Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
As a "Buddhist", would you donate your body to science?
The interconnectedness of the wordl is utterly 'awesome', but it's easy to be swayed by the scientific perspective, which purports to help people, when in fact it may not be doing so - just experimenting! IMHO don't give your dead body away, in as much the same way as you would not give your living physical body away, unless you 'know' whats going to happen...
@Hamsaka we only believe we are egos. It doesn't actually exist. Hence the illusion or wrong view.
The one who says I am an ego in body/mind is purely a thought. Which is mind.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited March 2015
@anataman said:
The interconnectedness of the wordl is utterly 'awesome', but it's easy to be swayed by the scientific perspective, which purports to help people, when in fact it may not be doing so - just experimenting! IMHO don't give your dead body away, in as much the same way as you would not give your living physical body away, unless you 'know' whats going to happen...
I don't know what's going to happen when I tootle off down the road, though I hear what you are saying.
I know pretty much what the ethical constraints of human experimentation are, so I do have more-trust-than-not in what would be done to ME, if I were an experimental subject. I'm more likely to have NO benefit at all than be further damaged or exploited lol, but at least I'll be returned to myself in one piece no better or worse than before.
What is done to our distant ancestors, the mouse and rat (much less the monkeys ) is horrifying and I just hope their sentience is such that they don't suffer . . . much.
You are more on the 'inside' than I am when it comes to medicine though. I'm sure some experiments are set up without the obligatory ethical constraints. We certainly have the history to show for it.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Earthninja said:
Hamsaka we only believe we are egos. It doesn't actually exist. Hence the illusion or wrong view.
The one who says I am an ego in body/mind is purely a thought. Which is mind.
Our egos or 'small self' is a provisional truth, mainly because it is believed to be true. Modern psychology has gone beyond focus on a 'self' into a 'modular self' (though even this is being challenged) . If all we 'scientifically' have is what modern psychology suggests, educated people are running around with 'modular selves' while everyone else has a single 'self' because at least that long ago discovery has finally trickled into what's taken for granted.
As a person who studies Buddhism, I know (like you) that the 'ego' is not a real thing. What I mean by we ARE a body/mind is that we believe we are. Not you and I and the rest of us on this forum perhaps, but in general. And we aren't immune from behaving as if we are a discrete ego inhabiting a body/mind.
It doesn't exist but we believe it does. "Belief" is a powerful thing and makes it a provisional but incomplete (even wrong) conclusion. I need to go back and read your previous post to tie in what I'm thinking . . . brb
3
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
So when we try and fix nature, that is desire or clinging to our projection that we are egos living in a body/mind.
Maybe that is true, I haven't thought about that. I don't know if the cause of us seeking to tweak/change/fix nature is that we are a discreet ego in a body/mind combo. It might have a strong cause-connection to why we are always trying to improve upon nature, or it might not.
But 'fixing nature' itself seems good, as long as we come up with something better than what we get just relying on nature. I doubt the first humans 'just relied on nature', our brains can conceive of possibilities that don't exist yet. I wonder if 'fixing nature' is just a natural outcome of a brain that can conceive of possibilities.
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Oh the irony . . . what we automatically cling to with all our might turns out to be a distraction and not even true It is useful, no one can deny that. It's necessary, too. It's why I couldn't agree with @Earthninja that 'it's just a (wrong) thought', we need the ego/small self to navigate basic interaction with the environment.
It is not RELIABLE to navigate much beyond basic interaction, though.
@Hamsaka said:
Oh the irony . . . what we automatically cling to with all our might turns out to be a distraction and not even true It is useful, no one can deny that. It's necessary, too. It's why I couldn't agree with Earthninja that 'it's just a (wrong) thought', we need the ego/small self to navigate basic interaction with the environment.
It is not RELIABLE to navigate much beyond basic interaction, though.
True "One is simple ones experience-One's ego is the abstraction from these experiences-One's ego should be viewed as a convenient analytic device "
But @Earthninja does also have a point in that the ego is connected to 'thinking' ... does ego exist without being entwined in thoughts ?
