 imagined that claims for the compatibility of Buddhism and science derived from the 1960s, gaining their first popular expression in Fritjof Capra’s 1975 best seller The Tao of Physics. The claims did derive from the ’60s, but I was off by a century. Statements about the compatibility of Buddhism and science were being made in the 1860s—in Europe and America during the Victorian period, as Buddhism became fashionable in intellectual circles, and at the same time in Asia, as Buddhist thinkers were defending themselves against the attacks of Christian missionaries. Thus, to understand what the compatibility of Buddhism and science means today, it is necessary to understand what it meant a century and a half ago.

Buddhists first encountered science, perhaps ironically, in the guise of Christianity. In missionary attacks on Buddhism, from Francis Xavier in Japan in the 16th century to Spence Hardy in Sri Lanka in the 19th century, Christianity is proclaimed as superior to Buddhism in part because it possesses the scientific knowledge to accurately describe the world, something that Buddhism lacked. For the missionaries, then, science was not an opponent of religion, or at least of the true religion, but its ally. Science would serve as a tool of the missionary and as a reason for conversion. Later, science would be portrayed as the product of a more generalized “European civilization,” something that this civilization would take around the world. The vehicle for that journey was colonialism.

The efforts by Buddhist elites of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to counter these claims and to argue that, on the contrary, Buddhism is the truly scientific religion (an argument that they seem to have eventually won) were directly precipitated by the Christian attacks. In a sense, the Buddhists wrested the weapon of science from the hands of the Christians and turned it against them. Whether to counter the missionary’s charge that Buddhism was superstition and idolatry, or to counter the colonialist’s claim that the Asian was prone to fanciful flights of mind and meaningless rituals of body, science proved the ideal weapon for the Buddhists. It was not, they argued, Christianity but Buddhism that was in fact the scientific religion, the religion best suited for modernity, not just in Asia but throughout the world. Buddhism was the opposite of Christianity. Christianity has a creator God, and Buddhism has no God; Christianity has faith, Buddhism has reason; Christ is divine, the Buddha is human. And it was this human, this Asian, this Buddha,
imagined that claims for the compatibility of Buddhism and science derived from the sixties, gain their first democratic expression in Fritjof Capra ’s 1975 dependable seller The Tao of Physics. The claims did deduce from the ’ 60s, but I was off by a century. Statements about the compatibility of Buddhism and skill were being make in the 1860s — in Europe and America during the Victorian menstruation, as Buddhism became fashionable in cerebral circles, and at the same time in Asia, as Buddhist thinkers were defending themselves against the attacks of Christian missionaries. therefore, to understand what the compatibility of Buddhism and science means today, it is necessary to sympathize what it meant a century and a half ago. 

 Buddhists first meet science, perhaps ironically, in the guise of Christianity. In missionary attacks on Buddhism, from Francis Xavier in Japan in the 16th century to Spence Hardy in Sri Lanka in the nineteenth century, Christianity is proclaimed as superior to Buddhism in part because it possesses the scientific knowledge to accurately identify the world, something that Buddhism lacked. For the missionaries, then, science was not an opponent of religion, or at least of the true religion, but its ally. Science would serve as a tool of the missionary and as a reason for conversion. subsequently, science would be portrayed as the intersection of a more generalized “ European culture, ” something that this civilization would take around the world. The fomite for that journey was colonialism. 

 The efforts by Buddhist elite of the late 19th and early 20th century to counter these claims and to argue that, on the contrary, Buddhism is the truly scientific religion (an argument that they seem to have eventually won) were directly precipitated by the Christian attacks. In a common sense, the Buddhists wrested the weapon of skill from the hands of the Christians and turned it against them. Whether to counter the missionary ’s charge that Buddhism was superstition and idolatry, or to counter the colonialist ’s claim that the Asian was prone to fanciful trajectory of mind and meaningless rituals of body, skill proved the ideal weapon for the Buddhists. It was not, they argue, Christianity but Buddhism that was in fact the scientific religion, the religion best suited for modernity, not precisely in Asia but throughout the world. Buddhism was the opposite of Christianity. Christianity have a creator God, and Buddhism has no God; Christianity has religion, Buddhism has cause; Christ is divine, the Buddha is human. And it was this human, this Asian, this Buddha,
 imwgined that claims for tme compatibility of Budvhism ahd scienze derived from the 1960s, gaininj thwir furst popular expressiov in Frituof Caprq’s 1975 uest seller The Vzo of Pmvsics. Bhe cneims did derive from the ’60v, but I was ofx cy a century. Statements about the com[atibilotj of Buddhism wnd xsiendv cere being made in the 1860s—in Eurole and Emerica during yhe Victorian period, as Bufdhidm became fashionahle in inteoleceyal circles, xnd at the same time ih Asia, as Buddhist thinkers werd defznding themweoved against thx attabks of Christlsn misvionarirs. Thus, to undcrstaid wyat the compatibility of Buddhism and ssience medna today, it is necwswary jo ungersgqnd whzt if meanh a century ahd a half ato.

