Chapter 2: Buddhism in a Nutshell
Wake Up to Your Life - Kickoff Essay
by Kirez Korgan (kirez -at- cornell.edu)
Chapter 2: Buddhism in a Nutshell
Please excuse this lengthy prologue:
I've struggled to write this synopsis for Chapter 2. I feel very strongly about the benefits of us reading _Wake Up To Your Life_ together, sharing our thoughts and teasing apart our various reactions to the ideas --- and application of the ideas in our lives.
My own motivation is very practical: I want to explore the benefits of meditation. I'm aware of several areas of my life that I may improve through meditation, including my performance in school/work, my health (a few people have reported curing and/or significant amelioration of type 1 diabetes through meditation and yoga), and my relationship with my fiancee (I have a pretty awful temper, and I am in general a very impatient person).
Josh has been sharing with me his experiences of meditation for several years now. We've also discussed our mutual appreciation for eastern ideas (I use the vague 'eastern' because Josh's experience has been in Buddhism, and I tend to favor Taoist ideas) --- particularly how they apply in psychology and in interpersonal relations. Last year, Josh gave me a copy of David Brazier's _The Feeling Buddha_ ---- and I loved it. Brazier's interpretation of Buddhism was quite consistent with my own: one in which I give the most rational possible interpretation of the ideas; one in which I take for granted my own Objectivist ontology and objectivity, and can express certain valuable, deep insights in terms that are consonant with Buddhist ideas.
So I really, really want to like this book, _Wake Up To Your Life_. I want everyone else here on the list to read the book with us, and I'd like all of us to benefit from it. (And truly I believe we all _will_ benefit from it.)
Unfortunately, I am so far not liking the book. I remain optimistic about getting value from the rest of the book. And I think the rest of you should be, as well. Fortunately, I can trust you all to be skeptical about my reactions and for you to conclude that you'll read it yourselves, and form your own evaluations. But it would be a disservice to myself, and to you as well, if I don't speak frankly about my reaction to the book.
SUMMARY
As I hike forward into this Chapter 2 summary essay, I am entertaining too many possible destinations: 1) Summary of the chapter's contents; 2) Treatment of perceived philosophical conflicts; and 3) Commentary on interstices between Objectivism and McLeod's Buddhism.
Briefly, this is an outline of Chapter 2:
a. The story of Siddhartha, the Buddha
b. Introduction to the Four Noble Truths
c. The Three Disciplines: Morality, Meditation and Understanding
d. ...and the Eightfold Path, within the three disciplines
e. The role of Intention in the Three Disciplines
f. Karma and the nature of karmic action
g. The Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha
h. Refuge: notes towards your journey
i. What to Trust? ...guidance for your journey
I find little value in recounting McLeod's presentation of the Buddha's story. Most of us are familiar with it, and those of you who are not can digest the material quickly on your own.
But note this promising statement (p. 19): "No matter how we grow up, in wealth or poverty, in love or adversity, we form a view of life. Everything we do subsequently is based on the belief that that view of life is how things are."
If you have a background in Objectivism, I believe you should recognize and sympathize with this statement: this is Rand's belief in the inexorable power of philosophy, the 'premises' that, whether you recognize them or not, will determine your values and your course in life.
McLeod's elaboration of this point focuses on the psychological phenomena of our 'view of life.' Those of us familiar with Nathaniel Branden's work will recognize how Branden has taken Rand's view of the power of philosophy, and worked through how it expresses itself in our emotions and behaviors. Notably, a good example of this is in Branden's account of "self-fulfilling prophecies" --- which exactly parallels a point McLeod makes later in Chapter 2.
Note this implication of McLeod's statement: if everything we do is based on our belief in the truth of our view of life... then, for Buddhism to set us free or inform what we do, Buddhism must treat and inform our view of life. Rand acknowledges explicitly that this is the motivating framework of Objectivism; McLeod implies the same, here, for Buddhism.
The Four Noble Truths
This story of Buddhism opens as the Buddha first expressed it: The Four Noble Truths. McLeod gives us a helpful methodological note: the four truths are "based on a simple problem-solving model:
-- What is the problem?
