[FutureBuddha (17)] The Buddhist Three Poisons: New and Old Medicines Combined

[Jundo]

Dear Fellow Neurosattvas,

The Buddha taught that we should bring peace, contentment, empathy, generosity, charity and enlightenment to the world. He professed various meditations and other practices to realize so. During his Iron Age lifetime, he offered what he could, what was available. Dogen and the other old Zen Masters offered what they had in the Middle Ages. On an individual level, the ancient ways are powerful and beautiful ways, helping and liberating individual practitioners through the centuries, changing the lives of so many, opening insight, to be treasured by us today.

Nonetheless, our Bodhisattva Vow is to "Save -ALL- Sentient Beings," and despite helping so many, in that wider mission, even the Buddha and old Zen Masters failed miserably (as shown by the fact that, after these 25 centuries, human beings as a whole are yet in the state we are in.) Buddhism's traditional methods did not really get the job done in 2+ millenia, not far and wide beyond the individual practitioners, the scattered monasteries, our relatively small Sangha communities among the billions who inhabit this planet. Even the so-called "Buddhist countries," from India to China, Thailand to Tibet, Korea to Japan are today hotbeds of consumerism and consumption, militarism and environmental degradation, not spiritual kingdoms, let alone 'Shangri-La.' The world remains torn by greed, war and other lethal violence, suffering children, poverty, man's inhumanity to man. All our Zazen and Tonglen, chanting chants and twirling beads, prayers and wishes are good and freeing for our hearts, but are drops in the bucket in widely helping the world.

Now, perhaps, there are techniques and methods in the pipeline to more effectively and widely bring greater empathy, peace, contentment, charity and enlightenment to the world. We do not know exactly what science and medicine will bring in the coming years, but there are signs that it will include some helpful new tools. Is the science still vague? Yes, but in many ways, more solid, realistic, specific, science-based and potentially effective than anything which has existed before in Buddhist history. Enough with the wishful talk about peace, contentment, empathy, charity and enlightenment ... there may soon be means to widely bring forth peace, contentment, empathy, charity and enlightenment in the world.

The following paragraphs do not say that we should turn away from the traditional vessels of Zazen and Koans, Chanting and Bowing and Oryoki and simple living. Far from it!! We shall keep on as always! I merely ask what new vessels, new tools and techniques, may be added to our collection of liberating methods and arsenal of peace, to spread Wisdom and Compassion wider, faster, more easily, to so many more ...

I remind readers: In the following I continue to ask, assuming that certain medical, genetic and other technological developments ...

(1) are inevitable and coming anyway, cannot be halted, cannot be ignored;

(2) have a high chance of being misused by bad actors unless we use them in beneficial ways;

(3) can be shown to be effective and safe to use; and

(4) can be introduced in an ethical way respectful of individual free choice, civil and human rights ...

... how should such technologies be best employed to heal some of what troubles this world??

My book states:

~ ~ ~

Through the centuries, Buddhists have discovered many techniques to turn the three poisons into three powers for a positive and healthy life by avoiding excesses and by seeing beyond greed, anger and division. Buddhists strive to turn the ‘three poisons’ into their opposites in our personalities, e.g., greed into satisfaction and generosity; anger and violence into feelings of peace and compassion; divided thinking into a sense of cooperation, wholeness and transcendence. Zen Buddhists learn to keep judgements, desires, and emotional impulses in moderation and balance, as well as to see through them altogether via an alternative knowing of reality beyond all judgements, desires, and divisions. If our human race is going to make it into the future without squandering the great resources of this planet, decimating each other in needless wars, suffering unnecessarily by excessively viewing life as divided and dissatisfying, then we are going to have to become more moderate and learn to appraise things differently than we currently do.

It is my belief that we can then attain a world of tomorrow which, while not perfect by all measures … for sometimes, alas, earthquakes will still quake, fires will still run wild, some sicknesses will remain uncurable, death may be delayed but yet inevitable, plans and dreams will frequently fizzle, lovers will leave us, and people often will act in many harmful and disappointing ways far into the future … nonetheless, will be a world that is very good, and impeccably embraceable as it is, all by tweaking just these three poisons.

Century after century, Buddhism has employed various traditional methods and expedient means to attain such good states. Meditation, chanting, twirling beads, reading sutras and engaging in rituals are all a kind of “brain hacking” meant to change how we think, feel and, thus, how we act in order to bring us more in line with Buddhist teachings on wisdom and compassion. Likewise, future technologies and mastery of the brain and body can also serve as expedient means to bring such attainments to life, and more effectively. Future methods of enlightening the sentient being-masses may succeed in ways that, for thousands of years, were attainable only by the rare adept.

