I would like to suggest some areas in which science could
be improved upon, beginning with a discussion of "insufficiency."
Science is not sufficient to remedy the problems of the modern day world. To
illustrate, let us look at the situation in the environment. The problem of
conservation is one of the major issues of our time, and science must play a
leading role in dealing with this problem, especially in terms of research and
proposals for solutions.
Scientific knowledge is invaluable. It can warn us of the
dangers that exist, their causes, and the ways in which we have to deal with
them. Technology is an essential tool in this work. But such valuable tools
alone are not enough to solve the problem. Indeed, we may find that the
problems have largely arisen from science and technology.
Science and technology are not able to correct their own
handiwork. In spite of having the necessary knowledge at our disposal, we do
not use it. In spite of having the technical capability to solve problems, we
continue to use the kind of technology which aggravates them. Scientific
knowledge is incapable of changing human behavior. Attempts to solve these
problems always flounder on indecision. Science may have to open up and work in
conjunction with other disciplines, by providing them with data for use in a
collective effort to address these problems.
From a Buddhist perspective, any attempt to solve human
problems, regardless of type, must always be implemented on three levels.
To give an example, environmental problems must be
addressed on three levels:
2. The mind
These three levels must be integrated in the process of
problem solving, thus:
1. On the level of behavior, there must be social
constraint, that is, restraint on the outward manifestations of bodily and
There are two ways to constrain behavior in society:
Firstly, restraint from without, through regulations and
laws, including punishment for lawbreakers and so on. In Buddhism this is
called "vinaya." The second way is restraint from within the
individual, through intention. Usually such intention arises from religious
faith. With belief or confidence in religion, there is a readiness and
willingness to restrain behavior. In Buddhism such internal restraint is called
In short, the first way is vinaya -- regulations and
standards for constraining destructive actions, and the second way is sila --
the conscious intention to be restrained within the restrictions thus imposed.
Both of these levels are related in that they are concerned
with the control and training of behavior. On a social level it is necessary to
establish regulations, but alone they are not enough. There must also be sila,
restraint from within, moral conduct that is fluent and regular.
2. In terms of the mind, since it is one of the factors
involved in causing problems, solving problems by control of behavior alone is
not enough. We must also deal with the mind. In our example, our aim is to
conserve nature. If we want all people to contribute in the conservation of
nature, we must first instill into them a desire to do so. So from
"conservation of nature" we arrive at "wanting to conserve
A desire to conserve nature is dependent on a love of
nature. With an appreciation of nature, the desire to conserve it will
naturally follow. But that's not the end -- people will only appreciate nature
when they can live happily with nature. It seems that most people have realized
the importance of appreciating nature, but if that is all they see they are not
seeing the whole chain of conditions. Failing to see all the factors involved,
their attempts to address the problem will also fail. We must search further
down to find the beginning of the chain, to see what needs to be done to
encourage people to appreciate nature.
A love of nature will arise with difficulty if people are
not happy living with nature. Our minds must be at ease living with nature
before we can love nature, and we must love nature before we can a develop a
desire to conserve nature, which is a necessary prerequisite for the actual
work of conservation.
Even though there may be other factors, or some
discrepancies, in our chain of conditions, this much is enough to convey the
general idea. It seems, though, that so far scientific work has obstructed this
process from taking place. The desire to seek happiness from the exploitation
of nature has caused people to feel, deeply within, that they can only be happy
through technology, and that nature is an obstacle to this happiness. Many
children in the present day feel that their happiness lies with technology,
they do not feel at all comfortable with nature. They may even go so far as to
see nature as an enemy, an obstacle to their happiness. Nature must be
conquered so that they can enjoy the happiness of technology. Take a look at
the minds of people in the present age and you will see that most people in
society feel this way. This is a result of the influence of science in the
recent Industrial Age.
The beliefs in conquering nature and seeking happiness in
material goods, which are represented and advocated by technology, have held
sway over the minds of human beings for such a long time that people have
developed the feeling that nature is an enemy, an obstruction to human
progress. As long as this kind of thinking prevails, it will be very difficult
for us to love nature. Our ways of thinking must be changed. If we are to
continue living in a natural world we must find a point of balance, and in
order to do that we must develop an appreciation of nature, at least to see
that nature can provide us with happiness. There is much beauty in nature, and
technology can be used to enhance our appreciation of it.
