Regarding your last paragraph, what do you feel about the community at lesswrong.com - they seem to believe in improving the world better by evangelizing on rationality and science, to educate people in which they (predominantly Yudkowsky) have painstakingly created a large number of "sequences" educating people on a number of topics.
lesswrong... I had a quick look. It looks like a lot of complex information in fields that don't quite interest me enough to spend time on it. My impression is that like me, they are preaching to the converted. No one who doesn't already read that kind of material is going to care about, or read, that kind of material.
But yes, I think we need to make clear the benefits of rationality and science, although not losing sight of the importance of imagination.
The thing is, as I recently read in a Lynn Margulis book, that in a conflict between culture and science, culture always wins. Science minded people will win the battle not by being more right, or less wrong, they will win it by being more successful at life, by being good exemplars, by having something that others want. People like Richard Dawkins, who I'm starting to really admire, seem to miss this point and think that merely asserting an opinion on God will change things. Being right doesn't matter, and I think any student of history will confirm this. The success of memes is not solely related to their veracity, but to a whole raft of other factors (Malcolm Gladwell has some great insights into this in The Tipping Point which everyone should read!). If you don't believe me take a look at the information/intellectual content-free adverts all around you - the attention whores (aka advert makers) who actively compete for your a market share of your attention know that information doesn't grab attention like image/motion/emotion. They know that we feel our way to decisions and find rationalisations for them afterwards (told to me by one of New Zealand's most successful marketing men)
I've just finished reading Thomas Metzinger's book The Ego Tunnel which ends by looking at the spiritual and moral implications of his theory. He's very insightful and shows that science and spirituality can go hand in hand. One can have rational spirituality, even if we don't think Metzinger has things exactly right, here is a very good example of what a rational spirituality would look like. I'll be saying more about Metzinger in the coming weeks.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
froginthewell said...
Thanks a lot for the space, and for the detailed response and book suggestions. I look forward to your post on Metzinger.
What attracted me about lesswrong is that they don't claim mere disbelief will change things. Unlike the run of the mill atheists they seem to be making non-trivial, in some sense spiritual, efforts to cultivate rationality; and their sequences, which is essentially their Bible/Tipitaka, have posts on stuff like what they call living luminously.
Though following Hinduism myself and reading some Buddhist literature, and though myself troubled by their evangelist atheism, I have recently started going through the sequences to see if one can find material that will change my life (not for evangelism but my personal edification), perhaps somewhat akin to the sense in which you expect to get from evolutionary biologists/cognitive neuroscientists, material that has implications for Buddhist spirituality. Sorry if this comment is too tangential to your post.
@froginthewell Thanks for your summary of lesswrong - it does sound more interesting when you put it like that. In the Triratna movement we talk about going forth and going for refuge. One must go forth from false refuges, and go to true refuges (a similar kind of language is found in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad) - simply going forth from the old belief or practice on it's own just creates conflicts. So it's about letting go and taking hold at the same time (well, we have two hand, eh!).
We're all just seeking answers to what troubles us.
Very nice post. I haven't posted before, but have been following you blog the past couple of years.
I revised my understanding of pancupadanakhandas based on Damasio. The trick is that the subconscious process in Damasio is not part of khandas, which are concerned with the cognitive/experiential apparatus, in other words concerned with what is consciously known. With that caveat, Damasio's thesis is wierdly congruent with the 5 khandas. My practice with the khandas is more powerful and effective when informed by neuroscience. About karma and rebirth, what if karma is a metaphor for our genetic inheritance. Think about how in the Jatakas one or a pair of characters has a very specific pattern repeated over and over, and how beings are imprinted with very specific drives and instincts. The blind, amoral process of genetic selection, is profoundly selfless (it is genes which survive, not individuals), and also horrifying in a similar way to wheel of samsara. Just thinkin'
@Ayya Sobhana. Thanks for joining in. I must say I've been intrigued watching the saga of re-establishing the bhikkhuni saṅgha... all power to you, but rather you than me.
If you like Damasio then check out Thomas Metzinger "The Ego Tunnel". He runs with Damasio, but is far more interested in the moral and spiritual consequences of these ideas.
