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 RESEARCH ARTICLE
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,
Translated from Pumen Xuebao 普门学报(Universal Gate) Vol. 27, 2005 (5) by Kong
Xiangzhen, Ma Tianxiang, and Andrew Herron
Ma Tianxiang( )
School of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
E-mail: matianx@yahoo.com
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientific Analysis of Buddhism and A Comparative Study of Buddhism and Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Front. Philos.

China (2006) 4: 594−629

Scientific analysis of Buddhism and a comparative study of

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2006

Abstract As Buddhism spread into China, the Mahayana (Dacheng) and

Keywords Buddhism, Wang Jitong or Wang Xiaoxu (王小徐), You

I Wang Xiaoxu’s comparative study of Buddhism with science

Electric Factory in Germany, where he invented a new type of rotating

(Fundamental issues in science), as well a response to Ge Zhiliang (葛志亮),

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

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

All forms of academic thought are nothing but historical materials.

into their writing. (Dongchu, 1984, p. 575)

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

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

theory itself. So here again “when language is used in interpretation, the

the rationality of Buddhist epistemology and the teaching of “breaking

The seventh consciousness is in essence the cognitive philosophy of

According to Wang, the first six consciousnesses could be easily

prejudices, mistakenly interpreting visual messages and sensory impulses of

The concept of consciousness in Western philosophy is roughly

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

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

When evidence is not truly xian liang, or something concluded by

II You Zhibiao’s scientific analysis of Buddhism

Provincial Government, acting concurrently as the chief officer of the

enlightened person will become a Buddha.” (Ibid, p.38) You’s conclusion

content of an experiment, while the san ye and chanting of Buddha’s name

creative inspiration to scientists and artists. As a result, “Sitting in complete

After science developed to a certain point, all narrow-minded

are of understanding the difficult texts of the Buddhist canon. It is

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

attachments, he means our prejudiced feelings. “Scientists do not bring

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

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

This shows that “form is emptiness.”

phenomena of rising and perishing, as well as the danger of presumptuous

Dongchu, Zhongguo Fojiao Jindaishi 中 国 佛 教 近 代 史 (Modern history of Chinese

You might also like

Dongchu, Zhongguo Fojiao Jindaishi 中国佛教近代史 (Modern history of Chinese