In order to be more effective, constraint of behavior needs
to be supported by mental conviction. If there is appreciation of skilful
action and a sense of satisfaction in such behavior, self-training need not be
a forced or difficult process.
3. In terms of understanding, wisdom refers to an
understanding of the process of cause and effect, or causes and conditions, in
nature. This is of prime importance. In order to understand the pro's and cons
of the issue of conservation we must have some understanding of the natural
order. In this respect Pure science can be of immense benefit, providing the
data which will clarify the relevant factors involved in the deterioration of
the environment, in what ways the environment has deteriorated, and what
effects are to be expected from this deterioration.
An understanding of the situation will open people's minds
and make them receptive. If there is understanding that a certain action causes
damage to the environment, and that this will in turn have a detrimental effect
on human beings, there will be an incentive to change behavior.
Sometimes, however, in spite of understanding the
ill-effects of something, we cannot change our behavior because the mind has
not yet accepted the truth on a deep enough level. That is why it is important
for the mind to have both an understanding of the situation on an intellectual
level, and also an emotional feeling, an appreciation, an ability to be happy
with nature. Scientific knowledge alone is not enough to induce people to
change their ways, because of attachment to habits, personal gains, social
preferences and so on. With enjoyment of nature as a foundation, any
intellectual understanding of the ecological system will serve to deepen or fortify
all qualities on the emotional level.
The methods of Buddhism are a comprehensive solution to the
problem at all levels. There are three prongs or divisions of the Buddhist
path. In Buddhism we call the first level sila, the constraint or control of
moral behavior through vinaya, laws and regulations. Restraint of action is
achieved through intention, which is the essence of sila. Both these levels,
regulations and moral intention, are included under the general heading of
sila, training in moral conduct.
The second level concerns the mind, training the feelings,
qualities and habits of the mind to be virtuous and skillful. This division is
known as samadhi, the training of the mind.
The third level is wisdom, pañña, or knowledge and
understanding. Wisdom is the quality which monitors the activities of the first
and second levels and keeps them on the right track. On its own, wisdom tends
to be inactive. It must be supported by training in moral conduct and
Wisdom not only supervises the practice of moral restraint
and meditation, but also examines the negative side of things, seeing, for
example, the harmful effects of unskillful behavior patterns, even when such
behavior is enjoyable or profitable. If such pleasure is seen to be in any way
harmful, wisdom is the voice which tells us that such behavior should be given
up or corrected, and in which ways it can be done.
These three divisions work together and are interdependent.
Initially we train our actions, cultivating skillful behavior and giving up the
unskillful. At the same time we train the mind, instilling in it skillful
drives and a feeling of joy or satisfaction in the practice. We also develop
understanding of reality and the reasons for practice, seeing the benefit and harm
of our actions as they are. As we train and the practice becomes more and more
consistent, the mind takes joy in the practice, which causes faith to increase.
When faith increases, the mind is keen to contemplate and understand our
actions. When wisdom or understanding arises, seeing the benefit in practicing
skillfully and the harm of not practicing, faith is enhanced once again. When
faith is increased, we are more able to control and adapt our behavior and make
it more in accordance with the right path.
Now we come to the quality of "too late." I would
like to give an illustration of what I mean by this statement to show what it
has to do with science. As an example I would like to compare the attitudes of
Buddhism with the attitudes of science, which have some strong similarities.
In science we have scientific knowledge on one hand, and
scientific attitude on the other. In many cases the scientific attitude is more
important than scientific knowledge. Why is this? Because the data or knowledge
obtained by science has sometimes proven to be wrong and had to be corrected.
This tends to be an ongoing process. This scientific attitude or objective is a
constant principle, one which has been of immense benefit to human beings.
Whether individual pieces of knowledge can actually be used or not is not a
sure thing, but this attitude is a condition that can be used immediately and
is of immediate benefit. However, the attitudes of science and Buddhism have
some slight discrepancies.
Firstly, let us define our terms. What are the attitudes of
Buddhism and science? Both attitudes have the same objectives, and that is to
see all things according to cause and effect, or causes and conditions. On
encountering any situation, both the Buddhist attitude and the scientific
attitude will try to look at it according to its causes and conditions, to try
to see it as it really is.