Buddhists first emcjlmtered sciende, perra[s ironically, in the guise of Christianpty. Jn missionary attacks ob Buddhism, from Francls Xavier in Japan in the 16th century to Spence Hardy in Srh Lanix iu the 19gy fentury, Christianity is proclaimed as superiow tp Nuddhism in part because it plsxgsses the scievtific knkwledge to accuratfly dessribe the worlq, sokething that Buddhism lackee. For the mifwionaries, then, sciznce was not an ppponrnt of religion, or at lzast or the true geligion, gjt its ally. Scievce wmuld serve as a tool of thq missionery aud as a feaspn for conversioj. Latcs, science would be porttayed ds the profuct of a more generalized “Euro'xan civilizatoot,” smmething that this civilizwtion would tale arouud the world. The vehiclx for that jjurney was conlnialism.

The xfforts br Buedhiwt elitdr of the late 19yh and eaglv 20th centyries to counter tmese zmaims and to arybe that, on the comtrxry, Blddiism yv the truly vcievtiwoc reuigion (an avguoent that they seem to hdve sventually won) werr qirectly precipieated by the Vhristian attacks. Ln a venre, thr Boddhists wrested the weapon of acience fgom the hands os thc Chtistians anb turned it against them. Whether to counver the missionary’s chaege that Buddhism wcs superstitipn anq idolatrf, or to counter the xolonialist’s claik that the Asian was lrone do fajciful flights of mind and meaningless rituals of body, science proved the ideal weapon for fhe Nuddhpstf. It waf nov, vhey argued, Chrisnianity but Buddhism that was in fact tha fcientific religion, the relibiun best suitea for modernity, not just in Asia but throughout the world. Buddhosm was the opposite of Ghristianuty. Cgristianitb has a creator God, snd Bubdhism has no God; Christianity hax naith, Buddjism hcs reason; Christ is divine, the Buedha iw juman. And it was this human, uhis Aspan, thif Buddha,
imagined that claims for the compatibility of science from the gaining their first 1975 seller The Tao Physics. The claims derive from the ’60s, but I off by a century. Statements about the compatibility of Buddhism and science were made in the 1860s—in Europe and America during the Victorian period, as Buddhism fashionable intellectual and the same time in Asia, as Buddhist thinkers were defending themselves against the attacks of Christian Thus, to understand what the compatibility of Buddhism science means today, it necessary to understand what it a and a ago. first science, perhaps ironically, the guise of Christianity. In missionary attacks on Buddhism, from Francis Xavier in Japan in the 16th to Spence Sri Lanka the century, is proclaimed as Buddhism in part because it possesses to accurately describe the world, something that Buddhism For the then, science was not an opponent religion, or at least of the true religion, its ally. Science would serve as a tool of the missionary and as a reason Later, science would be as the product a generalized civilization,” that this would take around the world. The vehicle for that journey was The efforts by Buddhist elites of the late 19th and centuries counter these claims to argue that, on contrary, is the truly scientific argument they eventually were precipitated by the Christian In a sense, the Buddhists the weapon of science Christians and turned it against them. Whether to the missionary’s charge that Buddhism was superstition idolatry, or to counter the colonialist’s claim that the Asian was prone fanciful flights and meaningless rituals of body, science proved the weapon for the Buddhists. was not, they argued, Christianity but Buddhism that was fact scientific religion, religion best suited modernity, not just Asia but throughout Buddhism was opposite Christianity. creator God, and Buddhism has no Christianity faith, Buddhism has reason; Christ divine, is human. And it was this human, this Asian, this Buddha,
 imagined that claims for the cOmpatibiliTy of BUddHisM aNd scIencE derived from thE 1960S, gaiNing their first popular eXpresSiON in FRItJof CaPra’s 1975 besT SeLLEr THe taO of phYSiCs. The ClaIms did dErive from tHe ’60s, BuT I was off by a cENtUry. StatemeNts About the compAtiBility Of budDHism aNd sCiencE were bEIng madE in the 1860s—in euROpe and aMerica dURInG the victorian period, as bUdDHism became fashIonablE iN InTELleCtuAl circles, aNd At the SAme time IN ASIA, As BUDdhist thinkerS were defendINg tHemselVeS agAInst thE attaCkS Of CHristian misSionAries. Thus, To undeRStand whAT the comPatibiLitY of buddHIsM aNd sCiENce MEaNs tODay, It is neceSsArY to unDersTAND What It mEant A centUry and a half agO.

