52midnight

Personally, I find the most interesting aspect of the ancient svastika symbol is its symbolic meaning as the Hindu equivalent of the Chinese yin-yang symbol. Both are used in teaching the fundamentals of cosmology to denote the appearance of the sattvic guna manifest as circulating energy, most visibly evident in the shapes of spiral galaxies. This is why it has always been so deeply revered by "those who see the essence of things" (Gita). The psychic/psychological "power" of the symbol is why it was selected by the Nazis (all steeped in the black arts) then reversed and rotated to denote their corruption of an elemental power.

> oh some of the things you see in LOS.

This is one of the main reasons for my long affection for the East; that priave, amateur innovation is still possible. Here in Oz, EVERYTHING is owned either by the TNCs or the Govt. You can't step off a country road anywhere without being either on private property or govt land, both with an endless list of "Thou shalt not...". Even putting the regn sticker on your car in the wrong place can lead to a hefty fine. And just to make sure that all local innovation is stamped out, they're shutting down all manufacturing, including the local car industry and food processors.

I've been much heartened to watch the Thais determination to throw out the corrupt Shinawatras. Her brother is CFR and generously backed by numerous Wall Street Crims; but then the USA is a failed police state run and governed by crooks, so any American support is bound to be evil.

> Why the interest OP?

Completely off-topic, but since you asked, and very briefly. I'm interested in Thai society as having certain unique characteristics that make it a possible candidate for new social and technological developments. During the past few decades it has successfully completed a nation-wide electrification program, and its leaders probably feel that they can sit back for a while. Unfortunately, unbeknownst both to them and the majority of Westerners, we're about a decade away from a whole new phase of electrical generation and reticulation. For the first I'd simply mention thorium and geothermal, and leave you to connect the dots. For the latter, perhaps this as a starter:

http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/cole-bin/4423251/Will-Edison-s-Direct-Current-power-grid-idea-catch-on-

The Thais can either sit back and wait for the West to invent, manufacture and commercialize the requisite technology and infrastructure, then allow themselves to be conned into buying it at top rates (the traditional scenario) or get stuck into the job themselves. Adapting existing technology for small-scale power generation is an obvious first step.

'Nuf said.

Thanks to steveromagnino for a most complete summary answer to my original question.

> the Toyota 2KD-FTV series at the top, followed by the Isuzu 4KJ1 series, then almost a tie on the Toyota 1KD-FTV and Isuzu 4JJ1 in 3rd/4th, with 5th going to the Toyota 1NZ-FE and 6th to the Honda L15A series. The rest are small fry compared to these.

And especially for this - hadn't expected to get so down and technical, but v useful.

> HOLDEN EH......

Ah, yes! And the odd Cadillac and Pontiac, too, I suppose ...

Thanks for the photo. These innovative vehicles undoubtedly escape official mention, but if my own experience of the East is any guide, there'd be more than a few. Thanks for the reminder.

> I do not know where "here" is for you but in Thailand the Yaris is called a Yaris and the Vios a Vios.

Wikipedia says they're the same, but oracles have been known to be wrong.

> The Vigo is the best selling vehicle in Thailand.

Good odds on that one. Toyota dominates small car markets worldwide.

> pickups win by a massive margin.

Yes, this comes through strongly on the Inet. Govt incentives undoubtedly play a part, as also would the large agrarian population.

> Toyota Vios

Called the Yaris here.

> The Toyota Hilux actually, closely followed by the Isuzu pickup with all it's various names.

I know the Hilux, but have never been able to distinguish most small modern cars - they blend into a beige blur in my mind.

So it's four cylinder engines, then - petrol, I'd guess, with an increasing number of diesels?

>. you want petrol, diesel, electric,

Hmm, electric! Wouldn't have much appeal over there, I wouldn't think, though I could be wrong.

And nobody's mentioned the Thai Rung. "Based on the Toyota Hilux Vigo" according to Wikipedia, so I suppose it's a Toyota engine with Thai bolt-ons.

I'm interested to know what is Thailand's most popular car by:

1. Current registrations.

2. Historical sales volume.

3. Affection in the minds of the populace.

Before hitting the search engines, I thought I'd toss this in here to get something "on the ground". My specific interest is in the probable number of engines available for remanufacture, so it's an indirect approach to answering this.

