Would science corrupt nirvana?

Most science and technology do not contain any inherent ethics or morality. It is up to people to behave ethically or morally with scientific knowledge and technologies, and history contains many examples of people using science or technology unethically or immorally (e.g., using nuclear bombs and chemical weapons, using the Internet to facilitate human trafficking and child porn, dumping large quantities of plastic into the oceans or burning plastic even though the smoke is obviously toxic, etc.)

This is different than Buddhism, where only people who are very pure of heart/mind are usually mentally capable of attaining nirvana/nibbana. The universe seems to have a kind of natural safeguard around nirvana/nibbana, in other words. Sometimes I wonder (obviously, since I haven’t attained enlightenment) if monks/nuns who have advanced meditation abilities should be hesitant to help scientists understand or measure nirvana/nibbana, citta, karma/kamma, gandhabbas, etc., because if a machine can measure or affect these things, then anyone might be able to attain them, exploit them, destroy them, etc. Nirvana might be safer as long as it remains shrouded in religious mystery.


Technically easy, socially hard

It seems to me that many of the problems facing the world today are very technically easy to solve but very socially difficult to solve. I believe that humanity can solve these kinds of problems, if only enough people mobilize themselves. For example:

  • Ethnic, gender, religious, national, wealth, etc. equality. Treat everyone with fairness and respect (in every way), heavily tax or outlaw wealth greater than a certain amount (I suggest $1 million for individuals and $100 million for companies), collaboratively create a global government (i.e., the UN with more power), use the Internet to let everyone collaboratively construct a common human language (which everyone must learn in school, but which is optional to use in daily life), and so on.
  • Global warming. We have many ways of generating clean energy: solar, wind, hydroelectric, hydrogen, nuclear fusion (coming soon), etc. — we just need to use them on a larger scale.
  • Over-population. People around the world need to either control themselves or use modern birth control or sterilization methods.
  • War. “Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war” (Albert Einstein).
  • Direct democracy. Many critical government and corporate services are already available on the Internet: healthcare, banking, etc. Why not voting? Using the Internet, every citizen who wants to could easily vote on the issues of the day and votes could be counted instantly, replacing most politicians and letting the people represent themselves.
  • Pollution and destruction of nature. Stop using plastic or require everyone to recycle it, stop using synthetic chemicals as much as possible, use electric or other clean-energy vehicles (hydrogen, bicycles, etc), and so on. Stop large companies from using so many pesticides and large harvesting machines, fracking, oil drilling, replacing humans with machines, emitting toxic chemicals from factories, etc.

Stephen Hawking’s most important message

Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant physicists ever to have lived, used to publicly say this every year or two, because it is perhaps the most important thing humanity should be doing but is only barely/slowly doing. Now that he is gone, I’ll repeat it: for the survival of our species, humans really need to leave this tiny, fragile little planet as quickly as possible. At national and global levels, instead of putting resources into fighting with each other and building things on this planet, we should be focusing on building space stations, fast ships, and colonies on other planets and in other solar systems. Currently, our entire species could be wiped out by global warming, over-population, nuclear war, one large epidemic, asteroid, solar flare, and on and on. We need to go and spread out, now.

Questions about the mind between lives

Similar to my questions about mindstreams, regarding the gandhabba (the mind between lives), here are several questions about which I have not yet been able to find very good answers:

  • How long can a gandhabba live, and is there anything that can destroy or repel it?
  • Does a gandhabba rely on a body for any reason (e.g., for nourishment)?
  • How far or fast can a gandhabba travel?
  • What can a gandhabba see or know about the world and its new parents?
  • What cognitive capabilities (e.g., what kinds of thoughts and feelings) does a gandhabba have?
  • If a gandhabba wants to join with a new baby’s body while two humans are having sex, how does it know what to do in order to combine with microscopic egg and sperm cells?
  • If it is possible, as some Buddhists believe, for a previously human gandhabba to be reborn as an animal, how does it adjust itself to a non-human body, and is anything gained or lost in that process?
  • If a gandhabba is a citta-santana (citta-stream), and if that is the only way in which past life memories are preserved across bodies, why do people sometimes claim to remember non-citta (i.e., vinnana and manas, which supposedly die with one’s body) things about past lives, like how something looked in the past (eye consciousness is vinnana)?
  • Is it better to conceive a baby near uposatha days, or near a Buddhist temple, because there might be more virtuous gandhabbas present on those days or in that place?

