RESPONSE: Hinduism like other religions, erects a theoretical structure, but never tests its hypotheses to determine their accuracy. Science of Ethics must move in the direction of testable hypotheses and then doing what is necessary to carry out the tests.

One of the Hindu hypotheses is that the individual can achieve Truth directly. This hypothesis violates everything that has been learned from over 400 years of careful scientific study. It seems clear to me that this belief is grounded on nothing more than hope and coincidence. There are no controls, no penetrating questions by skeptical researchers, etc. However, this Hindu belief demonstrates the importance of knowledge to human beings. To me it shows that there is such a great desire to know that people will sometimes be unrealistic in their interpretations.

Another Hindu hypothesis is karma, the wheel of life. This idea proposes that persons are born into castes in accordance with their past lives. Current scientific knowledge indicates that the "I" is an artifact of the organic body and cannot exist independent of that. Therefore, "past lives" is an unsupportable hypothesis. Also, castes would require that in order to be a Hindu one must be born a Hindu otherwise they would have no way to know what caste they belong to. No religion can have universal application that excludes persons not born into it. This exclusion violates the Second Requirement: A System to be cogent must be independently discoverable and open to any human being. Also, the idea of caste is about as far from the ideas of Science of Ethics as one can get. Caste is inherently destructive and keeps people from moving toward the achievement of their full positive potential, and helping to build a society that can focus its energy on the perpetuation of our species and making it worthy of such perpetuation. However, at its core the caste system demonstrates the human hope that their life is important.

Does the idea of four levels of "desire" have value for Science of Ethics? It appears to me that it might. However, it doesn't seem to me that these are stages so much as hierarchies of development. I believe one doesn't leave one level and move to the next.

Two basic concepts in Science of Ethics are the Enlightened Person and the Enlightened Community. ENLIGHTENED PERSON: Such an individual is herein defined as a person who has adopted the goal of maintaining and developing the human species and reached the Tenth Level of Human Development. [3] This includes exhibiting the highest human attributes of friendliness, physical affection, honesty, truthfulness, open-mindedness, and rational thought. Whose beliefs do not prevent them from achieving a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning.

THE ENLIGHTENED COMMUNITY: One that promotes the belief and implements the idea that human beings are the source of meaning and value and that assisting each member to become an Enlightened Person must be the focus for society's ultimate concern. The Enlightened Community is in the tradition of what early philosophers called the good society. See VOLUME II, Chapter 3.A [4] for more discussion about the Enlightened Community.

An Enlightened Person would maintain each level and add the others as their maturity, experience, etc. allows. Hindus include the idea of renunciation which imposes an artificial element of "giving up" in order to move forward. This seems to me where they get out of balance. The practical issues that Hinduism deals with under spiritual is what I am attempting to examine within the concept, Enlightened Person. To me a human being would strive for pleasure of all kinds throughout their life. Sometimes this pleasure would come from sensual experiences. Other times it would be the pleasure of feeling esteem from those one respects. Other times this pleasure would come from helping other people. And some times this pleasure would come from contemplation of the mysteries of life, and involvement in becoming an Enlightened Person and helping to develop an Enlightened Community.

In order to add a scientific dimension to discussion of levels of development and expand it, study of individuals and cultures is necessary. These studies would be focused on determining if there are levels of development and if so what the characteristics of each level are. Science of Ethics currently thinks in terms of ten levels of development.

RESPONSE: These are certainly important steps forward in one's religious development. At one level there is cultural wisdom behind Buddhism as there is for any traditional religion. Pragmatically, one can say, It works! (At least to some degree.) To separate the wheat from the chaff is the challenge of Science of Ethics. If we can get to the fundamental assumptions and needs/values that underlie Buddhism this process must clarify the fundamental assumptions and needs/values that underlie Science of Ethics because they should be the same when properly formulated.

It seems to me that one value may be that in order for a society to sustain itself some critical mass of its citizens must feel that their life has meaning beyond: eat, drink, have children.

However, in spite of Buddha's teaching to examine and question the beliefs of Buddhism as well as all other beliefs, we see the weakness of this approach in dealing with speculative ideas in the absence of an empirical testing process. Buddhism like all traditional religions is filled with inconsistencies and untested or untestable hypotheses. The reality is that normally mystics are not bothered by inconsistency. However, I am. Buddhism proposes that Truth can be known, but cannot be written down. To me it matters that none of these positions is internally consistent and that they are based on unproven hypotheses. The problem areas of Buddhism will be discussed below.

