Toward Sustainable Science - P.A. Payutto

[camerata]

2 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

No one denies the benefit of scientific advances.

Unfortunately, due to the influences of Greed, & Aversion, they are largely enjoyed by only a few.

 

 

That's exactly what Ven Payutto says: The benefits of science & technology are enjoyed by an elite with the money to afford them. But the benefits of religion are available to all.

[rockyysdt]

1 hour ago, camerata said:

 

That's exactly what Ven Payutto says: The benefits of science & technology are enjoyed by an elite with the money to afford them. But the benefits of religion are available to all.

 

This goes to the heart of the issue (Religion).

 

Does Religion actually have benefits, or is it merely a ruse, a surrogate/consolation to those who have been economically disenfranchised?

 

The poor and uneducated Thais are a perfect example.

 

The whole country is littered with Wats, places where the poor and the squalid can offer their last 1,000 note in order to buy good luck in their next life.

 

Stripped of any chance of accessing worthwhile education, medical procedures, and a comfortable life, they are offered an ethereal "better next life", a psychological escape from their plight.

 

A benefit or a hoax for the conditioned?

 

Perhaps the only benefits are those gained from regular dedicated practice.

Perhaps the reality is, the offering of a plate of food, or some cash, for a better next life, is the easiest path. 

Expending effort in the "here and now" involves exertion.

 

And the nub of it, as travelers are awash in impermanence & conditioning (Ego is all they have awareness of), the conditioned will eventually perish, never to return.

For they are the conditioned and impermanent, as Symbionts, merely passengers to their hosts (that which is permanent & unconditioned).

 

 

After all, that which was never born, will never die.

There is nothing to Awaken.

 

So as for our quest, is it for the conditioned to become aware of the unconditioned?

Perhaps a subject for Ego.

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, camerata said:

 

That's exactly what Ven Payutto says: The benefits of science & technology are enjoyed by an elite with the money to afford them. But the benefits of religion are available to all.

 

I don't see any evidence for that view. I'm in the process of reading Payutto's talk, and will comment further, later.

 

Whilst it's true that the elite and wealthy have greater access to the benefits of science, just has they have greater access to most things, including expensive meals in luxurious restaurants, lavish holidays, attractive ladies, and private gardens which might be totally natural and have nothing to do with science, the poorest of the poor in a modern democratice society, such as Australia, the U.K, Norway, Sweden, and so on, frequently get the benefits of modern science in the form of life-saving antibiotics, free food and shelter if they are homeless, and/or basic social security or unemployment payments which probably allow them to use the products of modern science and technology, such as a personal iPhone and catch a modern bus if they can't afford a car.

 

Those who are not desperately poor but just have a below-average income, enjoy enormous benefits of science which were not available to the wealthiest of the elite just a few centuries ago.

Those in certain countries who currently live in shocking conditions are probably the victims of religious dogma, as in Syria and Yemen.

 

Exactly what are these benefits of religion that are available to all?

[rockyysdt]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I don't see any evidence for that view. I'm in the process of reading Payutto's talk, and will comment further, later.

 

Whilst it's true that the elite and wealthy have greater access to the benefits of science, just has they have greater access to most things, including expensive meals in luxurious restaurants, lavish holidays, attractive ladies, and private gardens which might be totally natural and have nothing to do with science, the poorest of the poor in a modern democratice society, such as Australia, the U.K, Norway, Sweden, and so on, frequently get the benefits of modern science in the form of life-saving antibiotics, free food and shelter if they are homeless, and/or basic social security or unemployment payments which probably allow them to use the products of modern science and technology, such as a personal iPhone and catch a modern bus if they can't afford a car.

 

Those who are not desperately poor but just have a below-average income, enjoy enormous benefits of science which were not available to the wealthiest of the elite just a few centuries ago.

Those in certain countries who currently live in shocking conditions are probably the victims of religious dogma, as in Syria and Yemen.

