


characteristics of yuanqi: a. Once a cause exists, it shall never perish on its own accord. For

example, Newton’s law stated that no object will change the course of its motion unless acted upon by an opposite force.

b. An effect is the result of an encounter between a cause and a condition. If a static object encounters an external force, it will then change its direction of motion, stop or accelerate.

c. One will reap what one has sown. There are no rewards or punishments from any gods, and neither shall any person pay for the actions of another.

Related in a more conventional way, yuanqi declares that all things in the world require not only their cause, but also an appropriate condition. When both cause and condition are satisfied, the effect can be achieved. In this sense, Buddhism belongs to the Conditional Doctrine, instead of Single Cause theory. You’s scientific analysis explained the connotations of the Conditional Doctrine with an experiment. He said,

Make a copper wire move in a magnetic field, while it is cutting the

magnetic line of force, electricity will be generated in the copper wire. In the process of this physical change the copper wire is the primary cause, the motion and magnetic line of force are the auxiliary conditions, while the voltage produced in the wire is an effect. If the copper wire does not exist, there will be no electric voltage. From this we can say that the copper wire is the primary cause. However, if there is no force to push it, and no magnetic line of force there to be cut by the wire, then the voltage is still not produced in the copper wire. Therefore, the motion and magnetic field are the Karmas. When the causes and conditions are all available, the effect is produced. (Ibid, p.41)

Meanwhile, You Zhibiao also enumerated a lot of examples from science

and real life that prove the rationality of yuanqi. Rice farmers harvest rice, those who plant beans get beans. Likewise, workers use yarn to weave cloth, they grind wheat into flour. In those processes, both the primary cause and the auxiliary conditions are all available-clearly demonstrating the principle of yuanqi. “No cause is the first and no result is the last. The cause ahead has one still further ahead and the earliest is totally unknown. The last result has one more result still behind, it’s endless.” (You 2003b, p.19) In the scriptures there are the so-called Six-Causes (Liu Yin), Ten-Causes (Shi Yin), Four-Conditions (Si Yuan) and Five Results (Wu Guo) … Buddhism has clearly explored Yuanqi fully. Furthermore, the Law of Causes and Conditions is “not restricted by time,” which allows for sayings and terms like “three generations” and “a thousand generations”. Whether or not the


results will occur depends on “if the conditions are available and ready.” Once again, the emphasis is on the decisive role of conditions.

Though the truth of Buddhism is proven by scientific experimentation, since science “can only relate the physical relationship between substances, it cannot go ahead to the next step when issues of humankind or the mind are presented.” However, You Zhibiao thought that by taking the method of comprehension by analogy, the relationship between the mind and substance supposed by Buddhist theory “could also be explored…. I noted that modern science was using concrete examples and proving Buddhist theory… and there is no lack of the evidence that the mind can cause changes to the material world.” One needs only look at Chinese sayings such as: “looking at the plums hanging on the trees can appease one’s thirst” (feeding on fancies), “when the general Li Guang saw a fierce tiger, he shot his arrow into the stone and submerged the feather”, (to possess incredible willpower) and others to see “testaments to the mind’s ability to change the material.” (Ibid, pp.41−46) This process of the material being produced by the mind and spirit is given the Buddhist term “Yi Shou 异熟 (maturation).”

When we discuss yuanqi, we cannot avoid mentioning the “Three Truths”, i.e., the three contemplations of kong 空 (emptiness), jia 假 (the unreal) and zhong 中 (the middle). In Yige Kexuezhe Yanjiu Fojing De Baogao, You Zhibiao says that these contemplations “have broken down all kinds of false conceptions: the creation of everything by an almighty God, any omnipotent God and the belief that the atom is the basic particle of the universe that cannot be divided any further.” (Ibid, p.20) As a result they had “thoroughly interpreted” the doctrine of harmonized combination related to yuanqi. (Ibid, p.25) He analyzed the three contemplations of kong, jia and zhong like so - X represents everything and everybody, i.e., mountains and rivers, the Sun and stars, science and technology as well as all kinds of things that are feeling and non-feeling, material and mental. He even used a formula to explain it-“X equals the non-X and equals the nominated X.” For example, a tea cup is a piece of tea set made of porcelain in a cylindrical shape. “If there is no porcelain, what is the pneuma of the cup?” The pneuma here means a form corresponding to the content, instead of a philosophical concept that explains everything. If we use the cup to drink wine, “Does it not become a wine cup?” So we can say that its name of ‘tea cup’ is in fact a provisional name, and its form is empty. So if we adopt the first phrase of the Buddhist formulae, the “so-called tea cup” is an illusory existence, while the second phrase is “it is not a tea cup”, it is a void existence. However, when we do use it to drink tea, its “utility” is realized, and so it is neither void nor unreal. It is in fact the third phrase, “It is obviously a void and unreal thing, but one cannot call it a void or unreal thing”-the Middle doctrine. As a matter of fact,