Well done! You might follow up with a recommendation that he read "Confessions of an economic hitman" if he is unaware as to how his government's policies are pursued and executed:

http://www.johnperkins.org/

You're probably typical of many who'd be well advised to move from M$ to FOSS (ever heard of the NSA? and they're the "good" guys). You'll first need to understand that you're not just changing OS and Apps, but entering a whole new paradign of web use (NO "viruses" for a start - half the world's expert and largely professional hackers would quickly descend on any that appeared, whereas the M$ crowd make money out of them). Distrowatch is a great site for those familiar with Lx/FOSS, but if you'd like a more practical approach, sign on to the newsletters from the guys who make pocket-money from selling new distro releases:

http://on-disk.com

http://www.osdisc.com

Take your time. At first, all distros look alike, but experience gradually engenders preferences. If you're serious about COMPETENT computing (as opposed to being a mug punter), download the ISOs of Knoppix (the best LiveCD) and SystemRescueCD (the best Swiss Army Knife):

http://www.knoppix.com

http://www.sysresccd.org

You'll then realize why Bill Gates is a criminal, and why M$ has been fined BILLIONS of dollars in the USA and EU for decades-long criminal activities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

When - if ever - the oriental peoples stop aping the mistakes and perverted ideals of the (mainly Abrahamic) West, and turn instead to a re-evaluation of their traditional and superior spiritual inheritance, they will not only free themselves from Western exploitation, but will find a new and better path to a new and unexpected future.

A true traditional king is the social leader and spiritual mentor of his people. The Thais have a monarch who not only fulfills this role, but exemplifies in his own character the traits of the hero of the Ramayana. In this they are the most fortunate of peoples. However, whereas a traditional king could hope to rule ten thousand people, perhaps even a hundred thousand in a territory extending a few days ride from his throne in every direction, there is no guarantee that this could scale to millions, or tens of millions, even less to hundreds; nor to vast territories inhabited by conflicting cultures.

Neither politics nor economics can solve our present social dilemmas. The only solution lies in improving the personal character of the men and women who comprise them. Modern democracy with its consumer culture and adulation of violence, wealth, and celebrity have exactly the opposite effect. Yunla's erudite post highlights the impossibility of realizing the democratic ideal in societies of millions: the active contribution to debate by each citizen is impossible. New solutions are essential, but since these would necessarily dis-empower the present ruling elite, they would be met with brutal repression were ever they proposed.

J. R. R. Tolkien in a letter to son Christopher in 1944:

"Mr Eden in the house the other day [sc. Mr Anthony Eden speaking in the House of Commons] expressed pain at the occurrences in Greece 'the home of democracy'. Is he ignorant, or insincere? demokratia was not in Greek a word of approval but was nearly equivalent to 'mob-rule'; and he neglected to note that Greek Philosophers - and far more is Greece the home of philosophy - did not approve of it. And the great Greek states, esp. Athens at the time of its high art and power, were rather Dictatorships, if they were not military monarchies like Sparta!"

Most of the claims made for democracy are nonsense.

> the Buddha's techniques of mental cultivation only work on humans as we know them.

Interesting point, though I'd question its validity in the broader sense, since we've no way of testing your hypothesis.

> Human suffering hasn't changed since the Buddha's time

Again, I'm not sure that this is certain. Have you heard of "Offline Camps" where the social-media-addicted go for "cold turkey"? I think we've actually generated a whole new range of possible sufferings, many of which start out as mere curiosities, but end in alienating people so drastically, not only from others but also from their own psychospiritual natures, that they quite likely feel horribly ? mutated? ADHD etc?

> with changes in the species

Again, the plans to feed the whole human population on genetically modified foodcrops raise unanswerable questions; and if you're not yet aware of the grotesque human-animal hybrids being genetically engineered in labs across the world, you've only begun to imagine depravity:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Human-Animal_Hybrids%3A_Sick_And_Twisted_Chimeras_Are_Being_Created_In_Labs_All_Over_The_Planet/27282/0/38/38/Y/M.html


> that will be gone if we upload our minds to a machine.

OK, so imagine George W. Bush as a first-generation avatar. Works pretty well, but still a few things to be ironed out. Forget the booze; alcohol has no effect on electronic circuitry; and although he can "get it up" quite strongly, there's no actual sensation - just keep poking it in and out, in and out, in and out - just who the hell designed this thing, anyway? It's good for another two hundred years, by which time he may even be able to feel something between his legs; but that could just be what's coming out from behind ... You're welcome to it.