9 disgusting things about sex

Mainstream media find any excuse to make sex seem appealing, so here are 9 ways in which sex is disgusting.

  1. It’s a chemical addiction, and it’s built into most people’s bodies, so it’s very hard to stop taking the drug. If you think you’re not a sexual drug addict, just try not doing or thinking about sexual things for a few days, weeks, or months (depending on how often you usually do it). The withdrawal symptoms are similar to cocaine (anxiety, depression, fatigue, insomnia, nightmares, obsessive thoughts, etc.). Sex is often associated with other drug use.
  2. There are few/no natural safeguards. Sexual cravings often lead people to create unwanted children, too many children, or to have abortions. There are also a wide variety of sexually transmitted diseases, some life-threatening. It’s very easy for people to be physically compatible but mentally incompatible, with short, lustful actions causing many difficult, life-long consequences for multiple people.
  3. Sex involves close, including oral, contact between parts of the body that are otherwise only associated with using the toilet.
  4. Sex-related organs of the body (e.g., women’s enlarged hips and breasts, men’s prostate and external sex organs, etc.) are quite fragile, and are prone to cancers, injuries, pain, and infections.
  5. Sex involves the body automatically creating things that are technically alive (sperm and eggs), and then destroying most of them.
  6. People’s bodies are just different configurations of skin, fat, muscles, glands, nerves, bones, etc., but sexuality causes people to get attached to certain configurations, putting pressure on people to modify their bodies, often unhealthfully.
  7. People often associate sexual thoughts with racist thoughts, preferring the physical features of their own ethnic group. Humanity probably began as a single species in Africa 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, and we keep moving farther and farther away from that genetic unity.
  8. Sex, and sexualized media, encourages people to revel/wallow in very self-indulgent, fickle, exploitive, greedy, jealous, aggressive, objectifying, shallow/mindless, etc. states of mind. Much like food advertising, sexualized media is very charged and harsh, showing exaggerated things in extreme situations. Often apparently/mostly because they are pretty, people often receive ridiculously large amounts of money and power as actors, models, or politicians.
  9. Sex has led to a variety of dangerous, exploitive, or criminal social activities: harassment, discrimination, segregation, strip clubs, sex clubs, porn, prostitution, sex slave trafficking, forced marriage, rape, genital mutilation, castration, etc. About 50% of people who have been raped develop PTSD (source).


You don’t have to argue with very angry, greedy/lustful, selfish/deluded, etc. people. Their own actions will destroy them (a Thai saying, which I am paraphrasing).

Have we missed historical religious figures’ authenticity safeguards?

During his 50-year-long walking lecture tour, and especially if he had super-human mental powers (e.g., remembering the distant past, predicting the future, reading minds, and teaching devas), why did it not occur as worthwhile to the Buddha to write something down during his life, either himself or to have his closest disciples do it? He was supposedly a well-educated prince, and he lived in an area with plenty of trees and textiles. He easily could have written on leaves, bark, cloth, etc., and given what he wrote to local people to safeguard. People around India probably would have treasured and preserved what he wrote; they might have etched it in stone, as Emperor Ashoka later did, as the original documents degraded. Did no one, including any of the kings the Buddha visited, who probably had royal scribes and messengers, in any of the probably thousands of cities and towns he visited, take notes?

The Buddha must have known that people would use memory devices (e.g., repetitive stanzas in suttas) to remember what he said, and that memories change and get distorted over time. Fifty years is a long time to think about a problem. Even without super-human powers, he probably could have imagined the Sangha splitting, which it has many times, and unscrupulous people later writing new suttas and attributing them to him, which many people apparently have done. Yet he apparently did not create any mechanism for verifying suttas’ accuracy, completeness, or authenticity (e.g., using complex codes, signatures, or checksums). If he was relying on Ananda and his other close disciples to preserve everything after he passed into nirvana, why did he not ask them to incorporate such mechanisms into what they preserved. Or, did he do that, but we just have not yet discovered them? Was he not very concerned about precisely preserving the exact words/terms he had used and the rules he had made? Or did he actually write documents, but were they destroyed/replaced with documents that later traditions wanted to attribute to him?

Similar questions can be asked about other large religions’ central figures. If these people were so connected to universal powers and truths (e.g., God(s), karma, etc.), did it occur to any of them to include non-corruptible authenticity verification mechanisms into their teachings, so that later peoples would always know what they had truly taught?