when we use the same formula to infer further, the porcelain is also unreal because it is made from a substance called Silicon Aluminum Hydroxide, which is “comprised of a nucleus and electrons.” So the porcelain is also void and unreal. By the same analogy, the three contemplations of kong, jia and zhong can each be proven. Even the basic theory of Buddhism itself is no exception. This explains the portion of the Diamond Sutra that says “the so-called Buddha’s teaching is in fact not a teaching. This is a real teaching.”

(Ibid, p.19) You Zhibiao went a step further; analyzing the essence of yuanqi with

negative annotation and negation, taking the electric light as an example. Its current changes “in conformity to the sine curve to increase from a zero value to a maximum value; then it decreases steadily until it reaches zero again. After that point, it will grow again to the maximum point before it decreases again to the zero position.” In such a cycle, the lighting seems steady to us, but in fact “it is always growing and perishing,” and “it is born and perished unceasingly…the current produces and perishes, and we know that it is not steady.” Similarly, during the numerous processes of switching on and shutting off of the power source, the number of electrons moving in the copper wire is also unchanged, and “since the electrons of the copper atom does not change, we know that they have not perished.” (Ibid, p.40) Non-Perishing and Non-abiding are the true essences of Yuanqi, while worldly people deem the unreal things as true, taking false obstinacy as normal. You used this example to explain the “ba bu” 八不 (eight negations) - a way of thinking transcending dual opposites, itself a scientific invention.

Non-Perishing means that things neither arise nor cease, Non-Lasting means that arising succeeds cessation. These terms are empty, but at the same time are not really empty. Hence, the two phrases “form is emptiness” and “emptiness is form” have become the most popular slogans in Buddhist propaganda. You analyzed this phenomenon also. It is now known that most of the real substance of an atom exists in the nucleus, and that the mass of an electron is only 1/1840th of the nucleus. The invention of the atom bomb proved that “substance can be changed into energy,” and so any principle going against Buddhist doctrine are refuted, such as the separation of substance from energy. Since substance can be changed into unsubstantial form (energy), is its form not empty? When the atom bomb was detonated at Hiroshima, “a very small quantity of Uranium (U235) was converted into energy, which in turn turned the living beings of Hiroshima into dead things.” According to the principles of physics, “Energy is a product equal to power plus distance.” (Ibid, p.22) “So-called time and power are produced in interdependence of one another, so neither of them is a real permanent thing.


This shows that “form is emptiness.” We can further deduce that “non-substantial energy becoming a substance

is emptiness as form. Recently, some British scientists have found concrete proof to demonstrate that energy can be turned into substantial material.” (Ibid, p.22) You Zhibiao said, however, that the specific kinds of energy can be turned into substance, as well as the methods and procedures for that transformation “are still unknown.” He hypothesized that “we can produce food, clothes and gold from the rays of the sun (a form of energy). Alternatively, we can use the hydraulic power of the Yangtze River, or the rotating force of the Earth, even the potential energy between the Earth and the Sun – any one of them is possible.” (Ibid, p.22) With modern science and technology, the idea of turning substance into energy is not only possible, but has been realized, so no one can reasonably accuse You of raving. As for the scriptures saying that “a hundred thousand billions of Buddhas and Bodhisattva shall emerge” and “any substance can be generated from the empty void” (Ibid, p.22), that is a separate question.

The three concepts of self-nature in Buddhism are also based on yuanqi, especially yi ta qi xing 依他起性 (the dependence on other forms). You explained that “yi ta qi xing means that everything is produced in a way dependent on other forms, once the condition is available.” This is contemplation of the kong (Kong Guan). When people “make numerous subjective speculations” on the association of causes and conditions, when “they provide all kinds of opinion, or establish many doctrines; this is bian ji suo zhi 遍计所执 (all pervasive calculation and attachment).” This is the contemplation of jia (Jia Guan). “If there is no subjective prejudice attached to yi ta qi xing, leaving only objectivity, then that is kown as yuanchengshixing 圆成实性 (Perfectly Accomplished Nature of Reality).” This is the contemplation of zhong (Zhong Guan). You clearly pointed out in his analysis that “Yi ta qi xing is the objective view of science”. For example, the relationship between time and space represents a concept of mobility. The movement of matter is the concept of force; from the relationship of force and space comes the concept of energy, and so forth. As for saying, “knowledge comes from the deductive and inductive methods of the natural sciences (except when the inductive method is used in an unsound way),” You felt that the methods were “reliable because they come from yi ta qi xing. For example, mathematics is established from natural laws recognized by all, and it uses the deductive method to explore various relationships in the unknown world.” (Ibid, pp.28−30) The principle of statistics is to “induce a theory from various facts.” If an unsound inductive method is adopted, then a conclusion will be made from partial facts. When a subjective scheme and erroneous assumptions are added to this unsound


method, then it becomes bian ji suo zhi. To use these methods in observation sacrifices real facts, so it is obviously false.