Alas, even the Buddha could not succeed in getting all people to listen to, understand and realize what he realized during his lifetime. Generations of later Buddhist teachers, although helping so many beings, have not succeeded in changing the hearts of most people who might benefit, not even close to bringing peace and liberation to the whole world. If we look at the small proportion of this planet’s total historical population that seems truly to have gotten the message of peace, contentment, charity and harmony into their hearts, then, honestly, all the countless hours of Buddhist meditation, all the chanting and other practices, Dharma talks, all the pages of Sutras and their Commentaries, all the twirling beads appear to have been grossly ineffective delivery vehicles as a means to reach most people. Likewise for the ethical preaching and moral philosophizing of other religions and creeds.

Of course, one could respond that we should be patient and stay with the old ways alone, that it will just take a few thousand years more, or a few thousand more reborn lives, or that it is enough that it has been effective for only some and a relative few. However, I think it time to admit that, despite our vows to bring liberation to the masses, people continue to suffer. The Bodhisattvas’ mission is to rescue all sentient beings as promised, and we have failed for the great majority so far.

But is the time of rescue coming soon?

And if so, how?

Let us return to the three poisons:

(to be continued)

https://youtu.be/r3neFV38TJQ

Gassho, J

stlah

[Tokan]

Gassho, Tokan

satlah

[Jundo]

A conference this weeks highlights medical and ethical concerns with gene modification as it currently exists. I very much agree with the summit's closing statement:

"Heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time," the committee said in the summit's closing statement. "Heritable human genome editing should not be used unless, at a minimum, it meets reasonable standards for safety and efficacy, is legally sanctioned, and has been developed and tested under a system of rigorous oversight that is subject to responsible governance. At this time, these conditions have not been met."

[NPR] Ethical concerns temper optimism about gene-editing for human diseases

It's still far too premature to try to use powerful new technologies to edit genes that can be passed down from generation to generation, according to the organizers of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing that concluded Wednesday in London.

Techniques that have made it easier to manipulate DNA still produce too many mistakes for scientists to be confident any children born from edited embryos would be healthy, according to the organizers of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing.

Moreover, a broad societal debate about the implications for humanity would be necessary before moving forward, the summit organizers said.

"Unacceptable at this time"
"Heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time," the committee said in the summit's closing statement. "Heritable human genome editing should not be used unless, at a minimum, it meets reasonable standards for safety and efficacy, is legally sanctioned, and has been developed and tested under a system of rigorous oversight that is subject to responsible governance. At this time, these conditions have not been met."

Despite the statement, critics were disappointed, saying the summit gave short shift to the profound ethical debate swirling around inheritable genetic modifications.

Critics are also troubled by what they say has been a subtle but striking shift in the debate from whether genetic modifications that can be inherited should ever be done — the question raised at the international summit in 2018 — to a discussion of technical hurdles that must to be overcome to make those modifications safely.

"Are we hitting the brake, or hitting the gas?"
"We all know you, see a yellow light and sometimes you slow down and hit the brake and sometimes you hit the gas. And it behooves us to ask the question: Are we hitting the brake or hitting the gas," said Bill Hurlbut, a bioethicist at Arizona State University who helped organized a kind of parallel project called the Global Observatory for Genome Editing aimed at broadening the discussion. "I think here we're hitting the gas."

Hurlbut and others also say the debate is being held amongst a relatively small cadre of elite researchers and raises too many profound questions for humanity to limit it that way. It requires a much broader societal debate, they say.

"The approach taken by the organizers of the summit is an extreme case of scientific irresponsibility, and an unwillingness to accept that society has any right to set ethical limits upon science," said David King, who heads the watchdog group Stop Designer Babies.

The fear is that a mistake could introduce new genetic mutations into the human gene pool that would then be passed down for generations. Some critics also fear it could open a slippery slope to "designer babies" and other dystopian fears about creating a kind of super-race of humans.

The summit's concluding statement came after more than 400 scientists, doctors, bioethicists, patients and others spent three days debating the pros and cons of new techniques that let scientists manipulate genes more easily than ever before.

It's the first summit since He Jiankui, a scientist from China, shocked the world at the last summit in Hong Kong in 2018 by announcing he had used the gene-editing technique called CRISPR to create the first genetically modified humans — twin girls he made from gene-edited embryos. The scientist's actions were denounced for many reasons, including the fact that no one knew if it was safe. A court in China ultimately sentenced him to three years in prison.

That episode hung over this year's summit like a huge shadow.

"While the potential benefits of the technology are clear, so also is the potential for it to be misused," said Linda Partridge, a geneticist at The Royal Society told the summit on the opening day Monday. "And while the specter of designer babies is easier to conjure the less you know about genetics, that doesn't mean that unscrupulous actors won't use the technology to further their own interests."

