|
這是庫恩先生的理論。我不想去說他對或錯，而只想說庫恩跟別人一樣，也引起我們認為科學不能提供絕對答案的感覺。因此，現代科學呈現出的是沒有統一的論調，不代表絕對的眞理。當然許多人還是認為他們是生活在一個黑白分明的世界，也許自然科學家更是如此。當我還在寫這篇文章時，我的一個自然科學老師說：「這些量子物理學家，你是瞭解的，他們鑽到鑽牛角尖尖去了。什麼事情對他們都變成是相對的了。但是我可以告訴你，在我這一行，還是有一些生物學家會扯直了脖子說，凡事非黑即白，絕對是那樣的。」
可是最近幾年，就在生物學領域裡就有越來越多的證明顯示，一個大的模式變更正在醞釀之中。一般而言，許多科學家在給他們的學科下定義時越來越謙卑，越來越認為自己尚是試探性。本世紀初，科學對大多數人而言是絕對的，永恆不變的眞理定律，所描述的是自然的總體，絕對不變的現實；若有變化，也是依據可預測的定律在變化。現在一個比較行得通的定義是「科學是對自然現象的一種探索，在某個特定時間裡所持之資料，全都會因為新的發現或新的詮釋而有可能修改的。」現代的科學，「不確定性」似乎已成定規。
現代的科學已非我祖父母當時所想像的，也非他們所能認識的。這倒不只是因為現代科學在理論上的模糊和不確定性，而是因為現代科學已經發展到我們以一種愛懼交加的矛盾心態去看待它——愛其所能為，亦懼其所能為。尖端武器在兩次世界大戰中的大面積摧毀殺傷力、人為污染引起的對自然環境的損傷、人類胚胎實驗、經改造基因製造出的生命以及生化戰爭，所有這些都創造出一種很奇特的氣氛。這種對「未捆縛的普羅米修斯」的焦慮——未加制約的科學力量——更使我們對一點有所警覺：我們應該在外在客觀的現實與我們的價值觀之間，在我們的道德和我們所擁有的工具之間，加以協調。這也就是我們所經常說的「科學與性靈」。現代人類在這方面的渴求，使得佛教更具吸引力，讓人更為趨向佛教。特別是在西方，因為人都視佛教為一種精神上的輔導，能與現代科學相融會，相諧調。
在最後，我想更清楚地看看佛教與現代科學的關係有多緊密。一開始時，東西方的許多思想家都為東方宗教與西方科學之間的完美結合打先鋒。鈴木先生便是這樣。（而後他自己又改變了思想，待會兒我們就知道了。）著名的物理學家尼爾斯‧波爾早在本世紀四十年代就意識到科學與東方神秘主義的一致性。那時他正在研究原子物理，在尋找一種客觀世界的統一量場。他說：「這種研究使我想起東方宗教。在尋求生命中的和諧時，我們不要忘了在生命的舞台上我們都既是觀眾，也是演員。」波爾當時是一位頗受歡迎的講師，他在他的課堂討論時經常提到佛陀與老子。他自己作了一副家族徽章，上面的設計圖案便是陰陽魚。這一位物理學家早在四十年代就已經感受到佛教與科學相融合的可能性。
再後來呢，則有我們一些人知道的弗雷德夫‧卡波拉提出的「物理之道」。他對波爾的暫時印象加以擴展。卡波拉說現代科學和東方神秘主義給我們的不只是對於客觀世界極終現象的雙向平行的觀察，而且是系統語言和神秘主義所表達的這些概念的高度和諧；是對我的觀點的有力證明，也正如我們所知的經久哲學為我們現代科學理論提供最穩固的哲學基礎。人們常引用佛書裡面人們經常讀到我今晚所要講的。「是的，佛教與現代科學的高度融匯，人們最熟悉的一部經是著名的《卡里瑪經》。卡里瑪是生活在印度的一群人。佛陀曾托缽遊方，一天來到這一個村莊。」我把這一段原文唸給你們聽。「佛陀曾經雲遊至位於Kosala王國的一座小村莊，這個村的村民有一個共同的名稱叫卡拉瑪人。在斷定眞偽時，卡拉瑪人發表他們的看法，他們的困惑。因為當時他們村莊來了許多互相競爭的外道師和外道論，各是其是，各非他非，跟我們現代的社會沒什麼不同。
待續
|
|
So, this is Kuhn's idea. I don't want to argue about whether Kuhn is correct or not, but merely point out that Kuhn, among others, has contributed to this feeling that science doesn't have the absolute answers. Thus modern science presents less of a unified front, less of an absolute bastion of truth. Certainly many people still see themselves as living in a black and white world, and that is probably true of the natural scientists.