(It's just my ego thinking out loud again-I'm thinking of donating it to science along with the body...If they will have it )
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
The problem is that for a million reasons the ego is reinforced as the totality of what I am. Once I (think) I know the totality, I'm not looking for anything more.
And then I start taking the Buddha's teachings seriously . . . and this enthroned ego is dethroned. The Buddha's teachings are like a coup
@Hamsaka thank you for the thoughtful replies. I see where you are coming from.
The ego for most people tends to "feel" like an operator of the body(limbs) and thinker of thoughts.
It doesn't say I beat my heart or grow my hair. That's something that happens by itself.
It appears to look out from behind the eyes at the "external" world.
With science we now know the image of the world "out there" is actually taking place in our own brain. Like a hologram.
It's from this stand point I feel all the things we do to improve the world out there is from a wrong understanding already.
But now I think I'm just repeating myself, and it's becoming hypothetical.
Does this all make a difference to science? I feel it does but then again if we all woke up at once maybe nothing would change.
Let's find out.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
It's from this stand point I feel all the things we do to improve the world out there is from a wrong understanding already.
But now I think I'm just repeating myself, and it's becoming hypothetical.
Well, this was an excellent point that bears repeating. I don't think I got it the first time around so I'm glad you did repeat it.
The standpoint we use to determine what needs to be changed is hugely important. The standpoint itself determines whether the 'change' is disastrous or beneficial. So this point of yours is 'right on', and I'm agreeing like mad.
And a standpoint based upon anything like the priorities of the ego is gonna blow up in our faces. If our goal in life is to remain physically beautiful, first, what we seek to change in nature is 'wrong view', big time. Remaining physically beautiful doesn't translate into a pursuit of Truth.
If we seek to lessen or prevent suffering, then we get better results, and 'right view' is more likely to be happening.
If preventing major, backhoe run over your face UGLY lessens or prevents suffering, then I can see 'right view' playing a part in genetic modification. People are born every day with very disfiguring facial defects. There isn't a civilization or tribe in the world that doesn't cringe at a disfigured human face .
Question 1, Yes I would and am, though not sure what use my battered shell will be
Question 2, definite No, I have 4 Step kids, 2 of which have Aspergers & 1 with dyslexia & dyscalculia. All of them are wonderful human beings & I would not change an atom of any of their beings
@Hamsaka said:> And then I start taking the Buddha's teachings seriously . . . and this enthroned ego is dethroned. The Buddha's teachings are like a coup
Yes, I know what you mean!
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Talis said:... Question 2, definite No, I have 4 Step kids, 2 of which have Aspergers & 1 with dyslexia & dyscalculia. All of them are wonderful human beings & I would not change an atom of any of their beings
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Talis said:
Question 1, Yes I would and am, though not sure what use my battered shell will be
Question 2, definite No, I have 4 Step kids, 2 of which have Aspergers & 1 with dyslexia & dyscalculia. All of them are wonderful human beings & I would not change an atom of any of their beings
Once they are HERE and real, the idea of changing a single molecule of them to make them 'better' is . . . awful!
One of my patients is a seven year old boy born prematurely to a drug addicted mother who's meth use caused his placenta to separate before he was born. He was born with catastrophic brain damage, I don't understand how or why he was resuscitated and 'saved'. He is about 2 months old, developmentally. Just old enough to smile and smile and smile, but can't hold his head up, can't control his limbs, etc etc. NOW THAT HE IS HERE, he is a joy to his family, he is happy, like a baby is happy, and to think his life is not worth living is probably evil. The idea of 'changing' my autistic grandson or wishing he were 'better' makes me physically ill, so I get what you are saying.
The idea I had in mind when I started this thread was more for BEFORE the children are born. If you had the choice to prevent health conditions that ran in your family, and you could buy a genetic tweak to make your offspring have fantastic immune systems that prevent cancers, would you? This WILL be available someday, maybe even for our great grandchildren. We pass along OUR attitudes etc down the line, and as ancestors have some responsibility to prepare our descendents for the future
Yes I hear what you're saying, it's one of those subjects that once put into practice would need extreme control over the rulings, I mean we've already got cases where genetic selection of eye colour etc is happening, and so I could see it being used for all the wrong reasons at times. I guess time will tell. Peace~Talis.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I haven't heard about gene mods for eye color, but I have heard about choosing to abort or not implant a particular sex. They can test days old embryos for some genetic diseases, and discard the diseased embryos.