Yes. I think it is interesting that the Buddha does not seem to have named an un-/sub-conscious process - but merely viññāṇa arising in dependence on phassa. It suggests to me, from our modern point of view, that unconscious bodily processes must be included in rūpa, and that the unconscious brain processes must be part of the ajjhatika-āyatana, i.e. the 5 indriya or sense faculties. As any neuroscientist will tell you, we don't see with our eyes, we see with our visual system - eye, optic nerve, limbic system, visual cortex etc. Presumably the Buddha was well aware of unconscious mental processes (if that is not an oxymoron) but did not see them as crucial to this teaching, perhaps because we have no conscious control over them? I'd be interested to hear more about your idea subconscious process is outside the khandhas - quite a heretical view wrt Theravādin orthodoxy isn't it? :-) Are you a writer at all?
I'm not convinced by karma as a metaphor for genetic inheritance. It suggests a more sophisticated idea about inheritance than I'd credit for the time. It doesn't make it easy to square with the largely moral character of texts which discuss karma. Karma is always about choice and morality in Buddhist texts as far as I can see. Even Brahmanical karma, which also releases one from the rounds of rebirth, is related to willed actions - though the will is less important than the act in that context.
I'm reading a lot at the moment, and Lynn Margulis is occupying my mind a lot (along with Metzinger). Not a brilliant literary figure but a very interesting thinker. She argues, quite convincingly, that the gene is not as important as Neo-Darwinists make out. The cell, and especially the bacterial cell, is the unit of life in her book and symbiosis with/between bacteria accounts for speciation, whereas genes only produce variation within species. After 150 years there is only one highly likely (though not certain) candidate for an observed new species from genetic drift - the London Underground mosquito - and that may yet prove to be related to some symbiont. The evidence for genes and competition driving evolution are actually pretty weak - it's logical enough and internally coherent, but where is the evidence?
After a long time of feeling like science didn't speak to my practice I'm coming back to it and feeling the old thrill, and more certain that I must embrace science along with Buddhism.
"One of the things I see as vitally important for modern discourse (over which I have almost no influence; but, hey, everyone has an opinion) is that we who are atheists need to find some positive content and start talking about incessantly. We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of what we do not believe, in terms of opposition to the mainstream." Brilliantly said, Jayarava -- keep taking us to task on this, we stray like errant pet dogs sometimes.
You may be interested to know that I've been encouraging this in the formulation of what secular Buddhism *is*, rather than what it isn't. The atheist community struggles with not having a positive proposition, it would be helpful to avoid that pitfall. Still, those are my roots, and I appreciate your insight as there are stumblings along that path. Old root systems and habits!
So nice to see Ayya Sobhana is reading your blog, too. She led the retreat at Bhavana Society a couple of years ago, and has been very helpful to my meditation practice with her compassion and scholarship.
I don't see it in terms of keeping anyone in line or taking anyone to task - just exploring the issues being raised along with you. I'm interested in clarifying the task and suggesting ways to go forward positively. I'm interested in the rhetorical strategies of Buddhists more generally as well.
Have you read The Tipping Point? It's a manifesto for creating a revolution... (I'm a 'maven' by his defn.).
Jayarava -- haven't read Tipping Point, yet. It may come after Meme Machine, Ego Tunnel, and Moral Landscape, but maybe after that.
I was thinking about Ayya Sobhana's query about karma and genetic inheritence, and liked your response. It feels like a reach because karma is not typically (ever?) associated with physical ties of birthing in a family. This reminds me of looking at a quatrain of Nostradamus, fitting it into some later event, and calling it precognitive. It's just not necessary, karma has tremendous value without the need for additional interpretive layering.
@Ted - so many books to read! People who read, generally already have a list.
And yet we do have to find the links between Buddhism and our intellectual traditions, so proposals like Sobhana have value too. It's the kind of discussion we need to have. What I'm seeing these days is that where there is a discrepancy that it often makes sense to opt for our own tradition. I think neuroscience will change everything by giving us physical data about various mental states - putting abhidhamma on a scientific footing by identifying not only the physical neural correlates for each mental state, but also clarifying the processes which give rise to them. Then if we set that in an evolutionary biological-ecological framework (preferably one consistent with the word of Margulis and Lovelock) then I think we will arrive at a new understanding of human beings, their potential, and how to unlock it.
Jayarava, I'm really excited that you are pursuing this direction, and look forward to seeing where it leads.
I don't know if you know about the work on naturalistic spirituality posted on the web site of the Center for Naturalism. I think it might be to your taste. It is an attractive, positive account of an atheist, science-compatible spirituality, pointing in a direction that might be appealing beyond the converted. There's also quite a lot of Buddhist influence.
The URL is http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htm .
Like you, I split my thinking between early Buddhist history and the Buddhist future... somehow the two seem to shed light on each other, although it's hard to say quite how.