While I was working on this paper, one of my natural science teachers said, "Well you know those quantum physicists; I mean, they are way out there, and everything is relative to them. But I will tell you that in my field, there are still biologists who put their necks on the line to say that everything is black and white. It's absolutely this way." And yet, in just the last few years, there has been a growing body of evidence in the biological sciences that hints at a major paradigm shift developing there as well.
In general, many scientists are coming to define their discipline in a more humble and tentative way. Science for people at the turn of the century was absolute, fixed truths and principles that held good forever and described the total nature of an absolute and unchanging reality, or a reality that was changing according to very predictable laws. Now a better working definition would be: "a form of inquiry into natural phenomena; a consensus of information held at any one time and all of which may be modified by new discoveries and new interpretations at any moment." In contemporary science, uncertainty seems to be the rule.
The science that my grandparents looked forward to would not be a science that they could recognize today, and not just because of theoretical ambiguities and uncertainties. Modern science has become something we look at with deep ambivalence; we love what it can do for us, yet dread what it can do to us. The scientifically "advanced" weapons of mass destruction of two world wars, the messing with nature in terms of environmental pollution, the experiments with human embryos, genetically engineered life, chemical-biological warfare—all have created a very strange climate now. This anxiety about "Prometheus unbound"—the unchecked power of science—makes us more alert to the need to somehow reconcile our facts and our values, our morals and our machines, or as it is often expressed, "science and spirituality." This contemporary longing makes Buddhism more rather than less attractive. People are even more drawn to Buddhism, especially in the West, because they see it as a spiritual teaching that can mesh with and mitigate modern science.
In this last part, I want to look at how close this relationship is between Buddhism and modern science. Initially, many thinkers, both Eastern and Western, heralded the coming age where Eastern religion and Western science would unite in a perfect marriage. D. T. Suzuki certainly thought this way (although later, as we shall see, he had a change of mind). The notable physicist Niels Bohr, as early as the 1940's, sensed this congruence between modern science and what he called "Eastern mysticism."
As he was looking into atomic physics and for a unified field of reality, he remarked, "This reminds me of Eastern religion." He said, "When searching for harmony in life, one must never forget that in the drama of existence we have both spectators and actors." Bohr, a very popular lecturer, often used the Buddha and Lao Tzu in his discussions on physics in his classes. He made up his own coat of arms with the yin/ yang symbol on it. This was a physicist in the 1940's already sensing the hopeful possibilities of blending Buddhism and science.
Later on Friedof Capra came out with his Tao of Physics, and he expanded on some of Bohr's tentative impressions. Capra argues not only that modern science and Eastern mysticism offer parallel insights into the ultimate nature of reality, but that the profound harmony between these concepts as expressed in systems language and the corresponding ideas of Eastern mysticism is impressive evidence for my claim that the essence of mystical (also known as perennial) philosophy, offers the most consistent philosophical background to our modern scientific theories. So this is one thing. Now people often turn to a couple of passages in a Buddhist text that I am going to read tonight to show that, "Yes, they are immensely congruent—Buddhism and modern science." Most people are familiar with a famous Sutta called the Kalama Sutta. The Kalamas were a group of people who lived in India. The Buddha was wandering around and he came to this village, and I will just read you this passage. "The Buddha once visited a small town in the Kingdom of Kosala and the inhabitants of this town were known by the common name Kalama." The Kalamas voiced their doubts, their perplexity in determining truth or falsehood, because all the competing teachers and doctrines at the time had come in and expounded different notions of the truth, just like in our modern world today.
To be continued
|