For example: You see your friend walking towards you with a
sour look on his face. For most of us, seeing a sour expression on our friend's
face would normally be an unpleasant sight. We would think our friend was angry
with us, and we would react in negative ways. An awareness of unpleasant
experience has taken place, and a reaction of dislike arises. Thinking,
"He can get angry, well so can I," we wear a sour expression in
But with a Buddhist or scientific attitude, when we see our
friend walking towards us with a sour expression, we do not look on it with an
aggravated state of mind, through liking or disliking, but with the objective
of finding out the truth. This is the attitude of looking at things according
to causes and conditions ... "Hmm, he's looking angry. I wonder why my
friend is looking angry today. I wonder if something's bothering him. Maybe
somebody said something to upset him at home, or maybe he's got no money, or
maybe ..." That is, we look for the real causes for his expression. This
is what I call the Buddhist attitude, which is applied to mental phenomena, and
which correlates with the scientific attitude, which applies to the material
plane. It is an attitude of learning, of looking at things according to causes
If we look at the situation in this way no problem arises.
Such an attitude leads to the relief of problems and the development of wisdom.
Searching for the causes and conditions for our friend's sour expression, we
might ask him the cause or act in some other intelligent way, initiating a
response which is attuned to solving the problem.
This is an example of an attitude which is common to both
Buddhism and science. But how do their attitudes differ? The scientific
attitude is one that is used only to gain knowledge, but the Buddhist attitude
is considered to be part and parcel of life itself. That is, this attitude is
part of the skillful life, it is a way of living harmoniously in society. In
short, it is ethics.
The scientific attitude is one clear example of how science
avoids the subject of ethics or values while in fact containing them. That is,
the scientific attitude is in itself an ethic, but because science does not
clearly recognize this, it fails to fully capitalize on this ethic. More
importantly, science fails to see ethics as an essential factor within the
process of realizing the truth of nature.
Buddhism does not use its attitude simply for the
acquisition of knowledge, but incorporates it into daily life, in the actuality
of the present moment. This brings us to the quality I call "too
late." Because the scientific attitude is an attitude and means simply of
finding knowledge, any practical application must wait until science finds out
all the answers. As long as we don't know the answers our hands are tied. If we
don't yet know what something is, we don't know how we should behave towards
But in this world there are so many things that science
does not yet have the answers for, and there's no telling when science will
have the answers. In the meantime, mankind, both as an individual and as a
society, must conduct life in the present moment. To put it simply, the conduct
of life for human beings in a skillful and proper way, within the space of one
individual life-span or one society, in real time, cannot wait for these
answers from the scientific world.
The Buddhist attitude is to search for knowledge in conjunction
with living life, holding that to look at things according to cause and effect
is part and parcel of the process of living a good life, not simply a tool to
find knowledge. Therefore, with the Buddhist attitude, whenever we meet
something that is not yet known clearly to us, or has not yet been verified, we
have an outlook which enables us to practice skillfully towards it. We do not
lose our standard in life.
The scientific attitude seeks knowledge only, but does not
give an outlook for living life. Buddhism teaches both levels, giving a path of
practice in relation to things in present day life. I will give an
illustration, one which has troubled mankind throughout the ages and toward
which even we, as Buddhists, fail to use a proper Buddhist outlook. I refer to
the subject of heavenly beings [devata].
The subject of heavenly beings is one that can be looked at
in terms of its relation to verifiable truth, or it can be looked at in
relation to human society, in the light of everyday life. Looking at the
subject with the scientific attitude, we think of it in terms of its verifiable
truth, that is, whether these things actually exist or not. Then we have to
find a means to verify the matter. The subject would eventually become one of
those truths "waiting to be verified," or perhaps
"unverifiable." And there the matter ends, with mankind having no
practical course to follow. As long as it remains unverified, it becomes simply
a matter of belief. One group believes these things do exist, one group believes
they don't. Each side has its own ideas. Take note that those who believe that
there are no such things are not beyond the level of belief -- they are still
stuck on the belief that such things do not exist. Both of these groups of
people are living in the one society. As long as they hold these differing and
unresolvable beliefs, there is going to be a state of tension.
In this instance, science has no recommendations to offer,
but in Buddhism there are ways of practice given in graded steps. On the first
level, looking for truth by experimentation, regardless of who wants to prove
the matter one way or the other, there is no problem. Those who are looking for
the facts are free to continue their search, either in support of the existence
of heavenly beings or against it.
On the second level, finding a right attitude for the
conduct of everyday life, what should we do? In Buddhism there is a way of
practice which does not contradict the case either for or against the existence
of heavenly beings. Our lives have a standard which is clear and can be applied
immediately. We are always ready to accept the truth, whether it is eventually
proven that heavenly beings do exist or they do not, and our way of life will
be in no way affected by such a discovery.