Huge strides made, too, in gene editing's potential benefits
During the summit, scientists presented the latest research showing that scientists have quietly made huge strides honing their gene-editing skills over the last five years.

On the one hand, they described new evidence about just how unsafe it would be to try to make any new gene-edited babies. The editing remains prone to missing the intended target in the DNA and instead creating unexpected mutations, the scientists reported.

"That's something that really has to worry us," said Dr. Dagan Wells, a reproductive geneticist at the University of Oxford. "These results really provide a warning."

But several scientists also described progress towards refining their skills to make it safer to edit human embryos, eggs and sperm, as well as new gene-editing techniques that are more precise.

Another ethical concern: Who can afford gene therapy?
On the final day, scientists, bioethicists and advocates debated the ethical pros and cons of someday using these techniques to modify human gene, eggs or sperm.

"There are a bevy of serious objections to reproductive genome modification," argued Tina Rulli, a bioethicist at the University of California, Davis.

"They include: Concerns about the safety of the modification ... the risk of dangerous modifications let loose in the human gene pool, a slippery slope to using the technology to make designer babies, unethical eugenic uses of the technology that harm disability communities, and unequal unfair access to the technology that only advantages the wealthy."

But others argued there could be enormous benefits, including eradicating thousands of terrible genetic diseases that plagued families for generations."

"This has the tremendous potential to transform human health," said Dietrich Egli, a biologist at Columbia University studying gene-editing in human embryos.

It could also help infertile couples have genetically related children, others said.

"Where having a biological family is still an imperative, in those situations and cultures, this could become a compelling reason for heritable gene-editing," said Ephrat Levy-Lahad, the director of the Medical Genetics Institute at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Israel.

A possible cure for some forms of sickle cell — but at what price?
The first two days of the summit focused on dramatic advances using gene-editing to treat diseases a wide variety of diseases in people who have already been born, ranging from rare genetic diseases to more common illnesses like cancer and heart disease.

The most dramatic advance has been for sickle cell disease and a related condition known as beta thalassemia. The summit highlighted Victoria Gray, a Mississippi sickle cell patient who NPR has been following for years. Gray and several dozen other patients have essentially been cured. And the treatment she got could be the first gene-editing treatment to get approved this year.

But that's also raising concerns — that the treatment's too complicated and will be too expensive to become widely accessible to everyone who needs it, especially in less affluent countries where sickle cell disease is most common.

"The extremely high costs ... are unsustainable"
In the closing statement, organizers stressed that making gene-editing therapies widely accessible has to be a priority.

"To realize its full therapeutic potential, research is needed to expand the range of diseases it can treat, and to better understand risks and unintended effects," Robin Lovell-Badge of the Francis Crick Institute, who led the summit, said while reading the closing statement. "The extremely high costs of current somatic gene therapies are unsustainable. A global commitment to affordable, equitable access to these treatments is urgently needed."

The summit was sponsored by the British Royal Society, the U.K. Academy of Medical Sciences, the U.S. National Academies of sciences and medicine and The World Academy of Sciences.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/08/1161868040/gene-editing-ethical-concerns-temper-optimism-human-diseases-embryos

Gassho, J

stlah

[JohnS]

A conference this weeks highlights medical and ethical concerns with gene modification as it currently exists. I very much agree with the summit's closing statement:

[I]"Heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time," the committee said in the summit's closing statement. "Heritable human genome editing should not be used unless, at a minimum, it meets reasonable standards for safety and efficacy, is legally sanctioned, and has been developed and tested under a system of rigorous oversight that is subject to responsible governance. At this time, these conditions have not been met."[

Gassho, J

stlah

In my opinion, humanity has shown itself to be too irresponsible for such things. No doubt any useful benefits of such technology would soon be overshadowed by evil use. Some things humanity cannot be trusted with. History shows the risk outweighs the benefit.

Gassho,

John

SatTodayLAH

[Jundo]

In my opinion, humanity has shown itself to be too irresponsible for such things. No doubt any useful benefits of such technology would soon be overshadowed by evil use. Some things humanity cannot be trusted with. History shows the risk outweighs the benefit.

Gassho,

John

SatTodayLAH

I deleted my first response, because I want to say precisely what I feel.

I hope this never happens if it is harmful to people. I hope that this never happens if will be used by evil people for evil ends. We need to prevent that. Certainly, now it cannot be used safely on a wide scale, as the above meeting report states.

But if it is inevitable, if it cannot be stopped, if it someday soon can be used safely with confidence by the medical community, then we should use it for good and in ways to keep it from the hands of those who would do harm. It must be highly regulated.