We use the wheel for a lot of 'wrong' reasons but the wheel is damn useful anyway. I guess just examining the 'thinking' that we put into subjects like this is part of being a Buddhist. It doesn't matter what our conclusion ends up being, it's that we have mindfully examined what comes up in response to these new human frontiers -- or have we?
I sense there is a place where a lot of us just 'stop' and reject because it's just too weird. I'm not sure this is responsible for me to choose to do. Everyone gets to decide what they prefer . . . but as Buddhists, we (ostensibly) seek to examine the turtles beneath this turtle in our grasp of dependent origination. It follows that Buddhists would be interested and motivated to understand these kinds of things. Or does it?
Comments
The interconnectedness of the wordl is utterly 'awesome', but it's easy to be swayed by the scientific perspective, which purports to help people, when in fact it may not be doing so - just experimenting! IMHO don't give your dead body away, in as much the same way as you would not give your living physical body away, unless you 'know' whats going to happen...
The one who says I am an ego in body/mind is purely a thought. Which is mind.
I don't know what's going to happen when I tootle off down the road, though I hear what you are saying.
I know pretty much what the ethical constraints of human experimentation are, so I do have more-trust-than-not in what would be done to ME, if I were an experimental subject. I'm more likely to have NO benefit at all than be further damaged or exploited lol, but at least I'll be returned to myself in one piece no better or worse than before.
What is done to our distant ancestors, the mouse and rat (much less the monkeys
) is horrifying and I just hope their sentience is such that they don't suffer . . . much.
You are more on the 'inside' than I am when it comes to medicine though. I'm sure some experiments are set up without the obligatory ethical constraints. We certainly have the history to show for it.
Our egos or 'small self' is a provisional truth, mainly because it is believed to be true. Modern psychology has gone beyond focus on a 'self' into a 'modular self' (though even this is being challenged) . If all we 'scientifically' have is what modern psychology suggests, educated people are running around with 'modular selves' while everyone else has a single 'self' because at least that long ago discovery has finally trickled into what's taken for granted.
As a person who studies Buddhism, I know (like you) that the 'ego' is not a real thing. What I mean by we ARE a body/mind is that we believe we are. Not you and I and the rest of us on this forum perhaps, but in general. And we aren't immune from behaving as if we are a discrete ego inhabiting a body/mind.
It doesn't exist but we believe it does. "Belief" is a powerful thing and makes it a provisional but incomplete (even wrong) conclusion. I need to go back and read your previous post to tie in what I'm thinking . . . brb
@Earthninja said:
Maybe that is true, I haven't thought about that. I don't know if the cause of us seeking to tweak/change/fix nature is that we are a discreet ego in a body/mind combo. It might have a strong cause-connection to why we are always trying to improve upon nature, or it might not.
But 'fixing nature' itself seems good, as long as we come up with something better than what we get just relying on nature. I doubt the first humans 'just relied on nature', our brains can conceive of possibilities that don't exist yet. I wonder if 'fixing nature' is just a natural outcome of a brain that can conceive of possibilities.
Ever Grasping Obstinate
Oh the irony . . . what we automatically cling to with all our might turns out to be a distraction and not even true
It is useful, no one can deny that. It's necessary, too. It's why I couldn't agree with @Earthninja that 'it's just a (wrong) thought', we need the ego/small self to navigate basic interaction with the environment.
It is not RELIABLE to navigate much beyond basic interaction, though.
True
"One is simple ones experience-One's ego is the abstraction from these experiences-One's ego should be viewed as a convenient analytic device "
But @Earthninja does also have a point in that the ego is connected to 'thinking' ... does ego exist without being entwined in thoughts ?
(It's just my ego thinking out loud again-I'm thinking of donating it to science along with the body...If they will have it
)
The problem is that for a million reasons the ego is reinforced as the totality of what I am. Once I (think) I know the totality, I'm not looking for anything more.
