Buddhism at Crossroads: A Case Study of SixTibetan Buddhist Monks Navigating the Intersection

of Buddhist Theology and Western Science

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Sonam, Tenzin

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 03/08/2021 12:45:59

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/624305

1

BUDDHISM AT CROSSROADS: A CASE STUDY OF SIX TIBETAN BUDDHIST MONKS NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION OF BUDDHIST THEOLOGY AND

WESTERN SCIENCE

by

Tenzin Sonam

__________________________ Copyright © Tenzin Sonam 2017

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF TEACHING, LEARNING, AND SOCIOCULTURAL STUDIES

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WITH A MAJOR IN TEACHING & TEACHER EDUCATION

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2017

2

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Tenzin Sonam, titled Buddhism At Crossroads: A Case Study Of Six Tibetan Buddhist Monks Navigating The Intersection Of Buddhist Theology And Western Science, and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _______________________________________________________________________ Date: February 17, 2017

Sara Tolbert _______________________________________________________________________ Date: February 17, 2017 Edward Prather _______________________________________________________________________ Date: February 17, 2017

Bruce Johnson _______________________________________________________________________ Date: February 17, 2017 Chris Impey Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: February 17, 2017 Dissertation Director: Sara Tolbert

3

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: Tenzin Sonam

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Sara Tolbert,

Dr. Edward Prather, Dr. Chris Impey, and Dr. Bruce Johnson without whom I would not

have been able to complete this dissertation. I want to thank Dr. Sara Tolbert especially

for patiently listening to my early evolving ideas, reading my drafts, and her invaluable

support and guidance throughout the dissertation process. Both Dr. Chris Impey’s and Dr.

Edward Prather’s past experience and interest in monastic science education benefitted

me tremendously in narrowing down the topic and analyzing the findings of study.

Additionally, I could not fathom attending graduate school without their assistance in

finding graduate assistantships throughout most of my studies. I am also grateful for Dr.

Bruce Johnson’s constant stewardship from the beginning of my graduate studies that

allowed to me complete my dissertation in a timely manner.

I cannot express enough gratitude for the love and support of my family,

especially my wife, Phuntsok. She has been pivotal in ensuring my success in pursuing

my career goals by shouldering full responsibility of raising our two beautiful children

and supporting me through this process emotionally. Her dedication to our family is

unwavering and beyond words. I also want to thank my father and other members of

family for their moral support during my graduate studies.

Supporting a family with the graduate stipend is near impossible, but the

scholarship from the Dalai Lama Trust came at such an opportune moment that it relieved

my financial woes allowing me to focus on my studies. Thus, I want to profusely thank

the Dalai Lama Trust for providing a scholarship for three consecutive years of my

5

graduate school, and I am committed to serving the goals of the Trust in any capacity in

the future.

Finally, I am grateful that I was fortunate enough to meet all the monks and nuns

that were part of various monastics science education program, including the monks in

this study who taught me many important life lessons. For the monks in study, I want to

thank you for your time and willingness to share your experience with me amicably, yet

with full of intellectual rigor. For the rest of monastics, I will always believe that the

karmic connection that brought us together in this life has not only enabled me to

appreciate the richness and complexities of knowledge embedded within my own culture,

but also opened doors to many new possibilities in my life including my current career

trajectory. In gratitude, I pray. May you succeed in your spiritual endeavors and continue

your work for the benefit of all sentient beings.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES................................................................................8 ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION......................................................................11

Background and Context..................................................................................12 Monastic Science Education Programs......................................................14

Problem Statement...........................................................................................17 Statement of Purpose and Research Questions................................................18 Research Approach..........................................................................................18 Assumptions.....................................................................................................20

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................22 Tibetan Buddhism’s Encounter With Western Science...................................22 Worldview Theory...........................................................................................27

Buddhist Worldview.........................................................................29 Collateral Learning Theory..............................................................................34

Types Of Collateral Learning...........................................................35 Why Evolution? ..............................................................................................38

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY...............................................................39 Introduction......................................................................................................39 Rationale For Qualitative Design.....................................................................40 Rationale For Phenomenological Methodology..............................................41 Interpretive Case Study....................................................................................42 The Role Of Researcher...................................................................................43 Data Collection Strategies................................................................................44

Interviews.........................................................................................45 Monk’s Profile.................................................................................................48 Data Analysis...................................................................................................69 Validity and Reliability....................................................................................73

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ON EVOLUTION...............................................75 Introduction......................................................................................................75 What Is Life? Sentient Beings Vs. Living Things...........................................75 Origin Of Life..................................................................................................85 Buddhist vs. Scientific Account of Human Evolution.....................................91 Spontaneous Birth......................................................................................95 Human Being vs. Animal...........................................................................98 “Evidence for Evolution is too Distant”..................................................102 Evolution And Buddhist Theory of Karma....................................................104 “Karma is Not a Mysterious Force” ........................................................105 “Random is Problematic” .......................................................................108

7

Karma is Inexplicable ..............................................................................111 Alignment of Buddhist Beliefs and Evolution...............................................117 Dependent Arising...................................................................................117 Mother Sentient Beings............................................................................120

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS............................................125 Collateral Learning........................................................................................125

Sentient Being vs. Living Things.............................................................126 Human Evolution.....................................................................................131 Karma and Evolution...............................................................................136

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION....................................141 Cross-cultural Science Education ..................................................................141 Monastic Science Education..........................................................................144 Monastic Science Curriculum........................................................................146 Conclusion.....................................................................................................149

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW I..............................................................................151 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW II.............................................................................152 APPENDIX C: INTEVIEW IIIA INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS............................................................................................................153 APPENDIX D: INTEVIEW IIIB FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS............................................................................................................154 APPENDIX E: MATE SURVEY...........................................................................155 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................156

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Types of collateral learning...............................................................................35

Figure 2: Human evolutionary process..............................................................................99

Figure 5.1a: Buddhist vs. science schema of life............................................................126

Figure 5.1b: Sentient being vs. the evolutionary tree......................................................126

Figure 5.2 a: Gawa’s case of dependent collateral learning............................................129

Figure 5.2b: Tsering’s case of secured collateral learning..............................................130

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Timeline of Data Collection and Participants Involved...................................46

Table 3.2: Monks’ Demographic.......................................................................................49

Table 3.3: Example of Thematic Categories......................................................................70

Table 3.4: Example of Codes.............................................................................................71

Table 4.1: Results of Measurement of Acceptance of Theory of Evolution.....................92

Table 5.1: Monks’ View of Human Evolution and Types of Collateral Learning..........136

9

ABSTRACT

Recent effort to teach Western science in the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries has

drawn interest both within and outside the quarters of these monasteries. This novel and

historic move of bringing Western science in a traditional monastic community began

around year 2000 at the behest of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of

Tibetan Buddhism. Despite the novelty of this effort, the literature in science education

about learners from non-Western communities suggests various “cognitive conflicts”

experienced by these non-Western learners due to fundamental difference in the

worldview of the two knowledge traditions. Hence, in this research focuses on how six

Tibetan Buddhist monks were situating/reconciling the scientific concepts like the theory

of evolution into their traditional Buddhist worldview. The monks who participated in

this study were engaged in a further study science at a university in the U.S. for two

years. Using case study approach, the participants were interviewed individually and in

groups over the two-year period.

The findings revealed that although the monks scored highly on their acceptance

of evolution on the Measurement of Acceptance of Theory of Evolution (MATE) survey,

however in the follow-up individual and focus group interviews, certain conflicts as well

as agreement between the theory of evolution and their Buddhist beliefs were revealed.

The monks experienced conflicts over concepts within evolution such as common

ancestry, human evolution, and origin of life, and in reconciling the Buddhist and

scientific notion of life. The conflicts were analyzed using the theory of collateral

learning and was found that the monks engaged in different kinds of collateral learning,

which is the degree of interaction and resolution of conflicting schemas. The different

10

collateral learning of the monks was correlated to the concepts within evolution and has

no correlation to the monks’ years in secular school, science learning or their proficiency

of English language.

This study has indicted that the Tibetan Buddhist monks also experience certain

cognitive conflict when situating Western scientific concepts into their Buddhist

worldview as suggested by research of science learners from other non-Western societies.

By explicating how the monks make sense of scientific theories like the theory of

evolution as an exemplar, I hope to inform the current effort to establish science

education in the monastery to develop curricula that would result in meaningful science

teaching and learning, and also sensitive to needs and the cultural survival of the

monastics.

11

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

In 2010, around sixty Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns gathered at the foothills

of the Himalayas in India to learn Western science. This was the third time they had

gathered for this month-long, annual event, during which they would learn about various

topics in Western science such as cosmology, neuroscience, and life sciences, mostly

from Western scientists and educators. During this workshop series, I worked as an

interpreter in the science classes. That year, a white female professor was teaching a

neuroscience class, and her topic for that eventful day was cognition and behavior. She

began by explaining the different regions of the brain related to human emotion. The

monks and nuns seemed unusually perplexed that day, which at first led to a

conversational commotion and then resolved into a lively class discussion. The students

were amused by the fact that, on the monitor, the same region of the brain lit up each time

for anguish, regardless of the cause. This was deeply unsatisfying for them and seemed to

strike a chord that touched the core of their tradition.

In the pursuant discussion, one monk conjectured that the scientific explanation

seemed inadequate compared to his tradition of dealing with mental processes. Another

monk asked, "Why can’t science differentiate among the different causes of this

distressing emotions?" He added, “An actual cause of anguish for a person could be

personal, such as a mishap or an attitudinal problem, or it could be generated

intentionally.” A third monk added, “While for some, distress might result in a loss of

confidence and courage, willfully embodying other’s suffering leads to more confidence

and courage because you want to alleviate the suffering of other beings.” Finally, a fourth

monk quipped, “I think our brains are foolish!” The class then burst into laughter. (It is

12

usual for monastics to crack jokes during debates to illustrate their points.) Afterwards, I

realized that this last monk was actually mocking the materialist approach to knowledge

taken by Western science.

At the time, I did not realize that the source of dissonance stemmed from the

divergent worldviews of Buddhism and Western science. Empathy and, therefore, the

development of compassion for other beings is the essence of Buddhist practice. The

inability of Western science to differentiate between the two causes—an externally

influenced mental state and an intentionally cultivated one—surprised the monastics, who

had perceived science as accounting for all aspects of human reality.

The professor then reiterated to the class that science is a continuing process, and

the current study of operation and morphology of the human brain is still evolving.

Furthermore, she assured the class that the scientific community is optimistic to find

ways to objectively differentiate the different mental states. This calmed the monks and

prompted some monks to call on their peers to hold their comments and let the class

continue. Throughout the six years I spent with the monastics, there were many similar

interesting encounters between the monks and their Western teachers on many different

science topics. The true significance of these encounters I have been able to fathom only

recently. These encounters led me to actually question what sense do the monks and nuns

make of scientific facts and theories given the divergent worldview from which they were

coming from. My attempt to answer this question is what led me into this study.

Background and Context

The recent effort to introduce science education into the Tibetan Buddhist

monasteries in India is a resultant of Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama’s personal

13

interest in science and his continuing engagement with Western scientists, scholars, and

philosopher over last three decades. Thupten Jinpa, a Buddhist scholar and interpreter to

the Dalai Lama, states two-fold goal of this educational initiative (Jinpa, 2010). The first

goal is to update the outdated Buddhist concept about the natural world by incorporating

scientific theories and concept that have conclusive empirical evidence such as, atomic

structure, astronomy, human origin, and evolution of complex lives. He described the

second goal as to respond to the challenges posed to key Buddhist concepts by new

scientific discoveries. However, according to Jinpa (2014), the Dalai Lama’s overarching

goal is to modernize Tibetan Buddhism to save the members of his tradition from a

cultural conservatism. However, this raised questions about how the scientific concepts

would be interpreted and understood by the monastics, and what will be the resultant

worldview they would develop in this enculturation process.

The Dalai Lama himself recognizes many methodological similarities between

Buddhism and science; the strong emphasis on empirical evidence as the primary source

of knowledge, and common commitment to understanding the nature of reality based on

reason and experience (Lama, 2005a). Based on this, he had rejected aspects of the

Buddhist Abhidharma cosmology due to its incompatibility with evidence gathered by

modern astronomy. However, a respected Buddhist scholar and also the former head of

the Tibetan Government in exile, Prof. Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche, defend the validity of

the same Buddhist cosmology (Rinpoche, 2008).

Despite the similarities, the Dalai Lama (2005a) also noted the fundamental

differences between Buddhism and science. Throughout his book, he questions the

materialistic philosophy of Western science and its inability to give full account of the

14

reality as we experience it. For example, he argues that “the current biological model

does not allow for the possibility of real altruism” ( Lama, 2005a, p. 113). Although there

are some studies on the role of altruism in evolution, the general perception of evolution

is that of a competition driven process. Therefore, it is probable that individual monks

and nuns might negotiate meaning in science differently based on individual’s intellectual

capacity and rigidness to hold onto their tradition.

The monastic comes with a positive attitude and full confidence in their

worldview, when they approach Western science. This is a result of both a historical

depiction of Buddhism as a religion compatible with science (Lopez Jr, 2009), and

constant engagement with the scientific community by their leader, His Holiness the

Dalai Lama. The resilient and openness of his tradition is underscored by his public

statement in his book, Universe in a Single Atom, “If scientific analysis were

conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept

the findings of science and abandon those claims” ( Lama, 2005a, p. 3). Also in his

regular public meetings, he acknowledges the development of Buddhist philosophy and

epistemology as largely due to the challenges posed by other knowledge systems in early

India. Today, he considers Western science as the counterpart knowledge system, and

thus recommends the member of his tradition to integrate the findings modern science

and discuss its implication on Buddhist worldview.

Monastic Science Education Programs

In order to understand the context of current study, I will briefly give an overview

of ongoing science education programs in the monasteries. The science education in the

Tibetan monasteries has been supported mainly through three major programs: Science

15

for Monks, Science Meets Dharma, and Emory-Tibet Science Initiative, all initiated at

the behest of their spiritual leader, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. The two earliest

programs, Science for Monks and Science Meets Dharma were both started in 2000 and

the Emory-Tibet Science Initiative was established in 2007.

The Science for Monks program, for example, holds annual month-long intensive

science immersion program with a cohort of about 50-60 monastics from different

monasteries, mostly taught by educators from the U.S. Since it’s beginning, more than 30

different instructors have taught physics, cosmology, neuroscience, and life sciences for

over 200 monks and nuns. The Science meets Dharma program held one or two regular

science classes in the monasteries itself, with instructors mainly from Europe spending 2-

3 months at a time. This program served over 400 monks and nuns since it’s beginning in

2000, and gave easy access to test and experience science education within the

monastery. From 2001-2013, about 15 scholars, scientists and instructors have taught

through this program.

The Emory-Tibet Science Initiative (ETSI) is the most recent initiative established

in 2007 with the stated goal “to build a bridge between two complementary systems of

knowledge by educating future scientific collaborators who can contribute to new

discoveries in the science of mind and body” (Emory-Tibet Partnership, n.d.). In this

direction, ETSI is in the process of developing and piloting a science curriculum

specifically designed for the monastics. Starting 2014, ETSI began formal science

teaching in all the major Geluk monasteries in India and also sends its faculty members to

teach regularly at the month long summer-intensive class at three different sites in

southern India. Recently, it organized the first symposium on science and Buddhism at

16

Drepung monastery, where the Buddhist community was represented by the monks and

nuns from the ETSI and other programs, dialoguing with Western scientists in presence

of the Dalai Lama (“Dalai Lama’s guide to the next four years - CNN.com,” n.d.).

The end goal of all these programs is to gradually establish a formal science

curriculum in the Tibetan monasteries in India. At the gathering of abbots of all the Geluk

monasteries—the largest Tibetan Buddhist sect, in 2012, a decree was issued that science

education will be mandated in all Geluk monasteries from 2014 (“Science studies to be

introduced in Geluk Gyuktoe Chenmo,” 2012). This entails inclusion of science subjects

in the Geluk Gyuktoe Chenmo, a six years comprehensive scholastic testing in the Geluk

tradition. The social and cultural impact of these reforms in the monastic community is

immense. Hence, it is imperative, at least from an educational standpoint, to explore the

science learning experiences of the monastics to inform the effectiveness of these

programs and also to describe what entails a meaningful learning of Western science for

the monastics whose primary commitment is preservation of their tradition.

Science education research on learners arriving from non-Western views of the

world has shown that even in the presence of empirical evidence, some scientific

concepts, which had no resonance in their worldview, were either rejected outright or

failed to become part of the learner’s cognitive ecology (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999;

Baker & Taylor, 1995; Cobern, 1991). Therefore, the learner’s sociocultural background

plays a critical role in the construction of new understanding when an encounter with new

information occurs. Cobern (1996) described the importance of taking into consideration

the learner’s worldview for successful retention of science knowledge. Many rationalistic

approaches to science learning, such as, conceptual change theory, inhibit learners from

17

making scientific concepts as part of their cognitive ecology or worldview. Cobern

introduced a unique “worldviews” theoretical framework to describe the thought process

of individuals and communities whose worldviews are incongruent with Western

scientific worldview.

The incongruities between worldviews therefore, results in cognitive dissonance

in the learners that lead different accommodation mechanisms depending on the degree of

interaction and resolution of these conflicts in what is known as collateral learning

(Jegede, 1995). Using the lens of collateral learning theory (CLT), my work illustrates

how the monks in this study resolve conflicting schema between Western science and

Buddhism. The study therefore provides empirical evidence for the collateral learning of

monks and identifies how Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns are situating and/or

reconciling specific scientific knowledge within their Buddhist Worldview. This

research investigates how they alter/adjust their worldview as they learn Western science

and discuss about the limitation of CLT in examining the learning experiences of the

monks.

Problem Statement

Research indicates that due to difference in the learner’s worldview and the

worldview inherent in science education, learners, especially from non-Western cultural

backgrounds experience difficulty in integrating scientific information as part of their

cognitive ecology. To date there has been no research on the experiences of Tibetan

Buddhist monastics that were engaged in studying Western science in their monasteries

in India. This study explicitly looks into the learning experiences of these Buddhist

monastics.

18

Statement of Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to examine how six Tibetan Buddhist monks make

sense of concepts in Western science from a Buddhist worldview and how they negotiate

the differences between the two worldviews. By studying the varied ways in which these

monks integrate the two knowledge traditions, this work will shed light on how scientific

concepts are interpreted and incorporated by these learners for the first time. The Western

science theory of evolution is used as the context and framing used to situate this

exploration into the experiences of Tibetan Buddhist monk engaged in learning Western

science. The study will address the following research questions:

1. How do Tibetan Buddhist monks make sense of Western scientific theories

through the lens of their Buddhist worldview?

a. How do Tibetan Buddhist monks’ understandings and beliefs about

Buddhism and Western science influence their perceptions of the theory of

evolution?

b. What, if any, conflicts do Tibetan Buddhist monks experience when learning

the theory of evolution?

c. If conflicts occur, how do these Tibetan Buddhists approach reconciling

these conflicts?

Research Approach

I used a qualitative case studies methodology to investigate the experiences of six

Tibetan Buddhist monks while they study Western science in an undergraduate science

program at a private university in the southeast United States for two years. The monks

came from different monasteries in India and were selected for the program based on

19

their excellent academic performance in Buddhist studies, scientific knowledge, and

English proficiency.

I conducted an initial baseline interview and survey a month after the arrival of

six monks in the fall of 2013. Through this initial work, I was able to capture their

demographic information, their views about science, and their goal and plan for the next

two years. Follow up individual interviews were conducted after the first year. These

interviews elicited their evolving views about science, and topics of interest in science

and investigated the degree to which these science ideas were compatible or incompatible

with Buddhist concepts and beliefs. Since the monks were mostly taking life science

courses at the school, the biological theory of evolution appeared to be topic that the

monks accept but held divergent views about it. Therefore, for the final interview, the

theory of evolution was decided as the context for this study.

Individual in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were the primary

method of data collection, for the actual study. Individual interviews were conducted with

each participant about their perception of the theory of evolution. This was followed by

focus group discussions with all six monks, which were video recorded. The initial

questions for focus group discussion were prepared ahead of time, with additional

questions based on the responses in the individual interview. The survey instrument,

Measurement of Acceptance of Theory of Evolution (MATE) (Rutledge & Warden,

1999) was used to determine their acceptance of evolution before the interviews. All the

data collection was done in the monks’ native language (Tibetan), first transcribed

verbatim in Tibetan and then translated into English. The original transcripts were shared

with the participants for veracity. The information obtained from these data sources were

20

consolidated using qualitative software ATLAS.TI and then analyzed using open coding.

I developed coding categories and refined them continuously, guided by the study’s

conceptual framework. Examples of code and common emergent themes were reported in

detail in Chapter 4.

Assumptions

Based on the researcher’s experience and background as interpreter and translator

in the monastic science program, three primary assumptions were made regarding this

study. First, monks generally share a positive attitude towards learning science for

reasons described earlier. Such positive attitude might result in tentative acceptance of

scientific facts and concepts at face value without in-depth analysis of their implication to

the Buddhist worldview. Second, the years of secular school attendance before entering

monastery could have an impact on both the understanding and acceptance of scientific

ideas. More years of secular school entails higher English language proficiency, and

training in basic math and science. Third, since the monks were unaware of fundamental

differences between science and Buddhist worldviews, they might unconsciously

misconstrue aspects of either worldview to integrate knowledge from the two traditions.

Most of the monks have been exclusively trained in Buddhist studies and therefore are

aware of other knowledge systems.

I begin chapter two with the review of the literature to situate the current research

in the larger science education research and present a brief overview of Buddhist

worldview. Then I describe the framework used for this study, which is collateral

learning theory. In chapter three, I describe the methods, participants, data sources, and

how I analyzed the data. Chapter four will report the findings of this study divided in five

21

categories. In chapter five, I use the collateral learning theory framework to interpret the

findings in chapter four. Finally, in chapter six, I discuss the relevance of current study in

the larger cross-culturally science education and then conclude with how this study

informs the current efforts to introduce Western science in the monasteries and future

studies that could be done.

22

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, I argue that since there is no research thus far on how learners

from Buddhist sociocultural background situate scientific knowledge within their

traditional worldview that science education research needs to look into the experiences

of non-Western science learners from Buddhist backgrounds. The present continuing

efforts to expand Western science education in the Tibetan monasteries provides an

excellent context in which to examine the learning experiences of Tibetan Buddhist

monastics. Hence, I will first give historical account of the efforts to introduce science

teaching in the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. Then employing Cobern’s (1996)

worldview theory, which is adapted from anthropologist Kearney’s (1984) logico-

structural model of worldview, I will briefly describe the Buddhist worldview based on

this logico-structural model Jegede’s (1996) theory of collateral learning will be used to

understand the cognitive accommodative mechanism adopted by the monastics to resolve

conflicts arising from divergent worldviews. Also, a review of literature related to

collateral learning will be presented. Finally, I end with the explanation of why the

biological theory of evolution is a relevant concept in science to explore for this study.

Tibetan Buddhism’s Encounter with Western Science

Historically speaking, Buddhism’s engagement with Western science is a very

recent phenomenon compared to Abrahamic religions, and the first interactions between

Western science and Buddhism began mainly as a result of Western colonization in Asia

(Lopez Jr, 2009). In the case of Tibetans, it wasn’t until the Chinese occupation of Tibet

in 1959 that Tibetan Buddhism comes into contact with the outside world and had its first

contact with Western science. Jinpa (2010), a Buddhist scholar, attested to this fact when

23

he stated that “on the stage of science-and-religion dialogue, Buddhism is a latecomer,

and within Buddhism, the Tibetan tradition is definitely a late arrival” (p. 872) .

However, in the last two decades of engagement between Buddhism and Western

science, Tibetan Buddhism has taken a leading role, and its spiritual leader, His Holiness

the Dalai Lama, has become the most visible person leading dialogues between Western

scientists, philosophers, Buddhist scholars and contemplatives.

Upon coming into exile in India, The Dalai Lama’s personal interest in science

gradually formalized into regular dialogues and meetings with scientists from various

disciplines—especially in the field of neuroscience. Some scholars claim that this

engagement led by the Dalai Lama has resulted in the development of a new discipline in

sciences dubbed as “contemplative studies” (Jinpa, 2014). For this development, the

Dalai Lama was invited as a keynote speaker for the Society for Neuroscience annual

conference in 2005 attended by over 35,000 neuroscientists around the world. The Dalai

Lama’s prolonged interaction with the scientific community him led to introduce Western

science curricula in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. Further the Dalai Lama’s recognition

in the scientific community has also generated tremendous interest amongst Tibetan

monks and nuns to learn Western science.

According to Jinpa (2010), the goal of the Dalai Lama’s engagement with the

scientific community is threefold. First, as a citizen of the global community, he wanted

to further human knowledge through mutual dialogue and engagement on topics of

mutual interest and concern. Second, he wanted to encourage traditional Buddhist

societies to incorporate scientific concepts into Buddhist worldview in order to become

part of the global community. Finally, to respond to the perceived challenges posed by

24

scientific discoveries to key Buddhist concepts. The Dalai Lama’s confidence in his

tradition to be able to meaningfully engage with other knowledge systems can be easily

captured from the following excerpts from his book, “The Universe in a Single Atom”:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science

so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of

critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate

certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of

science and abandon those claims. (Dalai Lama, 2005a, p. 3)

The Dalai Lama notes the methodological similarities in both intellectual traditions for

rigorous critical investigation. To this extent, he declares his willingness to discard

aspects of his tradition that is proven conclusively false by science and accept the

scientific findings. This then leads to the Dalai Lama’s second goal for engaging with

Western science, which is to incorporate scientific concepts and topics into Buddhist

worldviews. Here, Jinpa (2010) notes two further sub goals: first, to incorporate aspects

of scientific findings that are ‘essential’ and have valid and confirmed empirical basis;

and second, to respond to the challenges posed to key Buddhist principles in light of new

scientific discoveries.

