1. Benefit is a direction and a responsibility
Good intentions should generate questions rather than excuse every action. Who benefits, how could that benefit be recognised, who bears the costs and what happens when participants disagree? An initiative cannot simply decide on others’ behalf that its aims justify its methods.
Useful work may be modest: helping someone find a source, supporting a careful translation or building a tool that saves community time. A sustainable improvement recognised by participants matters more than an untestable promise of transformation. Wider effects also count, including resource use, contributors’ interests and research burdens. A beneficial purpose does not remove the duty to correct harm or abandon an attractive idea when its costs are disproportionate.
2. Collaboration can preserve disagreement
An international Buddhism-and-science initiative should not appoint one school to represent all others. Participants need space for their own questions and traditions without subscribing to a common metaphysics. Shared tasks can coexist with disagreement about their ultimate significance.
Programmes should identify whether speakers act personally or through a confirmed organisational mandate. One practitioner’s involvement does not imply a whole school’s endorsement; a bibliography does not create partnerships. Mind & Life provides an established history of dialogue from which a new initiative can learn. [1] Referencing that history does not appropriate its achievements. Our task is to define a manageable contribution and let invited communities influence its direction.
- 01Shared question→
- 02Agreed method→
- 03Open work→
- 04Public benefit
An editorial diagram by Matreya: a methodological illustration, not an experimental result.
3. Different questions require different methods
Philosophical argument, first-person description, textual analysis and experimental measurement can inform each other without becoming interchangeable. We propose clearly labelling genres. A programme essay expresses values; a review discusses existing work; an empirical report presents methods and results. Academic design should make these distinctions visible.
Projects should state questions and possible outcomes in advance, explain methodological changes and distinguish observations from interpretation. UNESCO’s open-science recommendation offers a broad reference for access, infrastructure and participation. [2] It does not accredit our initiative. Public materials should have intelligible provenance, code should be usable and discussion should accommodate reasoned criticism. Openness must mean more than making a page available.
4. Verification starts before the result
Documentation records which data version was used, how cases were selected and which analytical steps were taken. This is particularly important in a volunteer project where people’s availability changes.
TOP provides tools for making research claims more verifiable through practices concerning protocols, data and code. [3] Suitable elements should match each task: a literature review needs a search and selection method; an AI comparison needs retained questions and evaluation rules; interviews need consent and sensitive-data procedures. Publishing methods does not promise perfect objectivity. It lets others inspect decisions and repeat analysis under alternative assumptions. Unstable findings and disputed cases should be reported rather than hidden behind a single convenient number.
5. Volunteers need bounded commitments
An open project should not turn enthusiasm into unlimited obligation. Participants need a defined task, an estimated workload, required skills and a contact person. Checking a few references or improving one translation note can be a more useful beginning than accepting an indefinite title.
Contribution recognition should be discussed early. CRediT describes varied research roles and helps make otherwise overlooked work visible, while not itself determining authorship. [4] Translation, validation, programming and administration should not disappear behind a prominent name. Volunteers must be able to pause, hand work over and retain a clear record of their contribution. Access should follow tasks; disagreement should concern work rather than a participant’s personal worth or spiritual standing.
6. Openness includes responsible stewardship
Buddhist knowledge exists within communities, languages and conditions of transmission. Preservation, public access and AI use are different choices. A collection may need preservation without unrestricted publication.
The CARE Principles, developed for Indigenous data governance, foreground collective benefit, community authority and responsibility. [5] They do not imply that every Buddhist community belongs to one legal or cultural category. They prompt questions about power and benefit, with concrete arrangements developed alongside relevant custodians. Procedures should allow corrections, reconsidered access and tracking of copies. A translator should not need a public controversy to fix attribution. An initial permission decision does not permanently eliminate every future question.
7. Tools assist; people remain accountable
AI may help with bibliographies, terminology, error detection and drafts. It cannot take responsibility for published claims. We propose disclosure of substantial AI assistance and human checking of references and interpretations. A generated article does not become peer reviewed merely because it appears on an institute website.
UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendation offers a reference for accountability and consequences. [6] For our project, this means examining actual uses: misleading authority, private information, correction routes and substitution for living teachers. Matreya’s name expresses goodwill and a future horizon. It does not declare a model to be Maitreya. Tools should support readers’ independence and access to competent people rather than cultivate dependence on an automated voice.
8. An institute begins with dependable work
Matreya currently coordinates from Varna, begins online and is still forming its organisation. A durable institute grows through completed tasks, reliable relationships and the ability to respond to criticism. A physical centre may be a future possibility; it is not a prerequisite for an honest research beginning.
We propose an initial focus on a sourced editorial archive, a small AI-citation evaluation and a clear volunteer process. These are directions, not completed research achievements. Expansion should follow demonstrated quality and available expertise. This charter remains an invitation to discuss what is useful, incomplete and worth testing together. International collaboration needs neither philosophical unanimity nor exaggerated promises. It needs respectful disagreement, clear methods and commitments proportionate to capacity.
Key points
- This proposed charter describes future practice rather than an established international consortium.
- Openness requires verifiable methods, visible contributions and respect for knowledge custodians.
- AI may support research; it does not inherit human accountability or spiritual authority.
Sources & further reading
Links point to original publications, texts or official institutional pages. Access and reuse conditions may differ.
- About Mind & LifeMind & Life Institute
Historical reference for dialogue, not a claim of partnership or endorsement.
- Recommendation on Open ScienceUNESCO, 2021
A reference for access and participation, not accreditation.
- TOP GuidelinesCenter for Open Science
Tools for increasing the verifiability of research claims.
- Contributor RolesNISO / CRediT
A contribution taxonomy, not an independent definition of authorship.
- CARE Principles for Indigenous Data GovernanceGlobal Indigenous Data Alliance
Developed for Indigenous data governance; their context is not equated with all Buddhist communities.
- Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial IntelligenceUNESCO, 2021
A normative reference for responsible AI design and use.
An editorial article prepared by Matreya with AI assistance. It has not undergone external scientific peer review. Sources are provided for independent checking.
Editorial policy · Report an error or suggest an addition