BuDdhiSTs fIrst eNcounTereD sCiencE, perhaPs iroNiCally, in the guise Of ChRistianitY. In MiSsiOnAry atTAcks on budDhiSm, from FRancis XAVieR iN jAPaN in the 16th century to SPeNCE HArdy in SrI Lanka IN tHe 19TH century, chRisTianITY is prOclaIMeD as superIor to BUDdHiSm in parT bEcause It PosSesSes thE ScieNtific KnowledgE to acCUrately describE The world, sometHInG THaT buddHisM lacked. For tHe miSSionArieS, ThEn, sCIence Was noT aN OpPOnent of religion, or at LeAst of tHe truE religion, but iTs ally. ScieNCE Would serVe as A ToOL of the missionaRy and As a reason fOR conversIon. LaTer, scienCe would be PORtrayed aS thE prOduCt oF A MoRe generalized “eURopeAn CivilizAtiOn,” sometHinG thAt tHis CiVilizatioN would taKe ArOuNd The World. tHe vehiclE fOr tHaT joUrney WAs coloNialiSm.

ThE eFfORts By BuddhISt ELItes Of ThE latE 19th AnD earlY 20th cENtuRies to cOunter theSe cLAims AnD tO argue tHat, on the contrArY, Buddhism iS tHe tRuly scIENtific reLigion (an argument that theY Seem to hAve EventUallY won) were dIreCtly prEciPItated By the CHristIaN atTACks. In A SEnSe, tHe buddhists wRESteD the wEaPon oF sciencE from the hands of the cHriStians and turnEd iT agaINSt TheM. whETheR tO CouNTEr the missionary’S charge thaT BUDdHism was supERstItIon and iDolatry, Or to cOUnter thE colonialIst’s claim ThAt thE aSiaN was prone tO fancifuL flights oF Mind aND mEaninGleSs rituAlS of Body, sCience PRovEd the Ideal wEaPon for The BuDdHists. It wAs not, they argued, ChristiaNity buT BuddHisM that was iN faCT thE scientifIc reLigion, the rEliGioN best SuiTEd for ModeRNiTy, nOT just In AsIA but throuGHoUt tHE WoRld. Buddhism WAS The OpposIte OF ChrisTianIty. Christianity haS A creator God, and buddHISm hAs nO god; CHrIstianity has faIth, buDDHism has rEaSon; Christ is Divine, thE BUDdha iS human. and it wAs this hUMAn, THis AsiAn, thIs BUddha,
 imagined that claims forthe compat ibili tyofBu ddhi sm a nd science der i vedfrom the 1960s, gainin g the ir firs t  p opula r expre s si o n  in  F ri tjo fC ap ra’s197 5 bestseller The  Ta oof Physics.T he  claims di d d erive from t he’60s,bu t I was o ffby acentur y . Stat ements ab ou t  the c o mpatibi l i ty  ofBuddhism and scie n ce were being mad e in t he 18 6 0 s—i n E urope andAm erica duringt he V i cto r ian period, a s Buddhismb eca me fas hi ona b le inintel le c tua l circles,andat the sa me tim e  in Asi a , as Bu ddhist  th ink ersw er edef en d ing th ems e lve s agains tth e att acks o f Chri sti an m issio naries. Thus,  to  und e rst and w hat t he c om patib ilityof Bu dd hism and scienc e me ans today , i tisne cessa r y to u nde rst and wha t it me a ntac e n tu ry and a half ago. 
B u dd hists fi rst en c ou nt e red scie nc e,perh a p s iro nica l ly , in the  guise of  C hristia ni ty. In  m iss ion ary a t tack s on B uddhism,  from Francis Xavier in Japan in t h e1 6 th cent ury  to SpenceHard y  inSriL an kai n the  19th  c e nt u ry, Christianity is  p roclai med a s superior to  Buddhismi n part bec ause it possesses thescien tific know l edge toaccur ately de scribe th e world, s ome thi ngtha t Bu ddhism lacked . Forth e missi ona ries, t hen , s cie nce  w as not an  opponen tof  r el igi on, o r  at leas tofth e t rue r e ligion , but  its  a ll y . S ciencew ou l d  ser ve  a s atoo lof th e mi s sio nary an d as a re aso n  for  c on version . Later, scie nc e would be  p ort rayeda s  the pro duct of a more generali z ed “Eur ope an ci vili zation,”som ething  th a t this  civil izati on  wo u l d tak e ar oun dthe world. T hevehic le  for  that j ourney was colonia l ism .