Jinpa considered the first goal as “primarily educational” for the Buddhist

community to become part of the global citizenry. He includes a range of topics from

atomic structure, cosmology, human origin, to evolution of complex lives, which all

traditional Buddhists societies should study in order to become part of modern society.

Jinpa (2010) argues that the underlying principle for inclusion of these topics is simple,

“where there are empirical accounts, whether they have to do with cosmology, the

25

understanding of matter at the subatomic level, or the evolution of complex life forms,

whatever empirical evidence supports takes precedence.” (p. 878). Although Jinpa argues

for inclusion from the general perspective of which scientific topics should become part

of formal science curricula in the traditional Buddhists learning centers, implied in this

assertion is that there will be no conflict for Buddhists in accepting these scientific

concepts as long as there is conclusive empirical evidence.

From a global perspective, this reliance on empirical evidence is the very

foundation on which Western science has established and maintains its domination over

other knowledge systems (Hatcher, Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2009). At the

individual level, science education research in the past two decades has shown that non-

Western learners might learn or understand orthodox Western scientific concepts, but

they do so without these concepts becoming part of their cognitive ecology or worldview

(Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Cobern, 1994; Jegede, 1995; Jegede & Aikenhead, 1999;

Ogawa, 1986, 1995; Meshach Bolaji Ogunniyi, 1988).

Surprisingly, Jinpa gives the example of the Dalai Lama as someone who had

successfully abandoned the traditional cosmology on the basis of more convincing

empirical evidence from modern cosmology. The Dalai Lama’s rejection aspects of

Buddhist Abhidharma cosmology in favor of evidence provided by modern cosmology

publicly is not without opposition from other Tibetan Buddhists leaders. A Buddhist

scholar and the former prime minister of the Tibetan exile government, Prof. Ven.

Samdhong Rinpoche has openly defended the Abhidharma cosmology during a launch of

a science program in the presence of the Dalai Lama himself and other Buddhist scholars

(Rinpoche, 2008). Rinpoche supports the traditional Buddhist cosmology because it has

26

relevance and meaning for Buddhists in their doctrine of salvation and metaphysics,

which are essential components of the Buddhist worldview. This conflict over Buddhist

cosmology epitomizes the fundamental difference in the two worldviews, and therefore,

the Tibetan monks and nuns might have to eventually deal with such conflict during their

studies on other topics in science.

For traditional Buddhist societies to engage and become a part of the modern

world, the Dalai Lama says, “that the essence of modernization lies in the introduction of

modern education, and in the heart of modern education there must be a command of

science and technology” (2005a, p. 3). The Dalai Lama considers science education as an

imperative for members of his Buddhist community to stay relevant and become part of

the modern community. Therefore, he initiated the teaching of Western science in

Tibetan monasteries in India, and since 2000, numerous science programs were started

which provided opportunities for hundreds of monastics to learn and experiment with

Western science in their monasteries. In 2014, all the Geluk monasteries, the largest

Tibetan Buddhist sect, made science education mandatory for six years before the end of

their monastic graduation. These new developments in the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries

in India raise a number of interesting questions about the experiences of these novice

science learners, such as:

• What aspects of their traditional religious knowledge will the Tibetan

Buddhist monastics bring into the science classes and how will this

traditional knowledge be used to construct meaning of the new

information?

27

• Do they experience any conflict between their religious beliefs and the

scientific explanation? In the event of any conflict, how do they respond?

• In their effort to reconcile conflict between the two knowledge systems,

will they alter their traditional worldview or misconstrue scientific

theories?

• Finally, What is the resultant worldview the Tibetan Buddhist monks and

nuns will develop in this process?

With this I have laid out the historical developments and goals for introduction of

science education in the Tibetan monasteries. In order to answer some of the questions

raised here about the worldview negotiation of Tibetan Buddhist monastics, a proper

understanding of Tibetan Buddhist worldview is necessary. For this, I will first introduce

worldview theory, one of the frameworks used in this study, and then briefly explain the

Buddhist worldview in relation to the worldview theory. Understanding the Buddhist

worldview will shed light on the prior knowledge or cultural background of the

monastics.

Worldview Theory

Michael Kearney was the first to expound the worldview theory in cultural

anthropology in order to establish the ecosystem of assumption and beliefs held by an

individual or a cultural group and to examine how these beliefs differ across cultures.

Kearney (1984) defines worldview as “the collection of basic assumptions that an

individual or a society has about reality” (p. 42). Since these assumptions are interrelated,

he refers to his worldview theory as logico-structural model of worldview. This logico-

structural model of worldview is a composite of seven interrelated universal categories:

28

Self, Non-Self or Other, Classification, Relationship, Causality, Time, and Space. Based

on the content variation of these universal categories, individuals or groups might differ

in their worldview.

Worldview theory was applied to science education by Cobern (1991) to

overcome the rationalistic approach to science learning propounded by many conceptual

change theorists at that time. Cobern wanted to encompass the “entirety of a learner’s

cognitive ecology or worldview” (p 584), which enables more meaningful learning in

science. In this context, ‘meaningful’ signifies making sense of new information in a

particular worldview. He also argues that people of non-Western societies, whose views

are often incompatible with a mechanistic scientific worldview, are not irrational. Instead,

their rationality is based on their traditional worldview, which goes beyond the Western

mechanistic worldview. This results in a nonscientific way of thinking (Cobern, 1991).

Therefore, worldview theory provides a reasonable framework for understanding the

source of conflicts in science learning for those coming from a religious and/or non-

Western background and how conflict can be resolved with or without radically

restructuring their worldview. .

Cobern arrives at worldview theory from a contextual constructivist perspective,

acknowledging that knowledge is a construction to make sense of our experiences, and

this construction is an interpretation based on an individual’s prior knowledge or prior

constructions and beliefs (Baker & Taylor, 1995; Cobern, 1989), which are culturally and

contextually embedded. In the case of Buddhist monks and nuns, their prior knowledge

and beliefs are based on their religious worldview, which determines how they make

sense of new information. In order to make learning meaningful, the new information

29

needs to find a niche in the individual’s cognitive and sociocultural milieu. In the case of

Tibetan Buddhist monastics, it is very much likely that the new information will be

interpreted in terms of presuppositions and assumption about reality from a Buddhist

perspective. I will now explain some of the salient presuppositions of Buddhist

worldview, emphasizing the first four of the seven universals i.e. Self, NonSelf or Other,

Relationship, and Causality. However, it is prudent to note that worldview variations are

possible within the same community.

Buddhist Worldview

Buddhism has been shaped by different social, cultural, and political forces over

the past 2,500 years, beginning in India and then spreading to other parts of Southeast

Asia such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Tibet, Korea, and Japan (Lopez Jr, 2009).

Therefore, it is challenging to present a singular Buddhist worldview that encompasses

all the Buddhist traditions. However, there are certain fundamental concepts in Buddhism

that are shared by all Buddhist traditions. For example, the four seals are considered the

hallmark of Buddhist worldview and are the criterion used to distinguish Buddhism from

other religions from a philosophical standpoint:

All composite phenomena are impermanent.

All contaminated things and events are unsatisfactory.

All phenomena are empty and selfless.

Nirvana is true peace.

(Gyatso & Jinpa, 1995, p31)

According to Gyatso & Jinpa (1995), the first seal “All composite phenomena are

impermanent” means that all phenomena that are conditioned or arise due to causes and

30

conditions are impermanent in nature. No phenomenon arises without a concordant or

discordant cause. Concordant causes lead to a variety of results that require no creator. In

the second seal, “All contaminated things and events are unsatisfactory,” the word

contaminated refers to everything that is tainted by afflictive emotions, such as anger,

attachment and hatred. The source of afflictive emotion is regarded as ignorance, which

is misapprehension of the nature of reality or falsehood opposing truth, and not just an

absence of knowledge. Therefore, all the things and events that are misapprehended will

ultimately lead to suffering. This raises the questions about the ultimate nature of all

things and events. The third seal answers this by saying that “All phenomena are empty

and selfless”. What this means is that since all the phenomena are impermanent in nature,

they lack any independent existence of their own. Therefore, they are empty and devoid

of a self-identity. This proposes that at the ultimate analysis, emptiness is the nature of all

phenomena. By contemplating on the impermanence and emptiness of all phenomena,

one can achieve enlightenment and end the cycle of rebirth, which leads to the fourth

seal. It states, “Nirvana is true peace”, where Nirvana means enlightenment. Although the

four seals succinctly summarize the Buddhist worldview, I will now explicate the

Buddhist perspective on each universal category mentioned by Kearney.

Self and non-Self: In Kearney’s worldview theory, Self is defined as something

that is discernibly different from its environment or the non-Self. In Buddhism, especially

in Tibetan Buddhism, there is no distinction made between the nature of self and non-self.

In the ultimate analysis, the nature of everything -Self and non-Self - is believed to be

empty or selflessness. Buddhists believe that everything in the cosmos, including all life,

is an aggregate of five things: form, feeling, perception, mental/karmic formation, and

31

consciousness, which are known as the Skandha or Aggregate theory. Because of

continuous reconfiguration of these five aggregates in everything, there is nothing that is

permanent except change. The Buddhist concept of selflessness, therefore, refers to both

the self of individual as well as the identifiable self of all phenomena and events (such as

trees, mountains or the Sun). The Buddhist concept of selflessness is often misunderstood

as a denial of any identifiable self or the notion/concept of self as people understand it

colloquially, as an identity of a person or nature of an object. In actuality, that is not the

case because the self in selflessness is divided into two categories, a propositional self

and a self to be negated. Propositional self is described as the notion of self that people

used to identify themselves and others, and it also applies to the essence of all the

phenomena in the environment. Buddhists do not deny the propositional self, but it only

exists contingent upon multiple external factors. Thus, the concept of selflessness or

emptiness applies only to the self to be negated, which is an independently existing self,

non-contingent on any external factors.

Classification: Classification is one of the key universals in worldview theory

because the way in which people or groups classify reality in categories and how classes

form an important part of the framework of their worldview (Kearney, 1984). In

Buddhism, the highest level of classification contains two modes of existence—samsara

(conditioned existence) and nirvana (state of peace or enlightenment). Samsara consists

of three realms of existence: the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm.

Humans and animals are believed to exist in the desire realm, which is characterized by

sensual desire and pain. The form realm is supposed to be devoid of any experience of

suffering and is permeated by experience of bliss. Beings in the form realm are supposed

32

to possess bodies of light. Finally, the formless beings are the subtler forms of existence

filled with equanimity and free from material embodiment. Depending on an individual’s

karmic propensity, accumulation of his past actions, a being wanders among these three

different realms. Only when one is able to escape the cyclic existence in the Samsara or

rebirth, can one reach nirvana or enlightenment and the cycle of rebirth will cease.

Yet another way of classifying the world of conditioned things is into realms of

matter, mental, and abstract composites. Matter is the physically manifested material

object that includes subtle particles to forces in nature. Mind is the realm of subjective

experiences that can include all cognitive processes, sensations, and affective dimensions.

For Buddhists, this mental realm is not reducible to the physical or the material world of

matter or its constituents, although it is believed that they are interrelated and depend on

each other to function. The third category is neither physical nor mental, this includes

phenomena such as time, concepts, and logical principles that are features of reality but

distinct from the realms of the mental and the matter. Again the phenomena belonging to

this category are contingent on the first two realms, but have its own qualities.

Relationship: Relationship universal is the manner in which the Self perceives its

relationship vis-à-vis to the Other. According to worldview theory, such relationships

could be one of harmony, subordinancy, or dominance. In Buddhism, there is a notion of

contained and the container, where the sentient beings are the contained and the physical

environment acts as the container. The Dalai Lama (2005a) says that in Buddhist

Abhidharma texts there isn’t much to say about this notion apart from the assertion that

“the environment where a sentient being exists is an ‘environmental effect’ of the being's

collective karma shared with myriad other” (p. 92). However, the Kalachakra text has

33

suggested certain correlation between the celestial bodies in cosmos and the bodies of

sentient beings.

Causality: According to Kearney (1984), every human society has certain notion

of orderly relationship between cause and effect. The concept of dependent-origination is

the equivalent of Buddhist theory of causality, which describes chain of causes that result

in rebirth and is also considered as the most fundamental theory for understanding the

nature of reality. This principle can be stated in three ways: 1) all events and phenomena

are results of causes and conditions and don’t arise without cause; 2) mutual dependence

of parts and whole, where there can be no whole without the parts and parts are

meaningless without the whole; and finally, 3) anything that has identity does so only

within the context of its possibilities. In terms of causes, there are two categories a

“substantial cause” and a “contributing or complementary cause”. The Dalai Lama (2005)

gives the example of a clay pot. The substantial cause is the stuff that makes the pot, and

hence clay is the substantial cause. Other factors such as the skill of the potter, the potter

himself, and the kiln it came from are all complementary in the sense they help in

actualizing the clay to become a pot.

This is a simplistic and succinct presentation of Buddhist worldview. In actuality,

it is much more complex and it would not be possible to present every aspect of Buddhist

worldview here. However, the assumption that this account of Buddhist worldview will

be useful for understanding what kinds of cultural background or prior knowledge monks

and nuns might bring to make sense of scientific theories. To explore the ways in which

the monastics might approach to situate and/or reconcile the knowledge of western

science with their traditional worldview, I will now explain the development of collateral

34

learning theory and its categories.

Collateral Learning Theory

Jegede Olugbemiro (1995), renowned science education researcher from Africa,

asserts that science education is brought into the developing countries on two pretexts: to

defend Western rationalism and expansionism, and to use science as a civilizing subject

to bring development and modernity; thus, giving no credence to the local culture and

their traditional ways of knowing. Instead, the traditional culture is to be replaced with

the Western mechanistic worldview, delivered via school science and mathematics

modeled on western curricula. However, researchers like Jegede (1995) found that the

socio-cultural factors have greater effect on the local students’ education than the content

of the subject. The indigenous worldview, with all its cultural factors, can impede the

adoption of a worldview compatible with Western science (Cobern, 1996). Thus, the

experience of learners in such an environment, where the local indigenous knowledge is

often considered toxic to the school science curriculum, creates a “duality of thought and

actions created in the memory”, resulting in a coping strategy known as collateral

learning (Jegede, 1995, p. 129).

Jegede (1995) was the first to propose the collateral learning theory (CLT) and

described it as a “ process whereby a learner in a non-Western classroom constructs, side

by side and with minimal interference and interaction, western and traditional meanings

of a simple concept” (Jegede, 1995, p12). According to the variation in the degree of

interaction and the degree to which the conflicts are resolved, he propounds four different

kinds of collateral learning. These four are not to be thought of as distinct categories, but

35

as a spectrum. The degree of interaction and resolution of conflicting schemas vary along

the spectrum.

Types of collateral learning

Along the spectrum of collateral learning, at one the end are learners who hold

two or more conflicting schemas without any interaction between them. The conflicting

schemas are, therefore, stored separately or compartmentalized in their long-term

memory with no interaction between the two, and the learner will access one or the other

depending upon the context. This is known as parallel collateral learning. A commonly

cited example is the concept of rainbow formation among African students, where Jegede

(1995) witnessed students providing a scientific explanation of rainbow formation in a

science class, and reverting to traditional explanation upon return to their community.

At the other end of the spectrum lies secured collateral learning. Aikenhead &

Jegede said, “the conflicting schemata consciously interact and the conflict is resolved in

some manner” (p. 278). Learners in this case always evaluate the conflicting schemas and

move towards the integration of the two schemas, one reinforcing the other, resulting in a

new conception in their long-term memory. There is a convergence of worldview by

drawing from two or more schemas. Jegede (1995) considers this the most desirable of all

the four collateral learning types, and he recommends that educators direct all learners

towards this type of secured collateral learning whenever possible.

ParallelCollaterallearning

• Nointeraction•  noincompatiblity•  compartmentalization

SimultaneousCollaterallearning

• Concurrentinteraction•  Schemaslearnedatthesametime

•  Simultaneouslyassessed

DependentCollaterallearning

• Moreinteraction•  oneschemamodi<iesexistingone

•  existingworldviewnotradicallyaltered

•  unconciousofcon<lict

SecuredCollaterallearning

• Mostinteraction•  Schemareinforcesoneanother

• Convergenceofworldview

• Consciousofcon<lict

36

Figure 1. Types of collateral learning

Between the two ends of the spectrum lie dependent and simultaneous collateral

learning. According to Aikenhead and Jegede (1999) dependent collateral learning occurs

when “schema from one worldview or domain of knowledge challenges another schema

from a different worldview or knowledge, to an extent that permits students to modify an

existing schema without radically restructuring the existing worldview or domain of

knowledge” (p. 278). In this type of collateral learning, unlike the learners in secured

collateral learning, the learner is not conscious about the incompatibility of the two

domains of knowledge systems, yet they move from one domain to another unknowingly.

Hence, the knowledge construction in one domain in this case depends upon the schema

of the other domain by modifying or rejecting it. This is likened to the Piagetian

accommodation-assimilation model of information organization used by Posner, Strike,

Hewson, and Gertzoy (1982) in the conceptual change model. This means currently held

conceptions (scientific or otherwise) are tentative, to be altered by the construction of

new conceptions or a rejection of a current one.

Finally, simultaneous collateral learning occurs “when ideas from two world

views about a particular concept are to be learned at the same time” (Jegede, 1995, p.

120). This form of learning is situated between parallel and dependent collateral learning

and usually happens to a learner from a non-Western environment who is novice to both

science and traditional knowledge systems. The learner here requires time to comprehend

what is to be learned, thus giving rise to a situation where concepts from two different

worldviews are learned at the same time. Opportunity may arise here, where learning in

37

one domain will facilitate learning of a similar or related concept in another domain of

knowledge.

According to Jegede (1995), all people live in multiple domains and learn

collaterally. Though collateral learning occurs in every society, the effect of collateral

learning is more pronounced in the case of non-Western students in comparison to

Western students. This is because “the pervasive nature of scientific culture and its use as

the basis for politics, economy, technology, etc. make it a second nature” (p. 117) in the

case of Western students. However, in the case of non-Western learners, students’

traditional ways of viewing nature serve as the dominant culture and is often at odds with

the school science they encounter on a daily basis. Therefore, they are required to resolve

their understanding in two domains more frequently than their Western counterparts.

There is very little research on science learners from non-Western countries, and

there are even fewer studies that use CLT as a lens to interpret sociocultural factors and

their relation to science learning. From the available research that uses CLT, it seems that

it is very difficult to identify collateral learners solely from interviews (Sutherland, 2005),

brief participant observations, or evaluations using normative questioning practices

(Herbert, 2005). These studies thus recommend using contextual and personal cues in the

questions to detect collateral learning and delineate between types of collateral learning.

Case studies and longitudinal studies are a preferred methodology for finding collateral

learning among students. Furthermore, of the studies found that allow students do engage

in collateral learning, less than 50 percent are usually identified as collateral learners and

even fewer as secured collateral learners, which is desired (Sutherland 2005). Tsai

(2001), who studied science students in Taiwan, found that collateral learning might not

38

be a permanent phenomenon, and students might move in any direction along the

continuum of collateral learning. As a result, she recommends conducting longitudinal

studies in order to understand student learning. Finally, researchers in this field noted that

due to institutional preference of scientific discourse over others, researchers might not

be able to observe secured collateral learning at all.

Why Evolution?

I have chosen to explore conflicts in worldviews using the theory of evolution for

four major reasons. First, the monks interviewed in this dissertation have extensively

studied the theory of evolution while in the U.S. and India. During the first two-year of

undergraduate study in the United States, the monks mostly took life science courses,

including evolution. Second, the theory of evolution is universally regarded as the most

fundamental principle in biology. Dobshansky, an evolutionary geneticist, has noted,

“nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (p.125, 1973). Third,

research has shown that in teaching and learning the theory of evolution, Abrahamic

religious worldviews have proved to be a major obstacle for some learners (Glaze &

Goldston, 2015; Hokayem & BouJaoude, 2008a; Smith, 2010). Finally, the Dalai Lama

has not only indicated that there exists fundamental problems in reconciling this theory

with Buddhist beliefs such as the principle of altruism and the theory of Karma, but he

has also rejected the materialistic philosophical implications of this theory (Davidson,

2006; Flanagan, 2014; Weerasinghe, 2002; Yong, 2008).

39

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the ways in which a group of Tibetan

Buddhist monks made sense of concepts and theories in Western science. Examining this

phenomenon would help fill the gap in science education research, where there is a

limited understanding of how traditional Buddhists communities would situate Western

science learning into their Buddhist view of the world. Previous researchers have stressed

the importance of the role of prior knowledge and experience in the construction of new

understanding, especially when knowledge is culturally situated, in acquiring desired

scientific understanding (Cobern, 1994; Novak, 1977; Driver and Easley, 1978; Gilbert &

Swift, 1985; Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003). In seeking to understand this phenomenon, this

study focuses on the theory of evolution as a context to investigate the following research

questions.

1. How do Tibetan Buddhist monks make sense of scientific theories through the

lens of their Buddhist worldview?

a. How do Tibetan Buddhist monks’ understandings and beliefs about

Buddhism and Western science influence their perceptions of the theory of

evolution?

b. What, if any, conflicts do Tibetan Buddhist monks experience when learning

the theory of evolution?

c. If conflicts occur, do they Tibetan Buddhists reconcile these conflicts?

In this chapter, I will describe the research methodology used in this study

including: (1) rationale for research approach, (2) description of the role of the

40

researcher, (3) context of the study, (4) overview of research design, (5) methods of data

collection, (6) analysis and synthesis of data, (7) reporting of the findings, (8)

trustworthiness, and (9) limitations of the study. The chapter will culminate with a brief

concluding summary.

Rationale for Qualitative Design

Qualitative research methods were used for this study because I am interested in

the meaning Tibetan Buddhist monks have constructed of the new scientific knowledge

or how they make sense of their understanding of the world in the light of new

understanding they have gained from Western science. This research involved

investigating the experience of individual monks and eliciting these descriptive and

subjective elements of the participant’s experiences. Qualitative methods were used as

they allow one to situate as an “observer in the world” (Merriam, 2009) and gain a

holistic understanding of their experiences. Using qualitative methodologies allows the

researchers to identify patterns, themes and categories that emerge on their own driving

the process of organizing the data from multiple sources. The goal of assigning categories

is to closely reflect the original meaning, e.g., from the perspective of the participant

(Merriam, 2009, Creswell, 2009).

I approached this study from a social constructivist worldview (Creswell, 2009),

which is often combined with interpretive research (Merrriam, 2009). The assumption of

this tradition is that “individuals seek an understanding of the world in which they live

and work” (Creswell, 2009, p. 8) and that “reality is socially constructed, that is, there is

no single, observable reality” (Merriam, 2009, p. 8). Therefore, constructivism is built

upon the premise of a social construction of reality. The affordance of this approach is a

41

close collaboration between the researcher and the participants, enabling the participant

to reveal their view of reality, which allows the researcher to understand the

interpretation of their experience better. Thus, the varied and multiple subjective

meanings that individuals (monks) attribute to the phenomenon is the focus of this study.

As a researcher I look for a complexity of view rather than reducing it to categories or

ideas. I therefore, rely as much as possible on the individual’s perspective of the research

situation he is in and look for any distinct themes in their experiences to emerge.

However, interpretation of these experiences are mediated through the researcher’s “own

professional, personal and collective knowledge and experiences” (Dyson & Celia, 2005,

p. 82). Therefore, I describe my role as researcher in detail later in this chapter.

Rationale for Phenomenological Methodology

Within the framework of a qualitative approach, this study will use

phenomenological design. As a form of research methodology, phenomenology is “to

investigate the lived experience of people to identify the core essence of human

experience or phenomena” (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012) and the phenomenon in this

study is the sense that Tibetan Buddhist monks make of the theory of evolution.

Phenomenology also involves the search for the essence or the core meaning of the

phenomenon. This phenomenon will be studied by placing the participants unique

experience at the center of investigation and description of the phenomenon will be

provided rather than an explanation. Bloomberg & Volpe (2012) described how this

could be achieved:

The researcher then analyzes the data by reducing information to significant

statements or quotes, and combines these into thematic categories. Following

42

analysis, the researcher develops a textual description of the experiences of

participants, as well as a structural description of their experiences, to produce a

combination of descriptions in order to convey an overall essence of the

phenomenon. (p. 33)

Although this study has a small sample, prolonged engagement with the

participants would allow to develop patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas,

1994). One key characteristic of phenomenology is to bracket out any assumption or

presupposition about the phenomenon, which is not perfectly achievable, therefore I

reflect this in my role as a researcher to become cognizant of my biases that might

contaminate the experience.

Interpretive Case Study

Qualitative methods best allow me to describe and understand the current

phenomenon experienced by the study participants, and many previous studies using

sociocultural and worldview theories have applied qualitative research methodologies

(Cobern, 1993, 1999, 2000; Aikenhead, 1996; Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999). Of the

various qualitative methods, I chose the case study because my goal was to provide “an

in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam, 2009). The bounded

system in this case was the process by which Tibetan Buddhist monks make sense of

Western scientific theories. Yin (2009) asserts that the key criterion for using a case study

design is the need to answer “how” and “why” questions. Accordingly, I want to

understand how the participants make sense of Western scientific theories and why they

choose to do this in a particular way, given their similar religious and cultural

backgrounds. Stake (2005) focuses on ascertaining the unit of analysis, which in this case

43

is an adult Tibetan Buddhist monk. Since the six participants share common

characteristics and conditions, each individual will be a subunit of the larger case.