 

Exactly what are these benefits of religion that are available to all?

 

Hi Vincent.

 

What you see, or don't see can be colored by your location.

 

If you go to any third world country and live with the poor (not a week, but perhaps 3 months or more) then you will see.

 

An example of which I had first hand experience.

 

A lovely woman of age 57, the matriarch of her family was experiencing digestion problems and much pain.

The doctor who she had been attending had placed her on drugs designed for those with schizophrenia.

Eventually, another doctor, using an ancient ultra sound machine, diagnose liver disease.

The public hospital consulted her and prescribed digestives, for which she had to buy herself, and booked her in to return in a month.

This was repeated a number of times, until I heard she had died a horrible death.

 

Another man, braking his leg on a scooter fall had to sell his rice fields to pay for his surgery.

His wife left him and the family fractured.

After the rehabilitation, the leg was not properly set and he limps everywhere.

Dejected with no dignity he has turned to alcohol and is regularly legless.

 

A British Tourist presented in a Phuket hospital with brain trauma after a scooter accident.

They couldn't find any travel insurance.

With no one putting their hands up regarding the bill, he received rudimentary help and died.

 

A lady got her legs caught between a moving train and the platform.

She was rushed to hospital.

The surgeon said both legs had to come off and asked her to sign the consent.

She refused, and demanded to be taken to a private hospital.

One leg was saved, but at great financial cost to her family.

 

In Thailand there are two layers of competence in the Hospital system

Firstly you have extremely competent Medical professionals equal to those around the world.

You'll find these in the private sector.

Then you have public Doctors, some of whom you are better of not being around.

 

 

Basically, even in places like the U.S. if you can't afford it, you will simply receive first aid.

 

Forget places like the U.K. and Australia where our social democracies feature a safety net.

 

In the rest of the world science is only for those with the cash.

 

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

Rocky,

You haven't answered my question, which was, "Exactly what are these benefits of religion that are available to all? "

 

One can always quote sad stories of misadventures and incompetent medical treatment, even with regard to treatment of the wealthy in rich countries. People make mistakes in any profession, or are simply incompetent in their job.

However, if one goes back to the times before the advent of science and modern medicine, virtually all medical treatment, for both the rich and the poor, was incompetent and largely ineffective (by today's standards, of course).

 

From the Christian perspective, an illness was an indication of the presence of an evil spirit inhabiting the body, and the cure tended to be exorcism, or placing leeches on the skin to suck blood, or some similar, irrelevant solution.

 

Nevertheless, through a long process of trial and error over millenia, and observation of the results, (a similar process to the scientific method), certain herbal remedies were found to be effective for certain ailments, and these remedies are still promoted today by those who see the benefits of natural remedies, as opposed to artificial drugs which tend to have undesirable side-effects.

 

It's very easy for you, Rocky, to relate a few sad stories of poor people in third world countries who have died as a result of inadequate medical treatment, but these bad events should be placed in perspective in relation to a percentage of the total world population.

 

I'm sure you've heard of the Black Plague, or Black Death that occurred during the Middle Ages. It's claimed that it wiped out as much as 60% of the European population, although such figures cannot be reliable. Maybe it was only 30%. Whether 60% or 30%, that's mindbogglingly disastrous.

 

It's often difficult to get accurate details and figures relating to events and circumstances in the distant past, especially when there is no written record, as was the case 2,500 years ago in India.

 

When I first began reading about Buddhism in the early 1960's whilst travelling through India, I was in an environment of naked Sadhus, terrible poverty and homelessness, and numerous beggars on the street who appeared to be suffering from terrible ailments.

 

In that context, the story of a Prince who embarked upon a spiritual quest to solve the problem of suffering, after witnessing the horrors outside his palace, seemed very credible.

How much worse would conditions have been in India, 2,500 years ago, without the benefits of modern science and medicine?

[camerata]

19 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

 

This goes to the heart of the issue (Religion).