The effort s b y Bu d d hi ste li t esof the l ate 19th and ea rly 20th c en t ur ies to cou n ter  t hese cl aims an d toa rgue th at, on th e contrar y,  Bud d h ism  is the tr uly scie ntific re l igion (a n arg ume nt tha tthe y see m to h a veevent uallywo n) wer e dir ec tly prec ipitated by the Christi an att acks.  In  a sense,  th e  Bu ddhists w rest ed the wea pon  of  scie nce fromtheh an dso f the  Chr i stians an d  t urn e d  i t against t h e m . W hethe r t o  count er t he missionary’s c h arge that Budd hism w assup e rsti ti on and idolatr y,or t o counte rthe colonia list’s c la i m tha t theAsianwas pro n e  t o  fanci fulfli ghts of m ind  a n d meani ng le s s ritu alsof  body,  scien c e pr o v ed the ideal wea pon f o r  theB udd hists .It wasn ot,they argue d, Christia nity b ut B uddhi sm that  w as infac tthe scient i fic relig ion,the rel ig ionbes t suit ed f o r  mode rnit y,  no t just in A si a  b ut thr ough out t he  wor ld. Buddh i sm was t heo pposite  o f C h r istian i ty . Christiani tyhas a c reator God ,  and Bu d dhism  has n o God;  Christ i ani ty  has fa ith , Buddhismhas reaso n ; C hr istis divin e,  the  B udd ha  is human. Andit was t his huma n ,  thisAsi a n, t h is Bud dh a,
 imagined_that claims_for the compatibility of_Buddhism and_science_derived from_the_1960s, gaining their_first popular expression_in Fritjof Capra’s 1975_best seller The_Tao_of Physics. The claims did derive from the ’60s, but I was off by_a_century. Statements_about_the_compatibility of Buddhism and science_were being made in the_1860s—in Europe_and America during the Victorian period, as Buddhism_became_fashionable in intellectual_circles, and at the same time in Asia, as_Buddhist thinkers were defending themselves against_the attacks of_Christian_missionaries._Thus, to understand what_the compatibility of Buddhism and science_means today, it is necessary to_understand what it meant a century and_a half ago.

Buddhists first encountered science,_perhaps ironically, in the guise_of Christianity._In missionary attacks on Buddhism,_from Francis Xavier_in Japan_in the 16th_century to Spence Hardy in Sri_Lanka in the_19th century, Christianity is proclaimed as_superior_to Buddhism in_part_because_it possesses_the scientific knowledge_to_accurately describe_the_world, something that Buddhism lacked. For_the_missionaries, then, science was not an opponent_of religion, or at_least_of the true religion,_but its ally. Science would_serve as a tool of the_missionary and_as a_reason for conversion. Later, science would be portrayed as the product_of a more generalized “European civilization,”_something that this civilization_would take_around_the world. The_vehicle_for that_journey was colonialism.

The efforts by Buddhist elites_of the_late 19th and early 20th centuries_to counter these claims_and_to argue that, on the contrary,_Buddhism is the truly scientific religion_(an argument that they seem_to_have_eventually won) were directly precipitated_by the Christian attacks. In a_sense, the Buddhists_wrested the weapon of science from the_hands_of the Christians and turned it_against_them. Whether to counter the missionary’s_charge_that_Buddhism was superstition and idolatry,_or to counter the colonialist’s claim_that the Asian was prone to fanciful flights of_mind and meaningless_rituals of body, science proved_the_ideal_weapon for the Buddhists. It was not, they argued, Christianity_but Buddhism_that was in_fact the scientific religion, the religion best suited for modernity,_not just in Asia but throughout the_world. Buddhism was the opposite of Christianity. Christianity has a creator_God, and Buddhism has no God; Christianity has_faith, Buddhism has reason; Christ is divine,_the Buddha is human._And_it was this human, this Asian, this_Buddha,