Tuesday August 19, 2008


This morning I simply could not get down to work. I listened to the radio, I wrote a few words, I spent far too long looking online for obscure texts about banditry in nineteenth century Bulgaria (it’s called research, don’t you know…) and when that was all too much, I hung out with the cat, who has mastered the art of doing sod all to an awesome degree.

What I need, perhaps, is the intervention of a perpetually smiling, horribly efficient productivity guru who can overhaul my working practices and turn me into some kind of 21st-century multi-tasking wizard. Or I simply need a brain upgrade… And that suggestion brings me to the subject of neuroethics, the place where neuroscience meets ethics. Neuroethics is a fascinating emerging field, one that works in two directions. On the one hand it concerns the ethics of neuroscience – for example, What are the ethics of ‘upgrading’ the brain pharmaceutically? or, What bearing does our deeper understanding of the brain have on our notions of impaired states of consciousness such as that of coma? – and on the other hand it concerns the neuroscience of ethics – What does our developing understanding of the brain say about the way we think about ethics?

This is fascinating territory, and although the latter kind of question is to me the more interesting of the two, questions of the former kind are, I suspect, going to become more and more important as technology improves. But rather than going into the subject in any great detail here, I want to just post a link to my review of Walter Glannon’s book , published on the Metapsychology Online website. The book is a thoroughly worthwhile read, covering some at least of the major issues at stake, even though most of the essays in the volume work within a somewhat circumscribed conception of ethics – ethics, in at least some of the essays gathered in this book, can seem to be reducible to the question of what I can get away with.

To return to my lack of productivity this morning, however… whilst upgrades are all very well, I have to add that I’m not sure that I would be first in the queue if it came to handing out pills to increase my productivity. There is much to be said, after all, for hanging out with one’s cat and doing sod all.

# · vasudeva dasa

As I was reading a thought crossed my mind and was this.
Since according to buddhism mind creates the phisical body according to karma and according to ones previous consciousness to enjoy a higher or lower perspective of reality in this life.
This is on the one hand.
On the other hand, according to some thinkers, moral values and ethics are mere arising properties of the brain. And this is so far the Belief of the “scientific” stabhlishment.

Now I have the following questions I would like to make after conveing you with this facts to see if you agree with this “premises”:
1) According to Buddhism Everything change, there are no eternal objects such as eternal consciouss souls, or god.
2) We see that also the structure of the brain changes the cells change, Everything must change according to the 2nd Law of Thermodinamics.
3)We see we have moral codes dictated by sri Buddha centuries ago.

Now questions:

1) Why this codes are not changing?
2) From what plane of consiousness are they dictated?

The teaching of Buddhism is meant to set us free from everything in this changing reality that of course, is all there is, and attain Nirvana.
If the teaching of Buddha are coming in contact with us, they must come from some plane of consiousness from inside this system of reality wich is temporal in all its respects.
That plane of consiousness must be created inside this world of changing phenomena, so how can they tell us something real about something outside the realm of cause and effect?
If everything, including consciousness is dependent of the material world to exist and therefore perceive reality, how could the conssiousness of Buddha transcend this reality of changes and see that there is another plane of existence called Nirvana?

If consciosness is a product of cause and effect how can function to perceive something outside the world of cause and efect?

Thank you for your time reading this.
If you think this needs a clarification or anything, you have my email.

Are we going to say that the moral codes dictated by Buddhism are created by

Comments are turned off for this article.

  • Today's Most Popular

  • Related Articles

  • Featured Articles