It is a delicate issue, like nuclear energy. It is very dangerous, can be misused, I wish there were an alternative. But if nuclear energy cannot be avoided (one of my earliest memory is accompanying my mother to a protest at a nuclear plant somewhere at the end of the 1960s, but the plant was built anyway), I want it to be used for good and safely, for clean energy, meeting our highest safety requirements, and certainly kept out of the hands of wrongdoers. If used correctly and safely, nuclear energy is a means to combat global warming and can be used for good. If used for wrong, it is a bomb.

Written by me ... who lives 100 miles as the crow flies from Fukushima nuclear plant ...

I hope that I am as clear as I can be.

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

[Bion]

I deleted my first response, because I want to say precisely what I feel.

I hope this never happens if it is harmful to people. I hope that this never happens if will be used by evil people for evil ends. We need to prevent that. Certainly, now it cannot be used safely on a wide scale, as the above meeting report states.

But if it is inevitable, if it cannot be stopped, if it someday soon can be used safely with confidence by the medical community, then we should use it for good and in ways to keep it from the hands of those who would do harm. It must be highly regulated.

It is a delicate issue, like nuclear energy. It is very dangerous, can be misused, I wish there were an alternative. But if nuclear energy cannot be avoided (one of my earliest memories is accompanying my mother to a protest at a nuclear plant somewhere at the end of the 1960s, but the plant was built anyway), I want it to be used for good and safely, for clean energy, meeting our highest safety requirements, and certainly kept out of the hands of wrongdoers. If used correctly and safely, nuclear energy is a means to combat global warming and can be used for good. If used for wrong, it is a bomb.

Written by me ... who lives 100 miles as the crow flies from Fukushima nuclear plant ...

I hope that I am as clear as I can be.

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

The reality of our entire human existence has been that whatever we invent we use it for both good and bad, even when highly “regulated”. That’s just a fact of life that applies to absolutely everything and thus within that reality is where we continuously make choices, with more or less freedom, as just simple members of society. Both good and terrible evil are inevitable, but we put our hopes on the good. [emoji3526]

[emoji1374] Sat Today

[Jundo]

The reality of our entire human existence has been that whatever we invent we use it for both good and bad, even when highly “regulated”. That’s just a fact of life that applies to absolutely everything and thus within that reality is where we continuously make choices, with more or less freedom, as just simple members of society. Both good and terrible evil are inevitable, but we put our hopes on the good. [emoji3526]

[emoji1374] Sat Today

Bion, I wrote a response to you, but it happened to overlap with what I was writing for a new thread, so I just point you there ...

[FutureBuddha (18)] The Buddhist Three Poisons: A Substitute for Harmful Intoxicants

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?21285-FutureBuddha-%2818%29-The-Buddhist-Three-Poisons-A-Substitute-for-Harmful-Intoxicants

Gassho, J

stlah

[Bion]

Bion, I wrote a response to you, but it happened to overlap with what I was writing for a new thread, so I just point you there ...

[FutureBuddha (18)] The Buddhist Three Poisons: A Substitute for Harmful Intoxicants

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?21285-FutureBuddha-%2818%29-The-Buddhist-Three-Poisons-A-Substitute-for-Harmful-Intoxicants

Gassho, J

stlah

Saw it. [emoji3526]

[emoji1374] Sat

[Nengei]

I hope this never happens if it is harmful to people. I hope that this never happens if will be used by evil people for evil ends. We need to prevent that. Certainly, now it cannot be used safely on a wide scale, as the above meeting report states.

But if it is inevitable, if it cannot be stopped, if it someday soon can be used safely with confidence by the medical community, then we should use it for good and in ways to keep it from the hands of those who would do harm. It must be highly regulated.

I hope all beings are able to agree on what good is, and what things should be "fixed."

Gassho,
Nengei
Sat today. LAH.

[Jundo]

I hope all beings are able to agree on what good is, and what things should be "fixed."

For me, I am happy to stay with the Buddhist definitions of "good," which are fortunately shared by most (sadly, not all) other religions and humanistic philosophies I know:

(1) Reducing violence and killings done in raging anger, (2) increasing empathy such that one would hesitate to do physical violence to another sentient being, (3) increasing human empathy so that human does not hate human for who they are and is hesitant to see another human hungry and homeless even if a stranger, (4) reducing excess desire and lack of satisfaction to the point of greed whereby we consume to degrees harmful to the planet, (5) eliminating addictions which destroy lives.

Just that would be enough.

I think that might be enough to reduce or eliminate a panoply of human problems which plague us, and have for thousands of years. Other definitions and disagreements regarding "good" (whether I like this or you prefer that in life) can then be left to the eye of the beholder on what would then be this otherwise peaceful planet, free of hunger and homelessness, in healthier balance in its consumption of resources and treatment of nature.

Gassho, Jundo

stlah