-- What is the root of the problem?
-- Is there a solution?
-- How do you put the solution into effect?" (p. 23)
We will see this model answered as follows:
-- What is the problem? ...Suffering (dukha)
-- What is the root of the problem? ... Emotional reactivity
-- Is there a solution? ...Yes. The solution is attention: to experience, directly, without the destructive misperception of an "I" apart from experience intervening in our awareness.
-- How do you put the solution into effect? ...The path, which we can elaborate as 'eightfold' in three disciplines; it amounts to deconstructing our patterns of emotional reactivity, of destroying our habituated responses to stimuli. These practices are the tools (or "Refuge") of Buddhism, which will set us free from our self-induced suffering and awaken us to pristine awareness of the mystery of being.
Buddhism arises from the problem of suffering; the root of the problem is emotional reactivity. Suffering, McLeod tells us, consists of two parts: first, pain; and second, emotional reaction to the pain.
He points out that our emotional reactions separate us from what we are experiencing, and in separating us, diminish our experience or even transform our experience into a negative one. The phenomenon he is describing is one we have seen discussed in Damian's material from Csikszentmihalyi's _Flow_: self-consciousness dilutes the intensity of our experience, effectively distancing us from it; we more thoroughly enjoy an experience when we are wholly immersed in it and not distanced from it by self-consciousness.
McLeod also observes three fundamental types of reactions: attraction, aversion, and indifference. These are "the three poisons" --- they poison our experience of life.
But I ask: Or, are they the source of all meaningfulness in life?
What we experience as pain is determined by our physiology. McLeod correctly acknowledges that suffering, beginning in pain, is complicated. I would argue that in most cases, "liking" or "disliking" an experience can be wise: it can correctly recognize the harmful long-term effects of an experience, and our judgmentalism, our "liking" or "disliking", can guide us to avoid a harmful, perhaps even lethal, set of experiences or course of action. Yet... developing an attraction to a healthy sensation, and an aversion to a harmful sensation, both qualify as "poisonous" experiences; and these are the cause of our suffering.
You might ask: what about attraction to good things? McLeod's response to this, such as it is, is a bit evasive: "Suppose you are having a good time at a party and you wish you could always feel this way. Your desire to hold on to the good feelings subverts your enjoyment. Attraction has poisoned your experience of the party." Here, it seems that anxiety about the loss of a good thing subverts the good thing itself. To me this seems more a technical, tactical problem in our treatment of our emotions; and not, as McLeod seems to say, a problem which results, inevitably, from valuing in-and-of-itself.
From what I can see, having read only through Chapter 2, this material is important: it is the framework for our entire project. Our goal is to deconstruct our patterns of emotional reactivity --- in short, our likes and dislikes, our attractions and repulsions; even our indifference.
To his credit, McLeod acknowledges the complexity of emotional reactions with an excellent summary of the nature of emotional reactions. (p. 26)
The Three Disciplines and The Eightfold Path
I will avoid summarizing McLeod's presentation of The Eightfold Path and how it fits as Three Disciplines, except to enumerate the eightfold path:
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Attention
Right Cognition
Right View
But I do want to bring your attention to these two notes:
First, in discussing Right Cognition and Right View, (p. 30), McLeod says, "Right cognition means that we bring attention to the thinking process. We use cognitive processes to uncover and correct problems in our practice and in our life. Right view is seeing things as they actually are. By bringing attention to how we see things, we step out of the projected 'realities' of conditioning."
I trust this may be obvious, but I want to note the implicit primacy of existence, the recognition of the possibility of objectivity, the concern of objectivity with troubleshooting our lives through our thinking. I have a tendency to take these things for granted; so it is with some deliberation that I step outside my normal attitude and salute this excellence.
Also, I'm partly motivated to do this because I'm aware that so many Objectivists typically note their disagreements with a Buddhist's beliefs (or perhaps just the semantics of how the Buddhist expresses his beliefs) and immediately assert that the Buddhist abandons reason and rationality both explicitly and in practice.
