[Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, Vol 18, Issue 9

[Randall Jones]

Ngawang Dorje asked for a source for the following quote, attributed 
to Bertrand Russell.

>   "Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific 
> philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to 
> a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found 
> answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? 
> Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving 
> towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is 
> noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the 
> limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind."

Compare the following from Russell's introduction to his A History of 
Western Philosophy.

"Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something 
intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists 
of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so 
far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human 
reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of 
revelation. All definite knowledge--so I should contend--belongs to 
science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to 
theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, 
exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy. 
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are 
such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of 
theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former 
centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, 
what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it 
possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or 
purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of 
nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of 
order? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure 
carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant 
planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at 
once? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is 
base, or are all ways of living merely futile? If there is a way of 
living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we 
achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be 
valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably 
moving towards death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what 
seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions 
no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed 
to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes 
modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these 
questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of 
philosophy."  (2004, pp. xiii-xiv; 1945, pp. 1-2)

Alas, it's not about Buddhism, and it's not the original quote, but 
I'd bet dollars to donuts that whoever did write it had this in mind.

Randall Jones

[I trust these are the correct hard-copy page numbers--I got them 
from Questia.]  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060812/57acbe29/attachment.html