n.Regarding the mind and body, the dominant scientific view is that the two are fundamentally different and completely distinct from one another. This division of mind and body dates back to the time of Rene Descartes and the birth of modern science. Furthermore, the division of mind and body in the West has resulted in a multitude of problems with trying to describe the nature of experience and ultimate order. If mind and body are indeed distinct from one another, how is it that one can know, influence, or relate to the other? What, if anything, acts as the bridge between them? In attempting to solve the problems that arise with the mind/body split some within the scientific community have gone so far as to argue that mind can be explained completely in terms of body. Needless to say, the scientific eye is primarily focused on "body." The Buddhist tradition has a view of body and mind in sharp contrast with that of modern science. In Buddhism (as well as most other Indian philosophies) there is no clear division between mind and body. What's more, in this tradition body is seen as an extension of the soul or mind. That is to say, without mind, body doesn't exist. With these two presuppositions firmly placed within each tradition, we get a better understanding of how and why their aims differ. As stated early in this paper, a causal understanding of relationships is fundamental to both the Buddhist and the modern science paradigms. However, based on the presuppositions of each, we will see that causation, or the structure of causal relations, is thought to function on rather different levels. Let's examine both views in order to make clear the different understandings of causation. For it is in understanding these differences that science will have the most to gain from Buddhism.In science causation has to do with relations of objects. In order to better study these relations science utilizes both a systematic method desi...