One point I've made in a couple of posts, and plan to elaborate on, is that contemporary Western Buddhism is modernist (as brilliantly explained by David L. McMahan in his _Making of Buddhist Modernism_). And that makes it appealing to the Baby Boom generation. But modernity is arguably already past; and modernist Buddhism does not seem to be appealing to nearly as many in later generations.
The answer to "why should I care about this" given by modernist Buddhism was "it's modern". But for generations for whom modernity is ancient history, that is not attractive.
Some new articulation of what Buddhism has to offer, in our fragmented post-systems world, is needed. I'm trying to work toward that... and possibly that is a way of thinking about what you are doing also.
"The making of Buddhist modernism" is on my Amazon wish list, but its expensive! Not quite sure what you mean by modernism in this case - can you send some links to your own writing on this?
I see a lot of Romanticism - rejection of intellect, embracing emotion as more real and true, and valorisation of the supernatural - amongst Buddhists. Western Buddhism, as you say, is dominated by people of the post-war Baby Boomer generation - the Triratna Order for instance is still drawing heavily from that same generation for its membership, and the average age of the Order is increasing accordingly. They also gave us the hippies, and I'm inclined to agree with John Lydon on the subject of hippies.
But I'm also seeing all this in the framework of evolutionary biology and neuroscience, and from the perspective of the philosophy of Thomas Metzinger (who seems to have changed my life!). I don't think the rather confused and aggrieved Dawkins approach (people are just gullible and stupid if the facts don't cause a change of heart) is much help. We need to look at what people need and why it gets expressed in beliefs and convictions which run counter to what empiricism tells us about the world.
What is it that brings about a change of heart? Not facts, that's for sure. Look at cinema adverts (about the only kind I get much exposure to, and then only about 6 or 8 times a year) - cars, perfume, booze - no information supplied, only images and suggestions that this will make you happier than you are now. Buddhists needs to learn from these arch-persuaders (using that term in the Gladwellian sense) and make our pitch.
Taking in a lot of info at the moment, but hoping for some kind of synthesis. Maybe I'll call it "Being someone, going somewhere" or "Empirical wisdom" :-)
Well, McMahan's "Modernism" book certainly changed my life...
He looks at the ways in which Buddhism has positioned itself relative to three modern/Western intellectual trends. They are science (and the European Enlightenment generally); romanticism (which was a reaction to the Enlightenment); and Protestant Christianity.
I haven't really written anything about the relationship between Buddhism and science, which you might be most interested in. I'm interested but don't see to have anything new to say at the moment.
I read his book just after finishing a series of posts titled "We matter to Buddhism", which turned out to cover some related topics. You might like some of "A Dzogchen-shaped hole in the culture" from that series. It talks about Buddhism and the Death of God (in the West). In the series, there's also an attempted explanation of the "no Buddhists under 40" problem, in terms of consumerism.
I have been writing about romanticism on the Meaningness site. Romanticism is an aspect of monism... There's a blog series about it that starts here.
I'm seriously considering starting Yet Another Web Site just to discuss the implications of McMahan's book.
I'm looking forward to your writing about Metzinger. By chance, I've just come across a review of his book by the Center for Naturalism (which I mentioned in my last comment).
David, I don't know if you were aware that Tom Clark and I did an interview for The Secular Buddhist podcast that will be out in a few weeks? That web page you linked is one we discussed, great to see!
Yes, Making of Buddhist Modernism is a good book, I particular like the way he denotes some of the qualities of modernism, and how it's impacting early Buddhism. Jayarava, mine's on the Kindle, that's a bit less expensive, just not as pleasant to read on a computer.
David, I don't know if you were aware that Tom Clark and I did an interview for The Secular Buddhist podcast that will be out in a few weeks? That web page you linked is one we discussed, great to see!
Yes, Making of Buddhist Modernism is a good book, I particular like the way he denotes some of the qualities of modernism, and how it's impacting early Buddhism. Jayarava, mine's on the Kindle, that's a bit less expensive, just not as pleasant to read on a computer.
I've just read Buddhism is for Boomers and I think you take on it is very interesting. I had toyed with trying to write something like it but got bogged down trying to tease out the important issues. The lack of a coherent culture does stand out! I'm 45 but I don't identify with the Boomer generation - I'm with John Lydon in not trusting hippies (though my Order is run by ex-hippies, many of whom were switched on by acid!).
