Wearing a robe or uniform doesn’t make you a good person. Being a good person makes you a good person.
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.
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.
Especially as societies become more free/liberal and people have more of a choice, I find it curious that so many people around the world still choose to embrace the religions of conquerors. Christians and Muslims in particular have colonized, conquered, enslaved, and/or forcibly or coercively converted large parts of the Earth and many indigenous peoples over the last few thousand years. But still today Africans, Central and South Americans, South Asians, and Southeast Asians (and their descendents and diasporas around the world) in particular frequently convert to, and/or seem very passionate about, those religions. And as far as I can tell, they’re not always just paying lipservice to those religions (e.g., superficially following those religions in order to get some benefit or reward from the conquerors). So why do those people reject their native religions, or why don’t they follow more peaceful world religions?
To my clear, my complaint is about certain religions, not about God(s). A person can interact with God(s) either in a spiritual way without traditions or from within the conceptual frameworks of many large, old religions; it doesn’t have to happen within the framework of Christianity or Islam. Themes of violence, conquest, domination, superiority, etc. run deep/old especially in Christian and Islamic cultures. I think people should be wary and skeptical of those kinds of themes, and I want to point out that there are other major world traditions (e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Bahai, Sikhism, Taoism, etc.) as well as local/indigenous traditions that either lack those themes or have them to a much lesser extent.
In my experience, different religions’ temples have different feelings, partly due to architectural designs and partly due to something spiritual/ineffable. Abrahamic churches, mosques, and synagogues usually give me a feeling of the enormity and maybe heavenliness, but not so much the presence, of God. Hindu devalayas/kovils/etc. give me a more localized feeling of some kind of presence or energy/power of a certain divine being. Buddhist viharas, especially bodhi trees, give me a feeling of choiceful peacefulness and radiant energy, like there is a powerful mind which is choosing to set a peaceful example for everyone.
The following is a Buddhist critique of the common theistic idea that God(s) is/are eternal. Eternity means constancy — that something always remains the same. For example, if something eternal is speaking, then it must always have spoken and must always continue to speak, forever. If something spoke eternally, it would also not be able to make more than one sound forever. Although the Abrahamic “I am that I am (or that I will be)” suggests constancy, were an eternal being actually to speak, it would not be able to say more than one sound/word (e.g., “I”), and it would always have been speaking that sound/word and would still be speaking that word today, tomorrow, etc. It could not stop and start speaking, such as to pronounce multiple or even polysyllabic words, because then it would have changed from a time/state when it was not speaking to a time/state when it was speaking and vice versa.
Therefore, as I understand, from a Buddhist perspective, claims that God(s) spoke at great length (e.g., giving entire holy books and many commandments), or that God(s) did some temporary corporeal action (e.g., bringing plagues or floods, destroying cities, writing on stone tablets, etc.) are highly suspect. If they truly are descriptive of a real being — though that being could be immensely big, powerful, old, etc. — that being cannot be eternal, because, by doing those things, it changed.
Even for (famously compassionate) Buddhists, euthanasia (killing someone or something to stop it from suffering) is a complicated topic. Here are the issues I have encountered when talking to Buddhists and reading Buddhist philosophies over the years:
- Intentional killing is bad karma for the killer, breaks the first precept, etc. It could cause the killer to have an unpleasant future life(s). On the other hand, euthanasia is probably about as harmless of an act of intentional killing as is possible, because one is doing it mainly with the intention to avoid or stop suffering. On the other hand, the Abhidhamma (the philosophical section of the Buddhist canon) says that life is a series of instantaneous moments, which condition each other in a series. Any action takes many moments (e.g., killing or dying usually takes a few minutes), so it is probably possible for an action to create instances of both good and bad karmas in a complex mixture (i.e., one moment might be dominated by your compassion and another moment by your willingness to kill). Also, the last moments of one life conditions the first moments of the next life, so one should be in as peaceful or positive of a state of mind as possible when dying. (Side note: In Buddhism, there is no clear difference between humans and nonhumans. Humans have merely reached or evolved to a level of complexity where they are capable of complex thoughts and attaining enlightenment. Human mindstreams can supposedly be reborn in animal or other nonhuman bodies, if their mind is best suited to that kind of life. Unlike in the Abrahamic religions, there is no exception made for killing animals. Intentionally killing any sentient being is bad to some degree, and where exactly sentience begins is unclear.)