The Role of Researcher

In qualitative research, the researcher’s role or positionality—“the process of

reflecting critically on the self as researcher” (p. 183, Lincoln & Guba, 2000) is important

for the integrity of the research. Researcher as the primary instrument for data collection,

I have two responsibilities: 1) to reflect on how my values, assumptions, and beliefs

might shape my interpretations; and 2) to clarify this reflection process to my readers so

they better understand how I have used my data (Merriam, 2009). My own perception of

Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns has evolved over time based on my personal, social,

and professional experiences during my prolonged engagement with them.

I am a self-described Tibetan Buddhist and currently, a doctoral student in science

education at the University of Arizona. Although I identify myself as Buddhist, I hold

strong secular views that all religions and cultural traditions have to be valued and

respected equally. My experience as a stateless person residing in the United States and

reading of research literature during graduate school have immensely contributed to my

secular beliefs. Hence, I believe that all religious and cultural traditions have something

valuable to contribute towards human knowledge.

My formal encounter with the Tibetan monastics occurred when I decided to work

for ‘Science meets Dharma’; the first program initiated to teach Western science in the

Tibetan monasteries. During this time, I worked as an interpreter assisting the Western

teachers, translating classroom materials, teaching along side the Western teachers, and

developing science curriculum. This opportunity paved the way to many new experiences

44

with the monastics, resulting in a more nuanced understanding of the monastic

communities. My work with the monastics also exposed me to host of other opportunities

including working with and learning from the scores of Western scientists and educators

who came to teach at the programs. I joined the monastic science program after

completing my degree in mechanical engineering from an Indian university. It was my

desire to work for the Tibetan community in India after finishing my education. The

extended engagement with the monastics spanning over six years taught me the essence

of my own culture, which is inextricably grounded on Buddhist philosophy and beliefs

and also allowed me to gain an emic perspective of monastics’ life and ways.

During this period of working with the monastics, my perception of monks

evolved from a belief that monks were sacred and revered members of the community to

actually seeing them as individuals who have similar likes and dislikes as I do. However,

this did not undermine my respect for their simple lives, their deep spiritual knowledge,

and their aspiration for a higher form of living grounded in strong ethical and moral

principles. This close encounter with the monastic community over the years allowed me

to gain rapport with the monastics and allowed me to view and understand their daily

activities and practices, and their individual and social proclivities, which are all essential

from a ethnographic research perspective.

Data Collection Strategies

Data for my study was collected over a two-year period, beginning September

2013 to May 2015, spanning a total of four semesters including a summer in India. Data

sources included a series of three personal interviews with each monk, and one focus-

group interview involving six monks together. The individual and focus group were used

45

in conjunction to clarify, corroborate and develop themes and patterns in the findings. All

the individual interviews were conducted in the first language of the participants, which

is Tibetan and were audio-recorded. The focus-group interview was also conducted in

Tibetan and included all the participants and was video recorded.

Interviews

Interviews were the primary source of data for my study. Although Tibetan was

not the native language of two of the participants, it was their heritage language. I

‘member checked’ with the participants throughout the analysis process by sharing the

transcriptions of their interviews. The goal of doing in-depth interviews was to

understanding the “experiences” and “meaning” monks make of their new experience

(Seidman, 2013, p 9). I adapted the “three-interview series” approach (Seidman, 2013)

with slight modifications. Seidman describe this ‘three-interview series’ as,

“The first interview establishing the context of the participants’ experience, the

second interview allows participants to reconstruct the details of their experience

within the context in which it occurs. And the third interview establishes the

participants to reflect on the meaning their experiences holds for them.” (p. 21)

Similarly in this study, the Interview I focused on each monk’s life history, in

order to establish the context of participant’s experiences. I asked about their lives up

until the time they came to study in the U.S. In addition to their life history, I asked about

their perception of the Western science, their first encounter with science, their goal for

participating in the program, and topics in science and Buddhism that they think were

compatible or incompatible. I conducted the first individual interview one month after

their arrival when they were in their first semester of school in the U.S. (Appendix A).

46

Interview II was conducted during the summer in India at the end of their first

year. I focused on the most interesting experiences of their first year and repeated some

of the questions from the first interview about their views of science. Three participants

were not able to take part in this interview due to logistical reason (see Appendix B for

the interview questions). The timeline for these interviews are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Timeline of Data Collection and Participants Involved

Timeline Interview Type/Number of Participants

Documents

Fall 2013 Interview I: Life history/Background survey

Individual/6 monks Syllabus

Summer 2014

Interview II: The details of first year

experience

Individual/3 monks

Spring 2015 Interview III IIIA: Perception of Theory of

Evolution III B: Focus group

MATE Survey

Individual/ 6 monks

Group/6 monks

Syllabus/writings

Interview III A & III B was the most crucial and the primary data source for this

study and it was conducted at end of two years study period in the U.S. According to

Siedman, the third interview usually allows participants to reflect on the meaning of their

experiences. Therefore, the goal of Interview III A was to understand how they made

sense of the theory of evolution especially with regard to the questions of the origin of

life, human evolution, speciation, diversity of life, and general implications of the theory

of evolution to the Buddhist worldview. Some of the questions for this interview were

selected from earlier evolution research on individuals coming from strong religious

background (Hokayem & BouJaoude, 2008b), and more questions were added taking into

47

consideration the Buddhist accounts of origin of life (see Appendix C for the interview

questions). The interview III A lasted for 60-90 minutes. The Interview III B is a focus

group interview that lasted for about 130 minutes. Both these interviews were audio

recorded and conducted in the monk’s native language, Tibetan. The questions for the

focus-group interview were prepared ahead of time with additional questions based on

the responses from the individual interviews.

Interview III B Focus Group Interview At the end of all the Interview III A, the

group was asked to participate in a focus group interview. The focus-group interview was

held at a conference room in the university campus, which was video recorded and lasted

around two hours. The focus-group interview questions were prepared ahead of time to

generate discussion and allow the participants to reflect on the implication of some of the

concepts in the theory of evolution on Buddhist worldview. Based on the individual

interviews response, additional questions were added to counter or probe their statements

on evolution during the focus group discussion. The questions for the focus group also

included some controversial topics in evolution such as, human evolution and the

beginning of life on Earth (see Appendix D). This interview was semi-structured so that

participants could share their views freely and challenge each other’s viewpoints. The

monks were also given equal opportunities to participate. The purpose of the focus group

was to capture the widest range of meanings and interpretations that the participants

shared on the topic of evolution (Fontana & Prokos, 2007). The focus group interview in

conjunction with the individual interviews was used to gather an in-depth understanding

of the monks’ views on theory of evolution.

48

Survey instruments This 20-item Measure of Acceptance of Theory of Evolution

(MATE) was developed initially to measure the acceptance of theory of evolution among

biology teachers by Rutledge & Warden (1999). Five sub-concepts that MATE measures

are: the scientific validity of evolutionary theory, biblical creationism, the evolution of

man, the acceptance of evolution theory among the science community, and the age of

the Earth. The instrument (see Appendix E) has been used extensively in evolution

research, and has consistently shown high internal reliability and test-retest reliability

(Rutledge & Sadler, 2007). It has also been used with research subject involving college

students and people from different social and cultural background. Therefore, it seems

appropriate to use with the participants of this study. The survey was slightly modified to

replace questions regarding creationism with Buddhists account of origin of life.

Additionally, we asked the participants to state their reason for choosing a particular

response. The survey questions were made available in both English and Tibetan, and

were administered between the individual and focus group interviews.

Monk’s Profile

The following profile of each monk was based on the first interview when they were in

the first semester of class at Emory. It presents a little background of each monk, their

views about science, their goals for studying science, and compatible and incompatible

topics in science and Buddhism from their earlier science learning experiences. Except

for one, who is from Kagyu tradition, the remaining five monks were from same sect

within Tibetan Buddhism, that is, Geluk, the one with the largest congregation of

monastics (see Appendix for diaspora Tibetan monastic population).

Table 3.2

49

Monks Background

Current age

Age at joining monastery

Secular school education

Science programs attended

Chophel 31 12 3 Science for Monks, Science Leadership Institute, Science Meets Dharma, ETSI

Jampa 37 16 7 Science for Monks, Science Leadership Institute, Science Meets Dharma, ETSI

Samdup 34 8 10 ETSI, Science meets Dharma, Science leadership Institute

Tsering 33 13 8 Science Meets Dharma, ETSI Gawa 32 16 0 Science for Monks, Science

Leadership Institute, Science Meets Dharma, ETSI

Tashi 39 14 4 Science Leadership Institute, ETSI

Chophel

Chophel became monk at the age of twelve by enrolling at a local monastery in

his hometown. This was both he and his family’s wish for him to be a monk. His family

was follower of Tibetan Buddhism traditionally and he was the first person in his family

to become a monk. At the local monastery, Chophel studied recitation and began to

memorization of rudimentary Buddhist texts so that he can eventually transfer to a larger

Tibetan monastery in India where he can complete his Buddhist studies culminating in a

Geshe degree.

Chophel has completed his first two years of Geshe examination when he was

selected to be part of the cohort to further study science in the US. His goal was to study

in-depth neuroscience and quantum physics, and possibly do some research in these two

fields in the future. He is especially interested in neuropsychology, which he thinks is

50

“the forefront of modern science”. So he started by taking foundational courses in life

sciences that would gradually allow him to study neuroscience and neuropsychology.

These advanced fields of study he thinks is not possible for him to learn in India.

Similar to other monks, completing schoolwork on time and time management

was the most challenging part of being in school in the US. He is not used to doing

homework on regular basis in the monastery and feel that the courses at schools so rushed

that before he could sink in the current topic the class has already on to the next topic.

Chophel’s interest in science was lighted by his reading of books published by the Mind

and Life institute such as, Consciousness at the Crossroad, and Sleeping, Dreaming and

Dying, which are dialogues between the Dalai Lama and Western scientists on various

topics that both the traditions could learn and benefit from each other. Chophel was

particularly interested in math unlike the other monks and this started after listening to a

lecture explaining the mathematical basis of Buddhist concept of emptiness using the

concept of infinity by an Indian professor as his monastery. Thus, Chophel likes both

science and math.

The primary goal of science according to Chophel is to find the truth, and it is

only later that it finds ways to leverage the truth to benefit humankind. This differs

significantly from his tradition where the key focus is on inner well-being rather than on

external things to bring happiness. In recent years, he has seen neuropsychologist

working on understanding the mind in order to improve mental health of humans. So

again, he thinks the ultimately the goal of both the tradition seems to be alleviating

human suffering through understanding the truth. Chophel describes scientific method as

51

the primary procedure to generate knowledge in science and stresses the importance of

repeating the experiments following the same procedure to establish a truth.

He finds that studying science allows him to gain new understanding and also

lend fresh perspective for similar conclusions that the Buddhists have reached. This does

not mean in anyway that science brings evidence to Buddhist claims. For example, the

theory of impermanence is primarily explained in Buddhism on the basis of one’s mind,

which is changing on a momentary basis. Based on this premise Buddhists explain how

different afflictions lead “to particular cognitive acts or mental factors”. However,

Chophel was also able to gain insight into impermanent nature of things through the

scientific explanation of how subatomic particles remains in state of constant change.

Thus, Chophel states, “Like the principle of impermanence which could be understood

from a Buddhist view can now be understood from a different view that of science”.

In Buddhism, three different levels of reality are described including very hidden,

hidden, and evident phenomenon. Chophel believes that the very hidden phenomenon

could be understood only through scripture, while we could understand the hidden and

the evident phenomenon. For example, we can experience and understand the Buddha’s

statement like “all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things lead to

suffering”. He thinks even some level of action of karma could be understood and

explained by ordinary being like us. However, the very subtle working of karma can only

be understood and therefore, explained by enlightened beings like the Buddha. The fact

that the Buddha’s teaching about the hidden and evident phenomenon has shown to be

valid is why he believes in the scriptural claims about the very hidden phenomenon are

valid too.

52

Regarding science teaching in the monasteries, Chophel believes that there

should be sufficient interest for science among the monastics or it won’t be fruitful. His

first interest in science was developed through witnessing technological inventions such

as satellites and telescopes that were used to watch the moon. In order to understand the

scientific concepts behind these technological inventions it requires studying science. He

thinks similar approach could be used monks to generate enthusiasm for science among

monastics. Otherwise he thinks teaching science akin to public schools would only result

in rote learning with no deep impact on the monastics’ thought process.

Jampa

Jampa is 37 years old at the time of first interview and he was born in a place that

has similar linguistic, religious and cultural heritage to Tibetans. His village is a farming

community, which also falls en route to many important trekking destinations. Hence

many of the residents also own hotels or work as guides for the trekkers during summer.

Jampa attended local public school till seventh grade and then, made his own decision to

become a monk when he was sixteen. In his village people proficient in Tibetan language

and who were monks were specially respected. He thinks might have influenced his

decision to become a monk.

Jampa has completed his monastic course work and also participated in all the

science programs that were started at his monastery. He is now working towards his Geshe

degree. Before coming to the US, he had successfully finished first two years of Geluk

examination and has four more years to go. Knowing that opportunity to study in US

would be rare and that he can take a break from his Geluk examination, Jampa decided to

further study science at Emory. He wanted to complete his Geshe examination upon

53

returning to India, which he knows would require lot of effort to revise the canonical texts.

At the university, besides honing his language and mathematical skills, Jampa’s

primary objective is to specialize in certain topic in science so that he can teach it when he

returns to his monastery. Given a choice, he prefers to learn more about neuroscience

because of its relation with Buddhist meditational practices. Since concepts in

neuroscience would be more challenging to teach, he thinks he should focus on foundation

courses in life sciences and chemistry. He feels that these two subjects are closely related

and “without an in-depth knowledge about chemistry one cannot delve deeply into life

science and will be stuck in between” and would be more beneficial for the monks he

wants to teach.

Jampa studied the theory of evolution during Emory-Tibet Science Initiative’s

summer science workshops. He finds the theory of evolution interesting because it

provides another perspective to look at phenomenon like colors on a peacock’s feather. To

his mind, “Science without attributing to everything to Karma attempts to explains the

phenomenon based on causal relation with the environment through the process of natural

selection. And Buddhism uses the concept of Karma to explain this. So when there are two

different cultural interpretations, it is advantage for you to gain this new insight”. Thus

Jampa finds it refreshing to have a naturalistic explanation of a simple phenomenon like

the cause of color on peacock’s feather without retorting to Karma.

In the new academic landscape, Jampa faced many uncertain challenges. One of

the most pressing challenge at the time was the language, which he thinks, “he can

understand only 50-60% of the spoken English”. This is unlike in India, where he gets to

listen to the same lecture twice because a translator repeats the same lecture again and the

54

lessons were taught at a much slower pace. At Emory not only are the lectures fast paced,

there are lot of assignments especially writing assignment that has to be completed almost

everyday. The monastic curriculum puts a strong emphasis on understanding the meaning

of texts through debates and commentary, hence writing never became an integral part of

monastic curriculum.

When Jampa first attended the science class by Science meets Dharma program,

they were not many monks enthusiastic of learning science and at the time “His Holiness

has also not stepped up his call to study science in the monasteries”. He learned science

mostly through his friends who introduced him to a Tibetan journal called Lhaksam

Tsekpa, which publishes comparative articles on science and Buddhism. He remembers

reading many of articles that highlight the “key areas of confluence and conflicts” between

science and Buddhism.

Jampa views science as “one method of finding truth” but it follows the process of

hypothesizing, prediction, experimentation, and confirmation of a theory. He clarifies that

science is not the technology or the instruments but it is a practice, with the goal “to

explain the physical state and its processes”. Science progresses primarily due to

specialization and the number of people working for it according to Jampa. Individuals

specialize in any area and spent tremendous amount of time doing research in that area

which he thinks results in many theories and rapid progress of science. However, he

believes that “scientific theories are tentative or provisional. When the current truth is

falsified, another truth is developed. For example, the science textbook of today is

different from what it was ten years ago”. Hence, Jampa has a quite an accurate

understanding of science and how it progresses.

55

Regarding compatibility the two traditions, he sees similarities between Western

science and Buddhism understanding of matter or atomic model. Like science, he thinks

Buddhists have acknowledged that “matters are perpetually moving and never stay in the

same location” centuries ago. While Buddhist claim, “wind is able to hold the matter

together”, science explains, “how kinetic energy of particle is able to hold together the

structure of matter and thus we can experience the solidity of material”. So he thinks the

fundamental understanding of two traditions are similar but using different vocabulary.

Jampa explains that the most common conflict between the two traditions is the Mount

Meru cosmology, which contradicts with empirical evidence that science has gathered

thus far. However, he doesn’t think this is a conflict and could be reasoned that it is due

to “individual’s karmic consequences”, which allows the possibility of perceiving the

world differently. Regarding His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s rejection of certain aspect of

Mount Meru cosmology, he said the Dalai Lama is “speaking to the general perception

and I personally don’t think he saying it doesn’t exist at all”. Yet another conflict he sees

is the Abhidharma account of human evolution, which runs counter to evolutionary

theory. Even if there is a some contradiction between the two, he is fine with rejecting

parts of his traditional account as long as the theory of evolution has no bearing on the

fundamentals tenets of Buddhism like, “the four noble truth, twelve links dependent

origination, and theory of path and stages to enlightenment”. Jampa was indifferent to

whether certain scientific facts conform to Buddhist beliefs or not, as long as the fact

don’t undermine the fundamental tenets of Buddhism.

By learning science Jampa thinks he got closer to his own tradition. Earlier he

does not have a counterpart knowledge system to compare his Buddhist view of the

56

world. So science has not only served as this counterpart knowledge system but also

reinforced his belief in his tradition. However, Jampa has other motivation for learning

science. He thinks monks need to learn science especially today because even layman

Tibetans do not consider the monastic education as relevant for living a life and therefore

obsolete. Jampa tells the story of his monk friend who left the monasticism to get married

to a family in the nearby Tibetan settlement, “he married to an affluent family and the

mother-in-law said that it is pity that he has grown up now, he has no education since he

has been a monk from childhood”. Thus Jampa views learning science as a matter of

prestige and status in his community. He also finds science useful in communicating his

Buddhist ideas making it easier to relate to people’s experiences.

Jampa acknowledges science’s ability to explain some of both sensual and mental

phenomenon. However, he thinks that, “mental factors that rely on five sensual organs,

which are very much related to our body, nervous system, and nerve energy could be

understood” by science to certain extent but higher mental states such as, “calm-abiding

and higher states (of consciousness)”, he does not think science could easily explain.

Thus, Jampa is apprehensive about science’s ability to explain all aspects of reality.

Samdup

Samdup became monk at the age of eight in 1987. He attended the secular school

within the monastery, which is like all public schools includes subjects such as math,

English language, science and social studies in addition to some foundational texts on

Buddhist epistemology. After finishing his tenth grade he then transferred to his

monastery to study the five canons of Buddhism.

57

When Samdup joined the science program in 2006, there was growing enthusiasm

for science in the monasteries due to the Dalai Lama’s endorsement of teaching science

in the monasteries. The elder monks from his fraternity recommended that he join the

science program given his past knowledge of science from the monastery’s secular

school. Even though he is familiar with the scientific terminologies from his earlier

education, the bilingual instruction he received at the science programs benefitted

tremendously in generating more interest and deeper conceptual understanding of the

scientific theories.

Samdup initially thought of science as a discipline with the primarily goal to

explain the mechanism of how things function or use of technology to solve problems.

After going to the science program he learned that science examines all aspect of nature

and through repeated observation it gets to the bottom of a phenomenon, for example,

repeated observation of subatomic particles. Thus he thinks it is similar to Buddhism in

way there needs to be repeated analysis the object. However, he finds that science unlike

Buddhism does not talk about morality or ethical behaviour. Buddhism on the other hand

is concerned about getting rid of mental afflictions to reduce human suffering, which is

not the case in science. Science he feels is mostly concerned with working on new

discoveries and innovations that could benefit human society, however, it never

acknowledges the negative impact of its past discoveries and innovations.

Samdup thinks science was invented when humans were unsatisfied in solving

their problems, such as, overcoming diseases by relying or praying to gods. Thus, science

for him is a human endeavor to solve human problem by using human intelligence like

finding means to stop various epidemics. In some cases, he thinks a prevailing

58

philosophy might have influenced the scientific discovery, like for example, when

investigating atomic structures. That’s the way he think science progressed. In the case of

Buddhism, Samdup said that it was the Buddha who initially investigated the nature of

things and our being. He then went to contemplate on ways to get rid of his mental

afflictions that would lead to a lasting happiness. When he finally got rid of his mental

affliction and found the path to lasting happiness, he taught this path and nature of reality

to us. Thus, Samdup contrast the ways in which the two knowledge traditions were

developed.

Going to Emory was his best opportunity to learn science according to Samdup.

He plans to improve his English speaking and writing skills during this two-year sojourn.

He truthfully declares that he himself is not a studious student of Buddhist canonical

texts. But by learning sciences he hopes to work for improving the science education in

his monastery after returning. He feels the opportunity to study at Emory was also a great

responsibility. He goal was to study life science, some physics, and then possibly some

neuroscience. However, he is concerned that learning advanced physics would be cut

short by his lack of knowledge in math. The evolutionary biology he finds more

interesting compared to cellular biology, which delves too much into the intricacies of

cellular structures, functions and processes even though they are important.

Neuroscience, however is of more interest to him because it shows connection between

human body and brain, and hence, is directly related to our happiness and suffering.

Hence Samdup is really interested to learn more about how the brain influences our well-

being.

59

Samdup is familiar with both the Buddhist and scientific account of human

evolution. He prefers the scientific description to the Buddhist because it is more logical

and is based on evidence, hence more elegant too. However, when asked about which

description of human evolution he would prefer to tell another person, he prefers to use

both the accounts depending on the individual. He went on to say that if it is someone

who believes in the law of karma, he might tell him the Buddhist version of human

evolution story, and for someone who does not believe in the law of karma, he thinks the

scientific account of human evolution would be more appropriate. This clearly indicates

Samdup holds the conflicting schemas about life at the same time and does not see any

conflict.

Samdup feels that it is not sufficient to describe life based on something being

composed of cell or collection of cells, or obeys the seven characteristics of living things

that science describes. From a Buddhist perspective, it is important that a consciousness

must be present in it to call something living. Otherwise there is no difference between an

animal and a tree. Science therefore he concludes fails to explain why certain entity

evolved into cells that can move in an environment and some that could not. In order to

call something as sentient, “from a Buddhist perspective, a consciousness must enter in it.

Even for a single cell to be sentient it must have consciousness”. Science to the contrary

gives a very naturalistic explanation that does not take into account the role of

consciousness which he thinks is important for him as a Buddhist.

Science had tremendous impact on his thought process, Samdup acknowledged.

He learnt a lot about things that are familiar but he never understood their function thus

far. For example, like digestion of food, functioning of different organs, cause of

60

contagious diseases, and process of immune system in our body. He thinks he gained lot

of knowledge about these things that eases his communication with people when asked

about these things. He also learned from a science class that thousand of cells in our body

die everyday and are replaced without our knowledge. So when he used this example

with other monks to conceptualize the theory of impermanence in Buddhism, they all

readily agree. Everyday object, which appears solid to us he says, are actually found to be

made of particles that are in constant motion, which he thinks reflects the Buddhist notion

of instantaneous change that underlies all phenomenon. On the other hand, the Buddhist

concept of shortest time is crude compared to science where time is measured to the

millionth of a second.

At Emory, the most challenging experience at the time was managing time. In the

monastery even though there is some schedule, things were quite different for him in the

States. Finishing certain lesson in a certain amount of time with lot of assignments,

writings and reflections to do every day was overwhelming for him. Hence, other

students in his school seemed to be making a lot of effort for their education compared to

the monks in his monastery. The fast pace of the class and the difficulty in understanding

the professors limited his learning at the beginning of the school.

Tsering

Tsering escaped Tibet in 1994 and went straight away to join the monastery in

South India. He was born in Tibet but he never went to school there. He would herd the

sheep and during winter when there is no work since all farming work stops, he would

past time playing and roaming around with other kids. His parent’s decided to make him

into a monk and at the time there was no good school in his village. So when his parents

61

decided to send him to India to become a monk he was very excited to leave his village.

Upon reaching the monastery in India, it was mandatory for those below seventeen years

of age to join the monastery’s secular school. Thus he started at the secular school where

he spent nine years.

Tsering used to be a studious student initially, until his fourth year when he began

to lose interest in studies. Today, he felt that he has squandered those critical period of his

life. Upon completing his education at the secular school he started actual study of the

monastic curriculum. Some preparation for this transfer has been done during his time at

the secular school, which include memorization and learning of some foundational texts

on Buddhist epistemology. The monastic study usually culminates in taking part in the

Geshe examination, which he felt is too onerous that he discontinued his monastic

education. He then left the monastery for a more ritual oriented branch of the monastery

in Dharamsala, a northern town in India. Before his departure, he was actually

completing his study of the Abhidharma canon. The elder monks in his fraternity

requested him to return after a year to complete his study.

It was during this period that Tsering got the offer to study at Emory. His first

encounter with science was in 2006, when there was growing interest for science in the

monasteries. The way in which science explains how things like the airplane and

electricity works, and described the process of rain fascinated and interested him in

taking science classes. When asked about the goal of science, he responded, “primary

goal of science is to investigate various external phenomenon to find the underlying

secret, which is then used in innovating technologies and inventions”. Like most of the

62

monks, he sees science as a discipline that is directed towards investigating the external

things.