Buddhism Modernism is starting to look more interesting and I'll definitely read it sometime soon.
@Ted I didn't know -- thanks for the tip. I'll look forward to it.
(For those who don't know, Tom Clark is the director of the Center for Naturalism.)
@Jayarava Glad that the no-coherent-culture point makes sense to you! There seems to be a cut-off in the '60s -- this idea is apparently obvious to most people born after 1970, and incomprehensible to those born before 1960. I was born around the cusp, in the early 60s.
The most important kamma is the one that made us take a human birth, and all the baggage that entails. Our genetic inheritance is profoundly moral, in the sense that all sentient beings are equipped to respond to "value" ... even those beings without self-awareness. Damasio develops this idea of "value" in his latest, "Self comes to Mind." His ideas are more rigorous than what I have read under the heading of evolutionary psychology.
I don't have a theory about kamma, but simply notice that the ideas of evolutionary psychology have a mythic, story-like quality similar to re-birth stories. Apparently, the human has multiple potential behavioral patterns that can be triggered in different environments. This makes us adaptable. However certain patterns are ethically beautiful and pleasant, and and others not so much. That is, evolution is affected by culture and the phycisal environment, in the sense of which behavioral routines are triggered and which ones remain latent. If that's not moral, I don't know what is.
About five khandas and the unconscious/subconscious. My practical application of Damasio is to consider form / rupa in the kandhas in terms of the subconsciously triggered changes in one's physical body. That is Damasio's narrow definition of "emotion" [in contrast to most psychologists who emphasize all the ensuing "emotional" proliferation]. Then, when mind cognizes the changes in the body, that's Damasio's "feeling," a very exact equivalent to vedana. Perception, volition, and consciousness follow along. It is enough for me to class the initial subconscious process, that which triggers the bodily reactions, as anusaya. As Bhikkhuni Dhammadinna said, those processes are to be inferred from the resulting feelings. The important consequence of my approach is a more dynamic understanding of how the 5 kandhas operate together as a juggernaut, propelling us along in samsara. I am not yet writing so much, but starting to build up a teaching practice here in California.
I am sorry to shift the focus of the discussion outside Buddhism.
I (and many others, indeed…) have been thinking a lot about how can philosophy change our lives. I tend to agree with your point, one can win other people's attention not because of "being right", but rather because of "being attractive". I would add that one also need to be able to supply them with a plausible narrative about how to justify to themselves that they are attracted to X.
But can a genuine spiritual project look for interesting intellectual (etc.) achievements (such as the "discovery" of evolution) and at the same time involve in narrating them in an interesting way? And how can the latter operation avoid being just a further example of obnubilation?
In other words: if (for instance) I am convinced that science is a good thing to study, because it fosters critical thinking, I should try to make people enjoy the idea of studying it. But by making them like the idea, am I not trying to convince them to do something without critically thinking about it?
Good points and questions. The subject in this post is broader than Buddhism.
Is it a contradiction to get someone to like something enough to think about it critically, and is it possible to think critically about something you like, are interesting questions.
I'd say that we don't really work alone - other people will help us to see our subject critically by criticising our ideas; and perhaps showing us that our facts are wrong, or that our interpretation is absurd. Knowledge seeking is a collective endeavour.
Critical thinking requires interest and motivation. Interest requires attraction; motivation requires desire or aversion (or both). Charismatic teachers get more attention - I was reading recently about Eckhart Tolle being more popular than all mainstream Buddhist teachers put together.
We are emotional beings first and rational beings second. (so science tells us anyway).
Our manner in communicating is important because we are not communicating to machines but to human beings with feelings. So for instance I find Richard Dawkins factually accurate, but absurdly rude about people. I quite understand why he fails to get his message across. Compare him to the Dalai Lama whose English is appalling, whose ideas about people are medieval and superstitious, but who is constantly on message when it comes to friendliness and positivity. Dawkins can't understand why someone like the DL is more influential than Dawkins himself is - because he understands genes, but he doesn't understand people (and I suspect he maintains some of the upper-class English prejudice against the common people).
Would the world have changed much earlier if Socrates had not angered the Spartans; or Galileo not been so obnoxious to the Pope so that it took until the 20th century for the Catholic Church to accept that the earth goes around the sun? I've often wondered.
Today's science is so complex that it cannot be understood by average people, unlike classical physics which can be. I've just read Stephen Hawkings' latest book on it. I have to say that it is readable but I am no wiser about the universe because I know that I do not understand even the basics of his pet theory. The level of interest required is beyond me. M-Theory (11 dimensional quantum string/brane theory) is incomprehensible without PhD level math. So an interpretation and presentation is going to be vital if we are to have any idea about it.