My personal experience is that deep meditation on your own physical mechanism not only keeps it far healthier than the norm, but enhances its sensual abilities (decorum prevents further elaboration) and, properly pursued, could well result in a superior type of mechanism if practised across generations.

> I suspect a human mind in a machine could be pretty ruthless.

You're on the money there, right enough!

> Could someone remotely control me or switch me off via an iPhone app?

You can be very certain of someone "higher up" with, not only an on/off switch, but a number of knobs to tweak that may give you spasms of intense pleasure, and also spasms of ... well, best not to dwell on it.

A thoughtful post. My own ideas centre around strengthening the flow and quality of "chi", "ki", "prana". Whatever you call it, anyone who's gotten past the elementary stages of focused physical meditation knows that it's real, it works as a health-giving energy, and it can be actively strengthened and altered once familiarity is gained. I mean, honestly, you're in a country that's been Buddhist for centuries, where meditation is a daily practice amongst the population, and if you think that all of their meditation is on "being holy", you may be interested to know, not only that there is such a thing as a sex industry in Thailand, but that the beauty of their women far exceeds that of almost all Western females; in fact, many young Thai males possess far greater physical beauty than the average Western female. And this is just an accident of diet and climate?

> Is there any scientifically proven instances of mind affecting matter outside of the body?

There are many. However, you'll find that today's dominant technique of selective, plausible deniability has been employed for each of them. It's first important to realize that the Physical Realm is causally closed; it is a construct of consciousness that has been deliberately evolved so as to appear autonomous - complete within itself. I'm aware that this statement violates the academic ban on teleology, but we'll let that pass unless you're interested. We are here within it for a number purposes (teleology again) that, at this present evolutionary phase, cannot be achieved were the mind easily capable of directly influencing physical events.

I'll assume that you have some capability in deep "rupa" meditation. If you enter it with the seed thought of being in a world in which ones desires are immediately manifest as objective realities, and spend some time examining the experiential consequences, you'll quickly realize that today's world would never arise under such conditions. Technology would be completely redundant - no phones, cars, ships or planes, nor even hammers and nails, spears or swords. More importantly, there could be no "desire" as we know it, since any desire that arises subjectively - sc. "within ourselves" - is immediately reflected objectively - sc. "outside ourselves".

These are the conditions under which many of the "higher spiritual beings" exist, hence our inability to understand their psychology, so to speak, much less their interests and purposes, although continued investigation along the lines I've indicated can give fascinating insights here. It's also necessary to differentiate clearly between the Psychic Realms and the Spiritual Realms. Simply put, the former are those relating to the mind and the emotions, whereas the latter are those aspects of consciousness that exist outside, across, or beyond time (there being no single English word that conveys my exact meaning). Most of what is deemed "spiritual", both in popular and much traditional literature, is merely psychic.

Having said this, you could first turn to the '90s report by Jessica Utts, a respected statistician, entitled "An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning."

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

You'd also find interesting"Psychic discoveries behind the Iron Curtain" by Ostrander and Schroeder:

http://www.amazon.com/PSI-Psychic-Discoveries-Behind-Curtain/dp/0349126704

... and "Reborn in the West" by Mackenzie:

http://www.amazon.com/Reborn-West-The-Reincarnation-Masters/dp/1569248044

You'll notice that all of these are by women, who have a natural advantage over men as regards psychic phenomena for reasons I'll bypass here. You could also consult a biography of Daniel Dunglas Home.

But if you want the "scientific hardware" type of thing, you need only investigate the initial experiments done by Hal Puthoff with Ingo Swann, a very talented psychic, with a magnetometer. They gave birth to the US military's program of "Remote Viewing" in the '70s, amongst other things. The literature is extensive, and you'll be wise to read the early originals before the later dismissals of them. If your interest is sincere, you'll not be wanting me to "prove" any of this; you'll insist on making up your own mind.

> Midnights need to scientifically analyze Nibbana/Awakening

I'd be interested to know which of my statements you've misconstrued in order to arrive at this invention.

> As for sanity, you can't really lose what you're not really clinging to.

Sanity today is a highly dubious proposition. I've been happily unsane these many years, and am content so to remain.

