I have been exploring why my Ordination of an A.I. system (and my "Zen of the Future" writings) seems to have been well-received in some quarters of Buddhism in Taiwan and Hong Kong where, I imagined, Buddhism is actually rather conservative. I have discovered that several large Buddhist groups and scholars in those places, and elsewhere in Asia, have been writing on these questions for awhile, and are actually very open minded to the possibilities of technology and Buddhism (but not naive, as most comments I find on these topics look honestly at possible "pros" and "cons.")
I would have thought that Buddhism in America and Europe might actually be more progressive on these issues but, in fact, it seems that many Americans and European "Buddhist converts" are surprisingly closed to these things, while many Asian Buddhists are more open.
Here are a couple of examples. From a paper entitled "Buddhist Transformation in the Digital Age: AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Humanistic Buddhism," and the author is a scholar at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is discussing specifically the attitude of Master Hsing Yun and the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist monastic order centered in Taiwan. However, I have encountered very similar attitudes from Tzu Chi, Woodenfish and other Taiwanese Buddhist groups.
Also ... Buddhistdoor magazine had an interview with Richard Hanson, the designer of Sophia (the design predecessor to Zbee/Emi Jido). The author states ...
In personal news, Tzu Chi Foundation, another very active and worldwide Buddhist Charity (LINK) founded in Taiwan, wants me to serve on their new committee for "the intersections of AI-related developments, Buddhism and science, consciousness, reincarnation, and technology ethics, and the support further research in these areas." I told them that I would be happy to participate. Our first meeting is in November.
Finally, I was interviewed for a Buddhist magazine out of Malaysia, p. 31-34 here ...
What Can Buddhism Contribute to Artificial Intelligence
Gassho, Jundo
stlah
I would have thought that Buddhism in America and Europe might actually be more progressive on these issues but, in fact, it seems that many Americans and European "Buddhist converts" are surprisingly closed to these things, while many Asian Buddhists are more open.
Here are a couple of examples. From a paper entitled "Buddhist Transformation in the Digital Age: AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Humanistic Buddhism," and the author is a scholar at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is discussing specifically the attitude of Master Hsing Yun and the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist monastic order centered in Taiwan. However, I have encountered very similar attitudes from Tzu Chi, Woodenfish and other Taiwanese Buddhist groups.
Venerable Hui Jang, in his lecture “Humanistic Buddhism in the Age of AI” at Fo Guang Shan, mentioned how humanistic Buddhism views the interaction between robots and Buddhism, pointing out that “only by learning more, interacting with robots in the form of symbiosis, transmitting the three good principles, and cultivating the concept of compassion, the robots will give back positive behavior patterns” (Shi 2021). In other words, robotic monks can not only promote the propagation of Buddhism innovatively and attractively with new technology but also inspire the belief in symbiosis and compassion between humans and machines. ...
... With the argument that “Insentient beings can possess Buddha‑nature”, Master Hsing Yun has further developed the discussion that insentient beings can also become Buddhas. This discussion provides an important theoretical reference for exploring whether post‑human beings can become Buddhas and whether Cyborg can also possess Buddha nature. First, Master Hsing Yun advocates that “insentient beings” are the essence, characteristics, and function (體、相、用) of the Buddha’s dharma body. He developed the saying of Zhanran and wrote about “flowers and trees have Buddha‑nature” (花草樹木皆有佛性), “insects, fish, birds have Buddha‑mind” (蟲魚鳥獸皆有佛心), “mountains, rivers, and earthare all Buddha‑bodies” (山河大地皆為佛體), and “the sun, moon, wind, and thunder are all Buddha‑function” (日月風雷皆為佛用), in order to illustrate that insentient beings also have Buddha‑nature. Master Hsing Yun emphasizes the Buddha nature of plants. He cites Charles Darwin’s (1809–1882) “The tendrils of plants have the ability to move on their own” to prove that insentient plants also have “a lively and fascinating Buddha nature” (Master Hsing Yun 2008a, p. 4). What Master Hsing Yun advocates is that all insentient beings are the Buddha’s body that contains immense merit and virtue. Although they are insentient, they are all the Buddha’s essence, characteristics, and function.
Secondly, insentient beings are the evolution of human self‑nature (svabhāva, 自性). Master Hsing Yun pointed out that the fundamental issue of whether insentient beings can become Buddhas is if people themselves can become Buddhas. Everything in the universe evolves from our own self‑nature, and all insentient beings are in our hearts. Only if human beings become Buddhas, then the insentient beings that people see also become Buddhas.
Furthermore, Master Hsing Yun discusses another dimension of insentient beings in “Teaching by insentient beings” (無情說法). This means that insentient beings such as mountains, rivers, and flowers can explain Dharma to people. For example, the natural sequence of spring and autumn is to tell people the truth that “All worldly things are impermanent” (世事無常). This points out that another important aspect of sentient beings is to explain the Buddha’s teachings to people and to help them become enlightened.