I'm going to be writing more on this subject as it interests me and I'm trying to think critically about it :-)
Good point. Buddhism in general and the Dalai Lama in particular may make us (me, at least) aware of the fact that winning other people's hearts does not necessarily involve cheating them.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
[Image]Since being contacted by Ted Meissner of The Secular Buddhist podcast for an interview (an enjoyable experience), I've been taking more interest in the theme of non-religious Buddhism as an adaptation of Buddhism to Western Culture. I've watched a Stephen Batchelor video on YouTube, and read various articles. Batchelor is a voice of reason and I appreciate his contribution. At the same time I've discovered that I very much enjoy Richard Dawkins' polemical approach to religion.
Not long ago I changed my strap-line for this blog to "Western Buddhism... the Buddhist Enlightenment colliding with the European Enlightenment" which reflects my growing interest in how we adapt Buddhism to Western culture in a way that honours both. Though now a Buddhist and writer, I grew up secular and focussed by education on science. I have a B.Sc in chemistry from Waikato University, NZ. However, during my studies I realised that a detailed knowledge of the theory and practice of science was not enough. I was still largely unhappy, even depressed, most of the time, despite getting good grades in my chemistry classes. I did some shopping around before becoming a Buddhist and joining in with the Triratna Community. Buddhism seemed to offer what I was missing, and a large part of that was a community of people with coherent, well articulated, but also lived values. I found at the Auckland Buddhist Centre back in 1994.
In this post I want to look at one kind of rhetoric used by religions adapting to new cultural surroundings, and contrast that with how Charles Darwin changed the Christian Church forever. In the Hindu tradition there is a popular narrative about Gautama the Wake. He was in fact the ninth avatara of Viṣṇu, and he manifested in order to stop Hindu's from carrying out animal sacrifices, to reform the Hindu class system so as to allow the śudra class to be liberated. Hindu's therefore see Gautama the Wake as a reformer from within. I have met people, both in the West and in India, who hold this view in all seriousness and who tried to convince me of it. Of course no Buddhist takes this seriously. The lie is so great and so bold that we hardly know where to begin to refute it. However the avatara story is not rhetoric intended to convince Buddhists that really they are Hindus. No, the rhetoric has a primarily internal audience. This is a story that is mainly told by Hindus for Hindus.
Buddhists have used precisely this tactic. I've already pointed out that despite the efforts of many scholars (with K. R. Norman and Richard Gombrich at the forefront) to find parallels and echoes of the Upaniṣads in early Buddhist texts, that the early Buddhist portrayal of Brahmins suggests a slim and superficial knowledge - a second-hand caricature - rather than a true critique (See especially Early Buddhism and Ātman/Brahman). It might make sense to see the Buddhist critique of Brahmins as similarly intended for an internal audience, especially in light of the historical failure to convince many Brahmins. Later on we see other aspects of Indian religion being absorbed by Buddhists: Sarasvatī and Śrī in the Golden Light Sūtra; Śiva in the Karaṇḍavyūha Sūtra, and again in the Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha where Śiva is converted to Buddhism and becomes a dharmapāla (often the form of Mahākāla). Indeed if you look at the periphery of the early Tantric Buddhist maṇḍalas you will find all manner of deities from the Vedas and Pūraṇas, some of whom like the ḍākiṇī who go on to become quintessentially Buddhist! So Buddhists have long employed this same kind of rhetoric, critiquing other religions for an internal audience. I think it helps to strengthen group coherence, and faith in one's chosen path, especially perhaps under adverse circumstances.
I've noticed this same tactic on the Secular Buddhist Facebook page where there is a running critique of traditional Buddhism in terms of what it gets wrong: basically traditional Buddhism contains some superstition and some untestable metaphysical beliefs, such as, and perhaps especially, a belief in karma & rebirth. In my Secular Buddhist interview, Ted and I talked about rebirth & karma and the difficulties they pose for contemporary Buddhists. I am personally very sceptical about rebirth (see Rebirth and the Scientific Method), but I have argued that a belief in karma linked with rebirth might have pragmatic value when seen in the right light as a motivation to be ethical (see Hierarchies of Values). Mind you, I see beliefs per se as rather secondary to practical matters - what motivates someone to be ethical is less important than the fact that they are ethical. Motivations get refined by practice.