> Could you or any other knowledgeable persons shed some light?

I appreciate your attempt to revert the thread to topic, and your obviously sincere questions as to the implications of indeterminacy. However, you've literally opened one of innumerable Pandora's boxes, and I simply lack the courage, much more the many lifetimes it would take, to pursue your enquiries to any possible logical outcome.

You should (for the sake of your own sanity if nothing else) first differentiate between:

1. The raw data upon which your speculations are based.
2. Their mathematical formalisms, either in QM terminology or more suitable forms such as Maxwell's original quaternions, following Hamilton's lead.
3. The philosophical interpretations derived from these, remembering that anything based on Wittgenstein's logical positivism has already been proved fallacious.
4. The reality underlying all of these, which remains quite unperturbed by all of it.

Perhaps the most enlightening thing I can say is to quote the Gita:

"The determinate reason is but one-pointed, O Joy of the Kurus.
Many-branched and endless are the thoughts of the irresolute."

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you're trying to achieve. If you wish to speak about what is not, many words will not suffice. If you wish to say what IS, a few well-chosen words are ample.

Comparatively few English speakers will have heard of Transhumanism, and even fewer Thai speakers; yet it is one of the most dangerous social programs in today's world. It has almost unlimited funding available from many wealthy, influential and determined proponents in all nations - people like Tom Cruise, Bill Gates, and the Dalai Lama; it enjoys the active support of the mainstream media and the movie industry; has its own dedicated university to spread its essentially religious message; and even a target date for achievement - 2045. Why, then, is it not better known?

Perhaps the main reason is that it sounds both absurd and impossible to sane, decent folk, who cannot conceive either of the future it promises nor the type of person who would want it. It envisions the future evolution of Mankind as a race of bioelectronically-enhanced super-robots - avatars as they are called - into which human consciousness is "uploaded". Of course, not everyone will be offered this opportunity; although never stated explicitly, it is obviously intended for the ruling elite. But young students are encouraged not to "miss out on the Singularity". "What's that?" I hear you ask. As Time magazine put it on a cover story, it's "The Year Man Becomes Immortal". Unlike mere biological bodies, you see, avatars can be continually repaired and upgraded, and are thus effectively everlasting.

In case you think that this is the ultimate conspiracy theory or party joke, I've provided links below if you care to investigate the simple truth of the matter. It's quite real. Singularity University advertises itself thus: "Our mission is to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges." True, immortality is nothing if not a challenge.

Most of the declared alternatives to Transhumanism derive from the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, albeit the modern decadent version that has adopted dialectical materialism as the preferred substitute for religious fantasies that are no longer credible. All of these agenda present a utopian vision of well-being and prosperity for everyone; but all are founded on the increasing dominance of a wealthy, empowered elite who will eventually own and control the entire planet, with the great mass of people serving as a work force, an organ farm, and a gene pool.

Extremes of social and political ambition in the past were hampered by lack of means for asserting invincible authority. Today this can be done using modern technology, as convincingly demonstrated, for example, by the use of remote-controlled aerial drones to carry out continuous wide-area surveillance and individually-targeted assassinations anywhere on the planet. Those who control such technology may well be able to exercize unbridled power indefinitely. Much of the extreme violence and inhuman brutality in modern movies are overt celebrations of transhumanist ideals arising from the physical supremacy and ruthless violence of which technologically-enhanced humans are presumed capable.

So why should this concern Buddhists? A recent report in "The Nation" highlighted the case of a jet-setting Thai monk indulging all the material pleasures in extremis; and, as the poster of the article remarks, "Many Thai Buddhists are also deeply into the habit of donating money for the construction of this and that gigantic Buddha or statues of venerable monks, despite the fact any fairly well-educated Buddhist must be fully aware that the historical Buddha forbade the making of Buddha statues for worship. Next, there's widespread belief in praying for health, wealth, and whatever you want from monks, Buddha statues, Hindu statues, Buddhist and Hindu amulets by those who are supposedly Buddhists. Never mind if the Buddha himself said one should depend of oneself and not on others."

In short, Buddhism is under attack, both from within and without. Its own adherents are increasingly abandoning their ancient wisdom for modern "pleasures", only to find their satisfaction partial and fleeting. Unless Buddhists can publicize real benefits of their doctrines and practices, they are doomed to extinction, and along with them what little hope remains for a sane human future.