 

Does Religion actually have benefits, or is it merely a ruse, a surrogate/consolation to those who have been economically disenfranchised?

 

The poor and uneducated Thais are a perfect example.

 

The whole country is littered with Wats, places where the poor and the squalid can offer their last 1,000 note in order to buy good luck in their next life.

 

Stripped of any chance of accessing worthwhile education, medical procedures, and a comfortable life, they are offered an ethereal "better next life", a psychological escape from their plight.

 

A benefit or a hoax for the conditioned?

 

 

We Westerner sceptics are obsessed with the idea that everything has to be scientifically provable or else it isn't "true." It doesn't matter if it is true or not as long as it is efficacious. The benefit of religion (Phra Payutto includes Buddhism in religion whereas I wouldn't) is mental well-being. If I feel good because I gave alms to a monk, it worked. What does a Thai male do after a big trauma in life? He ordains for a couple of weeks. After disrobing he feels refreshed and renewed, probably as if he has atoned too. That it wouldn't work for you or me makes no difference. It works for the believers.

 

What does science offer? We could take Valium to get a form of mental well-being, but that drugged state sure isn't "true" or "real." Anyway, you'll have to read the book. The PDF file doesn't allow me to copy and paste.

[rockyysdt]

4 hours ago, camerata said:

 

We Westerner sceptics are obsessed with the idea that everything has to be scientifically provable or else it isn't "true." It doesn't matter if it is true or not as long as it is efficacious. The benefit of religion (Phra Payutto includes Buddhism in religion whereas I wouldn't) is mental well-being. If I feel good because I gave alms to a monk, it worked. What does a Thai male do after a big trauma in life? He ordains for a couple of weeks. After disrobing he feels refreshed and renewed, probably as if he has atoned too. That it wouldn't work for you or me makes no difference. It works for the believers.

 

What does science offer? We could take Valium to get a form of mental well-being, but that drugged state sure isn't "true" or "real." Anyway, you'll have to read the book. The PDF file doesn't allow me to copy and paste.

 

I'm personally not fixed on scientific proof, just a need to establish truth.

 

While attachment exists, Dukkha remains.

 

To fully eliminate Dukkha one must practice full time for virtually ones entire life.

 

Your examples are placebos aren't they?

 

I could just as easily dispense sugar pills and advise they bring liberation.

[rockyysdt]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Rocky,

You haven't answered my question, which was, "Exactly what are these benefits of religion that are available to all? "

 

One can always quote sad stories of misadventures and incompetent medical treatment, even with regard to treatment of the wealthy in rich countries. People make mistakes in any profession, or are simply incompetent in their job.

However, if one goes back to the times before the advent of science and modern medicine, virtually all medical treatment, for both the rich and the poor, was incompetent and largely ineffective (by today's standards, of course).

 

From the Christian perspective, an illness was an indication of the presence of an evil spirit inhabiting the body, and the cure tended to be exorcism, or placing leeches on the skin to suck blood, or some similar, irrelevant solution.

 

Nevertheless, through a long process of trial and error over millenia, and observation of the results, (a similar process to the scientific method), certain herbal remedies were found to be effective for certain ailments, and these remedies are still promoted today by those who see the benefits of natural remedies, as opposed to artificial drugs which tend to have undesirable side-effects.

 

It's very easy for you, Rocky, to relate a few sad stories of poor people in third world countries who have died as a result of inadequate medical treatment, but these bad events should be placed in perspective in relation to a percentage of the total world population.

 

I'm sure you've heard of the Black Plague, or Black Death that occurred during the Middle Ages. It's claimed that it wiped out as much as 60% of the European population, although such figures cannot be reliable. Maybe it was only 30%. Whether 60% or 30%, that's mindbogglingly disastrous.

 

It's often difficult to get accurate details and figures relating to events and circumstances in the distant past, especially when there is no written record, as was the case 2,500 years ago in India.