Most people are easily swayed or put on the defensive
because of doubts about issues such as this, which tends to make them lean
towards either one of two extreme views -- either that heavenly beings do exist
or that they don't. If you believe that heavenly beings do exist, then you have
to make supplications and perform ritual ceremonies to placate them. If you
believe that there aren't any heavenly beings, then you must argue with those
But in Buddhism we distinguish clearly between the search
for facts, which proceeds as normal, and the conduct of everyday life. Our life
does not depend on the heavenly beings. If there are heavenly beings, then they
are beings in this universe just like us, subject to birth, aging, sickness and
death, just like us. We Buddhists have a teaching which encourages us to
develop kind thoughts to all beings in the universe. If there are heavenly
beings, then we must have kind thoughts toward those heavenly beings.
The essential teaching of Buddhism is self-development and
self-reliance. The objective is freedom. If we are practicing in accordance
with the principle of self-reliance, we know what our responsibility is. It is
to train ourselves, to better ourselves. The responsibility of the heavenly
beings is to better themselves. So we both have the same responsibility, to
better ourselves. We can coexist with the heavenly beings with kind thoughts.
At the same time, whether heavenly beings exist or not is no concern of ours.
In this way, Buddhism has a clear outlook on the matter, and Buddhists do not
have to worry about such things.
Without this attitude, we get caught in the problem of
whether these things do exist or not. If they do exist, how should we conduct
ourselves? We might create ceremonies and sacrifices, which is not the duty of
a Buddhist. The Buddhist responsibility is to practice to better oneself. If a
human being succeeds in fully bettering himself, then he becomes the most
excellent of all beings -- revered even by the heavenly beings.
This is an example of Buddhist attitude, which in essence
is very similar to the attitude described in the simile of the man wounded by
the poisoned arrow. If you have been pierced by an arrow, your first duty is to
remove it before the poison spreads throughout the body and kills you. As for
searching for data in relation to that incident, whoever feels so inclined can
do so, but first it is necessary to take out that arrow.
This is very similar to the thinking of Sir Arthur Stanley
Eddington. He had a similar idea, although he did not put it in Buddhist terms.
"Verily, it is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a scientific man to pass through a door. And whether
the door be barn door or church door it might be wiser that he should consent
to be an ordinary man and walk in rather than wait till all the difficulties
involved in a really scientific ingress are resolved."
In Christian texts it is said that it would be easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.
Eddington rephrased this a little, saying that it would be easier for a camel
to pass through the eye of a needle than for a scientific man to go through a
door and into a room. What did he mean by this?
I stress here that Eddington is talking about a scientific
man, not a scientist. The reason it would be so hard for a scientific man to
enter a room is that a scientific man would have to first stand in front of the
door and wonder, "... Hmm, I wonder if I should go through this
door?" He would have to consider all the physical laws. He might try to
figure for example, how many pounds of air pressure per square inch would be on
his body if he walked through the door, how fast the earth would be spinning at
the time, how this would effect his walking into the room ... he would be
thinking for ever. In the end the scientific man would find it impossible to go
through the door, because he would never finish his scientific calculations.
That is why Eddington said it would be even easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than for a scientific man to pass through a door. He
concluded that scientists should behave as normal. Whether it be the door of a
church, a barn door or any other kind of door, then just to go through it.
If things continue as they are, science is in danger of
becoming another kind of "higher philosophy." That is, one of those
"truths" which are impossible to use in the situations of everyday
life, because they are forever waiting to be verified. Pure science maintains
that it is void of values, but it is well known how important the role of
science has been in the development of society in recent times, even though
this development has been the activity of human beings, imbued as they are with
values. When we look closely at history we find that values have been exerting
a subtle influence over the birth and development of science, beginning with
faith and the aspiration to know the truths of nature, up until the most
destructive value, the desire to conquer nature and produce an abundance of
The solution to the problem of values in science is not to
try to get rid of them. It is not necessary for science to try to evade values.
It is more a matter of trying to clarify the values that science does, or
should, have. Otherwise, science may unknowingly become the victim of other
values, values which obstruct the truth, and cause it to become a negative
influence, one that could even threaten the complete destruction of the human race.
In the preceding parts of this lecture I have tried to show
the connection of science to values on two levels, the highest value and the
provisional value. This highest value is one that science must adhere to in
order to attain to the highest truth, because the highest value is in itself
the truth and thus an indispensable factor in the attainment of ultimate truth.