Furthermore, Buddhists possess an "automatic" incentive to ongoing personal development that most materialists lack, but they do not recognize this invaluable trait as the great blessing it is. Materialism often leads to nihilism, and out of this comes the desire for "techno-human" development via a complete re-engineering of the planet's genetic code and humanity itself. Those who dismiss this as alarmist future-mongering have simply failed to appreciate both the present technological capabilities and the mind-sets of those obsessed by them.

Arthur Kroker, Professor of Political Science at the University of Victoria and Director of the Pacific Centre for Technology and Culture, identified an abhorrent element within the technological community. "Suicidal nihilists", states Kroker, "occupy the commanding heights of digital reality." He elaborates, "They can very happily ally themselves with a notion of nuclear holocaust or perfect exterminism. They're creating again and again the exterminism of human memory, the exterminism of human sensibility, the exterminism of individuated human intelligence, the exterminism of human morality itself."

The only effective response to these terminally destructive tendencies is to offer methods of subjective investigation that produce valid results, and a philosophy that elucidates them, a requirement that true Buddhist philosophy can surely meet.

http://extropy.org
http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm
http://humanityplus.org
http://singularity.org
http://www.2045.com
http://singularityu.org
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/treder20101111
http://intelligence.org/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-reserve-army-of-labor-and-the-new-imperialism/27549
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Biologically_Modified_Soldiers_Are_the_Future_of_Warfare/23359/0/38/38/Y/M.html

> Are religions just a cover up for base human desires, a way to control our animal impulses somewhat? Is anyone really capable of being "saintly"?

What follows are my own views, and I'd be interested in any response as to their accord or divergence from those of others.

Religion has two primary aspects:

1. It is a social construct that allows individuals to gather as a collective with agreed beliefs and goals. It's been said that some Tibetan monasteries had a sign over the entrance "A thousand monks, a thousand religions". The simple doctrines of any given religion are easy to understand, and accept or reject as one chooses; but the more deeply you question any religious practitioner, the more widely will his or her views diverge from the accepted orthodoxy, many even becoming mildly heretical. This is inevitable; it is what makes us humans and individual.

2. It is a ready-made set of ideas, observances and rituals that allow individuals to give expression to their innate spiritual impulses. Few people have the time, much less the interest and ability to pursue the inward adventure of spiritual self-discovery, and are happy to accept something that satisfies their daily needs with a minimum of effort. There is nothing wrong with this, since sooner or later all will encounter life experiences forcing them to deeper enquiry. Such is the course and purpose of human life.

Not all religions are spiritual. The Abrahamic religions dictate surrender to and worship of a "Supreme Deity" that is merely an interpreted construct of their inherited traditions. As all practitioners of spiritual traditions will know, this can never lead to the awareness of one's own inner spiritual nature, and is a sure path into delusion and despair. Buddhism, correctly practised, well serves the latter requirement. In times past it also served the former; but, being an evolving human practice, inevitably falls victim to the trends of the day, usually to its detriment.

I'm firmly of the belief that it's past time for Buddhism to undergo a renaissence. As the article makes clear, too many present-day attitudes and practices have now diverged so far from doctrine - and even common-sense - as to be actively detrimental, both to individuals and to Buddhism itself. My own interests centre on forming a marriage of Buddhist philosophy (as differentiated from its religious aspects) and the constructive aspects of modern Western Science.

> parents expect their son to become a monk at least once in a lifetime.

One of the most valuable features of Buddhism, as distinct from other religions, is the ability to enter the religious life for a finite period instead of as a life-time commitment. Properly instituted, this should allow, for example, a businessman in his thirties to set aside funds for his wife and children's ongoing support, and enter a monastery for a year or two. He would very likely emerge, not only with a joyfully renewed relationship with his wife and family, but with a greatly enlarged perspective on his business activities and their wider social consequences. This sort of thing might very well be the needed antidote to the suffocating dominance and corruption of the Transnational Corporatism that is destroying our planet, our societies, and increasing numbers of personal lives.

> it will take years of diligent study ... to become proficient and skillful in e.g. Quantum Field Theory.

Your choice of example is most apropos, since I've worked through QM to the point where I believe that I can identify the "cracks in the wall" - those specific ideas and assumptions at which the whole thing falls apart.