 

When I first began reading about Buddhism in the early 1960's whilst travelling through India, I was in an environment of naked Sadhus, terrible poverty and homelessness, and numerous beggars on the street who appeared to be suffering from terrible ailments.

 

In that context, the story of a Prince who embarked upon a spiritual quest to solve the problem of suffering, after witnessing the horrors outside his palace, seemed very credible.

How much worse would conditions have been in India, 2,500 years ago, without the benefits of modern science and medicine?

 

Hi Vincent.

 

It wasn't my original statement.

 

To reveal the benefits of Religion you'll need to defer to Camerata or the author of the Book.

 

However a universal  benefit of Religion is its Placebo affects and all you need is faith, where as the benefits of science are mostly available to the privileged.

 

Naturally, it's not all or nothing as the cheaper the technology the more access one may have.

 

 

[rockyysdt]

16 minutes ago, rockyysdt said:

 

Hi Vincent.

 

It wasn't my original statement.

 

To reveal the benefits of Religion you'll need to defer to Camerata or the author of the Book.

 

However a universal  benefit of Religion is its Placebo affects and all you need is faith, where as the benefits of science are mostly available to the privileged.

 

Naturally, it's not all or nothing as the cheaper the technology the more access one may have.

 

 

 

[camerata]

3 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

 

Your examples are placebos aren't they?

 

I could just as easily dispense sugar pills and advise they bring liberation.

 

The point is the effect on the mind is real. You feel good because you feel God/Dhamma is helping you - what does it matter if God/Dhamma is "real" or not?

[camerata]

On 9/29/2016 at 6:37 PM, VincentRJ said:

 

I don't see any evidence for that view. I'm in the process of reading Payutto's talk, and will comment further, later.

 

Whilst it's true that the elite and wealthy have greater access to the benefits of science, just has they have greater access to most things, including expensive meals in luxurious restaurants, lavish holidays, attractive ladies, and private gardens which might be totally natural and have nothing to do with science, the poorest of the poor in a modern democratice society, such as Australia, the U.K, Norway, Sweden, and so on, frequently get the benefits of modern science in the form of life-saving antibiotics, free food and shelter if they are homeless, and/or basic social security or unemployment payments which probably allow them to use the products of modern science and technology, such as a personal iPhone and catch a modern bus if they can't afford a car.

 

Those who are not desperately poor but just have a below-average income, enjoy enormous benefits of science which were not available to the wealthiest of the elite just a few centuries ago.

Those in certain countries who currently live in shocking conditions are probably the victims of religious dogma, as in Syria and Yemen.

 

Exactly what are these benefits of religion that are available to all?

 

Mental well-being here and now. Ven Payutto's point is that religion tends to offer an immediate solution to problems. Science experiments and tests over a long period just to find one solution to one problem. Look how long it took to find drugs that could combat HIV/AIDS, and then only wealthy nations could afford them. What did science do for people for the millennia before antibiotics were discovered? But read the book, and see where he is going with this. I haven't finished it yet.

[VincentRJ]

On ‎30‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 7:48 AM, camerata said:

 

The point is the effect on the mind is real. You feel good because you feel God/Dhamma is helping you - what does it matter if God/Dhamma is "real" or not?

 

It matters very much with regard to the reliability of the treatment and the availability of the treatment. This is why I asked the question, "Exactly what are these benefits of religion that are available to all? ", with an emphasis on 'available to all'. If a treatment requires a specific belief in a specific religion or ritual, it is available only to those who have that belief. As we all know, beliefs tend to be conditioned by our upbringing over a relatively long period of time, and vary according to our cultural background and individual characteristics.

 

I understand the benefits of the placebo effect. It's always present to some degree whenever someone has an expectation that a certain treatment will be effective. This is why placebos are used when testing new drugs on humans. The successful drug has to perform better than the placebo.

 

What would you think of a pharmaceutical company marketing a drug which was later found out to be no better than a placebo? Would you say, 'what does it matter? At least it made some of the recipients feel better.