- Life’s problems, including death, are considered to have been caused by that being’s karma (past intentional feelings/thoughts, words, and deeds), which conditioned that being to be born, and continues to condition everything that happens to them throughout their life. Everyone’s suffering is largely their own fault (the Buddha heavily emphasized the effects of karma, but later commentators also acknowledged the effects of the five niyama: genetics, the seasons, karma, that the mind is a stream of thought-moments, and the actions of powerful beings). The only way to stop making new karma is to meditate enough to become enlightened. As I understand, Buddhists think that it is no one else’s responsibility to stop another person or animal’s pain or suffering, though if someone wanted to ensure that they (themselves) continue to have nice rebirths, others’ suffering is an opportunity to behave generously, compassionately, etc. toward others, in order to accumulate merit for oneself. One is not abusing someone by not helping them through some natural situation, including illness or dying; their karma caused/conditioned that situation for them, and as karma is a natural law, it is an impartial, objective, just, etc. reaction to someone’s past action (i.e., nature has a built-in criminal justice system where people eventually automatically get exactly what they deserve). However, one must be careful about how one feels about others’ suffering. If one feels cruelly/sadistically happy that someone else is suffering, that is probably a negative karma for oneself. Neutral or peaceful karma leads to Nirvana or a middling/boring human life; positive, compassionate, loving, etc. karma leads to Heaven, wealth, beauty, etc.
- Similarly, killing someone or something does not necessarily spare them/it from having to face its karma in a future life. However, Buddhists often believe that one could make merit for that being by doing good things and then transferring that merit to that being, to try to negate some of that being’s negative karma and spare it from suffering in the future. Without such an intervention, one must face one’s karma eventually.
- Death and mortal pain offer important opportunities for the mind to watch the body fail. They provide important spiritual lessons, namely to clearly see the impermanence of life, that one should not become too attached to the body or one’s current lifestyle, and to see that a part of the mind (the “mindstream” or citta-santanaa) is separate from the body and survives death (though is not an immortal soul or spirit like in the Abrahamic religions).
- Strong neurological drugs, like narcotic or opioid painkillers, the drugs used for anesthesia and euthanasia, intoxicants, etc. hinder or destroy one’s clarity of mind, making it difficult or impossible for what is left of the brain and body to clealy see what is happening, and maybe preventing the mindstream from knowing what to do, where to go, etc. for a good rebirth.
Instead, Buddhists usually advocate the following:
- Offer palliative/comfort care to the terminally ill (mild painkillers that don’t disrupt mental clarity (like NSAIDs), a comfortable bed or chair, good food and liquids, help them to use the toilet and to bathe, etc.), and sit with them as they die (meditating, chanting, or praying with or over them; encouraging them; holding their hand; helping them stay calm and clear-headed; etc.). In the case of dying animals, I understand that it is difficult to communicate such things to them, and they may not have the cognitive ability or education to understand what is happening to them (interestingly, nature/God doesn’t seem to care about this). Nevertheless, I have seen how touching or holding an animal and making sympathetic or soothing sounds can be calming to them.
- The Buddha initially recommended that people meditate on death, sitting in cemetaries, mortuaries, etc., watching bodies decay, and contemplating how one’s own body would eventually become like that. However, that was too depressing for some monks, so the Buddha switched to teaching breathing meditation (Pali: anapanasati), which is more mentally neutral. Some Buddhist monks encourage people to wait a few seconds before breathing in, to contemplate the feeling of breathlessness. I have also seen elderly people practice dying by stopping breathing for a minute, so that they might feel less traumatized when they actually die. And I have seen various animals encounter dead members of their own species, with various reactions: ants sometimes carry a dead ant back to the hive, and female dolphins and gorillas sometimes mourn (carry around, hold, contemplate, etc.) their own dead babies for days or weeks. I am not sure whether seeing a dead animal would help another animal of the same species learn to cope with death or would traumatize it. Like human children, animals do not seem to have as many socially learned filters, taboos, etc. about natural things (e.g., nudity, sex, and violence) as do adult humans.