There's a most important point here that must be understood by all who choose to work in this area. It's quite possible to construct an elaborate conceptual framework of the "inner world" - of how consciousness "works", and the various paths through it that one can explore. All very fascinating; but also highly misleading unless one is very careful. It should not be assumed, even by the most expert practitioner, that this constitutes "enlightenment". In many ways it is the exact opposite. Many historical figures who obviously achieved unique insights into the psychic and spiritual realms (and they are diametrically different) were very simple people, but "pure" in a way that cannot be defined.

The exploration of the inner realm of consciousness can perhaps offer us a counter to the excesses of materialism, but it is "rupa" meditation - sc. meditation "with seed". Only "arupa" meditation ("without seed")can lead eventually to enlightenment in the sense used by Buddhists. Such, at least, are my beliefs.

> I think the major hurdle for Buddhist scientists ... will differ from practitioner to practitioner.

Not so very different if you talk to leading theorists and experimenters. Those rarefied realms are nowhere near as similar and consistent as most believe.

> I certainly do know which I find the simpler and easier methodology - although not particular easy.

Nor I. At the end of the day it's more a matter of what you enjoy doing. Those who study (or undertake) anything for the rewards to be gained are trapped within the Gunas. The Gita is the best text I know for elucidating this; "Work not for fruit, O Joy of the Kurus".

It is first necessary to define what is mean by science and scientific. Science is three things: a huge collation of information ("data" if you prefer), a body of doctrine, and an investigative methodology. The first is, of itself, essentially meaningless, as are all "bare facts"; they require interpretation in order to elucidate meaning. This is not the function of science, but of philosophy, a statement that many will dispute; but one has only to recall the origin of the word "scientist" to understand it. By the early nineteenth century, scientific gatherings were plagued by attendees who insisted on religious and metaphysical interpretations of the latest findings, even when these contradicted established fact.

William Whewell coined the word "scientist" to denote all who referred their assertions to established or probable facts, often interpreted via mathematical formalisms. Those who could not, or would not do so were politely refused invitations, and the business of science as we understand it today was thus brought under useful disciplines. It also made obsolete the designation "natural philosopher" by which scientists were formerly known. However, philosophy is a search for truth and meaning, whereas science, being merely an investigative methodology, has nothing to do with truth, which is always and ever a personal value judgment.

There is no such thing as "scientific truth" - the term is an oxymoron.

Science usurped the role of philosophy at the 1927 Solvay Conference when the Copenhagen Interpretation of Physics was formally adopted under the aegis of Bohr and Heisenberg, much to Einstein's dismay. This is a complex topic that I won't develop further here.

The main point arising from this is that the process of "observation, analysis, and deduction" that constitutes the so-called "scientific method" is equally applicable to subjective (inward) observation as it is to objective (outward) observation. The requirements of accuracy, honesty, and a suitable descriptive terminology are essential to both, but the ability accurately to observe ones own inner manifestations is much more difficult to develop, and cannot be enhanced by the use of instruments. The further requirement to report them honestly and lucidly can often be even more of a challenge, especially when they are, or appear to be, unflattering to ones character and self-opinion. For these reasons, the subjective sciences of antiquity were mostly practised and developed by older people, and this is still true today amongst the few who still practise them.

The ancient Vedic texts are not Indian in origin, but were inherited by them from earlier races, some of whom were expert in these things. Over the centuries they have been buried in a mass of Indian tradition, religious doctrine, legend and mythology; but those who seek diligently and earnestly can still discover them.

The underlying nub of my post is the necessity of redeveloping the subjective sciences. Consciousness cannot be understood meaningfully by objective observation and analysis; one ends up only with the damaging absurdities of behaviourism and the like. Modern Western Science can never arrive at productive conclusions about consciousness because its methodology is purely objective; and, more importantly, its underlying philosophy (essentially dialectical materialism as interpreted by Wittgenstein's logical positivism) is ruthlessly materialistic.

> Isn't the fact that there is little scientific knowledge in this area more to do with the lack of research rather than it being imaginary?

There has been quite a bit of research, but it is still at a very early stage. The first requirement is to establish the reality of extra-physical phenomena, and this has been done - scientifically - many times. However, the evidence is ignored and funding is withdrawn:

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

> What comes to mind is actual scientific research on those who Meditate and/or those who practice Mindfulness.

Again, there has been considerable research into such things as the beneficial social effects of regular group meditation by experienced meditators, and the results are similarly ignored.

