Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?

The main aim of this article is to shed light on the intricate relationship between Buddhism and science by focusing on what is becoming an increasingly popular area of contact between the two domains, namely the study of consciousness in the field of cognitive (neuro)science. First, three fundamen...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sebastjan VÖRÖS
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts) 2016-02-01
Series:Asian Studies
Subjects:
Online Access:https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/3750
id doaj-d7c405d9595746f2903640018e0bcc39
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d7c405d9595746f2903640018e0bcc392021-03-02T09:58:54ZengZnanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts)Asian Studies2232-51312350-42262016-02-014110.4312/as.2016.4.1.61-805724Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?Sebastjan VÖRÖS0University of Ljubljana The main aim of this article is to shed light on the intricate relationship between Buddhism and science by focusing on what is becoming an increasingly popular area of contact between the two domains, namely the study of consciousness in the field of cognitive (neuro)science. First, three fundamental ways of approaching the relationship between Buddhism and science are outlined: (a) rejection (Buddhism and science are not, and cannot be, compatible); (b) acceptance (Buddhism and science share important commonalities); (c) construction (Buddhism and science are compatible because they have been made compatible in the course of specific historical processes). It is claimed that which of the three stances one takes depends ultimately on how one construes the two parties involved and the nature of their (potential) interaction. To exemplify this, the scope of the discussion is narrowed to the domain of consciousness research and a general overview of some of the main arguments for and against the collaboration between Buddhism and cognitive (neuro)science (“Three Turnings of the Wheel of (Non)Interaction”) is provided. Finally, in light of the tentative results of our analysis, a short reflection of some of the most pertinent presuppositions and entailments of different stances towards Buddhism-science dialogue is laid out, with special emphasis on the distinction between construing Buddhism as “living” versus “dead” tradition. https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/3750Buddhismcross-cultural cognitive sciencecontemplative scienceconsciousness studiesreligion-science debatedialogue
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sebastjan VÖRÖS
spellingShingle Sebastjan VÖRÖS
Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?
Asian Studies
Buddhism
cross-cultural cognitive science
contemplative science
consciousness studies
religion-science debate
dialogue
author_facet Sebastjan VÖRÖS
author_sort Sebastjan VÖRÖS
title Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?
title_short Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?
title_full Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?
title_fullStr Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?
title_full_unstemmed Buddhism and Cognitive (Neuro)Science: An Uneasy Liaison?
title_sort buddhism and cognitive (neuro)science: an uneasy liaison?
publisher Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts)
series Asian Studies
issn 2232-5131
2350-4226
publishDate 2016-02-01
description The main aim of this article is to shed light on the intricate relationship between Buddhism and science by focusing on what is becoming an increasingly popular area of contact between the two domains, namely the study of consciousness in the field of cognitive (neuro)science. First, three fundamental ways of approaching the relationship between Buddhism and science are outlined: (a) rejection (Buddhism and science are not, and cannot be, compatible); (b) acceptance (Buddhism and science share important commonalities); (c) construction (Buddhism and science are compatible because they have been made compatible in the course of specific historical processes). It is claimed that which of the three stances one takes depends ultimately on how one construes the two parties involved and the nature of their (potential) interaction. To exemplify this, the scope of the discussion is narrowed to the domain of consciousness research and a general overview of some of the main arguments for and against the collaboration between Buddhism and cognitive (neuro)science (“Three Turnings of the Wheel of (Non)Interaction”) is provided. Finally, in light of the tentative results of our analysis, a short reflection of some of the most pertinent presuppositions and entailments of different stances towards Buddhism-science dialogue is laid out, with special emphasis on the distinction between construing Buddhism as “living” versus “dead” tradition.
topic Buddhism
cross-cultural cognitive science
contemplative science
consciousness studies
religion-science debate
dialogue
url https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/3750
work_keys_str_mv AT sebastjanvoros buddhismandcognitiveneuroscienceanuneasyliaison
_version_ 1724238027836882944