Future Directions in Study of Buddhism
By Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto
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.
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
three levels must be integrated in the process of problem solving, thus:
On the level of behavior, there must be social constraint, that is, restraint
on the outward manifestations of bodily and verbal behavior.
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 síla.
short, the first way is Vinaya -- regulations and standards for constraining destructive
actions, and the second way is síla -- 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 síla, restraint from within, moral conduct that is fluent
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 nature."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 síla, the constraint or control of
moral behavior through Vinaya, laws and regulations. Restraint of action is achieved
through intention, which is the essence of síla. Both these levels, regulations
and moral intention, are included under the general heading of síla, 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 samádhi, the training of the mind.
The third level is wisdom,
paññá, 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 meditation.
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 that 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.
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.
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 response.
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 and conditions.
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.
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.
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 it.
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 un-resolvable 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 who do.
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?
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 material goods.
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 that obstruct the truth, and cause it to become a negative influence,
one that could even threaten the complete destruction of the human race.
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, namely:
The search for knowledge will not be limited or misdirected, but will be set straight
on the course for the highest kind of knowledge.
2. The correct kind of secondary
value will automatically arise and human development will proceed in conjunction
with the search for knowledge.
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, will arise.
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 results.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
has still some unfinished business to do in regard to these three values.
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
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
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 technology).
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:
Technology, which is moderate.
2. Technology, which is used for creating benefit.
Technology, which serves to develop understanding and improve the human being.
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
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
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.
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
If production, development and consumption of technology can be channeled
in this way, and if science opens the way to this kind of technology, then sustainable
development will surely become a reality.
 Sir Arthur Stanley
Eddington, "Defense of Mysticism," in Quantum Questions, ed. Ken Wilbur
(Boston: New Science Library, 1984), p. 208.