Buddhist Atheists, or secular Buddhists, or whatever we call them, have a problem not unlike the problem of 'Christian Atheists' (people whose belief system is defined by not believing in the Christian God). I suppose most Christian Atheists would claim that they don't believe in any god, but the fact is that the most of the public dialogue revolves around the existence or non-existence of the Christian God. Christians still set the agenda. One of the things I see as vitally important for modern discourse (over which I have almost no influence; but, hey, everyone has an opinion) is that we who are atheists need to find some positive content and start talking about incessantly. We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of what we do not believe, in terms of opposition to the mainstream. God is irrelevant.
One of the reasons that Charles Darwin has been so successful is that he did not set out to criticise the Church or its members. He set out to observe nature, and presented positive evidence of what he found. He did not invent the evolution meme, but he decisively showed that it was the über-meme of biology. Of course it had massive theological implications, but he more or less left it to the Church to work them out. Ironically the Darwin Correspondence Project draws out the fact that Darwin had not intended to attack church doctrine: "But Darwin was very reticent about his personal beliefs, and reluctant to pronounce on matters of belief for others. His published writings are particularly reserved or altogether silent on religion." - What Did Darwin Believe? Darwin is a model for anyone who thinks a paradigm needs overturning. He didn't, as far as I know, complain about the lack of a level playing field, or the lack of political influence amongst the intelligentsia (as Richard Dawkins does in his 2007 TED presentation); and he did not directly attack church doctrine - he didn't need to. Though we still argue about implications of his finding, we cannot ignore them. Darwin destroyed the church doctrine of creation by merely presenting his evidence to the Royal Society and the world.
In a sense I'm not interested in reading that traditional Buddhism is getting it all wrong. I agree that an Iron Age tradition, whose most recent innovations are medieval, is unlikely to sit well in our Information Age. It's a given that ancient traditions are failing to live up to the present situation, because we who live in these times, who invented these times, can barely understand and cope with them. On the other hand traditional Buddhism clearly helps many people to lead more meaningful and fulfilling and ethical lives - just as Christianity still appeals to many good people.
On the other hand the idea that Buddhism is inherently in tune with a scientific worldview is not true either - it is rooted in old-world ideas that no longer make sense. Many of those responsible for presenting Buddhism to the Western audience since the 19th century have been passionate about the European Enlightenment rationalist legacy, and they have edited Buddhism to suit Western tastes. Aspects of Buddhism distasteful to the Western mind are often simply left out, glossed over, or explained away; and it's not until a closer association that we find that they are indubitably and perhaps indelibly present. It's not necessarily an intention to deceive, more like a strategy to attract people with what we already know attracts them, but to some extent it is a deception. One consequence is that some Buddhists still claim that the historical Buddha did not believe in any gods, but our own scriptures show him, on almost every page, conversing with gods from various religions. If he did not believe in gods, then who was he talking to?
What I want to see is evidence that leads to conclusions that change the way we think about life in general, from which we can work out the implications for Buddhism. I don't see this coming from Cosmology or Quantum Mechanics or any branch of physics. I think the parallels drawn to these disciplines are either prosaic or spurious. Probably we will find interesting results from ecologists, and evolutionary biologists - especially the followers of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, and if I had more time I would go back to Lovelock, and read Margulis (who argues that symbiosis and cooperation are more important drivers of evolution than specialisation and competition). For my money I think we will find compelling evidence to change the way we Buddhists think in the work of neuroscientists such as Oliver Sacks, Antonio Demasio, V. S. Ramachandran, Joseph LeDoux; and their colleagues such as Thomas Metzinger (philosopher), and Martin Seligman (psychologist). I had not read anything in this area for some years, but have been working through Metzingers's recent book The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self. It's not always a joy to read, but the book has some very interesting things to say (more to come on Metzinger!). Clearly those who study consciousness and the mind are much closer to our interests than those who study matter.
Rather than railing against rebirth, karma, or any traditional beliefs (which I think will convert very few people) we would be better off to focus on talking about the implications neuroscience research. One fascinating instance of this is the unfolding discovery of just how intimately connected are consciousness and the brain - this area of study is surging ahead at the moment. The conclusion that mind and brain are inseparable seems increasingly obvious; and the idea of disembodied consciousness increasingly unlikely. I predict that actual rebirth won't survive as a viable meme for much longer except in marginal, fundamentalist sects. However symbolic rebirth as a myth (in the Joseph Campbell sense) may well continue to inform our lives. And we will understand the difference more clearly. The challenge will be presenting what is in fact a highly technical body of knowledge to a readership already overwhelmed by information, with a decreasing attention span, and not trained in the kinds of thinking required to truly grasp the implication of science.