In Buddhism, he says Buddha has taught everything and our responsibility is to

learn and practice what he has taught. However, science Tsering thinks is different, it is

done by ordinary people who use their intellect to investigate things that leads to new

findings. To summarize, he think of science as tradition that continues to invent and

discover new things all the time and does not rely on a statement of an individual.

Science is developed developed through a communal effort unlike Buddhism. Tsering

knows that scientific theories are tentative because these theories, although are developed

by individuals to their best capabilities, however, they can always be mistaken. For

example, the big bang theory, which is the currently accepted model of how our universe

came to being, might change in next 10-15 years, he says. Thus, he thinks science is

constantly changing. However, since science caters to many of our necessities and it is

important that we learn about it and is not going to have negative impact by learning

science.

Studying science brought more interest for Buddhism in case of Tsering. Other

than that he concludes there is no benefit in terms of furthering his understanding of

Buddhism. Science of course provides more insight into the composition of matter.

Although, in Buddhism also there is certain description of subtle particle, its description

of subatomic particles is different from science. Hence knowing more detail about atomic

composition might be a benefit but its does not bring the same satisfaction that brings to

him by studying Buddhism. As of now Tsering plans to put more effort in studying

63

Buddhist texts upon his return to India and clear at least first two years of the six-year

Geluk Examination.

Tsering believes that Buddhist should accept scientific claims about the external

world. For example, the conflict regarding Buddhist cosmology is something that

contradicts empirical evidence that science has gathered. Therefore, Buddhist should be

ready to accept anything that contradicts reality. He goes on to say, “Between external

matter and internal consciousness, the primary focus of analysis for Buddhists is the

consciousness, and therefore, there was not a tradition for systematic study of external

matter. Hence the lack of explanation about the physical world.” Since Buddhists focus is

different, he does not see any issue with accepting scientific conclusions about the

physical world and should not impinge on the Buddhist claims about other aspect of

reality like consciousness. Both the traditions are deemed to have strong emphasis on

investigating any phenomenon critically before arriving at any conclusion.

Studying science subjects in depth is impossible for Tsering and therefore, his

goal of coming to Emory is to improve his English skills, and hopefully contribute to the

current effort to institute science education in the monastery by working as a science

translator possibly. He realized the shortage of science translators when science teaching

and learning was beginning at his monastery. He also felt this opportunity as a huge

responsibility and declined the offer to study at Emory at first.

Upon coming to Emory, Tsering was overwhelmed with managing time and

schoolwork because at his monastery time is not so stringently managed. Although there

is some regulation of time in his monastery there is much more freedom with your time

and is not so much micro managed. He thinks this might be surprise for some Westerners

64

that monks have difficulty in managing time. Understanding the lectures by professors

who would only give a summary or a gist of the lesson, and does not go into detail

explanation of the concepts was another hurdle. This required him to read the textbooks

ahead of class everyday, which is again limited by his inexperience in reading scientific

text and overall difficulty with comprehension.

Gawa

Gawa was 32 years old at the time of interview and he had never been to school.

At the age of sixteen, he became a monk at the behest of his family in Tibet. Before

coming to Emory, he was on his track to acquire Geshe degree—equivalent of doctor of

philosophy, which requires six years of rigorous examination after completion of studying

the five Buddhist canons. Gawa has only two years left to complete his Geshe examination

when he took part in this study. In the monastery, Gawa have taken part in all the different

science programs, Science for Monks, Science meets Dharma, and Emory-Tibet Science

Initiative (ETSI).

Three years ago, Gawa was offered the opportunity further study science in the

US. “At that time I was in the early stage of Geluk examination and therefore, I couldn’t

go”, Gawa explains. Last year, he got another offer and this time he could not turn it

down. He thought he might not be lucky enough to get another offer. It was a difficult

decision for him to make to leave in the midst of his Geluk examination. After consulting

with his teachers and comrades, and the fact that he had already spent considerable

amount of time learning science at the monastery, Gawa decided to take this offer.

However, he was determined to continue his Geshe examination upon returning to India.

He indeed completed his Geshe examination in 2017.

65

In his first semester in fall of 2013, he took Biology 141 (Foundations of Modern

Biology 1), Sociology 330 (Mental Health and Well-being) and basic math and English

language classes like everyone else. He thinks these basic science courses will enable him

to be successful in neuroscience and life science courses that he wants to take in the

future. He was particularly interested in neuroscience because he thinks, “neuroscience,

and the meditational practice and different interaction of mind and mental events taught in

Buddhism seems to have lot of correlations.” He even thinks, “neuroscience should be part

of the main focus in science teaching” at the monasteries. Although he likes physics and

“particularly topics like particle and quantum physics”, he knows he cannot go very far

without honing his mathematical skills. Hence, he is more inclined to learn neuroscience.

Coming to US for him was a new world experience. Like all the monks, Gawa also

have difficulty in managing school related work and schedule. He said the most difficult

adjustment to the new environment was “to complete work on time.” By ‘time’, he was

referring to completion of assignments on time and meeting people at a given time. In

order to manage his time, Gawa had kept a planner and he was working on it. Difficulty to

understand the instructor’s accent, the fast pace of the course, outpouring of new scientific

terminologies, and daily assignments were the primary concern for Gawa during his first

two months in the US.

He knew scientific method and believed it to be the way scientific knowledge is

generated. Although he does not use the exact phrase ‘scientific method’, he describes all

aspect of scientific method. Scientific knowledge is accumulative and therefore, he thinks

that the most recent findings are “more accurate than the past”. In order to confirm any

scientific finding, it is necessary to repeat the experiment by different people or groups.

66

Science is primarily to fulfill the “curiosity” of scientists and then to find the “truth” and

beyond this he thinks scientists have no ulterior motive. From his class on sociology,

Gawa learned that science is a “production of human mind and therefore human welfare

should be its basis.” But he is skeptical about this view. Regarding finding truth about a

phenomenon, he was also skeptical that science’s overreliance on experimentation will

never lead to a “definitive truth”, it can only lead to a “tentative” knowledge, which is not

generalizable.

There are certain topics in science that are completely in contrary to Buddhist

beliefs. Gawa gives the example of evolutionary biology account of human origin, which

“is completely discordant with our (Buddhist) conception of formation of human life in

the universe.” From a Buddhist view, human or any organism’s existence goes beyond

Earth and hence, has no beginning. He believes that human on this Earth are born from

dying people in some other part of universe or a may be in a different universe. For him

human have existed throughout the cosmological time and therefore he thinks that “lives

on this planet have migrated from other universe through rebirth and as such there is no

beginning.”

Gawa had found ways to resolve this incongruence by looking at the scientific

theory of evolution from another perspective. In Buddhism, life forms move between six

different realms of existence—god, demigod, human, animal, hungry ghost and hell being,

driven by individuals actions or Karma (Buddhist principle of causality for sentient being).

He thinks science does well in explaining the origin of life on this planet but does not

explain how we became what we are. Hence, he concludes that the “fundamental cause of

human or life in general” is explained better by invoking theory of Karma, and the gradual

67

process physical change is better explained by evolution.

Gawa also experiences certain incompatibility between science and Buddhism. For

example, biological traits such as anger and desire, which are essential for a species’

survival according to evolution, are to be shunned from a Buddhism perspective. He says,

he “is still trying to find a solution or observe what lays in between these two.” However,

there are some concepts in science such as, quantum theory, particle physics, and theory of

relativity that resonates with Buddhist principles like the theory of impermanence and

theory of interdependence. However, his is not certain about to what extent these concepts

are compatible if studied in detail. Science helped Gawa “broaden” his vision with lot of

new knowledge about the world. For example, he was unaware of the effect of burning

trash for the environment and the health of people living in monastery. With his new

awareness, now it makes him feel uncomfortable when someone burns trash in the

monastery and he wants to find a way to stop people from doing that. He said that Buddha

had taught the importance of protecting one’s environment, but had not explained “how to

do so”.

Gawa was beginning to question the validity of some of the fundamental

assumptions and beliefs in his tradition like the theory of rebirth. He said it was only after

learning science, did he begin to question the Buddhist reasoning that existence of

previous life can be proven by the requirement that there should be a preceding

consciousness for our present consciousness. According to Buddhist logic, a

consciousness is always preceded by an earlier consciousness; therefore, it is claimed that

the consciousness of a newborn child has to come from a preceding consciousness, hence

the existence of previous life. From a scientific perspective, he thinks there is no necessity

68

“to have a preceding consciousness to be the source of our present consciousness.” Hence,

science was like a new tool for critical thinking, questioning established beliefs in his

tradition like concept of re-birth.

Tashi

Tashi was born in India and went to public school until the age of 12. He

completed his fifth grade. He joined the local monastery in the settlement. When Tashi

was commuting to his school for miles on foot passing by the local monastery, he began

to think that the monks were having a better life, thus, he eventually he wanted to become

a monk. His parent heeded to his desire and was admitted to the local monastery. At this

monastery, its primary focus is on the Buddhist rituals and practices and was not oriented

to studying Buddhist philosophical texts. Hence, he did not get the opportunity to study

the five major texts. Learning rituals and practice includes making sand mandalas, butter

sculptures, dough offerings, and playing and practice of musical instruments and chants

for Buddhist ceremonies and prayers. Thus, Tashi acknowledges that his monastic

education was focused on rituals instead of studying the Buddhist texts.

Tashi first started taking science classes in 2008 and at the time, there was some

hype about studying science in the monastery. In general, Tashi considers himself to be a

curious person. Before taking part in the science classes, he viewed science as similar to

making bombs and other technological devices. For his two-year sojourn at Emory, he

has set three goals for himself. Firstly, he wants to learn the scientific concepts in more

depth, then to improve his English communication skills, and finally, to gain a new

cultural experience by living it.

From his experience, science strengthens his belief in Buddha’s teaching especially about

69

the very hidden phenomenon because Buddha’s statement about the slightly hidden

phenomenon such as, existence of subtle life forms, are mostly proved to be true through

science. The similarity that he sees between science and Buddhism is the commitment of

both the traditions to investigate all claims for yourself before you begin to believe in

them. He cited Buddha’s statement, “Just as gold is burnt, cut and rubbed, examine my

words carefully and do not accept them simply out of respect” to support his claim.

Regarding Buddhist cosmology described in Abhidharma, he does not take a

stand as to whether it is correct or not. He said, “When I think for myself deeply on the

concept of Mount Meru cosmology. It is very difficult to find a standard by which to

decide whether it is valid or not”. He thinks depending on the perspective of the

individual the Abhidharma version of universe proposed by Vasubhandu is as valid as

what Galileo found out about the world through his telescope later. Tashi holds a

relativistic view about truth.

Data Analysis

The data was analyzed to create rich descriptions of how the monks in general

navigate the intersection of science and Buddhism and the theory of evolution used as a

vehicle in study to understand this phenomenon. Except for the Measurement of

Acceptance of Theory of Evolution (MATE), the primary source of data for this study

was approximately 20 hours of individual and focus group interviews collected over the

two-year period. The interview data were first transcribed verbatim in Tibetan. The initial

plan was to translate all transcribed data into English and then do the analysis. However,

literature on translation studies recommends analyzing data sources in the original

language whenever possible. This has the advantage of not only remaining close to the

70

source language but also avoids adding another layer of interpretation through the

translation process in qualitative studies (Small, 2008). Yet another challenge is the lack

of equivalence of concepts and terms used in the source and the target language maintain

an accurate translation, thus impeding the meaning-making process. Therefore, in order

to maintain the integrity of what the monks have said in the various data sources, it was

decided that translation into English language would not be done until the analysis was

completed. Once the overarching thematic categories and codes were identified in the

original transcripts, only then the relevant transcripts were translated into English for

further analysis and reporting.

The final individual interview (Interview IIIA) and focus group interview

(Interview IIIB) were the primary data sources to answer the research questions for this

study. Interview transcripts of each participants and the focus group discussion were read

fully in Tibetan several times to “obtain a general sense of the information and to reflect

on its overall meaning” (Merriam, 2003). Based on the general reading of the transcripts

from the individual and focus group interview, five major thematic categories were

identified (see Table 3.3 for examples of the five thematic categories). The transcripts

were then coded to find how each of the individual monks responded in these thematic

categories (see Table 3.4 for different example of codes). The five thematic categories

identified were: 1) What is Life: Sentient beings vs. Living things; 2) Buddhist vs.

Scientific Account of Human Evolution; 3) Origin of Life; 4) Evolution And Buddhist

Theory of Karma; and 5) Alignment of Buddhist Beliefs and Evolution.

Table 3.3

Examples of Thematic Categories

71

Thematic Categories Codes Included Sentient Being Vs. Living Things Life

Living Things Sentient Beings Microorganisms Subtle Life Forms Modes of Conception Consciousness Plants and Animals

Buddhist vs. Scientific Account of Human Evolution

Buddhist Explanation Of Human Evolution First Human Being Common Ancestry Life Expectancy

Karma and Evolution Types of Karma Karma Random Mutation Macroevolution Diversity Six Realms

Table 3.4

Examples of Codes

Code Examples Life “In Buddhism, when you say sentient beings, it most likely means

whether something can have experience or not.” “From a Buddhist perspective, singled cell organisms do contain consciousness. But some of them might not be sentient.”

Buddhist Explanation Of Human Evolution

“Generally, in Buddhism there seem to be a clear demarcation between human and animal. It is done as if we can clearly draw a line. According to science there seem to be many in between. Some that resembles both human and animal. If you ask about Homo erectus and Neanderthal, it is difficult to ascertain whether these are human or animal.” “The Buddhist explanation of the first-eon human beings is just one explanation. It doesn’t need to be the only explanation. The first-eon human who already are human gradually being transformed over time into current form is one story. When I think about it, I doubt if such thing has actually happened.”

72

Karma “Conditions lets to the ripening of cause. Hence there must be some innate qualities that allow the conditions to bring fruition of the cause. For example, our genetic materials have certain potential to cause change that some humans would change their physical appearance in future. So this potential that is innate is something that should be related to Karma.” “The vegetation surrounding us depends on karma of human. The diversity in vegetation is due to the collective karma of human living in that environment. Due to collective karma of human we have different kinds of vegetation. But it is difficult when it come to explaining the process.”

Buddhist Description Of Origin Of Life

“First the gods were meritorious, but as their accumulated merits were diminished, they degenerated and descended on Earth, beginning to rely coarse food and became dependent on eating to survive. So some went on searching for food on four limbs.” “Generally speaking according to Buddhism, we say sentient being has no beginning because there is no beginning to life. No new sentient beings will be created on this Earth that has not existed earlier. This is universally accepted among Buddhist. When we say no new sentient being will be created, it means that one sentient being cannot be divided to form two without any role of consciousness.”

When analyzing the Buddhist views shared by the monks on the five thematic

categories, the monks would generally agree or have different things to add-on to each of

these categories. The monks mostly differed in their perception of the theory of evolution

and their ways of reconciling any conflicts between the theory of evolution and their

Buddhist worldview. The first three thematic categories: 1) What is Life: Sentient beings

vs. Living things; 2) Buddhist vs. Scientific Account of Human Evolution; and 3) Origin

of Life, were where most of the conflicts between evolutionary concepts and Buddhist

beliefs were found and the monks attempt to reconcile these conflicts were seen. In the

last two thematic categories: 4) Evolution And Buddhist Theory of Karma and 5)

Alignment of Buddhist Beliefs and Evolution, instead of conflict, monks talked about

73

how the concepts within the theory of evolution complement or align with Buddhist

principles like the theory of karma. These five thematic categories are reported in detail

in Chapter 4. In three of the five thematic categories where conflicts were noted, Jegede’s

theory of collateral learning was used to further analyze how monks engaged in different

forms of collateral learning. The different collateral learning found among the monastics

are reported in Chapter 5. Qualitative data analysis software program ATLAS.ti was used

for organization and analysis of the data. Given the bulk of data, effective organizing of

data is of central importance and therefore, the software allowed for ease in coding and

grouping codes in the five thematic categories described earlier.

Validity and Reliability

To ensure internal validity, a number of strategies were employed to maintain the

trustworthiness of this study. The multiple sources and methods of data collection used in

this study including individual interviews, focus-group interview, and the MATE

survey allowed for triangulation of the data for fuller and richer explanation of how the

monastics were accommodating the theory of evolution into their Buddhist worldview.

The initial plan to do member checks or respondent validation by all the monks were not

performed except for two monks since the monastics were difficult to reach upon their

returning to India, despite multiple attempts by the researcher. However, outsider

examination was done using an expert, who is both an experienced science translator and

Tibetan Buddhist scholar to check the veracity of the translation. He was also consulted

on regular basis for assistance in assessing the interpretations of what monks had said in

their individual and focus group interviews. This consultation of an outside expert helped

74

in establishing the reliability of the study, that the findings of the study are consistent

with the data, thus maintaining the interpretive validity of this study.

75

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS ON EVOLUTION

Introduction

In this chapter, I present the key themes that emerged from my interviews with

the six monks regarding the theory of evolution. The first theme addresses the conflict in

classification and definition of life in the two traditions and how this exacerbates the

monk’s ability to form a coherent theory of life, which reconciles various concepts in

evolution with Buddhist beliefs. The second theme involves how the monks think the

about origin of life. While monks perceive life as perennial, in a sense existing eternally,

life in science emanated only after the Earth was formed or after the formation of

universe following the big bang. The third theme delves into the topic of human

evolution and the idea that apes share common ancestor with human beings, which is the

cause of much controversy over evolution. In the traditional Buddhist classification

system of sentient beings, human and animal belongs to different categories, and

therefore the theory of evolution’s claim of animals evolving into human beings was

unacceptable for some monks. Finally, the last theme deals with the role of Buddhist

theory of karma in evolution. The theory of karma is the most fundamental concept in

Buddhism related to sentient beings, and therefore, the monks’ invocation of this theory

when learning about the theory of evolution seems inevitable.

What is life? Sentient Beings vs. Living Things

The differences in the definition and classification of life at the outset between

science and Buddhism challenged the monks into forming a coherent understanding of

life and reconciling various concepts in evolutionary theory. The monks therefore employ

various accommodation strategies when attempting to make the two traditions

76

compatible. The Tibetan equivalent of life is srok and is generally applied only to sentient

beings or sem chen (literally meaning mind possessing) and not to plants. In Buddhism

srok is defined as one that supports “heat” and “consciousness” (Lama, 2005a) and is

referred only to sentient beings. However, in science, life is synonymous with living

things and includes plants, animals, and microorganisms. In science, life or living things

are characterized by the seven biological properties that an organism must possess,

namely: growth, change, the ability to reproduce, metabolism, homeostasis, being

composed of cells, and passing on genetic material. Plants having these characteristics are

therefore considered living, according to science but Buddhist won’t consider it as having

life for lack of consciousness. So the semantic and taxonomic incommensurability

between science and Buddhism with regard to the categorization and definition of life

presents recurring challenges to the monks when reconciling the two knowledge

traditions.

When monks were asked about any differences they observed between Buddhism

and scientific understanding of life, all of them shared similar explanations. Regarding

defining life in Buddhism, Tsering said, “in Buddhism, when you say something has

srok...or is a sentient beings, if you probe further it is based on whether it can experience

or not. For example, whether it can experience feeling like joy and suffering.” Samdup

and Tashi also stated that “anything that could feel joy and suffering” should be

considered as sentient being. Tsering further said, “For us consciousness has to enter.”

The ability to experience according to Buddhist comes from the presence of a

consciousness. Another monk, Gawa stated, “a sentient being is decided on the basis of

77

whether it has a mind or not”. Consciousness and mind are used synonymously in

Buddhism. Finally, Chophel comes up with a slightly different definition of life;

In Buddhism, it (sentient being) is defined on the basis of how consciousness

controls the nervous system. Consciousness controls the nervous system. We

believe that consciousness controls the motion of our body. By this we

differentiate between life and non-life. (1:17)

The nervous system that Chophel mentioned here is not the same nervous system as

understood in science. Buddhism describes numerous networks of nerves that serve as

energy channels and have no correlation with the scientific depiction of the human

nervous system. All the monks agreed that the ability to experience and feel, as well as

the presence of consciousness or mind in an organism is what defines a life. Their

consensus about the definition and characterization of life might have stemmed from the

Buddhist theory of Five Aggregates. According to Five Aggregate theory, sentient beings

are constituted with five mental and physical elements, namely: matter or form, feeling or

sensation, perception, mental formation or volition, and consciousness.

By comparing to the Five Aggregate theory, Buddhist think that the biological

evolution only describes the first element or material evolution of life, and is not

concerned about the organisms actually becoming a sentient. Tsering said:

If we trace back the material composition of our body, most likely we can trace it

back to the atomic level. Even though we might be able to trace it to such a level,

it doesn’t mean that it is a sentient being. From one atom (he might have meant

cell) to two, two to three, five to fifty and two hundred, that is how the body is

78

developed. Within such bodies there are those which have the potential to host

consciousness and those that aren’t able to host consciousness. (15:5)

The material origin of life is less significant than understanding the origin of first sentient

beings on Earth for the monks. According to Tsering, along with the material evolution of

our physical body, it is important that consciousness must enter the physical body at

certain period during the evolutionary process. He also believes that there is definitely a

material substrate for consciousness but conceded, “I really don’t know what kind of

material basis is required to host consciousness. I really don’t know. But there are

definitely two types of things, those that can host consciousness, and those that cannot.”

Although material basis of consciousness is suggested in the Five Aggregate theory,

biological evolution does not describe any role of consciousness to give a full account of

life formation.

In the case of larger plants, all the monks agree that they are devoid of

consciousness and therefore, are not sentient being. Tsering said, “When science talks

about sentient being (life) they talk about living or non-living things. Plants are

categorized as living things.” However, when it comes to microorganisms, it still remains

contentious as to whether they are sentient or not. Gawa gave an example of small plant-

like life forms that were debated in the Buddhist texts about it being sentient or not:

Truly speaking, it is very difficult to decide whether something is sentient or not

especially when you go to subtle life forms. In Buddhism, there had been

continuing debate about whether plants have mind or not. For example, in the

Abhidharma text, there were some discussions about whether chu ped, a tiny

plant-like life that grows in water, is sentient or not. It is said that this plant’s srok

79

is dependent on water and therefore should be considered sentient. However, as

we move towards more subtle life forms, it is still an open discussion about

whether they are sentient or not. (7:2)

The above statement suggests that the controversy over the application of the concept of

sentient beings in the real world is not new for Buddhists. In fact, Gawa mentions that in

his tradition there had been a debate about whether chu ped, a plant in water that behave

like animal, should be accorded with the status of sentient being or not. It was eventually

decided to be sentient because its srok, which by definition means an entity possessing

heat and consciousness, in this case is reliant on the water. It is unclear as what he means

by the water organism to possess heat and consciousness. However, from his science

learning experience, Gawa realizes that given the huge diversity of subtle life forms that

science has discovered, he thinks it is still an open discussion to decide on the nature of

such life forms.

In the continuing discussion, Gawa talks about how the subtle life forms debate in

Buddhist tradition also raises ethical question about dealing with these invisible creatures

and he is more inclined to consider them as sentient:

In the Vinaya, in the section where it talks about what is considered to be an act of

taking life or killing, there is a mention of large number of sentient beings that are

not visible to our eyes. Since there is no way for us to see or investigate such

subtle life forms in a drinking water, Buddha has said something to the effect that

monastics were relaxed of breaking monastic vow of taking life if they drank such

water. However, when you consider even subtler beings like bacteria and virus, it

is very difficult to say with certainty whether they are sentient beings or not. I

80

think they are sentient beings. I don’t have any other reason than what I have seen

through microscope that these life forms behave similar to normal sentient beings.

They move around to find food sources, run away from threats like usual animals.

Considering these facts, I think the first unicellular organism that started on this

Earth should be most likely classified as sentient being. (7:4)

Vinaya is a Buddhist canonical text that deals with monastic discipline. In it, Gawa noted

that there was a discussion about the ethics of dealing with subtle life forms that human

beings were unable to detect. On that account, Buddha decided that the monks should not

be considered breaking their vows of not killing if they accidently drank water containing

these subtle life forms. Even though it is unclear whether such life forms are sentient or

not, Gawa was more inclined to consider bacteria and viruses to be sentient. This, he

says, only comes from his experience in biology classes, where he witnessed these subtle

life forms behaving like normal animals, searching for food sources and evading danger.

So the decision about whether these subtle life forms are sentient or not, poses both

intellectual and ethical challenge for all Buddhists.

When I inquired about whether the monks believe that the first unicellular

organisms were sentient or not, most of the monks were inclined to say they were

sentient. Tsering responded, “Yeah, you can consider it as the first sentient being.” As

Tsering mentioned earlier that consciousness is necessary for an organism to be

considered sentient and he has no qualms in regarding the first single celled organisms to

be sentient, even though in evolutionary biology, consciousness is accorded mostly to

organisms that have evolved to certain level of complexity. Interestingly, all the monks

consider single celled organism to be sentient based on their observation of microbial life

81

forms in science classrooms. Following are what some of monks said about single celled

organisms.

They (unicellular organisms) have the ability to move to find food sources, which

seem like they are making their own decision. This means they should possess

some kind of consciousness. (1:49)

Even if they might not have feeling they have experience. Because for example,

when you put a food near the bacteria in a tube, they know where the food is. That

means it can experience pleasure and pain. It goes to the place where there is food

and doesn’t go to a place where there is no food. Also if the environment is not

suitable, it tries to go to a better environment. This shows that it seeks enjoyment

and avoids suffering, which is the normative definition (of sentient being).

(Thupten, Interview 3)

As the two examples showed, the monks considered the decision-making capability of

unicellular organisms and their ability to search for food and better environment, as

primary criterion in deciding whether the single celled organisms are sentient or not.