And then I start taking the Buddha's teachings seriously . . . and this enthroned ego is dethroned. The Buddha's teachings are like a coup
The ego for most people tends to "feel" like an operator of the body(limbs) and thinker of thoughts.
It doesn't say I beat my heart or grow my hair. That's something that happens by itself.
It appears to look out from behind the eyes at the "external" world.
With science we now know the image of the world "out there" is actually taking place in our own brain. Like a hologram.
It's from this stand point I feel all the things we do to improve the world out there is from a wrong understanding already.
But now I think I'm just repeating myself, and it's becoming hypothetical.
Does this all make a difference to science? I feel it does but then again if we all woke up at once maybe nothing would change.
Let's find out.
Well, this was an excellent point that bears repeating. I don't think I got it the first time around so I'm glad you did repeat it.
The standpoint we use to determine what needs to be changed is hugely important. The standpoint itself determines whether the 'change' is disastrous or beneficial. So this point of yours is 'right on', and I'm agreeing like mad.
And a standpoint based upon anything like the priorities of the ego is gonna blow up in our faces. If our goal in life is to remain physically beautiful, first, what we seek to change in nature is 'wrong view', big time. Remaining physically beautiful doesn't translate into a pursuit of Truth.
If we seek to lessen or prevent suffering, then we get better results, and 'right view' is more likely to be happening.
If preventing major, backhoe run over your face UGLY lessens or prevents suffering, then I can see 'right view' playing a part in genetic modification. People are born every day with very disfiguring facial defects. There isn't a civilization or tribe in the world that doesn't cringe at a disfigured human face
.
Question 1, Yes I would and am, though not sure what use my battered shell will be
Question 2, definite No, I have 4 Step kids, 2 of which have Aspergers & 1 with dyslexia & dyscalculia. All of them are wonderful human beings & I would not change an atom of any of their beings
Yes, I know what you mean!
Yes, but would they?
Just a thought....In a sense every time we pop a pill or have a shot (vaccination) we give our body up to science...
Once they are HERE and real, the idea of changing a single molecule of them to make them 'better' is . . . awful!
One of my patients is a seven year old boy born prematurely to a drug addicted mother who's meth use caused his placenta to separate before he was born. He was born with catastrophic brain damage, I don't understand how or why he was resuscitated and 'saved'. He is about 2 months old, developmentally. Just old enough to smile and smile and smile, but can't hold his head up, can't control his limbs, etc etc. NOW THAT HE IS HERE, he is a joy to his family, he is happy, like a baby is happy, and to think his life is not worth living is probably evil. The idea of 'changing' my autistic grandson or wishing he were 'better' makes me physically ill, so I get what you are saying.
The idea I had in mind when I started this thread was more for BEFORE the children are born. If you had the choice to prevent health conditions that ran in your family, and you could buy a genetic tweak to make your offspring have fantastic immune systems that prevent cancers, would you? This WILL be available someday, maybe even for our great grandchildren. We pass along OUR attitudes etc down the line, and as ancestors have some responsibility to prepare our descendents for the future
Yes I hear what you're saying, it's one of those subjects that once put into practice would need extreme control over the rulings, I mean we've already got cases where genetic selection of eye colour etc is happening, and so I could see it being used for all the wrong reasons at times. I guess time will tell. Peace~Talis.
I haven't heard about gene mods for eye color, but I have heard about choosing to abort or not implant a particular sex. They can test days old embryos for some genetic diseases, and discard the diseased embryos.
We use the wheel for a lot of 'wrong' reasons but the wheel is damn useful anyway. I guess just examining the 'thinking' that we put into subjects like this is part of being a Buddhist. It doesn't matter what our conclusion ends up being, it's that we have mindfully examined what comes up in response to these new human frontiers -- or have we?
I sense there is a place where a lot of us just 'stop' and reject because it's just too weird. I'm not sure this is responsible for me to choose to do. Everyone gets to decide what they prefer . . . but as Buddhists, we (ostensibly) seek to examine the turtles beneath this turtle in our grasp of dependent origination. It follows that Buddhists would be interested and motivated to understand these kinds of things. Or does it?