The Darwinian approach of presenting a mass of positive evidence and allowing people to come to their own conclusions can change the world. Although an oppositional rhetoric (as described above) for an internal audience must have some value (or it would not survive), it won't reach beyond the borders of the converted - it is not useful for proselytising. In order to make changes in society, even in Buddhist society, one has to be clear that there is a better alternative, and I'm not sure that Buddhist atheists (or perhaps anyone who identifies with the label atheist) have found what that is yet - they know what they're against, but not what they are for. Or at least what they are for is actually part of the background of modern life (secularism, rationalism, materialism etc).
22 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formRegarding your last paragraph, what do you feel about the community at lesswrong.com - they seem to believe in improving the world better by evangelizing on rationality and science, to educate people in which they (predominantly Yudkowsky) have painstakingly created a large number of "sequences" educating people on a number of topics.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
@froginthewell
lesswrong... I had a quick look. It looks like a lot of complex information in fields that don't quite interest me enough to spend time on it. My impression is that like me, they are preaching to the converted. No one who doesn't already read that kind of material is going to care about, or read, that kind of material.
But yes, I think we need to make clear the benefits of rationality and science, although not losing sight of the importance of imagination.
The thing is, as I recently read in a Lynn Margulis book, that in a conflict between culture and science, culture always wins. Science minded people will win the battle not by being more right, or less wrong, they will win it by being more successful at life, by being good exemplars, by having something that others want. People like Richard Dawkins, who I'm starting to really admire, seem to miss this point and think that merely asserting an opinion on God will change things. Being right doesn't matter, and I think any student of history will confirm this. The success of memes is not solely related to their veracity, but to a whole raft of other factors (Malcolm Gladwell has some great insights into this in The Tipping Point which everyone should read!). If you don't believe me take a look at the information/intellectual content-free adverts all around you - the attention whores (aka advert makers) who actively compete for your a market share of your attention know that information doesn't grab attention like image/motion/emotion. They know that we feel our way to decisions and find rationalisations for them afterwards (told to me by one of New Zealand's most successful marketing men)
I've just finished reading Thomas Metzinger's book The Ego Tunnel which ends by looking at the spiritual and moral implications of his theory. He's very insightful and shows that science and spirituality can go hand in hand. One can have rational spirituality, even if we don't think Metzinger has things exactly right, here is a very good example of what a rational spirituality would look like. I'll be saying more about Metzinger in the coming weeks.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Thanks a lot for the space, and for the detailed response and book suggestions. I look forward to your post on Metzinger.
What attracted me about lesswrong is that they don't claim mere disbelief will change things. Unlike the run of the mill atheists they seem to be making non-trivial, in some sense spiritual, efforts to cultivate rationality; and their sequences, which is essentially their Bible/Tipitaka, have posts on stuff like what they call living luminously.
Though following Hinduism myself and reading some Buddhist literature, and though myself troubled by their evangelist atheism, I have recently started going through the sequences to see if one can find material that will change my life (not for evangelism but my personal edification), perhaps somewhat akin to the sense in which you expect to get from evolutionary biologists/cognitive neuroscientists, material that has implications for Buddhist spirituality. Sorry if this comment is too tangential to your post.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
@froginthewell Thanks for your summary of lesswrong - it does sound more interesting when you put it like that. In the Triratna movement we talk about going forth and going for refuge. One must go forth from false refuges, and go to true refuges (a similar kind of language is found in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad) - simply going forth from the old belief or practice on it's own just creates conflicts. So it's about letting go and taking hold at the same time (well, we have two hand, eh!).
We're all just seeking answers to what troubles us.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Very nice post. I haven't posted before, but have been following you blog the past couple of years.
I revised my understanding of pancupadanakhandas based on Damasio. The trick is that the subconscious process in Damasio is not part of khandas, which are concerned with the cognitive/experiential apparatus, in other words concerned with what is consciously known. With that caveat, Damasio's thesis is wierdly congruent with the 5 khandas. My practice with the khandas is more powerful and effective when informed by neuroscience.
About karma and rebirth, what if karma is a metaphor for our genetic inheritance. Think about how in the Jatakas one or a pair of characters has a very specific pattern repeated over and over, and how beings are imprinted with very specific drives and instincts. The blind, amoral process of genetic selection, is profoundly selfless (it is genes which survive, not individuals), and also horrifying in a similar way to wheel of samsara.