(2) The worldview of arising, abiding, perishing and emptiness Yuanqi is the fundamental theory of creation in Buddhism, and also the

basic form of the created world. The doctrine of yuanqi is also scientific, so the worldview of Buddhism is really that of science. This led You to declare that (of religions), only Buddhism can describe the organization and evolution of the universe and accordance with the principle of modern science.

He pointed out that Buddhism held the concept of three thousand Multifarious Worlds, a Buddha’s land containing thousands of solar systems, similar to a nebula in astronomy. A group of a thousand solar systems is what is meant by the so-called “minor thousand worlds”, a thousand “minor thousand worlds” is what is meant by the so-called “middling thousand worlds”, and a thousand “middling thousand worlds” is what is meant by the so-called “major thousand worlds”. You related that a mi tuo jing 阿弥陀经 (one of the sutra in the jing tu zong) described the distance from the Pure Land to the earth as “ten thousand billion” nebulas, explaining the vastness and infinitude of the universe. Buddhist cosmology corresponds and “coincides with the knowledge of modern astronomy.” As for the earth itself, Buddhism holds that it was “a mass of foam” in its initial form, then “gradually condensing into a solid.” This belief is not only similar to that held by modern scientists, but also conforms with the qi shi jian 器世间 (secular world), holds to the principle of causes and conditions, definitely follow the four laws of arising, abiding, perishing and emptiness, producing and perishing unceasingly.” (Ibid, p.50) This is the only analysis of the concept of the qi shi jian by You, so it is impossible to really elaborate.

(3) A philosophy advocating equal and active participation The idea of the “Supra-Mundane” and “Putting an End to Life and Death”

are two important Buddhist concepts regarding human life, usually used by those who criticize the religion as despondent, unambitious and advocating passive retiracy. You believed that this was a misunderstanding. He interpreted the word “mundane” to show that Buddhism actually possesses a spirit of active participation in society. He said that the “so-called ‘mundane’ was in fact time… the so-called ‘supra-mundane’ is the breaking loose from the bondage of time.” (Ibid, p.51) Time “arises and perishes very quickly,” and so it is in fact a false phenomenon of the bian ji suo zhi. Whoever can be freed from this false arising and perishing, he shall never be bound up by time. Therefore, the “Supra-mundane” is far from world-weariness. The law of Buddhism can never depart from the mundane and give up on the worldly. “Putting an End to Life and Death” means that a person understands the false


phenomena of rising and perishing, as well as the danger of presumptuous desires. Such a person is anything but a cowardice deserter.

You remarked that the entire world speaks of equality, but they are usually talking about “insignificant and trivial” matters such as the inequalities in politics, economy, sex discrimination and education etc. If things continue in such a way, not only can equality not be realized, but there is also a total lack of theoretical argumentation. Besides, as differences in human society exist everywhere, how can one even talk about equality? Buddhists believe that all differences are false phenomena of the bian ji suo zhi. In essence, “The mind, Buddha and sentient beings are not actually different, but instead are equal to each other.” Furthermore, “Buddha’s teachings are all equal, there is no relative superiority.” All human beings are made of material elements, all sentient creatures, including animals and plants, are comprised of “nothing other than skin, hair, bone, flesh, juice and blood,” which is all in turn shown by chemical analysis to contain nothing but a clusters of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphor, calcium and iron. Hence, it is difficult to “find any real difference” between one person and another, between humans, animals or plants. In respect to the spirit realm, we can adjudge the issue by using the doctrine of “four second-natures” advocated by the ancient Chinese sage Mencius – “they each possess four spiritual functions: taking, thinking, acting and knowing, there is no difference at all between them.” (Ibid, p.24) For instance, all substances are made from “98 types of elements organized complex structures. Although they are distinguished by shape, species and description, we still find that they are exactly the same in respect to their pneuma.” (Ibid, p.39) This is the same as the phenomena described in the Zhong Lun 中论 (one of Buddhist theses), which declares that “nothing is different.” You claimed that the “phenomenal diversification and pneumenal similarity”

(Ibid, p.38) was the very basis for the Buddha’s advocacy of fundamental equality.