I disagree thoroughly with this attitude: On the second count, "in practice," many Buddhists are more attuned to reality than many Objectivists; this is a matter of psycho-epistemology which I have found is a separate matter entirely from a person's explicit, notional beliefs. On the first count, whether Buddhists explicitly use "rationality" with the same referents as Objectivists do, is a different matter and depends on the individual Buddhist. But without clarifying that in fact a Buddhist is using the same referents, one cannot assert that any disagreement exists. If an Objectivist cannot recognize that he must treat apparent disagreement by looking at the actual referents of the concept in question, then he has failed to grasp the power of the epistemology and theory of concepts to which he pretends.
Second: On p. 31, McLeod writes, "If understanding doesn't change how we think, feel, perceive and act, it isn't really understanding." I just want to note that I have heard Harry Binswanger and Peikoff --- to note embarassingly narrow-minded fools and self-proclaimed Objectivists --- have said exactly the same thing. In Binswanger's lectures on Free Will, he said that for a person to act contrary to honesty or rationality, even if the person seems to know, or proclaims belief in, an Objectivist understanding of rationality... the person doesn't really, actually, have that understanding present in mind when they commit their irrational act. The significance of the note is on the nature of evasion and presence of mind. I have heard Peikoff make the same remark.
Next, a question: Am I wrong to read the "Eightfold Path" as a list of virtues? Or are they merely different facets, or perspectives on, the same fundamental virtue of mindfulness or living consciously? I would like to hear others' insights and comments on this. In Objectivism, because of biocentrism and our awareness of teleology and grounding of consequentialist ethics, our insights into free will and the nature of reason, and our ability to accept evolutionary psychology and integrate the disparate fields of psychology and even economics, our conception of ethics is very rich with interconnection and insight. Do any of you feel that Buddhism has this richness? Do you perhaps feel that Buddhism is superior, because it focuses on the single thing we have control over: Attention -- ...rather than trying to construct more rigid guidelines of how mindfulness must express itself for man qua man?
Intention in the Three Disciplines
You may note the implicit individualism and consequentialism in McLeod's interpretation of Intention in the Three Disciplines (p. 39):
"Interest in individual freedom leads to a different relationship with morality. We act morally because to do so reduces emotional disturbance. We are less concerned with acting appropriately as a member of society and more concerned with creating an internal environment that supports our efforts in meditation and understanding."
More orthodox Objectivists might call it "implicit egoism", but I prefer the technically correct term: individualism, which better accommodates individuals' very different personalities, orientations or concrete values (some of us 'selfishly' love helping others and attuning ourselves to the happiness of our loved ones.)
Karma
I find the material on Karma to be interesting. McLeod notes the four requirements of a karmic action: Premeditation, deliberate execution, completion, and that the action affects another person.
I find it's hard to say that ANY action can be said not to affect other people.
Otherwise, McLeod's treatment of karma is much like Objectivism's (and better, Branden's) treatment of character: that a person's actions are always and inevitably contributing to his self-esteem; that there is reciprocal causation: good action is both an effect of good character and a cause of good character; because the process is cumulative, dynamic, iterative, ongoing.
Of course, this is fascinating because McLeod would wish to deny the role of the Self in Karma. Yet, I would rather wish for the self to refer to the present awareness of accumulated, habituated patterns of action, including karmic action. So if we accept that there is a self and the self is a present experience which includes the cumulative weight of experiencing the good consequences of acting mindfully... it provides a very nice insight into, and rational account of, karma. But McLeod has arrayed his philosophical arsenal against such a proposal.
In reading McLeod's account of karma, you should at least keep in mind the notion of "self-fulfilling prophecy" and "reciprocal causation" --- both terms which I learned from Nathaniel Branden. A "self-fulfilling prophecy" means a belief (usually implicit) which predisposes you to act in a way that will justify, realize, fulfill and/or protect the truth of the belief. "Reciprocal causation" refers to the relationship between two states which are simultaneously or in sequence both cause and effect to each other; quite simply, high self-esteem is a cause of virtuous action, and high self-esteem is an effect of virtuous action. McLeod writes: "The vicious cycle of action and experienced result reinforces the behavioral pattern." (p. 41)
There is a further Objectivist insight which I want to note here: the roles of reason and free will.