[camerata]

I didn't introduce the word "placebo" and I think it is misleading here. We are not talking about something that has "no real effect," we are talking about the mind healing itself.

 

Well known author John Blofeld was a Buddhist by choice, not by birth. Having been plagued by nightmares all his life he eventually confided in a Tibetan lama. The lama gave him an amulet to put under his pillow and a mantra to recite before going to bed. He never had nightmares again. You can't call that a placebo. This is "religion," but from the Buddhist (doctrinal) perspective it is actually psychology masquerading as Buddhism.

 

The reason I say it's not Buddhism is that it relies on externals rather than internals, and externals are not reliable. This a theme Ven Payutto develops in the book when comparing Buddhism to other religions.

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, camerata said:

I didn't introduce the word "placebo" and I think it is misleading here. We are not talking about something that has "no real effect," we are talking about the mind healing itself.

 

 

The placebo effect is real, and has been studied by scientists for some time. Surprisingly, even when a patient is told he is being administered a placebo, there is still a placebo effect, although perhaps not as great as the effect that occurs when the patient believes he is getting the 'Real McCoy'.

 

The explanation is that the very act of paying attention to someone's problem, and showing some degree of compassion, is sufficient to cause a placebo effect, even when the person has been informed that the pill he is taking is a placebo.

 

I'm therefore not surprised that John Blofeld was cured of his nightmares by placing an amulet under his pillow and reciting a mantra before going to bed, on the advice of a Tibetan Lama. Did he try using the amulet without the mantra, and the mantra without the amulet, to see if there was a difference?

 

Well, I've finished reading Payutto's talk, and he certainly makes some good points with regard to the importance of ethical behaviour, and moderation of our greed, lust and aversions, which are the source of much of our discontent.

 

However, I get a strong sense that Payutto is misrepresenting the nature of science and confusing the scientific process with the technological applications of the results of that process, which are usually determined by non-scientists, politicians and business men.

 

I also get the impression that Payutto is largely ignoring many branches of science, such as Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience, Psychology and Psychiatry, which do include concepts of the mind and ethical behaviour, which Payutto thinks science lacks or never addresses.

 

It's true that the burgeoning world population, together with increased exploitation of our resources, is damaging the environment and our health, but that's not the fault of science and technology.

In fact, science and technology have already reached the stage of being able to provide a solution to most of our problems at the practical level. For example, those who are worried about unsustainable population levels might like to know that the whole of the world population, around 7 billion, could be housed on the small island of Tasmania, south of Australia. That would involve a massive contstruction project, of course, on an unprecedented scale. It would involve covering the entire island with 12 or 15 or even 20 storey skyscrapers, separated by narrow lanes sufficient for transport and access. It's not going to happen, but I mention it just to get things into perspective.

 

Likewise, if the whole of the Sahara Desert were covered with solar panels, the amount of electricity generated would be around 20x the current usage of energy, world-wide, and that's after converting all the different forms of energy usage, such as gas, oil and petrol, to the equivalent kWhs. Electricity can also be transported huge distances with low loss, using ultra-high-voltage direct current transmission (UHVDC), so there's no valid technical or scientific reason why such power could not be distributed across the globe.

 

As regards food production, there is no 'absolute' or total shortage of food. The problem is due to a shortage of adequate storage, inadequate delivery systems, incompetent agricultural practices in some areas, corrupt and incompetent governments who spend money on armaments instead of dams and irrigation systems, and a general wastage of food for many different reasons, some of which are related to the cosmetic appearance of food which results in many people throwing it away if it doesn't look nice.

 

It's estimated around 1.4 billion tonnes of edible food is wasted each year. That amounts to 200 kg for every man, woman and child on the planet. It's the job of scientists to calculate the amount of waste. It's the job of others to make the decisions to reduce that waste. Don't blame science.