Corresponding with the doctrine of “Putting an End to Life and Death”, You explained that life is like a spring that “never stops at midway and constantly runs ahead.” Following the “Arising, Abiding, Changing and Extinction” of all matter and the “Formation, Existence, Destruction and Non-Existence” of the world, “the human being’s life is a successive process, the four stages of birth, aging, ailing and death are natural, and the non-arising and non-ceasing is indeed the very pneuma of the human life. As a result, the human being is in fact a unified system, combining life and death together. The same is true of distinction and non-extinction.” When coal is burnt to carbon dioxide gas and ash, and electricity is turned to mechanical power, neither the quality nor the quantity is changed. Human


life can “also be turned into another form, but that shall by no means be regarded as extinction.” (Ibid, pp.39–40) Because Buddhists hold this notion of life and death, they will not only face death unflinchingly, but even forget themselves and audaciously march ahead. “I vow to work for the salvation of all sentient beings for all my life” and “Since there are sentient beings that have not yet entered the Buddha’s world, I shall never rest.” (Ibid, p.51) These Buddhist slogans represent the spirit of their active participation in human activity.

You’s analysis of the scientific view of the universe held by Buddhism, as seen in the doctrine of Arising, Abiding, Changing and Extinction of all Existences was obviously better than those contributed by Tan Sitong, Liang Qichao, Shi Taixu, Zhang Huasheng, Jing Changji and Wang Jitong. His analysis was more detailed and the contents of the scientific experiments were shown clearly in the scriptures. Unfortunately, a large challenge remains. As science only researches the relationships between different types of matter, no research is ever made on the relationships between mind and mind as well as mind and matter, so it is impossible for us to make a true comparison between Buddhism and science, we are instead limited to comparing Buddhism with the science at the level of matter and matter. As for other methods, such as “adopting the Bi liang of Yin ming for speculation,” (Ibid, p.51) it would be impossible to avoid false conjectures.

However, in the final analysis, what the men said is not the most important issue. The important issue is what they wanted to do. In the middle of the 20th century, when the natural sciences and the applied sciences were advancing rapidly, other types of thought and sources of knowledge, including Buddhism, also marched ahead together with the times, wishing to reach the destination of final truth—verification by scientific experiment. There is no doubt that this phenomenon reflects the spiritual style of our time.

References

Dongchu, Zhongguo Fojiao Jindaishi 中国佛教近代史 (Modern history of Chinese Buddhism),Vol.2, Taibei: Dongchu Chubanshe, 1984

Huijiao Gaoseng Zhuangjuan Er · Yijing Zhong 慧皎高僧传卷二‧ 译经中(Great monks biography), II, Beijing: zhonghua Shuju, 1992

Liang, Qichao, Fodian Zhi Fanyi 佛典之翻译 (Translating of Buddhist sutra), Taibei: Xin Wen Feng Chuban Gongsi, 1984

Liang, Qichao, Fojiao Xinlixue Qiance 佛教心理学浅测 (A slight testing on Buddhist psychology), A complete works of Liang Qichao VII, Beijing: Beijing publishing house, 1999a


Liang, Qichao, Liang Qichao Quanji 梁启超全集 (A complete works of Liang Qichao), Beijing: Beijing publishing house, 1999b

Liang, Qichao, Qingdai Xueshu Gailun 清代学术概论 (An overview of academy in the Qing Dynasty), A complete works of Liang Qichao, No.5, Beijing: Beijing publishing house, 1999c

Shi, Taixu, Faxiang Weishixue 法相唯识学 (The consciousness-only doctrine of phenomenal appearances), A complete works of Taixu, No.VI, Taixu Dashi Quanshu Chuban Weiyuanhui, 1956a

Shi, Taixu, Taixu Zizhuan 太虚自传 (Autobiography of Shi Taixu), The complete works of Taixu No. II, Taixu Dashi Quanshu Chuban Weiyuanhui, 1956 b

Wang, Jitong, Wei Yige Kexuezhe Yanjiu Fo Jing De Baogao De xu 为一个科学者研究佛经

的报告的序 (Preface to a scientist’s report of research on Buddhism), You Zhibiao’s Viewpoint of Buddhism and Science and a Scientist’s Report of Research on Buddhism, Taibei: Huayan Lian She, 2003

You, Zhibiao, Fojiao Kexueguan 佛教科学观 (My viewpoint of Buddhism and science), Taibei: Hua Yan Lian She, 2003a

You, Zhibiao, Yige Kexuezhe Yanjiu Fojing De Baogao 一个科学者研究佛经的报告 (A scientist’s report of research on Buddhism), Taibei: Hua Yan Lian She, 2003b

scientific analysis of buddhism and a comparative study of buddhism and science

Documents