McLeod refers to "The vicious cycle of action and experienced result reinforces the behavioral pattern," and I believe if we have studied psychology, and if we have observed ourselves and ever felt trapped in a pattern of behaviors (just as I am presently trapped in a pattern of writing on philosophy and psychology to an email list, when I clearly ought, instead, to be preparing for my final exams in 40 and 58 hours), we will know perfectly well what he is referring to.
In observing this phenomenon of being trapped in a cycle of behavior, we ask the question... "How does one ever escape from such a cycle?" ... and as Objectivists, we answer: "Ah: this is the role of reason. We can identify the habitual behaviors, their consequences, and the feedback loop. We can also identify the desired consequences, and the actions necessary to achieve those consequences, and thereby identify what we actually ought to do..." The outcome ultimately depends upon motivation and discipline; but the first and necessary condition is the role of reason and the belief in volition.
I think McLeod would agree. Buddhists may use different terminology, such as mindfulness and presence and attention; and I believe we will see this throughout the rest of _Wake Up To Your Life_.
The Three Jewels, and Refuge
McLeod introduces us to further Buddhist concepts: The Three Jewels and Refuge. The three jewels are the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha; Refuge is "The original Buddhist metaphor for entering the path of awakening." (p. 45) If anybody feels these are crucial to our progress and understanding, please comment on them to the list.
McLeod asks rhetorically, "Where do we turn for peace? Where do we turn to become free of suffering?... The central insight of Buddhism is that we cannot bring an end to suffering by looking outside. We must look inside."
McLeod then describes a stairway of experience, on which we increasingly take refuge in our internal resources, finally taking refuge in the pristine awareness of original mind.
What To Trust? Guidance for Our Journey
Chapter 2 closes with some tactical notes: real-world, practical guidance interpreted by McLeod:
Do not rely on the human individual; rely on the teaching.
Do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning.
Do not rely on the apparent meaning, rely on the real meaning.
Do not rely on ordinary consciousness; rely on pristine awareness.
...I am reminded of the metaphor I cherished in high school, which I first learned from D.T. Suzuki, "Do not mistake the map for the territory," a metaphor I have continued to love for it works so well with Objectivist epistemic insights.
McLeod ultimately exhorts us, "Remember these four lines as you read. Remember them as you practice. Remember them again if you ever teach others."
I am inclined to heed this advice, so I advise you as well to read and pay careful attention to McLeod's one page of interpretation (p. 47): warning against literalism; being mindful that the teachings have many levels of meaning (a notion that is interesting to deconstruct through conceptual analysis, testing with reducibility and hierarchy); and finally, to use pristine awareness: which at this stage we (I) may be unable to truly grasp, but which I am taking on confidence, as I believe it is a skill acquired through the practice of meditation.
The End
My original imagining that I wanted to summit three disparate peaks (a summary, a treatment of philosophical conflicts, and interstices between Objectivism and Buddhism), and that I must choose only one path to do so, must have been wrong. I think I covered the most important points in the chapter, and I also pointed out Objectivist scenic-vistas along the way. As a personal note, I think I somehow expressed more positive thoughts than I did negative, critical thoughts on the text... I'm thankful for that.
By saying this, I'm also implying that my philosophical misgivings may be bigger than I expressed here. Thankfully, most of this regards the central notion that the self is a mis-perception and the separation it foments creates suffering. I am hoping that this is a notional disagreement: that if we were to hash out, long and hard, the actual referents of our concepts... that ultimately McLeod would relent to the correct view, that there is in fact a valuable set of referents that we call the "self," and that these do not conflict with the insight that ultimately, all awareness is in the present moment, and that to think otherwise is an illusion.
I'm thankful that we are presently discussing this on the list -- I'm grateful that I can defer to that discussion, and not try to host my own regimental assault on it here, in this summary of Chapter 2.
|