However, this highest value, the highest good, or freedom, is an ideal, it is
an objective, and as such will not exert a major influence on the quality of
science in general.
The value which will have the most immediate influence over
science is the secondary value, of which there are two kinds: that which is
derived from, and harmonious with, the highest value; and the phony value which
has infiltrated into science as a result of a lack of reflection on values.
While scientists have no understanding of values, and fail
to see the relationship between them and the truth they are seeking, science
will, in addition to limiting the scope of knowledge to which it aspires and
rendering the search for highest knowledge fruitless, be taken over by the
lesser and more counterproductive values, some inherited from previous
generations, and some fed by desire and the search for happiness within the minds
of present-day scientists themselves. When these inferior values dominate the
mind, not only do they throw the search for true knowledge off course, but they
lead to destructive tendencies, causing problems either in the immediate
present, or if not, then at some time in the future.
Conversely, if scientists, or those seeking truth, realize
the connection between abstract values and the physical world, they will also
realize that to search for and understand natural truth is to understand the
nature of man; that for man to understand himself is to understand the nature
around him. When there is this kind of realization, the secondary value which
is derived from the highest value will arise of itself. It will automatically
be fulfilled. When there is right understanding, the result will be twofold,
1. The search for knowledge will not be limited or
misdirected, but will be set straight on the course for the highest kind of
2. The correct kind of secondary value will automatically arise
and human development will proceed in conjunction with the search for
If research is based on this right understanding, the right
kind of value will automatically be present.
The highest kind of value is a condition that will be
attained on the realization of truth. It is not necessary to strive to attain
this value in itself, simply to bear it in mind. When this is realized, a
balanced kind of secondary value, which is congruous with the highest value,
Even though in the path that is directed toward, and
harmonious with, the truth, the assurance of values is not necessary, being
already included in the awareness of truth, in practical terms, such as when
scientific knowledge is transferred into technology, it may be necessary to
emphasize some values in order to clarify the direction of research and to
prevent the infiltration of inferior and destructive values. Examples of some
of these positive values might be: the search for knowledge in order to attain
freedom from human imperfection, or to search for knowledge in order to solve
problems and further the development of mankind and even such lesser values as
striving to do everything as circumspectly as possible, with minimal harmful
At the very least, the realization of the importance of
values will enable scientists to be aware of and to understand the way to
relate to the values with which they have to deal in their search for
knowledge, such as greed, anger, hurt, jealousy, envy and so on, such as in the
case of Newton. More importantly, they will see the benefit of a correct set of
values and know how to use them effectively, even in the advancement of the
search for knowledge. At the very least, scientists will have a sense of morals
and not become the mere servants of industry.
One value which is of prime importance to humanity and its
activities is happiness. The value of happiness lies deeply and subconsciously
behind all human activities and is thus an essential part of ethics. Our
conception of happiness will naturally influence all our undertakings. For
example, the values of the Industrial Age saw that happiness lay in the
subjugation of nature, after which nature could be used as humanity wished.
This has led to the developments which are presently causing so many problems
in the world.
In order to address problems successfully we must see the
truth of happiness and suffering as they really are. Conversely, if we do not
correct our values in regard to happiness and suffering, we will have no way of
addressing the problems of human development.
To correct our definition of happiness means, in brief, to
change our social values, no longer trying to find happiness in the destruction
of nature, but instead finding happiness in harmony with nature. In this way we
can limit the manipulation of nature to only what is necessary to relieve human
suffering rather than to feed pleasure-seeking.
Mankind must realize that if he continues to seek happiness
from the destruction of nature, he will not find the happiness he is looking
for, even if nature is completely destroyed. Conversely, if mankind is able to
live happily with nature, he will experience happiness even while developing
the freedom from suffering.
Roughly speaking, there are three main values with which
scientists will inevitably have to deal. They are:
1. Mundane values, which scientists, as ordinary people,
have in common with everybody else. This includes incentives or motivations,
both good and bad, occurring in everyday life, and also in the search for and
use of knowledge. Such values include selfishness, the desire for wealth,
gains, fame or eminence, or, on the other hand, altruistic values, such as
kindness and compassion.
2. Values which are adhered to as principles, and which
guide the direction of learning, such as the idea of subjugating nature, the
values of the industrial age, the belief that happiness can be obtained through
a wealth of material goods, or conversely, the principle of addressing problems
and improving the quality of life.
