Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge (Columbia Series in Science and Religion) (Hardcover)

by B. Alan Wallace (Author)
Key Phrases: contemplative refinement, attentional stability, psychological flourishing, Great Perfection, William James, Tibetan Buddhist (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"[From] one of the most prominent voices in the discussions... Contemplative Science is a useful primer." -- Benjamin Bogin

"Wallace makes a strong case." -- George Scialabba, Boston Globe

"A copy should go to every scientist - both physical and contemplative - in the land." -- David Fontana

Review

"Provocative, challenging, and engaging, Contemplative Science should be read by all serious students of the mind, scientists, contemplatives, and religious scholars alike. Alan Wallace has a breathtaking command of knowledge rooted in Buddhism but embracing the physical and cognitive sciences and most importantly informed by meditation practice. This book will help set the stage for a unique development in the twenty-first-century& mdash;a genuine collaboration between the contemplative traditions and Western science." -- Richard J. Davidson, William James and Vilas Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 256 pages
• Publisher: Columbia University Press (September 29, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0231138342
• ISBN-13: 978-0231138345
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 5.9 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #61,479 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #75 in	Books > Professional & Technical > Medical > Medicine > Internal Medicine > Neurology > Neuroscience
  #81 in	Books > Science > Medicine > Internal Medicine > Neurology > Neuroscience
  #83 in	Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

122 of 129 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Exceptional Contribution to Consciousness Studies, March 8, 2007

By	Dr. Richard G. Petty (Atlanta) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

Unless you are involved in neuroscience, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of the seismic shifts that are occurring in our knowledge about the brain, and the extraordinary consequences for our understanding of what it means to be human. Or the important implications of the new brain sciences for such issues as education and legal responsibility.

There is a robust and growing literature on Buddhism, Western psychology and cognitive science, consciousness and the brain. And this book is a new installment that summarizes some of this work.

The author of this fine book is B. Alan Wallace who spent fourteen years as a Buddhist monk and was ordained by the Dalai Lama. He is also the founder and president of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies. He has also translated a number of Tibetan Buddhist texts and is the author of several other books.

His central thesis is that although objective science has long said that religion, faith, belief and other subjective experiences are no more than epiphenomena of physical processes, that can and should change. He proposes that Western science and contemplative practices of Buddhism, and for that matter Christianity and Taoism, can be integrated to create a single discipline that he calls "Contemplative science." Alan contends that the development of this science is already underway and promises to illuminate both objective Western science and contemplative practices. It will in all likelihood bear many other fruits as well.

I am persuaded by what he has to say. I have never felt that we could or should relegate important human experiences to epiphenomena. Not only does it belittle meaningful experiences, it diminishes science.

As Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." This book presents us with a roadmap to abolish both of those handicaps.

This is a must read for anyone interested in consciousness and human potential.

Highly recommended.


Richard G. Petty, MD, author of Healing, Meaning and Purpose: The Magical Power of the Emerging Laws of Life

104 of 110 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Not quite what it suggests, March 7, 2008

By	MindCurious (San Francisco, CA USA) - See all my reviews

Readers be warned: the subtitle to this book,"Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge" is quite misleading--there are only a few very cursory references to anything about neuroscience. Based on the title and introduction, I purchased this assuming it might explain how scientific research on the brain illuminates the practice of meditation and the contemplative tradition (and vice-versa). It does not. For those interested in the connection between meditation and Western neuroscience, you'll find little here to satisfy you.

The book you want is Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain, by Sharon Begley. The unfortunate title suggests little more than standard pop-psych self-help, but Ms. Begley's book provides a solid, readable account of neuroscience research from the last 10-15 years that relates specifically to the potential changes brought about in the brain through the practice of meditation, including recent studies on the brains of highly experienced meditators. I cannot recommend that book highly enough.

8 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Well-Intentioned (But Limited) Effort , December 23, 2008

By	J. Storey (Thornton, CO USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

B. Alan Wallace seems to be an ideal candidate to write books on the theme of "contemplative science", having training in both Tibetan buddhism and physics for many years. His familiarity with standard Mahayana Buddhist doctrines is evident throughout his writings, which is a plus when trying to integrate Buddhism into modern science, which he is trying to do. In this sense, Wallace's writings can be seen as extensions of the Dalai Lama's excursions into science.
However, as I mentioned in my review of the Dalai Lama's efforts to "converge" Buddhism with modern science, the marriage, so to speak, has more problems than is evident in this style of writing. Yeah? Like what?, the true devotee asks...

Wallace, of course, views much of modern science as "externally" focused, with too much attention placed on the physical universe and not enough on inner, "subjective" experience, especially as accumulated over thousands of years in the great religious traditions (certainly understandable, for a devout Buddhist...). Accordingly, Wallace decries what he sees as the mental aspect being relegated to secondary status, as a mere epiphenomenon of the material world. Wallace hence is suspicious of modern theories of complexity being adequate in explaining the mental side of humans. His own ideas on consciousness seem to be based much on ideas of the great early American psychologist William James, as well as on current "hard-problem" observations by David Chalmers and others. What Wallace comes up with as a basic ontology, then, is that consciousness is actually primary in our physical universe and we need to shift our thinking (I hate to use the New-Age term "paradigm shift", so I won't).

Consciousness is, of course, a difficult subject for everyone. Physicists are trying to get it out of pure quantum mechanics, neurophysiologists are trying to determine a physical basis for it, Whiteheadians posit it must be fundamental (as Wallace does), Chalmers himself wants a physical description that goes beyond merely functional descriptions, etc. etc. So everybody has problems with consciousness. Wallace has training as a physicist, but he glosses over the problems in injecting consciousness into quantum mechanics as he tries to do. The vast majority of physicists do NOT see consciousness (human or otherwise) as important in quantum mechanics, despite some popular efforts to make it important. The word "observation" has been long misused and misunderstood in this area, and this isn't the place to rehash the sloppy use of such words. In this respect, Wallace does the reader no favor, offering as he does a viewpoint that is on the "fringe" area of orthodox physics.

Buddhism itself is problematic in regards to empirical science, despite what many "convergers" (hey! a new word I just coined, don't be stealing it) have described. I have briefly commented on some of the problems in another review and won't go over that now. Here, I would like to briefly comment on the so-called "no-self" (anatta) doctrine, which asserts that there is no such thing as a permanent ego-self. In other words, your human personality is a makeshift construction that is being replaced moment-by-moment and has no real substance. We can all agree that the topic of what the "self" really consists of is another difficult topic, but it is questionable whether the Buddhists got this right or not. Some scientists and philosophers have indeed found Buddhist ideas of the "no-self" congenial to their understanding, but many others have not. Common sense certainly seems to throw some doubt on the doctrine that your personality has no real "core". Just think back to your early childhood- honesty will tell you that you indeed have a continuous personality from square one, which seems rather mysterious if we grant the Buddhists are correct that we are looking at something that is fundamentally illusory.
That just doesn't seem to jive with personal experience.
If you stomped on the foot of the most enlightened Buddhist around, for example, despite their insistance there is no self, you will certainly see a "self" yell instantly :-).

Moreover, many Buddhists seem to be confusing subjective experiences of personal self-awareness "dissolving" in mystical experiences with questionable ontological assertions. The subjective experiences are common across humans of all cultures, and indeed, I've experienced such myself. But this kind of thing is hardly any "proof" for a "no-self", and shouldn't be used as any kind of empirical statement.