From their view this decision-making capability proves the existence of some kind of

consciousness. While Jampa thinks that all single-celled organisms are sentient, Chophel

thinks they can be sentient as well as non sentient. This tendency to consider unicellular

organisms to be mostly sentient was the result of learning about germ theory and

witnessing living microbial organisms in their science laboratory classes.

Monks have not witnessed microbial life directly before learning science,

however, the discussion about existence of these subtle life forms has been existent in the

Buddhist tradition and therefore, was not a surprise. “More than 84,000 different subtle

82

life forms are described in the text”, said Chophel. When questioned about the details of

these life forms, he said:

No, there isn't much description. It is also mentioned that a baby in womb doesn't

contain any of these subtle life forms. As soon as the baby is born, they begin to

enter the baby. This seems to agree with what science has found. Science says that

an infant in the womb is sterile and only after a child is born, bacteria begin to

enter the child's body. This is very similar. Once you are out of mother's womb,

the 84,000 subtle life forms begin to enter your body. (1:18)

Chophel claims that in Buddhist scriptures it is mentioned that there were over 84,000

different subtle life forms but he acknowledges that it fails to give the details about it.

However, Chophel assumes that these 84000 different subtle life forms are equivalent to

the microbial life forms detected by science when he gives the example of sterile baby.

The equivalence between subtle life forms in Buddhism to microbial life forms in science

seems to be forced by the coincidental agreement between Buddhism and science over

the fact that infants in the womb were sterile until they were born.

The primary reason for considering of microbial life as sentient by the monks was

the result of witnessing these life forms personally during the science laboratory classes.

However, another reason for attributing sentience to the level of simple organisms was to

accommodate the claims of common ancestry in evolution. “Our initial thesis (science)

was that all the sentient beings originated from a first primordial single cell”, said

Tsering. If that is the case, he says only sentient beings should come from other sentient

beings. The fact that a parental organism that is sentient, has gradually evolved into a

plant, a non-sentient being, was conflicting for a Buddhist like him. Thus Tsering said,

83

“In between due to certain change in the chemical composition, it is possible that cell’s

potential to host consciousness might have declined”. Tsering thinks that maybe single

celled organisms that were sentient earlier gradually lost their capacity to host

consciousness along the evolutionary process to become plants. This is also the very

reason that he thinks the first single celled common ancestors should be sentient.

Gawa also believed that there must be two categories of unicellular organisms,

one that is able to host consciousness and ones that cannot. “Those which don’t host

consciousness gave rise to plants and trees. It is not possible that an initial sentient being

was later transformed into a non-sentient”, Gawa said. Here the criterion for being a

sentient being is whether it possesses consciousness or not. Unlike Tsering, Gawa thinks

that it is unlikely that organisms that are sentient earlier could have lost its sentience in

the process of evolution. Hence, according to Gawa unicellular organisms that do not

possess consciousness or non-sentient ones gave rise to the plants, suggesting that

animals originated from the sentient or those possessing consciousness. Jampa also

believed that plant and animal should have their own origin:

If I combine both science and Buddhism I would say plants came from plants, but

first plants are simple and diversity in them occurred due to evolution. Similarly

animals’ physical body also first came from simple bodies and due to Earth’s

environment there was more diversity later. This is acceptable to me. (5:14)

Acknowledging the conflict between the two traditions, Jampa unequivocally says that if

he were to integrate both the scientific and Buddhist notion regarding development of

life, he would rather draw a parallel evolutionary path for plants and animals than a

combined one. For him tracing plants and animals to a common ancestor is unacceptable

84

from a Buddhist perspective. Plants are not sentient and hence cannot be grouped with

the animals. Therefore, the difference in definition and classification between the two

domains—Buddhism and science, generates conflict that leads to various accommodation

strategies among the monks as they attempt to construct a coherent explanation of origin

and formation of life.

Summary The monastics interpret their understanding of evolution concepts

through the framework of their Buddhist knowledge and beliefs. For example, they do

not relinquish their traditional classification of sentient and non-sentient easily when they

encounter the scientific classification of living and non-living things. However, the new

knowledge of life gained from science forced some monks to expand their traditional

concept of life to include unicellular organisms, a classification that has remained

contested in the Buddhist tradition. The reason for considering unicellular organisms as

sentient was due to the monks’ experience in science laboratory classes in which they

witnessed first hand that microbial life forms engage in normative behaviour all animals

exhibit such as, finding food sources, running from danger, etc. However, such

transgression on part of the monks to categorize unicellular organisms into sentient being

causes further ethical dilemma as a Buddhist since killing sentient beings, in this case

microbial life, would be equivalent to taking life.

In an effort to accommodate the Buddhist concept of sentient being, the monks

introduced consciousness into the evolutionary process. Although they acknowledge that

they do not know the exact mechanism of how and when organisms became sentient,

they believe that there are entities that can host consciousness and those that cannot. The

common ancestry claim in evolution that describes how all living organisms including

85

plants and animals can be traced to a common ancestor was unacceptable to the monks

because of their prior belief that plants were non-sentient or lack consciousness, and that

only a sentient being should give rise to another sentient being. Buddhism does not have

a concept of emergence as described in science where life can emerge from inanimate or

non-sentience objects. This difference between Western science theory of evolution and

Buddhism led the monks to assume that maybe there are two lineages, one for sentient

and another for non-sentient, the former giving rise to animal kingdom and later to plant

kingdom.

Science attributes qualities such as sentience, consciousness, emotion, and

intelligence only to more complex organisms and not to simple life forms like bacteria.

Monks, however inferring sentience in microbial life and suggesting that they might

possess subjective experience like feeling of joy or suffering is inconsistent to the

scientific explanation which affords these behaviors to simple biochemical interactions.

The characteristics of life that science expounds are not only observable but can also be

quantitatively measured, which is not possible in case of sentience. Therefore, monks

either distort or simplify certain concepts from Buddhism or science to develop a more

coherent understanding of life in their minds. In the following section, I will discuss how

the Buddhist notion of life affects their understanding of the origin of life in science.

Origin of Life

There is no overarching narrative about origin of life on this planet in Buddhism.

Buddhist canonical texts describe a range of views about how life originated on this

planet; however, it is a commonly accepted belief among Buddhists that there is no

beginning to life at a cosmological level because of the assumption that life has been

86

existent eternally. The most common narrative about the origin of life in Buddhism is

described in Abhidharma, where beings on this planet were believed to be descendent of

higher beings or gods. Chophel briefly explains the Abhidharma account of origin of life:

It is believed that the degenerates of God gradually inhabited the Earth.

According to the sutras while some Gods degenerated into humans, others

degenerated into animals. What became human or animal is dependent on

individual’s past action. I think maybe this action is similar to how they are

adapting to the environment. So by adapting to the environment some began to

move around on four feet becoming animals. Some moved on two foot to become

human. This is described in the text. But there is no mention of a creator god who

created all animals like in Christianity. First the gods were meritorious, but as

their accumulated merits were diminished, they degenerated and descended on

Earth, became dependent on eating to survive and relying on coarse food. So

some went on searching for food on four limbs. (1:32)

Although this is the most commonly cited Buddhist account of the ‘origin’ of Earth-based

life, it does not describe the physical process of how life started on this planet. The Dalai

Lama has categorically said that he was not persuaded by the Abhidharma account of

evolution of life. Chophel stated that he thinks the individual actions that let to the

degeneration of gods could be compared to the process of adaptation in evolution. Even

though he doesn’t describe the process, it is likely his attempt to convey a naturalistic

explanation in his tradition in contrast to other traditions like Christianity that believes in

a creator god. Chophel also describes another account of origin of life in Buddhism in the

text called Mahayoga Mind Tantra. According to this text, “at first the sentient beings

87

were formed in water. Then the sentient beings from dry land come about.” He thinks

“this is quite similar to science where the first life occurred in water like the fish and fish

species. Life then moved on to land and evolution occurred”. So there are varying

accounts of how life originated in Buddhism but the monks tend to be either not

conversant or interested in talking about the question of evolution.

When I asked the monks about their views on the scientific account of how life

originated on our Earth, many monks chose to instead talk about the Buddhist ideas

rather than discuss scientific ideas. For example, Jampa said:

Generally speaking according to Buddhism, we say sentient being has no

beginning because there is no beginning to life. No new sentient beings will be

created on this Earth that has not existed before. This is universally accepted

among Buddhist. When we say no new sentient being will be created, it means

that one sentient being cannot be divided into two without any role of

consciousness. We never say that. They can never be sentient being that hasn’t

existed before. Wherever it might be, it has existed somewhere. We claim that

there is no beginning to the process of rebirth. (5:32)

Jampa chose to answer the question he wanted to answer, which he is more comfortable

with. So he chose to answer the origin of life in general and not specific to Earth. Jampa

was not able to accept that there is an ultimate origin to life and therefore, scientific

explanation of emergence of sentient life through division of a single parent organism

withe no role for consciousness was disconcerting for him. Other monks also initially

responded that from a Buddhist perspective there is no beginning to life and that the

scientific description of origin of life cannot be the beginning of life in the cosmos.

88

Tsering stated, “I mean the statement that life first started from a certain fixed time.

Buddhist would claim that there is no beginning for life. If they are only talking about

first life on Earth then it is okay. One cannot assume a beginning to life in general

because this is unacceptable in Buddhism”. According to Tsering, it is not possible to

have new sentient beings created that has not existed before and this stems from the

Buddhists believe that number of sentient beings in the cosmos is remains unchanged but

it can transform by taking rebirth in many forms. Those who attain enlightenment are still

considered sentient although they are not referred to as sentient being. Even though the

theory of evolution provides the basis for the origin of life, monastics reject that the life

that began on Earth is also the beginning of life in the cosmos in general.

Since life has no beginning from a Buddhist perspective, I asked the monks

whether life similar to that of Earth would have existed elsewhere or not. Jampa said:

Just now you asked this question about whether peacock, human and all the

different sentient being we observe on the planet can exist on another planet or

not. It is never mentioned in our text whether there is such being exist out there or

not. There is a concept of god. These gods... For example, human can exist in

other continents (beyond Earth). In scriptures it is clearly mentioned that human

beings can be born in the land of Ganden (Tushita heaven of Maitreya). Which is

a different continent, not on this Earth. Not only humans, long time ago some

meditators whom we haven’t witnessed, but when they engage in certain Yogic

practices like Dorjee Phakmo (Goddess), they are born in the field of Dorje

Phakmo without discarding their physical body. When they propitiate her, she

89

comes and takes you with her. Some people are lost forever and some have

returned. So there is a history of migrating to other fields beyond Earth. (5:37)

According to Jampa, there is no explicit statement in Buddhism about presence of life

forms similar to Earth beyond it. However, he thinks that there are places beyond Earth

where higher beings like gods resides, and also believes in the possibility that human

being could be teleported to these places by engaging in certain esoteric Buddhist

practices. So intermigration of life is plausible from a Buddhist perspective.

Buddhist rejects a permanent and immutable self, however, it maintains a

category of person or individual. This person is “an individual stream, a combination of

mind and matter, accumulating karma and experiencing its fruits over the course of

billions of lifetime, until each of those streams of mind and matter becomes a Buddha”

(Lopez, 2009, p 150). This a priori assumption in a perennial life inhibits the monks to

readily accept that scientific origin of life to be the story of first life. Therefore, the life

that began on the Earth via evolution cannot be the only narrative the about origin of life

since such things could have possibly happened anywhere in the universe. To this Jampa

said,

It (beginning of life) might not be like the single Big Bang that everything came

from a single cell. There might be lot of cells... Evolution doesn’t say that too. I

don’t think it is just one cell. It is not like Big Bang, a single event from which

everything came about because there might be lot of different environment. Each

different environment might have a single cell and they diversified due to the

changes in environment. (5:61)

90

Jampa thinks that the origin of life on Earth is not similar to single event like the big

bang. He believes that there must be a variety of environment when the Earth was formed

and therefore, life could have originated within any of these different environments.

Mind, matter, and abstract composite are the three fundamental composition of

the world in Buddhism. However, thus far science considers matter to be the fundamental

constituent and therefore, it regards mind or consciousness to be an emergent property of

matter. Sentient being in Buddhism is described as an aggregate of both the mind and

matter including its past karmic actions and experiences. Tsering said, “Sentient being

arising from inanimate matter is according to their (science) explanation. If you

completely follow their explanation it is unacceptable because for us consciousness must

enter an organism.” Hence, the scientific notion of emergence of sentient being from

inanimate matter through a purely naturalistic means is unacceptable to Tsering. He

believes that consciousness must somehow be part of the process to become sentient.

Summary

The origins of life or the universe are topics that Buddha refused to answer in

what is known as the ‘Eight unanswerable” by the Buddha. Core Buddhist belief is that

such questions are unhelpful in remedying the suffering of sentient being. So the common

belief among Buddhist is that there is no beginning or end to life and universe. Hence,

when asked question about origin of life, monks responded that there is no beginning to

life in universe. However, number of different narratives about origin of life in Buddhism

is described in Abhidharma, Mahayoga Mind Tantra, and other texts. The fact that they

are differing accounts of origin and these does not form the core of their monastic

education, the monks seems to have little interest in the origin history.

91

Buddhists belief that life had existed forever and hence, monks are open to the

possibility extraterrestrial life anywhere in the universe. One of the monks even told a

common story about teleporting human beings to other worlds through certain secretive

deity practices. However, he doubts that organism similar to Earth could have existed

elsewhere but believes that in these diverse worlds, life could be evolved through any

other means. Whatever the case of life would have evolved in these diverse worlds, it is

important that consciousness must be present in an organism to become sentient and

unacceptable to claims that sentient beings randomly originated from inanimate matter.

Buddhist vs. Scientific Account of Human Evolution

Human evolution has been one the most contentious topics within evolution due

its incompatibility with people’s cultural and religious beliefs. In the Measurement of

Acceptance of Theory of Evolution (MATE) I administered with the monks (see Table

4.1 for results), Monks acceptance of the theory of evolution range from moderate to very

high acceptance. In the MATE survey, there are two statements regarding human

evolution to which all the monks strongly agree: (1) that humans were the product of

evolutionary process over millions of years (mean 4.5); and (2) that humans have not

always existed the same as they do today (mean 4). Their reasons for accepting these

statements were the converging scientific evidence like fossil records, and they think it is

“common sense” that things change over time. When they were further questioned about

human evolution in individual and focus group interviews, it was revealed that the monks

incorporate their religious ideas of human origin with varying levels of commitment.

While some monks were impartial to either account, some would vehemently defend the

status of human beings and its origin as in Buddhism, and some questions the validity of

92

scientific account. Monks cite lack of confidence in the veracity of evidence found by

science as a reason for not accepting the scientific account. Some find the scientific

account of human evolution to be the most comprehensive so far. Multiple questions of

incompatibility with Buddhism were raised by the monks despite their belief that

evolution in general does not impinge upon the fundamental tenets of Buddhism.

Table 4.1

Results of Measurement of Acceptance of Theory of Evolution

Name Score Acceptance Scale

Chophel 89 High Acceptance

Very High Acceptance (89-100) High Acceptance (77-88)

Moderate Acceptance (65-76) Low Acceptance (53-64)

Very Low Acceptance (20-52)

Jampa 86 High Acceptance

Samdup 70 Moderate Acceptance

Tsering 83 High Acceptance

Gawa 96 High Acceptance

Tashi 72 Moderate Acceptance

All of the monks, except Tsering, are either impartial or in support of the Buddhist

account of human evolution drawn from Abhidharma text. Tsering had issues about this

account in the group discussion:

The Buddhist explanation of the first-eon human beings is just one explanation.

It doesn’t need to be the only explanation. The first-eon human who already are

human gradually being transformed over time into current form is one story.

When I think about it, I doubt if such thing has actually happened. I believe in

the scientific account of human evolution although not in every aspect. If we

trace back our ancestors, they might be slightly different, in terms of their

expression, characters, or thinking. Whatever it is, they are slightly different. It is

93

definitely through such process (evolution) that we arrived at our current form. I

don’t think we are exactly similar to the early human beings in terms of external

features or internal cognitive abilities. I don’t think such is the case. (24.1)

Tsering is referring to the Abhidharma account of human evolution where it is described

that celestial beings with luminous bodies gradually transformed into the current human

beings after losing their luminous body and other qualities like their ability to survive

without relying on coarse food. These celestial beings were also referred to as first-eon

humans. Although Tsering doubts this account and aligns his belief with the scientific

account of human evolution, rather than rejecting it, he qualifies by saying that the

traditional account could be just one possible explanation. Whatever the scientific claims

might be, he believes that humans have not always existed the same as today. Gawa also

shared a similar view regarding the inevitable change that had occurred in humans over

time when he said, “There is a definite time when the Earth was first formed; human

beings cannot be preexisting when the Earth was formed.” Whether the monks

completely believe in the scientific account of human evolution or not, they do not reject

the traditional notion of human evolution. Instead, they all concur with this view that

humans have not remained the same throughout time.

Jampa, who is most persistent in defending the Buddhist account, during the focus

group discussion interjected that, “Currently we live in the era when the lifespan of

human is 100 years. In terms of lifespan, the early beings live during an era when the

lifespan of human is over 10000 years”. Chophel added, “First there were light bearing

gods. These first-eon human are supposed to have huge physical body and are not like

todays”. The light bearing gods or the celestial beings as mentioned earlier were believed

94

to have a life span of thousands of years, which gradually diminished to a life span of 100

years, the current lifespan human beings. Tsering strongly objected holding on to such

belief in the pursuing discussion:

The light bearing gods who have life expectancy of millions of years gradually

depreciated to thousand, five hundred, and sixties? Do you think all these are

factual accounts? We don’t need to think into distant far, just look back in the last

50 years. If we compare today’s life expectancy and fifty years ago, most likely it

has gone up. It has definitely not lowered. This we can tell from our experience.

For example, when we were young listening to people who died when they were

50. There is no one who has lived to 60. Now we need to think. Earlier people die

when they were in 50s, 60s or 70s. Nowadays people live up to 80 to 90 years,

internationally there are many people living up to 100 years. I don’t have specific

research data in my hand now to claim these facts. If you just do an estimate on

your own, human life expectancy has definitely gone up. This is 100% true. So

this contradicts. (24.2)

Tsering statement highlights a clear contradiction to the Buddhist belief that the lifespan

of humans has reduced overtime. He said that by simply observing the life expectancy of

humans in the past 50 years, one would expect sufficient evidence that the life span of

humans has increased instead decreased. It is a common belief in Buddhist communities

that so many of its masters who came after Buddha, have lived for hundreds of years. In

order to defend his claim that human beings have lived longer in the past, Jampa said,

“Many years ago some people lived over 500, 600, 800 years. For example, Nagarjuna,

we believe that he lived for 600 years. Also, it is said that Shantarakshita also lived for

95

over 900 years”. However, unconvinced, Tsering retorted, “These are the things we need

to think. These are questionable claims”. Suggesting Jampa that he should reconsider

holding on to such beliefs. While Jampa defends these Buddhist beliefs vehemently,

Tsering does not attest to these beliefs. Hence, it is clear from these conversations that

tension exists between the two traditions when it comes to their explanation of human

evolution, and some of the monks were reluctant to relinquish their traditional views and

replace them with the scientific knowledge they had learned. This shows that Buddhist

also experience conflict regarding evolution that might or might not get resolved.

Spontaneous Birth

The discussion about human evolution was further complicated by Jampa

bringing in yet another Buddhist concept of life in the focus group discussion:

Jampa: Also their (scientific) way of investigation is based on only conception

through womb and egg. They never investigate other ways of conception

like heat and moisture or spontaneous birth. If we want to question them,

we can raise these issues. If they say it is necessary for human being to

be born only through evolution, then we can say how about

“spontaneous birth”. If you are logician and want to dispute such claim,

you cannot disprove “spontaneous birth”. There are many great scholars

who were born spontaneously. They can explain birth through womb

and egg, but not those who are spontaneously born. Evolution cannot

explain this. The common ancestry to apes was explained genetically.

Tsering: Do we have to establish that all these spontaneous birth are born

spontaneously?

96

Jampa: Yes, it has to be in the case of spontaneous birth.

Chophel: The first-eon people are all born spontaneously.

Undeterred by the rejection of his earlier claims that Buddhist masters have lived for

hundreds of years, Jampa makes yet another claim that these many Buddhist masters

were also born spontaneously. In Buddhism there are four means of conception for

sentient beings when they take rebirth through womb, egg, heat and moisture, and

spontaneous. Jampa observes that science take into account only birth through womb and

egg, and does not explain heat and moisture, and spontaneous birth. Spontaneous birth is

usually attributed to celestial beings in the realm of form and formless (Lama, 2005a).

However, during the individual interview Jampa claims that “Human can be born through

all the four means of conception including spontaneous, and heat and moisture”, and he

gave examples of Buddhist masters who were believed to be born through all these four

different means of conception. He said, “Also, there are lots of examples of birth through

egg. There were many masters who were born from egg. When we study Vinaya

(canonical text on monastic code), I think it was Master Nethen Drakye, who is believed

to born from an egg.” Jampa was convinced with his view of spontaneous birth and

incredible lifespan of Buddhist masters. Inability to account for spontaneous birth and

birth through heat and moisture is seen as a limitation of the theory of evolution from

Jampa’s perspective. Perhaps it is due to his belief that Buddhist concept of life goes

beyond life witnessed on our Earth that he firmly holds to his traditional beliefs even

when they contradicts the scientific explanation. He said,

You know gods. In the realm of gods, all them are born spontaneously. If we

accept it, this doesn’t raise any problem for us. You know why, because for us the

97

most important thing is how an individual transmigrate through the Samsara

according to twelve links of dependent origination. If there is any refutation of

this theory, then there is real problem. (5:10)

Jampa does not want to relinquish his belief about spontaneous birth because there is no

conflict for him in accepting it. For him, as long as fundamental tenets in Buddhism like

the twelve dependent origination (rten ‘brel yen lak bchu gnyis) link are not challenged

by evolution or any other scientific theories then holding onto the Buddhist beliefs in

spontaneous birth and human lifespan are not in conflict. The twelve dependent

origination links describe the process of how individuals continue to take rebirth in “a

karmically conditioned existence or in other words, in samsara” (Gyatso, 1995). Even if

his traditional beliefs are in contradiction with science Jampa is willing to hold on to

them as long as they don’t impinge the fundamental tenets of Buddhism.

Jampa is the only one who strongly defends all the traditional account of human

evolution and spontaneous birth in Abhidharma without completely rejecting evolution.

Except for Tsering, the other monks are not willing to share their views about the

traditional account of human evolution. Tashi was not familiar with the Buddhist account

of human evolution. Samdup did not share his view about the Buddhist account, and

although he is skeptical of the scientific account he does not rejects them either.

Regarding Buddhist accounts of human evolution, Chophel said, “This (Buddhist

account) doesn't contradict evolution. There was no human before and then it came into

existence. Gradually human developed. It is not that there is human from the beginning.

Humans gradually developed overtime.” Since both the traditions acknowledge that

humans being have changed over time, Chophel does not see any conflict between the

98

two. Likewise, Tsering thinks it is a common knowledge that humans have not remained

the same forever.

Human Being vs. Animal

In the Buddhist taxonomy of sentient beings, there is a clear distinction between

human and animal. In the continuing focus group discussion, the following questions

were asked:

1. How would Buddhists define a human being?

2. Can we draw a distinction between humans and animals?

3. Throughout the evolutionary process, when did the first human beings appear?

Tsering described human as, “...someone capable of speaking and able to make

sense.” This is the normative philosophical definition of a human being employed in

Buddhist dialectics, and all the monks concurred with this definition of human being. To

this Jampa added, “To be a human, one needs to accumulate karma to be born in the

human realm and then find a human body (aggregate).” When it was suggested that some

animals might have the ability to communicate and understand language, Samdup

interjected, saying, “No, no they don’t have such discrimination ability. They don’t have

the faculty.” By stating that animals do not have discriminative ability, Samdup is

suggesting that animals do not have the ability to distinguish between good and bad

unlike humans. Tsering said, “Nevertheless it (human) has the potential to think

differently from others.” Tsering also thinks that human have different capability than

animals in terms of intellect. This led to Chophel’s statement on distinction between

human and animal:

99

Generally, in Buddhism there seem to be a clear demarcation between human and

animal. It is done as if we can clearly draw a line. According to science there

seem to be many in between. Some that resembles both human and animal. If you

ask about Homo erectus and Neanderthal, it is difficult to ascertain whether these

are human or animal. (24.3)

Buddhists believe that sentient beings can take rebirth in six different realms depending

on their past karmic actions. Human and animal are two distinct realms in the six realms.

However, Chophel finds that evolution blurs this traditional distinction drawn between

human and animal. Hence, due to many intermediary creatures that existed between

ancestral ape and modern human, such as, Homo erectus and Neanderthal according to

the theory of evolution, Chophel finds it difficult to confidently draw a clear distinction

between modern human and animal as believed in his tradition. This blurring of the line

between human and animal by evolution challenges the Buddhist account of human

origin and also calls into question the fundamental belief in the existence of life in six

realms in Buddhism.

To resolve this dilemma of distinction between humans and animals, Chophel

suggested, “Generally in Buddhism, dud ’gro (animal) means those who walk bent

forward. Anything that don’t stand and walks on four foot is called dud ’gro.” This is the

literal definition of human in Tibetan. The following discussion was pursued after that.

Tashi: So, small children are animals?

Chophel: Ha...ha. What a great example? Those that walk upright are humans or

gods. I think this is a good way to classify.

Tenzin: So should the birds be considered walking downwards?

