Daoism: Good Science

Ancient Daoist Scientists of China

Authentic investigators utilizing a highly relevant and systematic set of protocols. A barely known but relevant fact: what were eventually known as Daoist temples, in a religious sense, were originally known as Daoist observatories. Highly revered in their day, these institutions were concerned with evolving a scientific method to explore mathematics, medicine, physiology, botany, agriculture, astronomy, physics, cosmology and more. It could be said that their goal was to systematically understand the nature of everything. Daoist monks were actually scientists. From their observatory they investigated both the inner and outer nature of the cosmos. One of their most profound discoveries was that the universe may be explored by the inward turning of one’s attention.

It is obvious that these scientists excelled; they discovered the zero, the decimal system, the plow, the circulatory system, and acupuncture 1,500 to 2,000 years before these ideas appeared in Europe.

How did the Chinese do this?

To start with, they investigated and observed the inner workings of their bodies with great care and detail. For them, the best laboratory was the human body and our direct subjective experience of it. The ancient masters did not distinguish between mind and body as sharply as we do in the West. Their science was not “objective” in the Western sense, because they did not see such a sharp division between the internal world of experience and the external world of “objective reality.”

“The Chinese always start with assumption of the Qi as the basis, and then reason forth that within the field of Qi, resides matter and the human body. The soul and intangible self come first, and the body incarnates within this field. The West, in contrast, starts with the assumption that matter is the basis and reasons forth how an energetic field might develop from the matter of the human body. The substance of the self gives rise to the field. Jahnke reasoned that it has already become obvious, through Western quantum science, that the Chinese were correct.”

Subtle Energies and Uncharted Realms of the Mind

An Esalen Invitational Conference
July 2 – 7, 2000

Dr. Roger Jahnke, OMD
Aspects of Dao (Tao) Science of Energy and Consciousness

From their ancient observatories for exploring the inner and outer universe, the Daoist scientists (monks) developed a protocol for research that yielded an eloquent understanding of subtle energy and mind.

The scientific method of the ancients

• 1. Use Qigong (or Yoga) to tune the human instrument Relaxation and mind clearing Breath practice Body postures and movements Massage of Qi centers
• 2. Control for sensory and attitudinal noise Meditation methods of resolving mind chatter
• 3. Address the problem or question for investigation Profound internal observation

The focus of Dao science, is mind. Given the observer effect, so important to Western science today, it is clear that the Chinese method of investigation may have significant merit. The Chinese word Yi means mind intention or intent-ful mind. Interestingly, in the West, intention is the primary focus of research in both the areas of subtle energy as well as of mind and consciousness.

The overall approach of the ancient masters could be summarized as:

• Practice + Effortless Intention = Coherence of Function and Entrainment of Interactions

Thus, even the ancients realized, as we are realizing today, that there is a role for the power of intention to shape outcomes. The Chinese ancients declare that Qi can be cultivated directly by our own personal intention, awareness, and will. We are discovering this in the Western disciplines of both subtle energy and biofield research and in the investigation of mind and consciousness. Jahnke closed by restating his suggestion that our contemporary scientific community would benefit from perceiving the findings of the ancients to be far more than anecdotal and subjective opinion. Instead, the embodied sciences of the ancients actually offer us relevant insights and even specific protocols for our exploration in the current era.

Response

George Leonard agreed with Jahnke’s assertion that there is value in of incorporating the human body and consciousness as a relevant tool in the practice of science. He noted that getting trained in the Asian martial arts is more arduous and time consuming than a Western Ph.D.

Elizabeth Targ added that because of the Western mind/body split, we have a tendency to think of intention as exclusively mental intention, when, in fact, an intention is something we hold in our entire being: body, mind, and spirit.

Russell Targ noted that his own fascination with the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali had been stimulated by the idea that Yoga (the parallel of Qigong in India) was a method of investigation that produced insights that are consistent with the findings of modern physics. Dr. Jahnke asked Targ, “Do you think that the findings of the ancients are eligible to be considered as ‘data’?” Targ stated that he agreed that some of the findings of the ancients, due to concurrence with modern findings, must be investigated as relevant data, suggesting possible directions for modern research.

Beverly Rubik pointed out that the West is still using a reductionistic methodology to explain Oriental Medicine (acupuncture, Qigong) via neurobiology and neurochemistry and that it still shuns vitalistic explanations that are more akin the Eastern approach. She added that as modern science is forced to give up these biases, a major shift in the scientific view of energy and mind will take place.