RESPONSE: To me Buddhism essentially misses the point in its focus on suffering as a key element in understanding human life, the Universe, and What is Important. Suffering to me is a secondary issue. I believe that the most important goal of human life is to become an Enlightened Person. A feeling that life has meaning may be difficult or even impossible to achieve if one is in sufficient pain. However, the solution to this pain includes efforts to change the world, not only in changing one's mind. It would seem valuable to study Buddhists to see how well their beliefs protect them from pain, and whether these beliefs work for everyone. Also, see SIXTH WAY:[5] Develop and adopt a perceptual framework such that pain does not prevent the achievement of a Sustainable Feeling that one's LIfe Has Meaning (SFLIHM) (VOLUME I, Chapter Two)[6] , and VOLUME II, Chapter XII, "The Meaning of Pain."[7]

RESPONSE: The hypothesis that suffering comes out of the "thirst for existence" is even more mis-focused than the idea that suffering is of critical importance. Part of what makes it possible for Buddhists to say such outrageous things about concepts relating to the "I" comes out of the way they define the "I." It appears that they divide a person up like Hinduism does. Hindus believe (p. 34) that a person is made up of four main attributes, or layers of which the "I" is only one:

To me the "I" is everything that makes up an individual. By dividing a person into parts the way Hinduism and Buddhism do, it becomes possible to make incongruent statements almost sound reasonable.

From my perspective Buddhism trains practitioners how to use the "I" to deny the existence of the "I."

Based on my understanding of how the "I" functions, I would say that an "I" can be programmed to not see itself. But, this is a feat of magic because the "I" still exists even while it becomes unaware of its existence. However, as a result of this "mind trick" some strange things have got to happen with such a person. There appears to be a "doublethink" [8] phenomena here in which Buddhists talk to each other as though they are talking to an "I" while denying that the "I" exists.

Since from the perspective of Science of Ethics there is no "Self" (Cosmic Consciousness) a person can only exist as part of their biological body. Each person exists as a separate entity regardless of their desires or theories. Any valid experiment will demonstrate the foregoing beyond reasonable doubt. Anyone choosing to believe otherwise is using self-delusion. However, human beings are connected to each other by the bonds of birth and genetic heritage. That is an emotional connection that is as fulfilling as any of the supposed connections to supernatural entities. As for understanding life's meaning and purpose, this is a problem that can be tackled from many aspects. People can achieve a feeling of meaning and purpose based on their ability to live congruent with their human attributes, and this is explored as part of the Enlightened Person concept. (Volume I, Chapter Two.)[9]

RESPONSE: It seems to me that Buddha was right in his assessment that there is no "I" in the way we feel it. We feel it as a permanent, unitary entity while it is actually a psychological construct: a changing, multi-dimensional assemblage. However, to think of the void as more relevant than one's "I" strikes me as a fundamental error in Buddhist theory. Human beings would have to use their "I" to determine that their "I" is less important than the void. To use the "I" to deny that the "I" exists is schizophrenic. However, since all of Buddha's thinking was carried out in the absence of modern science, especially evolutionary psychology, it should not be a surprise that many of his concepts float in thin air.

RESPONSE: Hume's quote points out the historical confusion about the nature of an "I." He used the Christian interpretation of the "I." Christianity sees the "I" as the essence of the individual, a "soul." Hume points out part of the difficulty of this position. However, to develop the hypothesis that an "I" is "...nothing but a bundle or collection of... perceptions..." seems a mistake. As I have discussed elsewhere the "I" seems more complex than that to me. (Volume I, Chapter Two.)[10]

RESPONSE: "...everything we experience is brought into being by the outside world." Brought into being is the critical term. I take it as a fundamental assumption that the outside world exists and is real. It plays a key role in what one experiences. However, the individual (and their society) play an equally important role in manipulating those stimuli to interpret them as indicated below. To say they are brought into being by the outside world seems to miss something important.

Our perception of the outside world depends on our senses and our understanding of the world around us. Persons can "see" and "hear" things that are not there. They can take a stimulus and turn it into something totally different based on their knowledge or lack of knowledge. Their symbols greatly effect how they interpret the outside world.

RESPONSE: As for the experiment on amusement, sadness, etc. psychologists have known for at least 50 years that feelings follow body movements. If we smile we feel amused. If we turn our lips down, we feel sad. If we look amazed, we feel amazed. If we focus on the aging of our body (hair turning gray, joints stiffening, energy decreasing, etc.) we will feel older[11].

RESPONSE: To talk of one's center except in a metaphorical way can get one into mis-conceptions fast. Early Buddhists understood that the "I" is a composite and does not exist independent of this. However, for whatever reasons they lost this insight and have moved in an obscurantist direction. This may have helped Buddhism grow, but has not aided understanding. Therefore, whatever ideas Buddhism provides of positive value, understanding the "I" is not one of them.

Buddhist conjectures on the "I" have promoted an approach that continues to mislead persons up to the present era. We cannot look to Buddhism for help in understanding the "I." It's certainly true that people do not understand the true nature of their "I" and tend to see it in a way that is a construct of their own mind. However this does not detract from the fact that the "I" is a very real thing in spite of its characteristic of changing over time.