100

Samdup: Some disabled people also walk that way.

Tsering: Since the birds put both the legs on ground, it can be considered as

putting all the four legs down because it has only two limbs.

Chophel: Whether they put all the four limbs on the ground or not, it is something

that walks bending.

Samdup: I still doubt about whether they (Neanderthals, Homo erectus...) have

really existed or not.

Chophel thinks that the literal definition of animal in Tibetan—dud ‘gro—is a good way

to draw distinction between human and animal. The monks were also not dismissive of

this definition and using it to distinguish animal from human. However, this still led

Samdup to doubt whether human ancestors like Neanderthals and Homo erectus have

actually existed or not since they do not neatly fit into either category.

Figure 2. Human evolutionary process (Source. Museum of Natural History and Science)

Next, I asked the monks to point out from which point onwards in Figure 2 would

they consider the first human being to exist from their perspective.

101

Tenzin: In my thoughts, so this pose challenge to our Buddhist classification of

six realms of existence. Where can be draw a line between human and animal?

Chophel: I think it may be around here (points at Homo erectus in Figure 2). I

think from here it walks standing up. Animals walk by bending.

Tashi: From here it looks like human. May be from here (points at Homo

Neanderthal in Figure 2).

Gawa: This is most likely similar to the generation of modern human being.

Homo Neanderthal are most likely the same.

Jampa: Are they able to talk?

Gawa: I don’t think they can talk. They are very similar to wild animals.

Jampa: Then it doesn’t qualify the definition of human being.

Tenzin: Is necessary to talk?

Jampa: Should be able to talk and understand.

The monks were uncertain over where to demarcate the beginning of human. Chophel

believes that it should be Homo erectus based on its ability to walk up right. Due to

similarity in physical outlook Gawa and Tashi thinks that Homo Neanderthals could be a

possible beginning of modern human being. However, for Jampa language is detrimental

in determining whether it is human or not. When Gawa suggested Homo Neanderthals

most likely similar to wild animals and might not possess language, he readily decides

that they are not human. The ability to talk and understand is the criteria used in Buddhist

dialectics to delineate human from animal. So the monks were using both the literal

meaning of Tibetan term for animal (dud ‘gro) and the dialectical definition of human

being to find the beginning of human being or a point from which human being diverged

102

from animal in the evolutionary history. However, not being able to find a consensus on

where to draw the distinction between human and animal, monks began to question the

Buddhist concept of six realms of existence. Tsering said, “Really, these are things we

need to think more deeply. So far we have believed in what ever is said. There is lot of

thinking we need to do. Anything could be possible.” Tsering realized that there is many

assumptions in his tradition that cannot be taken literally and need to be open for possible

new explanations.

“Evidence For Evolution Is Too Distant Both In Time And Place”

Not all the monks accepted human evolution. For example, Tashi said he does not

believe in human evolution because the evidence provided by science was “too distant

both in terms of time and place”. He thinks that there is no way of knowing exactly what

happened in evolution when so much time has elapsed and events have taken place in

between. He continued, “I cannot accept it, and I cannot fathom such a thing. You are

saying that there is evidence up to this stage. If you look at this (Figure 2) it looks

impressive. But if you trace farther than this then we don’t know.” Tashi was suggesting

that even if he gave the benefit of doubt that there were sufficient evidence for human

ancestors as shown in Figure 2, he thinks if we go further than that it would be impossible

to prove beyond reasonable the exact crossing point of humans and the ancestors of

modern apes. Tashi strongly believes that there is no way of determining gathering for

events that has occurred so distant in time and place.

Samdup knows the evidence for macroevolution, but he had difficulty in believing

them. He asked me during the group discussion, “Tenzin, do you really think these

happened, such as separation of species from a common ancestor?” When I retorted,

103

“Otherwise where would you have come from?” He said, “What I mean is that looking at

the environment in which I live, I cannot definitely say where I came from. I don’t know

from where my consciousness has come from.” Samdup understands the scientific

evidence for speciation and also explains to others during the group discussion; however,

he still doubts the veracity of such claims like Tashi. Buddhists generally believe that

only Buddha and those who have achieved omniscience can tell the exact cause and path

of rebirth for an individual. By saying that he does not know where his consciousness

came from, he is implicitly asserting that since he is not an omniscient there is no way he

can explain where he came from and neither can science do the same.

Summary

In this section on Buddhist vs. scientific account of human evolution, conflict

between science and Buddhism regarding human evolution was evident despite the

indication that monks’ have moderate to high acceptance of evolution based on their

response to the MATE survey. The monks have different responses in reconciling the

conflict between the two traditions. Except for one monk, others were not willing to

relinquish their Buddhist beliefs about human evolution. Jampa persisted with his defense

of Buddhist accounts of human evolution even when they are in contradiction with

scientific findings. However, he does not reject the scientific account either thus holding

to conflicting views at the same time. He continues to believe that humans have lived for

hundreds of years in the past and can be born through all four means of conception. In

contrary, Tsering was vehement in rejecting the traditional accounts of human evolution

whenever they contradict with the scientific evidence. Tashi was not fully familiar with

the Buddhist account of human evolution and shared no views about it. However, he was

104

unconvinced by the scientific account because of reliability of the evidence provided for

human evolution, which he thinks are events too distant in time and space to be trusted.

Evolution’s claim that human being descended from common ancestor of modern apes

blurs the belief in Buddhism that there is clear distinction between the two realms of

human and animal. This blurring of line between human and animal forces the monks to

rethink their previous understanding of human beings and some came to the conclusion

that the difference between the two might be just a matter of degree than kind.

The defense of traditional Buddhist accounts of human evolution, beliefs in

spontaneous birth, and the debate over delineation between human and animal, indicate

certain tension in reconciling Buddhist and scientific conception of life. Although the

monks understands and do not reject the scientific account readily, they are also hesitant

to rescind their traditional beliefs in light of the scientific evidence because their

traditional concepts have larger meaning in their Buddhist worldview despite its

contradictions. Also in the Buddhist conception of life is the presence of consciousness is

a fundamental criteria, therefore, the lack of any role of consciousness in evolution

generates doubts about whether the theory of evolution is an all-encompassing theory of

life or not. Hence, the monks might hold on to both the conception as a survival

technique or will only be able to reconcile the two if they are given the enough

opportunity to dialogue the difference and how the two world view contribute towards

our understanding of the world.

Evolution and Buddhist Theory of Karma

When monks were asked in their individual interview about Buddhist explanation

for the diversity of life we see on out planets, all the monks claim that the diversity of life

105

in nature is primarily due to the karma of individual organism. Monks also acknowledge

the fact that there is an accompanying physical process through which the results of

karma are embodied. They think that science in general and evolution in this case only

delves into the physical processes of how life originated and evolved, and does not

explain why individuals were born as a particular organism have the experiences they

have. Hence, the role of karma is inevitable for a complete explanation of life according

to them, and a purely materialistic and mechanical explanation of life by science is

considered incomplete them, even though they were unable to describe the exact

mechanism of how karma is involved in the origin and creation of the diversity of life in

the world.

“Karma Is Not A Mysterious Force.” Chophel

Chophel finds there to be compatibility between the Buddhism’s and science

because in both the traditions “there is no requirement for a creator god. Instead sentient

on its own undergo changes.” According to Chophel, the driving force behind the origin

and evolution of sentient beings in Buddhism is karma and he thinks this replaces the

need for the creator god found in the theistic religions. Clarifying he said, “When you say

Karma, it is not some mysterious force. Karma pervades everywhere. We are having this

conversation right now because of our karma. Karma is action. Something that impels

you to do something is the Karma.” In Buddhism, karma is described, as a naturalistic

law of how intentional actions whether it is mental, physical, or verbal, would have its

consequence relevant to the actions, in the current or future life. Literally, karma means

‘action’, and it is philosophically defined as something that propels the “mind to hover

over objects and incite action”, said Chophel. Hence, karma refers to both the action and

106

the force that drives the mind into action, or in terms of causality it is both the cause and

the condition that brings about change.

With karma as the primary driving force for change, Chophel said, “Whatever it

is, it is necessary that causes and condition should be complete. It is not possible without

a complete cause and condition.” Here, Chophel is clarifying that an event might have

been caused by karma but it is important that a parallel material or physical causation

should be completed to result in some change or phenomena. However, regarding the

domain of karma, Samdup stated, “You know the law of karma, when you say law of

karma has begun, there should be an entity that can experience joy and suffering. That’s

how the law of karma is supposed to begin.” Samdup is defining the application of the

law of karma, where in karma is only applied when there is an entity that can have

experience or a sentient being; otherwise, the law of karma does not apply.

There are various organizing principles of karma in Buddhism, and Chophel

describes the one of them. “Karma is not necessarily something virtuous or non-virtuous.

There is neutral karma too, which includes all the neutral action that we engage daily.”

said Chophel. Chophel talks about two kinds of karma, virtuous and non-virtuous. He

explains there is also neutral karma or actions that we engage daily. Thus, karma pertains

to all intentional acts that are accompanied by a resultant consequence as well as

unintentional acts that cannot have moral consequences.

Samdup described yet another category of karma:

From a Buddhist perspective, we would say it is due to collective karma. There is

collective and non-collective karma. When I say collective karma for example, it is

the collective karma that gives raises to the beautiful environment. However, the

107

diversity we see within this environment is due to non-collective or individual

karma. (16:13)

Here Samdup categorized karma into individual and collective karma. The individual

karma results in being born in one of the six different realms and the collective karma

causes the common environment that give rise to shared experiences of sentient beings in

that environment. Besides the statement that collective karma leads to the common

environment, Samdup gives no further explanation about how the collective karma

influences the natural laws to generate the kinds of environments in which sentient beings

dwell. However, he thinks karma plays a role in both the development of the individual

and the environment that determines the success of an individual living in that

environment through natural selection.

Buddhists believe that the diversity of life on Earth is the result of karma, and when

the monks were asked about the causes of this diversity, they responded as follows:

Chophel: From a Buddhist perspective, it is the karmic action and science would say

it is evolution and environment. So it is very similar. There is also a concept of

collective karma.

Samdup: From a Buddhist perspective, we would say it is due to collective karma.

There is collective and non-collective karma. When I say collective karma for

example, it is collective karma that gives raises to the beautiful environment.

However, the diversity we see within this environment is due to non-collective or

individual karma.

Tsering: From a Buddhist perspective we should say it is due to karma. That is it.

108

Gawa: I don’t know about the commonalities but the difference is Buddhism claims

that all the diversity in world is due to karma. All the contents that reside in the

world like the human, horse, animal, and bird of different kinds, all comes into

existence due to karma.

The monks agree with the Buddhist belief that the various life forms we witness on Earth

were the result of individual and shared or collective karma. Chophel and Samdup made

the connection that the scientific explanation for diversity of life through evolution is

similar to the Buddhist concept of collective karma, which is defined as the cumulative

action of individuals in the past that are combined to produce a mutually shared

environment in the present. When Chophel said, “It is very similar”, he seem to be

suggesting that the scientific principle of evolution and the environment as the primary

cause for diversity is similar to the Buddhist principle of karma that is used to describe

the formation of life. According to Samdup the diversity of life we observe in natural

world is due to karma of individual sentient being. What he meant is that the way in

which individuals evolved into their current forms is due to their individual action or

karma in past lives. Thus, individual and collective karma is one way in which the monks

were trying to explain the diversity of life. Yet another way in which karma is used is to

explain the process of random mutation in evolution.

“Random Is Problematic.” Jampa

In order for evolution to take place, some genetic variation within the population

must exist, and this is produced by random mutation that is caused by a variety of factors.

These include error in copying of genes or external influences factors that leads to genetic

variation within a population. Then the law of natural selection acts on these variation,

109

selecting a desired trait with an adaptive advantage and passing on to the next generation,

thus driving evolution. ‘Random’ in random mutation has been a source of

misunderstanding even within the scientific community. Due to which people often

interpret it as a process that cannot be causally explained. Similarly, in the Tibetan

translation of the terminology ‘random mutation’ has a connotation of a process that

cannot be explained causally or occurring by sheer chance. In actuality, the variation

produced in an individual due to random mutation does not guarantee that it will provide

any adaptive advantage to the individual; that is why it was term random was used. Since

mutation provides the impetus for evolution to occur, monks think this could possibly be

a place where karma could have intervened.

When I asked Jampa about random mutation, the following discussion pursued in the

group.

Tenzin: So what causes the change in allele frequency?

Jampa: That is mutation. It could be random. Again it is primarily due to the

environment. Sometimes it is random. Random is problematic.

Tenzin: Why random?

Jampa: May be it is okay say to say it is Karma.

Tenzin: That’s why I was asking this question earlier about where do you see

Karma come into play in evolution.

Jampa: The random could be due to karma. As you say random, when we were first

learning science we asked this question whether plants…When you say random, it is

something that is inexplicable, that doesn’t have any causes and condition.

Happening all of a sudden. This is what science does when they are unable to

110

explain things they say it is random. When we first heard about random, it makes us

very anxious. Once we asked during our science workshop, why there is this

crossing point between plants and animals where they separated? They say it is

random. So, in short, they are unable to explain more than that. Why is it random?

Tenzin: So what karma is responsible for plants?

Jampa: We won’t say karma for this.

Tenzin: You earlier say random mutation might be due to karma.

Jampa: But they are not even able to explain random mutation.

Tenzin: They are unable to explain. But you said it might be due to karma.

Jampa: When you talk about karma, you can’t talk about karma in plants. In case of

human it is due to crossing over.

In Jampa’s experience, the term random is employed whenever science is unable to

provide an explanation. He said, “When you say random, it is something that is

inexplicable, that doesn’t have any causes and condition.” Such an idea is particularly

disconcerting for him as a Buddhist because according to the law of causality in

Buddhism, without causes and conditions there is no phenomenon. Although the random

in evolution does not mean lack of causation, the term generates a similar misconception

here for the monks too. This misconception for Jampa was further exacerbated when he

learned that the current plant and animal diverged from a common ancestor through

random mutation. He also thinks that randomness in evolution, except for plants, could be

explained by karma. Samdup on the other hand thinks that random mutation is caused by

epigenetic phenomenon, and then he goes on to state that epigenetics could be caused by

karma. Thus, the monks were trying to attribute karma to any processes that are not fully

111

explained in evolution except in plants.

Karma Is Inexplicable

The Dalai Lama has made it amply clear that in Buddhism, apart from claims that

the environment in which sentient beings live is the resultant effect of collective karma of

all the beings dwelling in that environment, there is no further elaboration on the

mechanism. However, the monks do not just shared his view that karma of sentient being

are inextricably tied to their environment, but they go further to impute the role of karma

in various evolutionary processes such as random mutation. Often, due to their exposure

to science, monks believe that there is a purely physical process unrelated to karma that

has effect on sentient beings. However, they fall back to their traditional belief in role of

karma in the biological processes that led to human evolution. Samdup tells this story in

his village that challenges him to ponder over the role of karma in events that happened

there.

Samdup: The collective karma of individuals in that environment is said produce

the plants and other vegetation in the environment. But from another perspective I

don’t think it is the only cause. For example, there are only certain plants that grow

at higher altitudes. Mango tree won’t grow at higher elevation. This is I think, one

aspect is related to karma but other is due to environment or it is the nature of

things. When we say nature of phenomena, I think this is it. Just due to the way

matter is organized, it has certain inherent property. I have this experience in my

native place. Apples do not grow usually in my village. Nowadays due to change in

the climate, apples grow very well because of the change in climate. However,

apple growth in the village next to us where it used to grow very well has declined.

112

Now some people attribute this to karma and say it is due to the increasing immoral

acts of people in the neighboring village. If you think from a scientific or

evolutionary perspective, it can be explained from purely material process like how

the change in the environment affects the chemical exchange process. But people

there would reason that the residents of the other village have grown fond of money

and therefore their collective karma has declined.

Tenzin: What do you think Venerable?

Samdup: What I think is that it is not due to the collective karma. I think we need to

make a distinction here. It is most likely due to change in climate and because

climate has become warmer there is change in how the nutrients are exchanged and

nutrient in soil that caused this change. But again from a Buddhist perspective, I

think it is related to human beings. (16:8)

When people in his native village began to blame the decline in the apple harvest in a

neighboring village due to the villager’s increasing indulgence in immoral action and

greed, Samdup grew uncomfortable. He thinks that the disruption in apple growth in the

neighboring village could be scientifically explained by change in climate and should not

be attributed to the collective karma of people living in the next village. When he said a

distinction has to be made here, he means that there could be purely physical processes

that bring change that does not involve karma but affects sentient beings. However, this

goes against a central principle of law of karma that as long as sentient beings are

affected, karma is involved. So this prompted him to concede at the end that may be it is

due to some action of human beings that have influenced the change in environmental

conditions that ultimately led to the decline in apple production. Hence the relation

113

between karma and environmental factors becomes inextricable even if the monks want it

to be.

Samdup raised more doubts about the role of karma with the development of new

scientific technology, like genetic engineering that can device various changes in

organism. He explained;

Science does experiment on mouse and grow ear here (pointing to forehead).

They also explain why I have my ears at this location on a purely material

process. They modify the genetic information and produce multiple ears. So there

is a material way to bring change like they make changes to plants to have

different appearances. This way of bringing change through modifying the genetic

code is really amazing way of explaining things. For example they make mix two

different kinds of apple or plant to make a hybrid. In Buddhism we always say

these are due to material potential but no further explanation is given. In some

instance we just say it is karma. (16:16)

Samdup is amazed by the advancement in science and technology that allows the use of

genetic information to modify an existing organism like mice or making hybrid fruits and

plants. So he thinks there is a purely material way to bring changes in an organism. Such

development in his tradition would be considered as either a something purely material

process or it attributed to karma. Continuing he said,

I think everything is not contingent on karma. Like I said by modifying something

inside or changing the environment outside we can bring forth certain change. But

here again if you go deeper it is karma. The individual must have accumulated

certain karma to be in that situation. (16.17)

114

Samdup for the moment thought that might be karma is not needed for explaining every

phenomenon because science does so well in explaining many of the changes we observe

in the environment. Upon further analysis, he reckoned that the role of karma could not

be denied because the fact that a mouse grew an extra ear and the actions of the scientists

who were involved in the genetic manipulation all might be due to the karmic results of

the individuals involved. Consequently, it became a dilemma for Samdup that while he

finds science able to explain many biological phenomena without resorting to karma, his

religious belief hinders from adopting a fully naturalistic explanation.

The monks were neither unable to relinquish the role of karma nor able to fully

explicate the exact mechanism of karma in evolution. When asked about the working of

karma, Samdup said,

Our karma has been accumulating over many lives. If you ask when will the

karma accumulated in previous lives come to fruition, we believe no one will be

able to tell this except by Buddha himself. In the texts, the discussion regarding

when and where the results of karma will be produced are considered to be in the

domain of omniscient minds and no one else. (16:14)

As much as karma plays a fundamental role in Buddhism in explaining the experiences of

sentient beings, the way in which karma is manifested in physical processes, according to

Samdup, is explicable only to the Buddha and omniscient minds. Gawa has similar

difficulty in rejecting any role of karma even when science explained the phenomena like

the colors on a peacock’s feather, which an example often cited in Buddhist text to

explain the complexity of karma. As Gawa recollects,

115

For example, take the case of peacock’s feather. If it is asked how can you explain

the beautiful yet complex peacock’s feather with its different shades and pattern.

When we get to such details we say it is due to karma. But if it is asked what

particular karma is essential to create such a shade and pattern of peacock’s

feather. We say this is in explicable because the law of karma is unfathomable.

(7:9)

Like Samdup, Gawa agrees that the working of karma in cases like how and why peacock

has different shades and patterns of feather is beyond ordinary conception and hence,

inexplicable. Even though science might explain some of its mechanism, Gawa thinks,

“Unless you understand the subtlest working of karma, we cannot explain how this is

formed”. Therefore, the law of karma remains paramount to the monks; however, its

exact mechanism in evolution remains inexplicable to ordinary beings like us according

to them.

Summary

Although the the monks’ agree that by learning the theory of evolution it has

expanded their previous understanding of origin and development of life, the law of

karma was indispensable for them in order to explain how and why life evolved in the

way it has. Besides speculations, monks are unable to come up with any evidence to

advance their argument for role of karma in evolution of life; however, they strongly

believe that without karma, the world of sentient beings cannot be fully explained. The

monks agree that science, to certain extent, explains the mechanism of how sentient

beings have evolved, but is insufficient to explain the complete story of origin and

evolution of life. Therefore, they won’t rule out the role of karma. The challenge,

116

however, is that the exact working of karma is only explicable to omniscient minds like

Buddha.

To explain the role of karma in evolution, monks theorize different ways in which

karma could have acted in evolution. The monks believe that the physical environment,

which according to the theory of evolution drives evolution through the process of natural

selection, might be produced by the collective karma of individuals dwelling in that

environment. However, this notion of collective karma further complicates the role of

karma since some monks claim that karma is not applicable to plants, and therefore, it is

difficult to explain how collective karma would be entangled with the physical

environment that includes plants. Monks also think that random mutation; a process by

which new adaptive traits in an individual organism were developed could be a result of

individual’s karma. Hence, the monks have varied explanations over the role of karma in

the evolutionary process. While some think that the karma has generated the environment

that acted as the crucible of life through natural selection, others think that the karma

produced the actual change in genetic material through mutation.

The central dilemma in reconciling the theory of evolution and law of karma is

not that the monks think the two frameworks are contradictory but rather they are

complementary. This is partially motivated to balance the purely materialistic and

mechanistic approach of science to explain life in which Buddhist believes karma has an

inherent role to play. The challenge was then to explain how the law of karma

complements the scientific explanation of life without resorting to metaphysical claims.

Monks think that theory of evolution explains only the mechanism for how organisms

developed over time into current forms and the law of karma explains the causes for the

117

varied individual experiences in addition to the physical cause. Monks mostly speculate

than to explain how the karma of individual and physical environment got entangled or

how non-physical forces like karma could possibly have acted on the biological processes

like evolution. Any description of life without any role for karma is incomplete from

monks’ point of view, however persuading the scientific evidence and explanation might

be. With fundamental differences in the ontologies of the two traditions, it is likely that

any attempt to find complementary between the two tradition would be farce and

unproductive.

Alignment of Buddhist Beliefs and Evolution

Monks claim that theory of evolution resonates and reaffirms some of the key

theoretical and practical knowledge and beliefs in Buddhism. For example, evolution

describes phenomena we observe in nature as a result of changes in environmental factors

resonates with the theory of dependent arising (also translated as dependent origination

and interdependence)—the Buddhist theory of causality, which postulates that all

phenomena arise through the coming together of many causes and conditions. Similarly,

evolution describes how all living things has descended from a common ancestor, which

confirms the Buddhist belief that all sentient beings are related and have become mother

of each other in the previous lives. Hence, despite the various incompatibilities found

between evolution and Buddhist beliefs described in earlier findings, monks see general

concordance between the two.

Dependent-arising

Chophel invokes the Buddhist concept of dependent arising when we talked about

the causal connection between sentient beings and their environment in evolution.

118

Concept of dependent arising is the notion that anything that “exist and has an identity

does so only within the total network of everything that has a possible or potential

relation to it. No phenomenon exists with an independent or intrinsic identity” (Lama,

2005a). During the discussion about how random mutation would have occurred in

nature, he said:

I usually think about it this way. These are the nature of dependent arising. When

there is effect on something, naturally there is some effect on the others. Right? I

think it is something like this. But there is no power or authority for the

individual. (1:2)

Chophel thinks that genetic mutation in evolution could be explained naturally from a

Buddhist perspective. The Buddhist theory of dependent arising which postulate that

phenomenon are contingent on various factors, and by discerning these factors he thinks

one can explain the cause of a phenomenon. He also states that there is no power or

authority for the individual in the nexus of dependent origination where everything is

connected and dependent on each other. Chophel use the analogy of throwing dice to the

process of random mutation:

I think we can explain this (dice throw). But when my muscle will be loose or

tight will depend on me. It depends on my neural movement and state of my

mind. Isn't it so? It depends on lot of factors. A lot of different causes and

conditions. So with dependent arising we need to think holistically. Everywhere

something is connected to something else. (1:44)

Here Chophel likened random mutation in evolution to a throw of dice, where the dice’s

outcome can be known if we can measure all the factors influencing the dice including

119

the throwers state of mind. Since all the events are connected according to theory of

dependent arising, he suggested that random mutation in evolution should be thought

holistically. This thought of causal determinism seemed similar to scientific determinism

where law of causality governs all the events. However, Chophel’s interpretation of

theory of dependent arising as everything being connected to everything else does allow

for a causal determinism unless we know all the cause and condition of a phenomenon.

Tsering does not use the term dependent origination but he shared similar view

with Chophel that every phenomenon has multiple causes and conditions. When he was

asked about compatibility between Buddhism and theory of evolution, he responded:

Generally we say changes occur due to many conditions. These changes occur

due to multiple causes and conditions, which is quite similar to what they are

saying. They say that various changes occur due to changing environment and

multitude of other factors. In Buddhism, we generally say things happen due to

multiple causes and conditions. This is something that can be considered as

similarity between the two. Then for example, if we consider the function of our

human body, there is the physical body, then the organ, the tissue, the cell and it

goes on. If we trace the changes further, they all depend on chemistry of subtle

particles. By the multiple changes occurring in lot of smaller particles, we are able

to observe the big changes. Hence the big changes are the result of changing

condition of the smaller particles. Whatever it may be, the idea that things occur

due to various causes and conditions, and their explanation that the changes we

observe occur due to the environment and multitude of other causes is very

similar from my perception. (15.12)

120

According to Tsering, the theory of evolution shows that the processes in nature

are dependent on multitude of changes in the environment that results in the diversity of

life we observe today. This for him resonates with the Buddhist notion of causality that

phenomenon have innumerable accompanying causes and conditions. Tsering was

fascinated by the science’s capability to explain the macro changes in an organism by

changes occurring at the micro level of cellular and chemical reactions. Besides the

claims in Buddhism that phenomenon have multiple causes and condition, the changes

undergoing in nature at a micro level is not directly perceptible. Hence, from his

perception, science not only share similar views about causality with Buddhism but also

brings evidence for causality.