- If a person is in a coma, vegetative state, etc., I understand that Buddhists are encouraged to care for them in the hope that they might one day regain consciousness. The Buddha similarly encouraged healthy monks in a monastery to take care of sick monks. Caring compassionately and selflessly for others purifies one’s own mind, reduces one’s self delusion, and is good karma. If this continues for a long time, hopefully there will be some kind of government or other institutional facility and funds for the person’s long-term sustenance, so that their family is not burdened.
- If a person is being kept barely alive by machines, I understand that Buddhists are encouraged to take care of them for a reasonable amount of time (the length of time is ambiguous) in the hope that they might recover and regain consciousness, but if they do not regain consciousness, to unplug the machines and let them die naturally in peaceful surroundings, with as much clarity of mind as possible.
- In the case of stray animals, I understand that perhaps they should be neutered or spayed (if adequate veterinary facilities exist), and that they should either be allowed to roam freely or be taken in as pets, living off of people’s generosity. I have never seen an animal shelter in a Buddhist-majority country. The cacophony of stray dogs barking and howling at night can be quite loud in Buddhist-majority countries; people don’t like it, but they tolerate it. It is also considered wrong by some Buddhists to deprive an animal of its freedom by keeping it as a pet, though some wealthy Buddhists do have pets, including purebred animals. More common is that there are neighborhood or village animals that roam from house to house getting food, medicine, shelter, etc. from generous people or living as they wish in nature.
When speaking of attachments, desires, cravings, etc., people often seem to focus on positive things: love of/for pleasure, family, friends, a certain place, etc. However, attachments can also be negative. For example: an activist might hate corruption or injustice, a police officer might hate crime or criminals, a military officer might hate foreign aggressors, a terrorist might hate another religion or ethnic group, an abused person might want revenge, an abusive person might want to exploit others, a corporate boss might want to conquer every competitor, a politician might want dictatorial power, and so on. Of course, most people probably have a mixture of positive and negative attachments.
As I understand, in Buddhism, rebirth happens because of any attachment to this (or any) world, not only positive attachments. The Buddha also seems to have been attached to “the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening” (AN 8.86), which are perhaps attachments leading to nirvana.
The pop-cultural, public “sugary coating” of Buddhism is so flashy (elaborate statues, chants, jewelry, bright orange robes, etc.) that it’s easy to forget that one of the fetters people must abandon in order to be stream-enterers is attachment to rites and rituals.
Though such things can serve to get people in a religious/spiritual mood, or to draw people to Buddhism, people can become overly attached to them, and such things come with negative costs. For example, one usually must kill flowers and fruit to put them on an altar, the herbs and spices in incense come from plants that must be killed, burning incense and candles pollutes the air and can hurt people’s lungs, burning candles can start larger fires, and monks chanting over loudspeakers for hours can intrude upon the peaceful silence of a space.
Buddhism is a worldly phenomenon that points to nirvana; it itself isn’t nirvana. Though doing meritorious rites and rituals might give one good karma for a better rebirth, or help one communicate with devas, if people actually want nirvana, as I understand, they shouldn’t neglect the practices that make a person more like the Buddha (e.g., renouncing worldly things, being virtuous, mindful, calm, aware, kind, compassionate, etc.).
Why don’t more people use religious canonical or liturgical languages in everyday speech (e.g., Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic for Christians; Pali or Sanskrit for Buddhists; etc.), so that they can think in the same terms as the founder(s) of their religion and unite with like-minded people around the world? Besides the tendency for modern societies to be secular, I suspect it is because many people and governments value their nation, ethnic group, or local culture more than their philosophy or religion. Modern languages often have some historical basis in a canonical or liturgical language, but they usually have evolved in the context of a specific nation or group, and have not been synchronized with other local languages.