RESPONSE:I think the above core ideas of Buddhism provide important guidance for human living in this world. When properly interpreted each of these is compatible with Science of Ethics. However, the focus for these activities is very different for Science of Ethics than for Buddhism. For Science of Ethics the goal of these activities is to allow the individual to live the best life of which they are capable and in the process maintain and develop the human species. For Buddhism the goal of all this is to reach Nirvana.

For me, the core assumptions of Science of Ethics are not compatible with the concept of Nirvana. However, as previously indicated many Buddhist exercises that lead to development of the individual could have value for many persons, including Enlightened Persons. Buddhism's three main principles and the eight steps appear to present some worthwhile ideas for Science of Ethics to study.

I think, study of individuals and society will find that the Golden Mean is not necessarily the best way to live. Sometimes it is good to be ecstatic, to experience despair, to do the outrageous, to live life with vigor, enthusiasm, excitement. To aim for the mean is to throw away important parts of human behavior.

RESPONSE: I would agree that, "Real insight into one's fundamental nature brings about benevolence, compassion, joyous sympathy and equanimity" When the foregoing is done in a way that develops the intellect and rational powers humanity will be very close to reaching the light at the end of the tunnel.

From the perspective of Science of Ethics there is sense and nonsense in the Buddhist statement: "...you are the world, and the origin of the world, and the ceasing of the world..." Since Science of Ethics proposes that Human Beings Are the Ultimate Reference System this does focus on the point that we do bring the world we know into existence. But of course the world we are observing and interpreting goes merrily on its way independent of our observations and measurements except for whatever effects our presence produces.

Cleansing the mind of its impurities (hatred, lust, discontent) raises several issues especially when accomplished through poverty and chastity. From the standpoint of Science of Ethics chastity and poverty are states to be avoided not ones to follow in the search for wisdom. The love of a partner is seen as a key element of the good life, and nurturing sexual sharing is a part of that love. Poverty represents a failure to understand and utilize the wealth of the universe which lies in abundance every direction we look. Secondly, we must ask, Are hatred, lust, and discontent impurities? In a different direction, cleansing the mind seems at odds with saying there is no "I." I think, the "mind" is a very central feature of the "I." However, Buddhists recognize that they do not have a self-consistent system so they have all kinds of ways to sidestep this fact. They say key ideas cannot be expressed, but can only be experienced. They say Buddhism is so deep it cannot be understood by most people, and that those who understand it will not respond to the questions of the skeptics, etc. Tranquility, joy, and confidence are worthwhile goals and an essential part of being an Enlightened Person.

RESPONSE: The "One Mind" is a theoretical construct. It has no place in the modern understanding of the Universe and human beings. Therefore, to relate the "I" to it gets one into an inescapable quagmire. To use this as the basis for achieving the best life possible can only lead to living a life filled with fantasy.

RESPONSE: Much unhappiness comes out of deficient, defective beliefs. But the unhappiness is the feedback that can be used to examine these beliefs and improve them. Trying to bar unhappiness would, in my mind, be like banning hunger. It is the body’s way of telling us something is in need of change. Feelings to me are an important part of the "I." Feelings develop out of complex interactions among many parts of the "I": stimulation, perception, analysis, etc.

Buddhism says, "If you are free from the 'I,' what is there to suffer?" I have to respond, If you are free from the "I" what is there to experience tranquility, joy and confidence -- Mindfulness? "...you are not under their [the emotions] control." "You are master of the sense-desires..." To me "you" = "I." It appears to me that Buddhism has a very confused idea of what an "I" is and who is experiencing awareness. To me there is only one "I." It can be mis-led and mis-focused in many ways and is open to infinite improvement, but it cannot be eliminated except at death.

RESPONSE: Certainly in so far as one’s beliefs lead them to seek immediate gratification rather than long-term fulfillment that individual is in need of some new beliefs. If this happens because they believe their feelings are causing their behavior rather than understanding that it is their beliefs, then this is the belief that stands in need of change. If Buddhism can accomplish the foregoing in another way that doesn’t interfere with the person being in contact with reality that would be of interest to Science of Ethics. However, from the perspective of Science of Ethics there is no process whereby human beings can achieve ultimate truth. It is only the ignorant, misled, self-righteous and the pride-filled who are so committed to their errors as to think they can achieve ultimate truth. The closer one comes to believing that they have achieved this state, the further they are from it.

The idea that one can "know" Truth by getting the mind in a certain state must be rejected as failing to discriminate between feeling and knowledge. The idea of gaining immortality by rejecting self is totally meaningless. If there is no "I," Who gains immortality? Since there is an "I" and it is irredeemably connected to the organic body and structure, it is clear that when the structure changes, the "I" changes. When the body dies, the "I" ceases to exist.