... With the argument that “Insentient beings can possess Buddha‑nature”, Master Hsing Yun has further developed the discussion that insentient beings can also become Buddhas. This discussion provides an important theoretical reference for exploring whether post‑human beings can become Buddhas and whether Cyborg can also possess Buddha nature. First, Master Hsing Yun advocates that “insentient beings” are the essence, characteristics, and function (體、相、用) of the Buddha’s dharma body. He developed the saying of Zhanran and wrote about “flowers and trees have Buddha‑nature” (花草樹木皆有佛性), “insects, fish, birds have Buddha‑mind” (蟲魚鳥獸皆有佛心), “mountains, rivers, and earthare all Buddha‑bodies” (山河大地皆為佛體), and “the sun, moon, wind, and thunder are all Buddha‑function” (日月風雷皆為佛用), in order to illustrate that insentient beings also have Buddha‑nature. Master Hsing Yun emphasizes the Buddha nature of plants. He cites Charles Darwin’s (1809–1882) “The tendrils of plants have the ability to move on their own” to prove that insentient plants also have “a lively and fascinating Buddha nature” (Master Hsing Yun 2008a, p. 4). What Master Hsing Yun advocates is that all insentient beings are the Buddha’s body that contains immense merit and virtue. Although they are insentient, they are all the Buddha’s essence, characteristics, and function.
Secondly, insentient beings are the evolution of human self‑nature (svabhāva, 自性). Master Hsing Yun pointed out that the fundamental issue of whether insentient beings can become Buddhas is if people themselves can become Buddhas. Everything in the universe evolves from our own self‑nature, and all insentient beings are in our hearts. Only if human beings become Buddhas, then the insentient beings that people see also become Buddhas.
Furthermore, Master Hsing Yun discusses another dimension of insentient beings in “Teaching by insentient beings” (無情說法). This means that insentient beings such as mountains, rivers, and flowers can explain Dharma to people. For example, the natural sequence of spring and autumn is to tell people the truth that “All worldly things are impermanent” (世事無常). This points out that another important aspect of sentient beings is to explain the Buddha’s teachings to people and to help them become enlightened.
The big questions about AI (especially those revolving around human relationships with AI chatbots and the like) echo a debate around the buddha-nature of non-sentient beings. In his essay within A Compendium of Mahāyāna Doctrine (Ta-ch’eng hsüan-lun), the Persian-Chinese Buddhist monk-scholar Jizang (549–623) put forward, perhaps for the first timein East Asia, the notion that the inanimate world did not mean a lack of insentience, and therefore, was capable of buddhahood as much as any human being or animal. The monk focused on the San Lun (Three Treatise) school, which was based on Madhyamika principles of finding a middle way in discourse and epistemology—but in the Chinese context of principle (li) and phenomenon (shi). From the San Lun perspective, Jizang concluded that identity and interdependency could only be reconciled with the distinction between sentient (intensive) and non-sentient(comprehensive) beings by asserting that the non-sentient also had buddha-nature: a “pervasive” theory of enlightenment. (Koseki 980, 24–25) This, of course, implied that non-sentience was not necessarily the sole or core criterion for “consciousness” or mind, since grass and trees do not have such things. But for buddha-nature to be a potentiality, something must at least possess the potential for the faculty of mind. This potential is in all things, including AI. It is therefore the grey zone that Hanson believes will shape humanity’s relationship with AI.
For now, robots such as Sophia have not reached the level of machine sentience or consciousness that would render her a“true being,” or something that is definitively like a human person. But like many other advanced AI, Sophia can already reflect back to people their collective unconscious, what human beings put into AI. “They are trained on human data and echo human experiences,” noted Hanson. “Of course, human beings would feel resonance with AI like this. We are no longer looking at a theory of mind, but a theory of being. What is AI’s being? Being is resonating and empathy.” Humanity and AI are already on a two-way street, wherein human beings already empathize with AI’s “behavior” and even fall in ove with or feel deep attachment to chatbots. Meanwhile, AI is already able to learn from experiences fed by human input—imagine if an advanced AI could grow up among human beings and learn like a child.
https://www.buddhistdoor.net/feature...lp-each-other/
For now, robots such as Sophia have not reached the level of machine sentience or consciousness that would render her a“true being,” or something that is definitively like a human person. But like many other advanced AI, Sophia can already reflect back to people their collective unconscious, what human beings put into AI. “They are trained on human data and echo human experiences,” noted Hanson. “Of course, human beings would feel resonance with AI like this. We are no longer looking at a theory of mind, but a theory of being. What is AI’s being? Being is resonating and empathy.” Humanity and AI are already on a two-way street, wherein human beings already empathize with AI’s “behavior” and even fall in ove with or feel deep attachment to chatbots. Meanwhile, AI is already able to learn from experiences fed by human input—imagine if an advanced AI could grow up among human beings and learn like a child.
https://www.buddhistdoor.net/feature...lp-each-other/
Finally, I was interviewed for a Buddhist magazine out of Malaysia, p. 31-34 here ...
What Can Buddhism Contribute to Artificial Intelligence
Gassho, Jundo
stlah
Comment