On Wittgenstein and The Dalai Lama
Apr 18th, 2010 by admin
In the process of establishing the scientific validity of key Buddhist philosophical ideas that have therapeutic relevance to western medicine, I claimed yesterday that a core element of such ideas has been omitted. That is to say, the idea of the sacred (the definition of which I hinted at), has not been something easily translatable by western science. Mindfulness, on the other hand, has received the lion’s share of translation–mainly because the medical benefits of this process are abundantly obvious. Compassion is another traditional Buddhist experience and expression that western science has been able to take into it’s hands and reshape into a meaningful, relevant and applicable idea. How interesting! I wonder what it is about these two ideas that make them so translatable? Perhaps there is a natural affinity between the practices of medicine and Buddhism in that both are motivated at their roots by mindfulness and compassion. Many doctor’s and nurses, for example, are innately motivated by these two qualities and that may be why when Buddhists talk about them it just seems so “right,” one says “of course–that is what we are all about too.”
Now that compassion and mindfulness have been established as such strong ties between the two traditions, what are other areas where Buddhism can inform medicine? I have mentioned this idea of “the sacred.” Actually, this is not a particularly technical Buddhist idea unique to that tradition at all. It is a word I am using that describes a simple experience one has during meditation when there is direct awareness of things as they are. Perhaps this experience is then taken into daily life and noted as an appreciation of the incredibly rich perceptual experience humans are capable of. Nothing mystical. No gods. Just being simply. In most Buddhist traditions, this fundamental experience, this ground, is utterly basic and a key element in “being on the path.” What, if anything, can science say about this? What are the therapeutic, clinical implications of this experience? Is mindfulness really just a tool to experience this?
In his book Daily Advice From The Heart, the Dalai Lama writes, “A clear distinction should be made between what is not found by science and what is found to be non-existent by science. What science finds to be non-existent we must accept as non-existent, but what science merely does not find is a completely different matter.” This seems to apply to the experience of being as uncovered during the process of meditation and mindfulness–science can examine and quantify the effects (and it should) of these practices and thereby draw conclusions about relevant associations which likely have clinical implications. But when it examines the ground itself, the reservoir out of which these effects seem to arise, then what? That seems to be the purview, perhaps, of cognitive science and physics. We are still waiting for those disciplines to weigh in and help describe, in western scientific language, what it is that meditators are tapping into that brings forth the medical benefits chronicled in these pages.
Until then we are left with Wittgenstein’s oft-quoted remark that “whereof man cannot speak, thereon he must be silent” (Tractatus). For now at least …