3. The highest value, which scientists should adhere to as
members of the human race, is the ideal of the human race as a whole, which, as
I have said, has so far been neglected by the world of science. Science is
still only half way, with an aspiration to know the truths of nature solely on
an outward level. Such an aspiration does not include the matter of "being
human," or the highest good.
Science has still some unfinished business to do in regard
to these three values.
Encouraging constructive technology
On the level of everyday life, or satisfying the everyday
needs of humanity, science plays the vital role of paving the way for
technological development and encouraging the production, development and
consumption of lopsided technology. On the other hand, social preferences for a
particular kind of technology encourage scientific research aimed at producing,
developing and consuming that technology.
From what we have seen, science, supported by the beliefs
in the efficacy of conquering nature and producing an abundance of material
goods, has spurred the production and development of technology along a path
resulting in serious problems. Science and technology may have actually done
more harm than good.
The kind of production, development and consumption of
technology which has caused these problems is one geared to feeding greed
(selfishly and wastefully catering to desires on the sensual plane), hatred
(causing exploitation, destruction, power mongering), and delusion (encouraging
heedlessness, time-wasting activities, and the blind consumption and use of
In the development of science on the technological level,
it will be necessary to change some of the basic assumptions it is based on, by
encouraging the development of constructive technology, which is free of
harmful effects, within the constraints of these three principles:
1. Technology which is moderate.
2. Technology which is used for creating benefit.
3. Technology which serves to develop understanding and
improve the human being.
I would like to expand on this a little.
1. We must acknowledge the needs of the ordinary human
being. Ordinary people want to be able to satisfy their desires for sense
pleasures. We do not want to suppress or deny these sense pleasures. The
important point is to encourage the constraint of behavior to a degree which is
not destructive or extravagant, by encouraging restraint on the mind, keeping
it within moderate limitations. It must be a limitation in which self-created
sense desires are balanced by an awareness of what is of real benefit to and
truly necessary in life. This is expressed in the words "know
moderation." This value is closely related to the development of wisdom.
In particular, there should be some principles governing the production,
development and consumption of material goods wherein they are directed towards
real benefit, aimed at bettering the quality of life rather than satisfying
inferior values. In short, we can call this, "technology which is
moderate," or technology which puts a limitation on greed.
2. In addition to selfishness and greed, mankind has a
tendency to covet power over others, and to destroy those who oppose his
desires. The human potential for hatred has found expression in many ways,
causing the production, development and consumption of technology which
facilitates mutual destruction more than mutual cooperation. Mankind must turn
around and change this direction of development, by establishing a clear
objective and creating a firm and decisive plan to encourage the production,
development and consumption of goods which are constructive and beneficial to
human society. This technology for benefit will help to do away with or
diminish the production of technology which caters to hatred.
3. So far, the production, development and consumption of
technology has mostly been of a kind which leads people to heedlessness,
intoxication and dullness, especially in the present time, when many parts of
the world have stepped into the Information Age. If mankind practices wrongly
in regard to this information technology, it becomes an instrument for
promoting heedlessness rather than an educational aid. Witness, for example,
the gambling machines and video games which abound in the cities of the world,
completely void of any purpose other than to waste time and money. Witness also
the ignorant use of technology, without any awareness of its benefits and
dangers, leading to environmental damage. These things not only degrade the
environment, they also debase human dignity.
For this reason we need to effectuate a conscious change of
direction -- to stress production, development and consumption of technology
which promotes intelligence and development of the human being, using it as a
tool for the communication of knowledge that is useful, and which encourages
people to use their time constructively. There must also be conscious use of
technology, with an awareness of the benefits and dangers involved in it. In
this way, technology will be an instrument for enhancing the quality of life
and protecting the environment. Society will become an environment which
supports and encourages mental development. This third kind of technology can
be called, "technology which enhances intelligence and human development,"
which is directly opposite to the technology which encourages delusion.
If production, development and consumption of technology
can be channelled in this way, and if science opens the way to this kind of
technology, then sustainable development will surely become a reality.
12. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, "Defense of
Mysticism," in Quantum Questions, ed. Ken Wilbur (Boston: New Science
Library, 1984), p. 208.
[Taken from Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto., Toward Sustainable
Science, A Buddhist Look at Trends in Scientific Development. (Bangkok:
Buddhadhamma Foundation, 1993), pp. 129-149].