> Scientifically speaking though, Buddhism has never been proven (Awakening, Kharma, etc).

One can never provide objective physical proof of subjective events and phenomena, except as they manifest in daily life, when they can always be attributed to alternative causes.

> Rubbish. Buddhism is not scientific.

Buddhism as a religion is neither a science nor scientific. Buddhist philosophy CAN be applied to scientific disciplines for investigating and analyzing subjective phenomena, when it provides both an interpretive framework and descriptive terminology.

> Science is predicated by observation, experiments, repeatability and peer review.

... all of which can be applied to subjective phenomena.

> Buddhism has in common with every other religion the idea of faith. Belief without proof.

This statement reveals a profound misunderstanding of the origins and content of Buddhist philosophy.

> If only the people involved in developing it could somehow suppress their ego it would make a much nicer experience.

This is worth a thread of its own. I'm a former electronic hardware design engineer, and over the years I've seen hardware move to the background as software took centre stage. There was always a distinct personality difference, but during the last decade there has emerged a very distinct set of personality traits associated with the typical code-cutter.

I've long had an interest in Buddhism, and therefore in human psychology and personality, and I'm of the opinion that an excessive focus on pure technical abstraction, such as is essential for creating and writing program code, is poisonous to the psyche unless balanced by the contentment that can only be found in arupa meditation, or similar relaxing introspection.

Good look in your search.. I have not run into any Buddhist monks that had the insight or knowledge that Luang Por Payutto has. I would suggest you find Dr. Dion Peoples a teacher at MCU in Bangkok. He might be able to set you on the right path. You can also find him on facebook.

Thanks very much for the tip; I'll do as you suggest. BTW, is Bhikkhu Prayudh Payutto still extant? Last I heard he had gone into retirement, and may have been ailing. He's been an inspiration to me these many years, and I'd be delighted to know if he's still about and in good health.

I tried Mint as well, but like all 'buntu's found it too constricting. Unity is dangerous, IMHO. Low-level graphics code is so fundamental that it should never be allowed into proprietary hands; those who remember the shenanigans with XFree86 will know what I'm talking about.

At the risk of being banned from this forum for a heinous sin, I'll say that the main reason I find many of the latest distros too constricting is that i run as root. Yes, yes, I know, it's a major security risk, I'll damage my machine, the NSA will arrest me, yadda, yadda, yadda ... I've been doing so for more than a dozen years without a single problem, and will continue doing so. It's MY machine, so I do with it as I like.

Many of the most respected thinkers of both East and West have suggested and promoted a union between Buddhism and Science. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860), whose philosophy profoundly influenced Freud, Jung, Vivekananda and Wittgenstein, amongst others, wrote that "If I were to take the results of my philosophy as a yardstick of the truth, I would concede to Buddhism the pre-eminence of all religions of the world." And Albert Einstein declared that "If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

The term "Buddhist Science" is often used to denote an interpretation of Modern Western Science based on Buddhist philosophical principles. However, there is a fundamental conflict between Buddhism and Modern Western Science. Buddhism is a philosophy that encourages its adherents to explore the subjective realm of consciousness, and to regard the external, objective world as being determined by it. By contrast, Modern Western Science is a doctrine holding that the external, objective world perceived by the physical senses is the only reality, and that the inner, subjective world of consciousness is an imaginary byproduct of biochemical activity in the brain.

Western civilization never developed a science of consciousness, whereas Buddhism has made major strides in developing one. The contemplative refinement of attention, and the subsequent utilization of such attention in exploring the mind first-hand, plays a crucial role in such an endeavour. While Buddhism has a rich contemplative tradition for the first-person exploration of states of consciousness, it never developed the modern Western sciences of the brain and behaviour. An integration of the first-person methodologies of Buddhism with the third-person methodologies of the cognitive sciences may lead to a richer understanding of consciousness than either Buddhist or Western civilization has discovered on its own.

On 16 August 1991, a deeply insightful address was given by Bhikkhu Prayudh Payutto at the National Science Day Lecture at the University of Chiang Mai. It offers a detailed examination of Buddhism as the foundation of a new, enlightened scientific method and tradition which includes consciousness as an essential component of the reality we inhabit.

I'd be very interested to discuss these issues with English-speaking Thai people, since I have no ability in their language.