Mother Sentient Beings

Evolution’s claim that all living organisms originated from a common ancestor is

construed by Samdup to be similar to Buddhist belief that all sentient being are

interrelated and have become one another’s mother at some point. Samdup said,

Compatibility between Buddhism and evolution...for example, I think the belief in

Buddhism that we all originated from the same source. That we share a

maternalistic relation with all other beings, or in Buddhism we believe that all the

sentient beings share a blood relation through becoming each other’s mother.

Therefore there is no point in having resentment towards each other. So this claim

that we all share a blood relation and the science’s claim of common ancestry is

very similar. (16:6)

Buddhists believe that all sentient beings share a kinship because everyone has become

each other’s mother over the infinite number of rebirths. Due to this belief sentient beings

121

are often also referred to as ‘mother sentient beings’. So for Samdup, the suggestion of

common ancestry in evolution somehow resonates with the Buddhist notion of maternal

relation to all sentient beings and hence some kind of kinship. Additionally, Samdup

suggested that this concept of maternal relationship directs the kind of relation one should

have towards other sentient beings such as, avoiding resentment towards other. Similarly,

Gawa also acknowledges the moral implication of evolution when asked about the benefit

of evolution to him personally but on a second thought:

I cannot think any benefit to my personal life by studying this theory. Really, I

don’t see anything. But if you think in another way, there could be ways in which

it can look into as beneficial to our lives. For example, the kind of relationship

between people or the relationship between human and animal, basically we are

all related. We all trace back to a common ancestor and our difference is just a

matter of time. Hence through these connections we can improve relationship

between human and animals. (7:21)

Gawa might not have the chance to think about this question earlier, hence he was unable

to think of any personal benefit from studying evolution at first. However, he quickly

realizes and suggested that evolution could have the benefit of creating better relationship

among human, and between human and animal; since evolution indicate a common origin

and therefore a relationship between all living things. Except for a matter of time he

thinks all the living things were interconnected and hence this such connection could be a

vehicle in promoting a congenial relationship between all living things, especially

humans and animals.

122

When I further questioned Samdup about how he can establish that human and

donkey are related. He responded:

This cannot be said. It is due to distinct individual karma. But we say whether it is

a donkey or human, we are all related and there is no one who has not become

another’s mother. So there is a blood relation between almost every being or some

kinship. Tibetan’s used to believe in the mythology that they are descendants of a

female ogre and a compassionate monkey. This is beautiful historical account.

However, if we go further than that we say that all sentient beings share a

maternalistic relation and are similar. (16:12)

Samdup thinks we cannot establish a direct relationship between a human and a donkey,

each of them came to being due to their individual karma. However, he continues to

assert that they were blood related and his reason was that there is no sentient being who

has not become another’s mother, repeating what he said earlier. He thinks the concept of

all sentient beings as a mother predates the Tibetans creation story, which states that a

marriage between a cave dwelling female ogre and a compassionate monkey gave birth to

six offspring, which became the source of the six clans of the Tibetan people (Khar,

Guard, & Tandar, 1991). Hence, Samdup thinks of evolution as providing empirical

evidence for the concept of maternalistic relation between all sentient beings in

Buddhism.

When I asked about the influence of evolution on their religious practice, Gawa

said:

Maybe there is an effect. Like for practice of compassion. We say in prelude to

any meditation on compassion, first one must ‘know the mother and appreciate

123

her kindness’. That is we need to consider all the sentient being as our mother and

acknowledge their kindness. So fundamentally, we train on thinking everyone as a

mother or related to you. Evolution describes that all the animals are related and

that if we trace our origin, we all share common parent or ancestor. Hence, this

could make a difference to our practice that is founded on acknowledging the

kindness of mother. This could be another method to generate compassion. (7:17)

According to Gawa, recognizing the fact that everyone served as your mother and

acknowledging his or her kindness is the first step into Buddhist practice of mediation on

compassion. So when evolution establishes a relation between all animals through

common ancestry, it allows Gawa to view the claim of maternalistic relation shared by all

sentient beings in his tradition from new perspective and hence a new method to generate

compassion to other beings. As mentioned earlier, this concept of maternal relationship

between all sentient beings is frequently invoked in meditational discourse for the

development of altruism and compassion towards others, which is the essence of

Buddhist practice.

Summary

Monks are astounded by science’s capability to explain changes at the macro level

through the changes occurring at the micro level. Although Buddhist’s theory of causality

theorize that phenomenon in nature have multiple causal conditions, through evolution

the monks are able to observe direct evidence of those causal conditions. The monks

believe that all events in nature have causal conditions and therefore, they think the

random mutation in the case of evolution can also be explained through its causal

124

conditions. However, the claim that all events are connected to an infinite number of

other events makes it challenging to find the exact cause of an event.

Although evolution does not give any moral or ethical prescription, the monks

perceive evolution as supporting Buddhism notion of relatedness of all sentient beings

and therefore the necessity of compassion towards all sentient beings. Buddhists

generally believe that constant rebirths over the history of cosmos, sentient beings have

mothered each other at least once, which is used to establish a kinship relation among all

sentient beings. Even though evolution is least concerned about rebirth, the claims of

common ancestry of all life on the planet in evolution is construed by the monks to draw

similarity with the Buddhists’ notion of kinship of all sentient beings.

125

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In this chapter, I reflect on how a group of Tibetan monks interpret the biological

theory of evolution using the framework of collateral learning theory (CLT). My goal is

to contribute to our understanding of how people from a different of cultural and religious

communities negotiate meaning of scientific concepts through their religious and cultural

worldview. I will discuss how the findings reported earlier revealed the conflicts that

monks experienced reconciling their cultural and religious beliefs with the theory of

evolution. The ways in which monks negotiated these conflicts will be highlighted using

the four types collateral learning, and end with the discussion on the limitations and

opportunities of CLT as it pertains to this study.

Collateral Learning

Aikenhead & Jegede (1999) described collateral learning as a cognitive

phenomenon of students who experience conflict between their everyday life-world and

school science. In order to resolve the cognitive dissonance, students engage in different

types of collateral learning depending on the degree of interaction and resolution of the

conflicting schemas. Four types of collateral learning are described, which form a

spectrum along a continuum rather than separate categories. At one end is the parallel

collateral learning, where there is no interaction between the two conflicting schema and

therefore, the schemas remain compartmentalized with no interaction in the learners’

long-term memory. At the other end is the secured collateral learning, where there is the

most interaction between conflicting schema, and the individual either modifies one

schema in light of the other for convergence towards commonality, resulting a new

conception, or holds on two both schema for some logical reasons. Between these two

126

extremes lies dependent collateral learning, where conflicting schema from two different

worldviews or domains of knowledge challenge each other to the extent that one schema

is modified without radically restructuring that worldview or domain of knowledge. This

type of learning occurs when a learner, unaware of the conflicting domains of knowledge,

moves between the domains. This is in contrast with secured collateral learners, who

were conscious of each domain of knowledge or worldview. Finally, simultaneous

collateral learning lies between dependent and parallel collateral learning. Here, learning

in one domain of knowledge enables learning of a similar concept in another domain.

With this, I will now apply the theory of collateral learning to each of my finding’s

themes, describe the mechanism through which the monks undertake different types of

collateral learning, and discuss the usefulness of CLT.

Sentient Beings vs. Living Things

In order for collateral learning to occur, there must be interaction - and resolution,

to some extent - between two conflicting schemata in the long-term memory of the

learners (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999). The monks show predilection towards reaching a

common understanding of life by juxtaposing the Buddhist notion of sentient being with

scientific schema. Since their traditional schema of life (sentient vs. non-sentient)

conflicts with the new schema of a life (living vs. non-living) from evolution (see Figure

5.1a), their effort to integrate the two results in various collateral learning phenomenon.

The interaction of these two conflicting schemas (See Figure 5.1a) results in different

conjectures about how the Buddhist concept of ‘sentient’ would apply to evolution, more

specifically, when life on Earth actually became ‘sentient’ (See Figure 5.1b).

127

Figure 5.1a Buddhist vs. science schema of life.

Figure 5.1b Sentient being vs. the evolutionary tree

While some monks conjecture the first common ancestors as sentient, others assume that

they are both sentient and non-sentient. The reason for considering the first single-celled

organisms as sentient was a direct result of science labs that allowed the monks to

observe single-celled organisms displaying all characteristics of sentient, such as,

reacting to the environment, locating food sources, and evading threat. However,

attributing sentience to the single-celled organisms challenges the monks to explain how

these single-celled organisms would later give rise to plants, which are considered as

non-sentient in Buddhism. Buddhists assume that only a sentient being can give rise to

another sentient being, which differs from the scientific view that life can emerge from

inanimate matter. Hence, in order to overcome this explanation gap in the origin of plants

and the sentient nature of the first common ancestors, monks use different explanations.

Jampa went on to assert that plants and animals could not possibly come from a

common ancestor and claimed that they should have their own genealogy. He said,

If I combine both science and Buddhism I would say plants came from plants, but

first plants are simple and diversity in them occurred due to evolution. Similarly,

128

animals’ physical body also first came from simple bodies and due to Earth’s

environment there was more diversity later. This is acceptable to me. (5:14)

When Jampa said, “If I combine both science and Buddhism”, this suggests that he had

compartmentalized science and Buddhism’s concept of life, a characteristic of parallel

collateral learning, where a learner stores conflicting schemata in their long term memory

without much interaction between the two. However, he goes on to say that if he were

given an opportunity, he would consider that plants were initially simpler, and then,

evolution gave rise to the diversity in plants. Similarly, animals were first simple

organisms that later gave rise to different animals through evolution. This suggests that

plants and animals should have separate lineage, which overthrows the central principle

of common descent in evolution. In order to resolve the conflict between his religious

assumption that sentient and non-sentient entities cannot share a common ancestry and

the evolutionary principle of common descent, he modifies the principle of common

descent by suggesting that there should be a parallel phylogenetic plant and an animal

tree. Since his modification of evolution’s schema depended on the challenge posed by

schema from his religious worldview, this resembles a case of dependent collateral

learning. Jampa was either unaware of his modified schema’s influence on evolutionary

theory, or he is willfully defying the central tenet of evolutionary theory in order to keep

his original worldview intact. Based on his comments, if Jampa somehow realizes

through discussion that he is defying a central tenet of evolution, he might revert to

compartmentalizing the two schemas.

129

Gawa also shared similar views with Jampa. He thinks that there should be two

categories of single-celled organisms in the early evolutionary history, one that is able to

host consciousness, and one that cannot. He stated, “Those which do not host

consciousness would give rise to plants and trees. It is not possible that an initial sentient

being was later transformed into a non-sentient.” Gawa does not think it is possible that a

sentient single-celled organism would gradually lose its sentient nature to give rise to

plants. Hence, both Jampa and Gawa modify a fundamental evolutionary schema to find

resolution with their religious concept of sentient indicative of dependent collateral

learning (See Figure 5.2a).

Figure 5.2a Gawa’s case of dependent collateral

learning

Tsering adopts a different accommodative mechanism to resolve the conflict. He

thinks that our ancestral single-celled creatures were all initially sentient, but sometime

along the evolutionary path, a few of them lost their capacity to host consciousness and

thus, became non-sentient giving rise to the plant kingdom. Those that remained sentient

would give rise to the animal kingdom. This creative explanation by Tsering allows him

to render both the scientific and Buddhist schemas of life valid. It neither distorts the

130

principle of common ancestry in evolution, nor does it obviate the Buddhist notion that

only sentient beings can give rise to another. Therefore, in collateral learning terms, the

amalgamation of two conflicting schemas towards commonality is potential a case of

secured collateral learning (See Figure 5.2b). However, the validity of such a novel

explanation by Tsering seems contentious and raises question about whether secured

collateral learning should be the preferred goal in such cases.

Figure 5.2b Tsering’s case of secured collateral learning

Jampa’s reason for adhering strongly to his traditional view is multifaceted. For

one, he thinks his religious conception of life or sentient being goes beyond physical life

forms considered by science. In Buddhism, life exists on three different realms: form,

formless, and desire, which includes human and animal. Hence, he sees evolution’s

account of life as limited, and therefore, is unwilling to relinquish his traditional views

readily. Secondly, he clearly stated during his interview that as long as evolution does not

impinge on the fundamental Buddhist tenets like twelve dependent-origin links, he wants

continue holding onto other beliefs about the concept of evolution in Buddhism. This

shows that learners such as Jampa would not easily swap or alter their original beliefs

131

unless a new idea does not impinge on the fundamental tenets of their worldview, which

are grounded in complex philosophical and religious beliefs that go beyond the limits of

science. Hence, for Jampa, his new understanding of living things from evolution are

modified and subsumed into his traditional beliefs about life and do not generate any new

understanding of life.

However, Gawa and Tsering were willing to modify their existing views under

the influence of new information from evolution. This might stem from their holistic

view of knowledge. However, the forced reconciliation of the two explanatory

frameworks led them to either (1) modify an existing schema by undermining a key

principle without knowing its effect on the domain of knowledge, or (2) invent creative

explanations that render both explanations valid. An example of the former case is when

Gawa alters the principle of common descent in evolution by suggesting parallel

phylogenetic trees for plant and animal in order to accommodate the Buddhist notion of

sentient being, which is also a case of dependent collateral learning. Individuals engaging

in dependent collateral learning are usually unaware of movement between conflicting

domains of knowledge; however, in this case, it is difficult to ascertain Gawa’s awareness

of the fact that the law of common descent is fundamental to evolution. Tsering,

however, came up with the creative hypothesis that some of our single-celled sentient

ancestors possibly lost their capacity to host consciousness during the evolutionary

process that gave rise to the plants, which lack consciousness and are non-sentient.

Human Evolution

The Buddhist account of human evolution is antithetical to the evolutionary

account. In biological evolution, there seems to be a progressive development of higher

132

and more complex organisms from simpler ones although it does not necessarily apply to

all lineages in the phylogenetic tree. However, human evolution described in Buddhist

texts could be considered “as progressive degeneration” (Lama, 2005a, p. 111), where

human beings are believed to be the degenerate of celestial beings from the form and

formless realms after they have exhausted their positive karma. This Buddhist account of

human evolution is taught in the Abhidharma scripture and often referred to as

Abhidharma account of human evolution. While some monks take this account literally,

others either reject it or find the two descriptions of human evolution complimentary.

For example, Jampa does not reject the scientific account of human evolution, but

he is a staunch supporter of Abhidharma account. In accordance with the Abhidharma

account, it is believed that early human beings have lived for hundreds of years and could

be born via all the four means of conception: womb, egg, heat and moisture, and

spontaneously. The other monks questioned Jampa’s claims. Tsering, for instance, raised

doubts about its compatibility with the actual life expectancy data of our ancestors. To

this, Jampa gave example of Buddhist masters who were born through any of the four

modes of conception and lived for hundreds of years, stating:

Many years ago some people lived over 500, 600, 800 years. For example,

Nagarjuna, we believe that he lived for 600 years. Also, it is said that

Shantarakshita also lived for over 900 years. Also, there are lots of examples of

birth through egg. There are many masters who are born from egg. When we

study Vinaya (canonical text on monastic code), I think it was Master Nethen

Drakye, who is believed to born from an egg. (24.4)

133

Based on the MATE survey, Jampa has a high acceptance of evolution, but at the same

time, he strongly defends the conflicting Buddhist schema of human evolution. Since

there seem to be no interaction between the two schemas, this compartmentalization of

knowledge domains represents a case of parallel collateral learning. Depending on the

context, Jampa might identify with one schema over the other to talk about human

evolution. He even goes on to say that the greatest limitation of theory of evolution is that

it does not account for heat and moisture birth and spontaneous birth; spontaneous birth

being responsible for birth in the form and formless realm. Since evolution accounts only

for living beings in the desire realm, for a complete theory of life, Jampa wants all the

four means of conception and beings in all three realms has to be accounted for.

Tsering was critical of the Abhidharma accounts of human evolution like the

Dalai Lama. In his book Universe in A Single Atom, the Dalai Lama wrote, “Just as I

never found the Abhidharma cosmology convincing, I have never really been persuaded

by the Abhidharma account of human evolution as progressive degeneration” (p. 111).

Tsering was critical of Jampa’s suggestion based on Abhidharma text that humans lived

for hundreds of years in ancient times. Tsering retorted that just by examining the

evidence of human life expectancy of our ancestors in the last hundreds years, it can be

clearly shown that it has increased rather than decreased. Tsering’s willingness to modify

his existing views in light of available data is palpable when he said to the group, “These

(life expectancy of early Buddhist scholars being hundreds of years) are the things we

need to think. These are questionable claims.” In the pursuing discussion of human

evolution, he constantly defended the current scientific explanation of human evolution

as robust and supported by evidence. Tsering has seemingly overcome the conflicting

134

views regarding human evolution, and his strong support for evolution indicates secured

collateral learning.

Yet another difficulty the monks faced is the Buddhist belief in the six realms of

existence: God, Demigod, Human, Animal, Hungry Ghost, and Hell Being. In this system

of categorization, human beings are distinct from animals. However, evolution

demonstrates that human beings are just products of gradual change of animals, such as

apes, over millions of years. Therefore, this puzzled the monks about when the first

human beings began to appear in the human evolutionary history. While some monks

were able to come up with legitimate explanations for the appearance of the first human

being over the course of human evolution, others remain conflicted and had difficulty

accepting the fact that humans have indeed evolved from ancestral apes. Chophel, for

example, thinks that Homo Erectus might be the first human being because of its ability

to walk upright, which resonates with the literal definition of an animal in Tibetan ‘as

creatures that walks with a forward bend’ to differentiate them from humans. Jampa

invoked the Buddhist philosophical definition of human being as ‘that having the ability

to talk and understand’ to discern when the first human being appeared in the human

evolutionary process. This prompted other monks to question whether Neanderthals had

the ability to talk and understand, to which Gawa responded that they did not and are

more likely similar to wild animals. Thus, using their cultural and religious notion of

what counts as human, monks tend to negotiate and restructure their prior conception of

human being when encountered with the scientific account of human evolution.

Both Chophel and Tsering showed signs of secured collateral learning, seeking

convergence between the two conflicting views. In fact, Tsering wants the traditional

135

Buddhist concept of human being to be reexamined in the light of scientific evidence

about human evolution. He thought that maybe the distinction between “human” and

“animal” is a continuum rather than completely separate categories as believed in the

Buddhist tradition. It is difficult to assert that the other monks beside Chophel and

Tsering were engaging in collateral learning since they were either unaware or just

beginning to fathom the full impact or meaning evolution have on traditional Buddhist

concepts. In this case, whether Buddhist concepts of the six realms of existence should be

taken literally or metaphorically.

Tashi is the one who is clearly not engaging in any collateral learning—at least,

not in this context, because he could not accept the scientific evidence behind human

evolution and doubts the claim that humans evolved from apes. He thinks the large

amount of time that has elapsed since such events (related to the earliest humans) have

taken place makes it impossible to reach such conclusions. The drawing of human

evolution (Figure 2) shown during the group discussion, according to him, was a creative

manipulation of some ingenious mind to fit the normative scientific description of human

evolution. Of all the monks, he is also least aware of the Abhidharma account of human

evolution. Thus, he does not hold either belief strongly and hence, there is no collateral

learning in his case. When the other monks asked why he does not believe in the

biological evolution of human and whether he has a better proposition for human

evolution, he simply retorted, “Why should I believe in the scientific account of human

evolution even though I do not have a better theory of myself about human evolution?”

Tashi is content, at least for now, to hold no definitive views about human evolution.

Table 5.1

136

Monks’ View Regarding Human Evolution and Types of Collateral Learning

Karma and Evolution

Belief in the theory of karma is fundamental in Buddhism. According to the

theory, any intentional acts - mental, verbal, or physical - will reap certain fruit in the

future. In simple terms, karma means ‘action’, and it comes into play only when sentient

beings are involved in a causal network. Since Buddhists believe in the concept of

Buddhist vs. scientific account of human evolution

Boundary between human and animal

Chophel No conflicts. Both the accounts are valid. Secured collateral learning.

Difficult to find a boundary. Given a choice would consider Homo erectus to be the first human. Secured collateral learning.

Jampa Strongly defends Abhidharma account of human evolution. Critical of evolution for not including spontaneous birth and role of consciousness in human evolution. Parallel collateral learning.

Questions the claim that humans originated from apes. Parallel collateral learning.

Samdup Neutral. Questions lack of role for consciousness in scientific evolution, however, does not reject the Buddhist account. Parallel collateral learning.

Cannot determine because we do not know the intelligence of our ancestors.

Tsering Rejects Abhidharma account of human evolution. Thinks it is illogical and contradicting evidence from science. Secured collateral learning.

Cannot determine. Definition of human being needs to be rethought. Does not think all human need be like us. Secured collateral learning.

Gawa Neutral. Believes that scientific account has the best explanation so far. Secured collateral learning.

Undecided. Did not give any thought to these issues.

Tashi Have not studied the Abhidharma account of human evolution. Lacks confidence in scientific evidence for human evolution. Parallel collateral learning.

Does not believe that humans evolved from animal. No collateral learning.

137

rebirth, any accumulated actions of past lives impact future lives. Hence, an individual’s

past karma also influences the kind of birth and environment into which s/he will be born.

However, this does not mean that the law of karma is fatalistic; individuals do have the

freedom to introspect on their current thoughts and actions to change the future of their

karma and, possibly, end the cycle. Besides the theory of karma, Buddhists believe that

there is a natural law of causality that is in operation independent of sentient beings,

which is bound by the law of karma (Lama, 2005a). Thus, in evolution, the development

of sentient beings is tied to the operation of natural law of causation such as natural

selection. Therefore, the challenge is to explain how the law of karma can have influence

on the natural law of causation or whether the physical forces are independent of law of

karma that defines the experiences of sentient beings dwelling in a particular

environment.

Since evolution delves into the emergence and development of different forms of

life, it seems innate for the monks to apply the theory of karma to evolution. For

example, there are many different classifications of karma, and a common classification

brought up by the monks was individual and collective karma. Using this classification,

the monks describe individual karma as responsible for whether one will born as a

human, an animal, or an insect, and the collective karma is responsible for the physical

environment into which one is born. All the monks concur that a Buddhist explanation

for diversity of life on Earth would be that it is the result of karma of each sentient being.

Thus, the monks do not see any conflict between evolution and theory of karma in

explaining the diversity of life on Earth. Since there is no conflict between the two tenets,

there is no collateral learning. However, from the monks’ explanation, it is clear that

138

evolutionary theory is somehow subsumed into the theory of karma even though the

monks acknowledge their inability to account for the exact role and mechanism of karma

in evolution. For example, the random mutation that occurs in a species which produces

the impetus for evolution from the monk’s perspective is due to karma, but they fail to

explain the exact mechanism of how karma influences the production of the mutation or

the selection that takes place on the genes. Therefore, whenever there is an explanatory

gap in evolution, monks tend to suggest that it might be where the karma might have

come into action. Monks also think that role of karma might be explicable by humans to a

certain degree, but they think it is impossible to fully understand the subtle workings of

karma. Thus, a complex metaphysical concept like the theory of karma embedded in an

established religious worldview is not akin to some naive ideas or traditional folklore in a

local culture that could be easily replaced. The immense usefulness and capability of

concept like karma to explain both physical and experiential aspects of sentient beings

suggest that a purely mechanistic theory like evolution would eventually be subsumed as

a corollary of the theory of karma.

To highlight this claim that religious-based constructs like the theory of karma

will take precedence over evidence-based theory like evolution, I will recall the example

of Samdup. Samdup initially thought that his native villagers were being irrational for

blaming the decline in the apple harvest of a neighboring village on their karma. People

from his village thought that overindulgence in immoral actions and financial greed had

resulted in bad karma of the inhabitants of the neighboring village, which resulted in a

fail of their apple harvest. Initially, he thought that this could be explained from a purely

scientific perspective; the changes in environmental condition caused the decline in the

139

apple harvest, he did not need to invoke karma to explain this. However, after having

second thoughts, he said, “But again from a Buddhist perspective, I think it is related to

human beings”. What he meant was that since this event is related to human beings, it is

most likely have some relation to Buddhist theory of karma. Similarly, when discussing

experiments conducted on animals, Samdup stated that a scientist performing a genetic

experiment on mice could also be karmically related. He believed that even though the

changes that are brought on the mice could be explained genetically, stating, “but here

again, if you go deeper, it is karma. The individual must have accumulated certain karma

to be in that situation”. Yet in the case of producing hybrid fruits, he denies any role of

karma. Whenever there is a physical process that is related to sentient beings, the role of

karma is undeniable, and when it comes to evolution, a theory that is inextricably tied to

sentient beings, the role of karma becomes ever more pertinent

Summary

Aikenhead and Jegede (1999) described the theory of collateral learning to

explain the cognitive phenomenon of individuals crossing cultural borders. As monks

cross the border between science and Buddhism, different collateral learning patterns

were witnessed among the monks as described earlier. CLT proved useful in diagnosing

how individuals navigate specific schema within the theory of evolution such as human

evolution and the theory of common descent. However, when it comes to complex

metaphysical concepts such as the theory of karma, the application of CLT is limited.