RESPONSE: If I understand what Buddhism is saying here, the message is, "Don't think. Don't use your mind to comprehend the world. Don't attempt to mentally understand." I would agree that it is important not to cling to ideas or positions. This clinging keeps the "I" from developing and maturing. It prevents the "I" from maintaining congruency with the best thinking, possible. However, it is a fundamental error to discourage thinking. Science of Ethics rejects as erroneous the idea that one can reach a “deeper” truth in the absence of data, knowledge, and learning about reality. Only by thinking does an individual have any chance to become an Enlightened Person in the way Science of Ethics uses that term. To me human beings are problem solving organisms. They are most congruent with their basic nature when they are increasing their knowledge, expanding their understanding, advancing their ability to control themselves and their environment. Buddhism has been able to divert this deep drive by holding up a false image that claims to allow its followers to directly achieve Truth. Unfortunately, this procedure seems to interfere with the feed-back process in such a way that individuals are not able to self-correct errors once they get on this path. This approach deserves serious study to understand the mechanics of how it works and whether it is possible to help these individuals escape an attractive nuisance and give up ENLIGHTENMENT to achieve Enlightenment; i.e., a Sustainable Feeling that one's LIfe Has Meaning (SFLIHM). I take the foregoing to be a fundamental flaw in Buddhism, one that it shares with every other folk religion.

One may be untroubled and feel a sense of peace when they don't disturb their mind with any questions, any thoughts, any concerns beyond basic responses to needs. But, that is not a model that I value for myself or for anyone else. I take it as preventing one from developing their "Wisdom" potential which is essential for our species' long-term survival in this unknown, chaotic universe.

RESPONSE: To "free oneself from the idea that there is a problem" is an interesting strategy. What is wrong with it? One cannot argue against it. It is totally immune to argument. If one is attracted to this approach it really must run its course. I suppose what it boils down to is, Does this process work for a person? Can a given person produce a better storm in their head with this belief than by working to utilize and change the outer world? A study of such people would be a very worthwhile research project.

"Freeing oneself from the idea that there is a problem," very clearly states the difference between the ideas of a Science of Ethics and all traditional religions. A Science of Ethics requires that one use one's life to learn not only how to control the mind, but how to control the world. It requires that one be not a passive vessel, but an active force. Many aspects of an Enlightened Person comes out of the wisdom of understanding harmony with nature. But, key elements of it require tackling the mysteries of the Universe and understanding them in ways that feed the hungry; that cure the ill; that produce a rich, full life; and extend the dimension of control of natural forces. This is the challenge that moves humanity toward the light at the end of the tunnel. This is the battle that was unleashed when humanity lost genetic stability and was as a result propelled toward achieving memetic stability.

RESPONSE: I disagree with the idea that a person is like an onion in which a core of "Consciousness" is revealed after peeling away all the skins. For me awareness is a characteristic of specific body structures. Change or remove these structures and the awareness disappears or is changed[12]. And, awareness is only part of the "I." However, none of these parts equate with “Nothing.” They all require something.

RESPONSE: "I am this core [nothing but Consciousness]; the onion is what I have." "I'm not what I'm aware of, but what's aware."

Here again we see a formulation of the "I" which removes it from the material world, the natural world. For me any conceptualization that doesn't include everything within the skin as part of the "I" must be erroneous and these errors should be relatively easy to see. Using the "I" to deny that one has an "I" does not seem to me a position that can withstand much examination.

"...core of Awareness is exposed. This alone is my Self. This alone is... unchanging... indestructible, real."

Obviously, there is no core of awareness in a person. Awareness comes from the organizations and structures of a human body (brain, nervous system, etc.). When one peels away the body, nothing remains. There is no part of a human body that is unchanging, indestructible. If there is such a part of the Universe it has no direct relationship to a person.

RESPONSE: "To see this [that the inner core of a person is awareness] is to be Enlightened." The foregoing indicates that in Buddhism a person is called Enlightened only if they accept fundamental errors. As a result to be Enlightened is to be out of touch with reality. Such a path is inherently wrong. For Science of Ethics becoming an Enlightened Person requires deverloping one's rational mind and recognizing the reality of the physical world, of one's physical body.

Buddha knew nothing of cells, neurons, synapses, cerebellums, medulla oblongatas, computer science, calculus, chaos theory, genetics, quarks, steam engines, and all the other knowledge and techniques science and technology has developed over the past 400 years or so. We can understand why he based his thinking on erroneous premises. In spite of his errors about the basis of human life and what the Universe is like, we must admire his faith in the value of human live. We should applaud his recognition of human life as precious. We should admire his efforts to help people live better lives. However, we cannot cling to the erroneous parts of Buddhism just because they were expressed by a great person.