　

[VincentRJ]

For the sake of clarity, I should add that although science and technology already has the practical solutions to most of our problems, it's the implementation of those solutions by those in power, that is the obstacle. Buddhism, at it's rational and philosophical level, does have a role to play in this respect, I admit.

[camerata]

44 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm therefore not surprised that John Blofeld was cured of his nightmares by placing an amulet under his pillow and reciting a mantra before going to bed, on the advice of a Tibetan Lama. Did he try using the amulet without the mantra, and the mantra without the amulet, to see if there was a difference?

 

However, I get a strong sense that Payutto is misrepresenting the nature of science and confusing the scientific process with the technological applications of the results of that process, which are usually determined by non-scientists, politicians and business men.

 

I also get the impression that Payutto is largely ignoring many branches of science, such as Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience, Psychology and Psychiatry, which do include concepts of the mind and ethical behaviour, which Payutto thinks science lacks or never addresses.

 

Psychiatry and psychology, of course, are not sciences, but they are what drives religion.

 

The key point about the Blofeld story is that the technique worked. Had he lost the amulet and/or forgotten the mantra he would have seen the disadvantage of using externals. But this kind of thing is considered "skillful means" by some.

 

As far as I've read in the book, Payutto makes a clear distinction between pure science and technology, and it's technology he blames for not addressing human well-being. But I don't want to defend him too much as I haven't finished it yet.

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, camerata said:

 

Psychiatry and psychology, of course, are not sciences, but they are what drives religion.

 

 

Aren't you falling into the dualistic, 'either/or' trap, Camerata, which the Buddha advised against? 

 

There are many disciplines of science which range from what are sometimes described as 'hard' sciences or 'soft' sciences. There are also scientific disciplines that fall somewhere in between these extremes, and are neither hard nor soft.

 

In this context, hard doesn't mean difficult, and soft doesn't mean easy. In fact, the 'hard' sciences could sometimes be considered easier because they lend themselves to real-time experiments and the creation of laboratory models where it's relatively easy to set up controlled variables, and get results in a relatively short period of time.

 

Such 'hard' sciences are usually considered to be Physics and Chemistry. Geology and Astronomy might be considered slightly less 'hard', and Biology and Medicine less hard again, perhaps somewhere in the middle.

 

The social sciences in general, such as Sociology, Political Science, Psychology, Psychiatry, and definitely Economics, are all towards the 'soft' end of the spectrum because there are simply too many uncontrollable variables to allow for a high degree of certainty.

 

For example, one of the difficulties of Medicine and the creation of new drugs and methods of treating illnesses, is that it's difficult to treat humans like laboratory animals and have complete control over every aspect of their lifestyle and diet, (perhaps Buddhist monks could be useful here   ), and one cannot always be certain that a particular outcome in an experiment is not in part due to some genetic variable of the individual.

[camerata]

I'm not sure I agree with Payutto's assertion that "mind and intention are not the same thing, and can be studied as separate truths." The only way I can make sense of this is if by "mind" he means "the thinking mind," excluding the subconscious.

 

The way I understand this - in modern terms - is that intention is mostly activated in the subconscious. With training (especially Buddhist training), we can shape these subconscious intentions to a degree, but the conscious intention to do so presumably comes in part from the subconscious. In other words, the "whole mind" is like an iceberg with the conscious processes as the visible part and the subconscious as the submerged part. The subconscious intentions may be mostly powered by self-interest, but a logical, conscious decision can be made to redirect those subconscious intentions.

 

Frankly, I find it confusing the way many Buddhist teachers talk about "the heart" when they obviously mean the subconscious.

[lungmi]

I'm not sure I agree with Payutto's assertion that "mind and intention are not the same thing, and can be studied as separate truths." The only way I can make sense of this is if by "mind" he means "the thinking mind," excluding the subconscious

 

--------------------------------------

Payutto doesnt exclude the subsconcious.

The mind can integrate the subconscius.

Anapanasati  first step is the way.