When considering the declarative knowledge of the monks regarding how the theory of

karma relates to the theory of evolution, the theory of karma takes precedence over the

later. This is because whenever a physical phenomenon involves sentient beings, monks

140

assume a role of karma regardless of how well the phenomenon is explained by

evolution. Also, given the fundamental nature of the theory of karma in Buddhism,

monks would incorporate all concepts relating to life to fit within the framework of the

theory of karma. Therefore, CLT’s application is limited to use in conflicts encountered

in simple concepts of phenomenon. To fully capture the monk’s experience requires a

theory that takes into account the whole of the Buddhist worldview.

141

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

In this chapter, I will reflect on the relevance of theories and praxis in ongoing cross-

cultural science education research to the monastic science education. Then, I will share

my recommendations for science curricula and pedagogy that would be taken into

account in the current efforts to promote science education in the Buddhist monasteries

by different programs that would promote meaningful science learning in a culturally

sustainable way. I conclude this chapter with summary of the study and direction for

future research for those who might be interested to look into the experience of monastics

science learners.

Cross-cultural Science Education

I will now discuss the significance of this study to the larger cross-cultural science

education research, which is mostly focused on youth education in developing and

developed countries whose traditional ways of knowing are either marginalized or

completely exterminated due to historical colonization (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007;

Chinn, 2007; Jegede & Aikenhead, 1999; Meshach B. Ogunniyi, Jegede, Ogawa,

Yandila, & Oladele, 1995). Much of the work in this field is towards decolonizing

today’s academy to bring the traditional and indigenous ways of knowing into the

mainstream and reclaim language and culture of various groups. However, the challenge

ahead for achieving such a goal is tremendous. The lack of commonality between various

traditional and indigenous knowledge systems, the institution privilege of Eurocentric

science over indigenous ways of knowing, and lack of resources, including the funds and

experts available to document and develop inclusive curriculum and pedagogy, are some

of the challenges.

142

Tibetan monastics share fundamental differences when compared to the youth in

cross-cultural science education both historically and culturally. Historically, monastics’

experience of colonization was more recent (1950s), and it was from China rather than

the West. This also explains the apathy of many non-Western people towards Western

science for its origin in the West, which also brought in colonialisation. The lack such

historical association has allowed Tibetan Buddhism to a share a positive repute with

Western science. Culturally, while youth in the cross-cultural science education have

mostly lost their language and connection to their cultural heritage, the Tibetan were able

to preserve the contiguity of their culture and traditional knowledge successfully despite

continuing efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to destroy its language and culture in

the name of ‘peaceful liberation of Tibet’ (Shakya, 1999). Therefore, for these historical

and cultural reasons, cross-cultural science education research has focused on

overcoming the deficit view of students who come from the non-Western world. Such

deficit views are absent in the case of the monks. Instead, the current attempt lead by the

Dalai Lama to teach and learn Western science in the Tibetan monasteries could be

likened to what Aikenhead (1999) described as ‘autonomous acculturation’. This was his

call on people of First nations to engage to avail knowledge of Western science for

pragmatic reasons, such as sustaining their culture, fulfilling economic and environmental

needs. Besides this self-interest, one important motivation for the Dalai Lama to institute

science education in the monasteries is to continue dialogue and cooperation between

Buddhism and Western science to benefit humankind.

Monks, therefore, come with a positive attitude towards science and are more

mature in negotiating meanings of scientific concepts compared to youth cross-cultural

143

research. On the contrary, the age of the monastics and their systematic training in

Buddhist worldviews might sometimes dampen the spirit of inquiry and creativity needed

in science unlike the youth. In Buddhism, the ultimate truths about the world are

established and not negotiable; science can only quantitatively measure them step-by-

step. One advantage of Buddhism compared to other indigenous knowledge systems is

the historical portrayal and recognition of Buddhism as a religion compatible with

science (See Lopez Jr., 2009, for a historical analysis of Buddhism versus science). Of

the many different Buddhist lineages, Tibetan Buddhism has been successful in

representing the Buddhist community on the global stage, which has resulted in

numerous dialogues, seminars, publications, and scientific research (Hayward, 2001;

Luisi & Houshmand, 2010; Yong, 2008). All of these external, global factors might affect

the overall attitude and agency of monks and nuns who take part in learning and teaching

Western science in the monasteries.

The development of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) by Ladson-Billings has

informed much of pedagogical practices in cross-cultural science education (Ladson-

Billings, 1995). She described CRP as an evolving phenomenon, changing pedagogical

needs with the changing values, beliefs, language, and arts of the community it serves.

This assumes a fluid nature of each community and hence its applicability in the case of

monastic community is doubtful. Despite the Dalai Lama’s effort to reform his

community, and the sociopolitical factors governing the diaspora Tibetan community

asserts certain protectionism of its culture preventing any large-scale innovation in the

structure and culture of its monasteries. However, there are lessons from CRP research

that could be used in developing the monastic science curricula. One key aspect of CRP

144

is the sociopolitical dimension of the education that empowers student to understand the

systemic and historical inequalities of their community. Such emphasis is oblivious in

traditional monastic education system, which focuses primarily on individual knowledge

and spiritual development. Therefore, monastics are unaware of the sociopolitical

implication of contemporary scientific research on traditional Buddhist contemplative

practices. Understanding the institutional bias and who gets to validate knowledge would

empower them in their learning science.

Monastic Science Education

The institution of science education in the Tibetan monasteries has educational,

political, and cultural elements. Jinpa (2004) suggested that the goal of including science

curriculum in monasteries was primarily educational and aimed to update the monastic

curriculum by including scientific facts and theories about the natural world that have

been proven by scientific evidence. However, my study reveals that the scientific facts

and theories will not to be accepted at face value but as we should expect, will be

interpreted through the monks’ prior knowledge framework, which is derived from a

Buddhist view of the world. Hence, simplistic transfer of science curriculum used in

schools and universities in the West would not suffice the teaching and learning needs of

this community. The learners situated in a Tibetan Buddhist sociocultural milieu tend

privilege their native worldview over others whenever they encounter cognitive conflicts.

In order for meaningful learning of science to occur, an inclusive curriculum needs to be

developed, which highlights the compatibilities and incompatibilities of common topics

in science and Buddhism and allows students to engage in discussion and self-reflection

on these topics. Such a strategy would reveal the collateral learning occurring in minds of

145

monastics that would inform future instruction. Also, explicit engagement on the

congruities and incongruities between the two traditions in the curricula would increase

interaction and deliberation, accelerating their movement towards secured collateral

learning.

Whenever possible, curricula should incorporate idioms, concepts, and metaphors

from both science and Buddhism to allow the monastics to critic and extend their current

understanding of a phenomenon. Classroom instructors need to be explicit with the

students about moving between the domain of science and Buddhism since definition,

classification, and epistemological system of the two domains are not always

commensurable. The challenge over reconciling the Buddhist concept of sentient beings

with evolutionary conception of life is one example. For a Buddhist, life refers to all

entities that have consciousness and can experience joy and suffering. However, from an

evolutionary perspective, life could mean anything from unicellular organisms, to plants,

to complex organisms like humans. Therefore, it is important for instructors to flag when

students unknowingly cross the boundary between science and Buddhism.

Other major implications of this study for the monastic science education program

are that monks are mostly unaware of what entails science or the nature of science.

Nature of science includes key principles and ideas that provide a description of science

as a way of knowing and characteristics of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 2007;

McComas, 1996). Monks lack understanding of limits of scientific inquiry, role of theory,

and the tentative nature of scientific theories. For example, Jampa insists that a key

limitation of the theory of evolution is that it does not account for conception by heat and

moisture, and spontaneous birth. Since such claims are not scientifically testable, it is

146

therefore beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. Recent research has shown the

importance of understanding the nature of science in teaching and learning of evolution

(Akyol, Tekkaya, & Sungur, 2010; Dagher & Boujaoude, 2005; Hokayem & BouJaoude,

2008a). Therefore, teaching nature of science should be integrated as part of the monastic

curriculum.

Finally, allowing specialization in scientific disciplines and creating career

opportunities for monastics can have a direct effect on individual monastics’ interests and

motivation in learning science. Often, the goal of monastic science education seems

limited to achieving mass scientific literacy in the monastic community. With the recent

development of instituting formal science teaching in the monastery, the goal of monastic

science education should go beyond achieving literacy. Despite the many challenges

associated with the lack of infrastructure for science teaching and local science

instructors to sustain the current effort to bring science education into the monasteries,

the goal of monastic science education should be to produce monks and nuns who can

critically engage with the global scientific community and also partake in driving new

research agendas.

Monastic Science Curriculum

The ultimate goal of ongoing science programs operating in the Tibetan

monasteries is to culminate in development of a sustainable science curriculum that the

monasteries can implement themselves. However, before finalizing such a curriculum, it

necessitates a discussion on what entails a curriculum that would foster meaningful

science learning in the monasteries. Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) study found that usage

of term ‘curriculum’ by faculties and students in higher education ambiguous and could

147

mean multiple things. In examining their data, they used the Habermas framework of

‘knowledge-constitutive interests’ and found that the faculty and students understanding

and goal of curriculums could be grouped into three categories the technical interest,

practical (communicative interest) interest, and emancipatory interest. Using this

construct, I will briefly explore what the monastic science curriculum should be.

Much of the current efforts in developing curriculum for the Tibetan Buddhist

monasteries applies to the first category of curriculum, the technical interest, defined by

the view of curriculum as a tangible product that conforms to the teacher or institutional

goals of learning. In this kind of curriculum the organization and structure of the content

or unit or a program take primary role, and curricula exist before the students’ arrival.

The curriculum and teaching are geared towards delivery of the product and transferred

without much consideration of the sociocultural contexts of the learner. Such product-

oriented curriculum is essential, and is how most people understand curriculum; a

broader understanding of curriculum is required to serve the needs of the monastics.

Next category of curriculum is the practical interest, where the goal is in reaching

an understanding that allows the learners to take relevant action. Action comes through

the reflection process of the learner, which entails him/her to engage in meaning making

and interpretation of the content, at the same time questioning the prejudices and

presuppositions inherent in it. Teacher’s role is to use their judgment to interpret the

curriculum to enhance the meaning making process of their student and therefore, the

student learning experience forms the foundation of such a curriculum. Some of the

monastic science programs do engage in these practices, however, scaling and embedding

148

such practice, as part of the formal science curriculum is a challenge that requires urgent

discussion.

The final category is a curriculum driven by emancipatory interest. Such view of

curriculum is rarely discussed in the case of monastic science education due to

contemporary sociopolitical condition of the diaspora community mentioned earlier.

Emancipatory interest requires critical reflection on all aspect of knowledge and

“involves dialectical criticism of one’s own values in a social and historical context in

which the values of others are also crucial” (Mctaggart & Garbutcheon Sing, 1986, p.44).

In order to take the larger goal of monastic science education to dialogue with Western

scientists that the Dalai Lama has initiated three decades ago to a new level, and engage

in participatory research that contributes to the collective human knowledge, it is

important for the monastics to reflect and critical of all epistemologies, scientific and

Buddhist, so that there is a transformation of consciousness that affect way they perceive

and act in the world. Without such emancipatory interest in the curriculum, a mutually

beneficial, crosspollination of two divergent worldviews like science and Buddhism as

envisioned by the Dalai Lama would be impossible.

From my viewpoint, the programs involved in the monastic science education

should therefore, think of curriculum in terms of all the three knowledge-constitutive

interests in order to achieve the larger goals that underpin this undertaking. The current

effort to translate scientific literature into Tibetan and bringing in Western expertise in

different scientific domain is laudable, but understanding curriculum in these three

dimensions would encourage more meaningful learning and prepare the monastics to

fruitfully with scientific community to contribute to the common human knowledge.

149

Conclusion

I embarked on this study with the primary motivation to understand how the

Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns are situating scientific facts and theories within their

Buddhist worldview. Therefore, I investigated how monks were interpreting and situating

concepts within the biological theory of evolution into their Buddhist description of life

and its origin. The case study of the six monks revealed that they indeed interpret

scientific theories through their Buddhist knowledge and experiences, and when they

encounter conflicts between the two knowledge traditions, they engage in various

collateral learning to reconcile these conflicts. Hence, in order to develop a meaningful

and sustainable science education program in the monasteries, the curricula practices

should provide sufficient instructional space and time to allow negotiation of meaning

and implication that scientific facts and theories might have on Buddhist constructs

related to these theories.

The primary goal of the monasteries where science education is being

implemented is to sustain the Buddhist scholastic and cultural traditions that have been

threatened due to various sociopolitical factors. Therefore, the programs engaged in

instituting science education in the monasteries must be clear at the outset that science is

not the only way to understand the world, but that there are multiple ways of knowing the

world with overlaps and should not privilege one over the another. The science

instruction should empower the monastics in sustaining their traditional knowledge

system in the changing world, rather than relegating or replacing the traditional ways of

knowing as outdated, unreliable, and secondary. Hence, the instructors and administrator

involved in the science education project in monasteries must show restraint and

150

sensitivity towards the goals and needs of monastic community so that the project does

not produce any significant irreversible damage on its members and its tradition.

Future research areas that will be of interest to pursue with this group of

monastics are in the areas of neuroscience and cognitive science where there is growing

research and interest among general public on understanding the scientific basis of

Buddhist practices like mindfulness and compassion meditation. This is the same area

where much of the current deliberations between the scientist and Buddhist scholars are

taking place and therefore, could prove as a fertile ground to develop and implement

science curriculum around this topic. Given the rich Buddhist literature on consciousness,

and its different levels and functions, also studying the monastics shift in their traditional

understanding of mind in light of new scientific evidence would be interesting.

151

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW I QUESTIONS

1. How is it different to be in an American university compared to being in a

monastery?

2. Why were you interested in doing this program?

3. What science areas or topics are you most interested in studying at this school?

4. What do you think you would have missed if you have studied science in an Indian

university rather than coming to US?

5. How do you think the scientific knowledge is generated?

6. What do you think is the goal of science? (What you think is this thing called

science?)

7. Do you think western science and Buddhism are compatible, if yes how and in what

ways? If not, how?

8. Give example of questions that science can’t answer? Any limits of science?

152

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW II QUESTIONS

1. What are the most interesting topics that you learned in this first year of the program?

2. How do you intend to use the contents that you have learned in this program?

3. What topics that you learned are conflicting with your personal/traditional

understanding of the world?

4. In what ways was this program useful for you?

5. What are your plans for course work for the next two semesters?

6. What was the result/impact of your participating in this program?

7. What ways has your interaction outside of classroom have impact on your learning

experience?

8. What ways did your perception of science change overtime?

9. How did learning science benefit you personally?

10. How do you view the world differently after you have studied science? (This is a big

question…)

153

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW IIIA INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Perception of theory of evolution Personal Interview Questions (voice only) 1-2hrs

1. What difference do you see between the Buddhism and science demarcation between

living and non-living, and sentient and non-sentient?

2. What is the first sentient being on this Earth?

3. Can you tell me three major similarities and differences that you think exist between

theory of evolution and Buddhist ideas about origin of life?

4. Can modern science, on its own give a full account of the formation of individual

lives without incorporating ideas from Buddhism? If not, why?

5. Can you give me three examples of what modern science can add in order to give a

more full account of the formation of individual lives?

6. How does we have so many species of animals from a Buddhist perspective?

7. Do you think the randomness in genetic mutation is an objective feature of reality? Or

is due to some causality? (Genetic mutation occurs randomly or due to some hidden

causality?)

8. If you were the in charge monastic curriculum, would you require all the monks to

learn the theory of evolution?

9. Does learning the theory of evolution have any impact on your Buddhist practices, if

so can you explain? Give examples.

10. What is an example from you that illustrate how the theory of evolution has any

impact on your everyday lives?

11. What is the most convincing evidence for evolution in your opinion?

12. What limitations or weakness do you see about the theory of evolution?

13. Do you accept theory of evolution? Or some of it? Can you explain why?

14. Do you belief/think that life originated from inanimate matter?

15. Do you see any ultimate goal of evolution? If so, what is it?

154

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW IIIB FOCUS GROUP QUESTION

Focus Group Interview (Video recorded) 1-2 hrs.

1. Icebreaker: Please share two most important lessons you learned in these two years?

2. According to the science of vision, a bee’s perception of flower to be violet-ish and

our perception of that very flower to be yellow could both be valid. Is that compatible

with Buddhism? Is there a first human being on this Earth? If so, who is it, and when

did it happen? Looking at these pictures, can you pick at which stage we are human

beings?

3. “Only a fully awakened Buddha can understand karma completely; Buddha

understands karma so completely as to understand the causes of every color of the

peacock’s tail.”

Do you accept the above statement that you need to be fully awakened to understand

the causes of every color of the peacock’s tail? (This was a vexing problem for

Darwin as well.)

4. Suppose you were to teach evolution in the monastery and someone says it

contradicts with his Buddhist beliefs, how would you explain it to him? (What would

be the purpose and intent of your response? How would you respond, like what actual

words you would use in your explanation?

5. Do you think the randomness in genetic mutation is an objective feature of reality? Or

is due to some causality? (Genetic mutation occurs randomly or due to some hidden

causality?)

155

APPENDIX E: MEASURE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Sample Questions

Evolution Survey འཕེལ་འ&ར་རིག་པའི་+ི་,ད།འཕེལ་འ&ར་རིག་པའི་+ི་,ད།Please answer own your own and do not refer to external sources. གཤམ་1ི་+ི་བ་ཁག་ལ་རང་ངོས་ལན་འདེབས་གནང་རོགས།

1. Q1. Organisms existing today are the result of evolutionary processes that have occurredover millions of years.དེང་སང་ཡོད་པའི་9ོག་ཆགས་དེ་དག་ལ;་ང<་ས་ཡ་མང་པ;འ=་རིང་གི་འཕེལ་འ&ར་བ>ད་རིམ་ལ་བ?ེན་ནས་@ང་བ་ཡིན།Mark only one oval.

strongly agree

agree

undecided

disagree

strongly disagree

2. Q2. The theory of evolution is incapable of being scientifically tested.འཕེལ་འ&ར་1ི་Aམ་གཞག་དེ་ནི་ཚན་རིག་གི་བ?ག་དDད་Eེད་ཐབས་མེད་པ་ཞིག་རེད།Mark only one oval.

strongly agree

agree

undecided

disagree

strongly disagree

3. Q3. Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes which have occurred overmillions of years.དེང་Gས་Hི་འIོ་བ་མི་Aམས་ནི་ལ;་ང<་ས་ཡ་མང་པའི་རིང་གི་འཕེལ་འ&ར་1ི་བ>ད་རིམ་ལ་བ?ེན་ནས་@ང་བ་ཞིག་ཡིན།Mark only one oval.

strongly agree

agree

undecided

disagree

strongly disagree

Explain why? དེ་ལྟར་འདམ་དགོས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་བིས།

Explain why? དེ་ལྟར་འདམ་དགོས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་བིས།

Explain why? དེ་ལྟར་འདམ་དགོས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་བིས།

Name/མིང་།________________________________________

156

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. S. 1997. Towards a First Nations cross‐cultural science and technology

curriculum. Science Education, 81: 217–238.

Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive

explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

36(3), 269–287.

Aikenhead, G. S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited.

Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 539–620.

Akyol, G., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2010). The contribution of understandings of

evolutionary theory and nature of science to pre-service science teachers’

acceptance of evolutionary theory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9,

1889–1893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.419

Baker, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-

western countries: The results of an integrated research review. International

Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 695–704.

Chinn, P. W. U. (2007). Decolonizing methodologies and indigenous knowledge: The

role of culture, place and personal experience in professional development.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1247–1268.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20192

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road

map from beginning to end. SAGE Publications.

Cobern, W. W. (1989). World View Theory and Science Education Research:

Fundamental Epistemological Structure as a Critical Factor in Science Learning

and Attitude Development. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED304345

157

Cobern, W. W. (1991). World view theory and science education research. Retrieved

from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/science_slcsp/44/

Cobern, W. W. (1994). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education.

Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/science_slcsp/15/

Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education.

Science Education, 80(5), 579–610.

Creswellm J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE

Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of

evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378–391.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20054

Dalai Lama’s guide to the next four years - CNN.com. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2017,

from http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/health/dalai-lama-guide-to-surviving-

trump/index.html

Davidson, R. (2006). Science and spirituality: Probing the convergences and the tensions.

PsycCRITIQUES, 51, 1–5.

Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to

concept development in adolescent science students.

Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case (Vol. 76). Teachers College Press.

Emory-Tibet Partnership (n.d.). Retrieved from https://tibet.emory.edu/emory-tibet-

science-initiative/index.html

158

Flanagan, O. (2014). Science for Monks: Buddhism and Science: A BIT of The Really

Hard Problem. MIT Press.

Fontana, A., & Prokos, A. H. (2007). The interview: From formal to postmodern. Left

Coast Press.

Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t

it?. Studies in Higher Education, 31(03), 269-284.

Gilbert, J. K., & Swift, D. J. (1985). Towards a Lakatosian analysis of the Piagetian and

alternative conceptions research programs. Science Education, 69(5), 681-696.

Glaze, A. L., & Goldston, M. J. (2015). U.S. Science Teaching and Learning of

Evolution: A Critical Review of the Literature 2000–2014. Science Education,

99(3), 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21158

Gyatso, T., & Jinpa, T. (1995). The world of Tibetan Buddhism: an overview of its

philosophy and practice. Trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa. Somerville: Wisdom

Publications.

Hatcher, A., Bartlett, C., Marshall, A., & Marshall, M. (2009). Two-eyed seeing in the

classroom environment: Concepts, approaches, and challenges. Canadian Journal

of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(3), 141–153.

Hayward, J. W. (2001). Gentle bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the

sciences of mind. Shambhala Publications.

Herbert, S. (2004). Lessons from Assessment: Experiences of a Cross-cultural Unit of

Work in Science. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18(3), 139–157.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790408668315

159

Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008a). College students’ perceptions of the theory of

evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 395–419.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20233

Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008b). College students’ perceptions of the theory of

evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 395–419.

Jegede, O. J. (1995). Collateral learning and the eco-cultural paradigm in science and

mathematics education in Africa.

Jegede, O. J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for

science teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 45–66.

Jinpa, T. (2010). Buddhism and Science: How Far Can the Dialogue Proceed? Zygon®,

45(4), 871–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01138.x

Jinpa, T. (2014, Summer). Under One Umbrella. Retrieved from

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/under-one-umbrella

Kearney, M. (1984). World view. Chandler & Sharp Novato. Retrieved from

http://www.getcited.org/pub/102299673

KHAR, R. D., Guard, R., & Tandar, S. (1991). A brief discussion on Tibetan history

prior to Nyatri Tsenpo. The Tibet Journal, 16(3), 52–62.

Lama, D. (2005a). The universe in a single atom: The convergence of science and

spirituality. Harmony.

Lama, D. (2005b). Science at the Crossroads. Retrieved from

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.

160

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. Handbook of

Research on Science Education, 831–879.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). The only generalization is: There is no

generalization. Case study method, 27-44.

Lopez Jr, D. S. (2009). Buddhism and science: A guide for the perplexed. University of

Chicago Press.

Luisi, P. L., & Houshmand, Z. (2010). Mind and life: Discussions with the Dalai Lama

on the nature of reality. Columbia University Press.

McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten Myths of Science: Reexamining What We Think We Know

About the Nature of Science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10–16.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10205.x

McTaggart, R., & Garbutcheon-Singh, M. (1986). New directions in action research.

curriculum perspectives, 6(2), 42-46.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation:

Revised and expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in

education. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE.

Norak, R. E., Jones, S. G., & Jones, H. W. (1977). Norak's Textbook of Gynecology

Ninth edition The Williams and Williams Company.

Ogawa, M. (1986). Toward a new rationale of science education in a non‐western

society. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 113–119.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860800201

161

Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education,

79(5), 583–593.

Ogunniyi, Meshach B., Jegede, O. J., Ogawa, M., Yandila, C. D., & Oladele, F. K.

(1995). Nature of worldview presuppositions among science teachers in

botswana, indonesia, japan, nigeria, and the philippines. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 32(8), 817–831. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320805

Ogunniyi, Meshach Bolaji. (1988). Adapting western science to traditional African

culture. International Journal of Science Education, 10(1), 1–9.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation

of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science

Education, 66(2), 211–227.

Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (1999). The development and validation of the

measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. School Science and

Mathematics, 99(1), 13–18.

Rutledge, M. L., & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the Measure of Acceptance of the

Theory of Evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. The American

Biology Teacher, 69(6), 332–335.

Science studies to be introduced in Geluk Gyuktoe Chenmo. (2012, October 8). Retrieved

from http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=32255

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.

Sinatra, Gale M., and Paul R. Pintrich. "The role of intentions in conceptual change

learning." (2003).

162

Shakya, T. (1999). The dragon in the land of snows: A history of modern Tibet since

1947. Columbia University Press.

Smith, M. U. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: I.

Philosophical/epistemological issues. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 523–538.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies.

Sutherland, D. (2005). Resiliency and collateral learning in science in some students of

Cree ancestry. Science Education, 89(4), 595–613.

Tsai, C.-C. (2001). Ideas about earthquakes after experiencing a natural disaster in

Taiwan: An analysis of students’ worldviews. International Journal of Science

Education, 23(10), 1007–1016.

Weerasinghe, M. (2002). The Origin of Species according to the Buddha. Stamford Lake.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). SAGE.

Yong, A. (2008). Mind and Life, Religion and Science: His Holiness the Dalai Lama and

the Buddhism-Christianity-Science Trialogue. Buddhist-Christian Studies, 28(1),

43–63.