Just thinkin'
Monday, January 17, 2011
@Ayya Sobhana. Thanks for joining in. I must say I've been intrigued watching the saga of re-establishing the bhikkhuni saṅgha... all power to you, but rather you than me.
If you like Damasio then check out Thomas Metzinger "The Ego Tunnel". He runs with Damasio, but is far more interested in the moral and spiritual consequences of these ideas.
Yes. I think it is interesting that the Buddha does not seem to have named an un-/sub-conscious process - but merely viññāṇa arising in dependence on phassa. It suggests to me, from our modern point of view, that unconscious bodily processes must be included in rūpa, and that the unconscious brain processes must be part of the ajjhatika-āyatana, i.e. the 5 indriya or sense faculties. As any neuroscientist will tell you, we don't see with our eyes, we see with our visual system - eye, optic nerve, limbic system, visual cortex etc. Presumably the Buddha was well aware of unconscious mental processes (if that is not an oxymoron) but did not see them as crucial to this teaching, perhaps because we have no conscious control over them? I'd be interested to hear more about your idea subconscious process is outside the khandhas - quite a heretical view wrt Theravādin orthodoxy isn't it? :-) Are you a writer at all?
I'm not convinced by karma as a metaphor for genetic inheritance. It suggests a more sophisticated idea about inheritance than I'd credit for the time. It doesn't make it easy to square with the largely moral character of texts which discuss karma. Karma is always about choice and morality in Buddhist texts as far as I can see. Even Brahmanical karma, which also releases one from the rounds of rebirth, is related to willed actions - though the will is less important than the act in that context.
I'm reading a lot at the moment, and Lynn Margulis is occupying my mind a lot (along with Metzinger). Not a brilliant literary figure but a very interesting thinker. She argues, quite convincingly, that the gene is not as important as Neo-Darwinists make out. The cell, and especially the bacterial cell, is the unit of life in her book and symbiosis with/between bacteria accounts for speciation, whereas genes only produce variation within species. After 150 years there is only one highly likely (though not certain) candidate for an observed new species from genetic drift - the London Underground mosquito - and that may yet prove to be related to some symbiont. The evidence for genes and competition driving evolution are actually pretty weak - it's logical enough and internally coherent, but where is the evidence?
After a long time of feeling like science didn't speak to my practice I'm coming back to it and feeling the old thrill, and more certain that I must embrace science along with Buddhism.
Monday, January 17, 2011
"One of the things I see as vitally important for modern discourse (over which I have almost no influence; but, hey, everyone has an opinion) is that we who are atheists need to find some positive content and start talking about incessantly. We need to stop defining ourselves in terms of what we do not believe, in terms of opposition to the mainstream." Brilliantly said, Jayarava -- keep taking us to task on this, we stray like errant pet dogs sometimes.
You may be interested to know that I've been encouraging this in the formulation of what secular Buddhism *is*, rather than what it isn't. The atheist community struggles with not having a positive proposition, it would be helpful to avoid that pitfall. Still, those are my roots, and I appreciate your insight as there are stumblings along that path. Old root systems and habits!
So nice to see Ayya Sobhana is reading your blog, too. She led the retreat at Bhavana Society a couple of years ago, and has been very helpful to my meditation practice with her compassion and scholarship.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
@Ted
I don't see it in terms of keeping anyone in line or taking anyone to task - just exploring the issues being raised along with you. I'm interested in clarifying the task and suggesting ways to go forward positively. I'm interested in the rhetorical strategies of Buddhists more generally as well.
Have you read The Tipping Point? It's a manifesto for creating a revolution... (I'm a 'maven' by his defn.).
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Jayarava -- haven't read Tipping Point, yet. It may come after Meme Machine, Ego Tunnel, and Moral Landscape, but maybe after that.
I was thinking about Ayya Sobhana's query about karma and genetic inheritence, and liked your response. It feels like a reach because karma is not typically (ever?) associated with physical ties of birthing in a family. This reminds me of looking at a quatrain of Nostradamus, fitting it into some later event, and calling it precognitive. It's just not necessary, karma has tremendous value without the need for additional interpretive layering.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
@Ted - so many books to read! People who read, generally already have a list.
And yet we do have to find the links between Buddhism and our intellectual traditions, so proposals like Sobhana have value too. It's the kind of discussion we need to have. What I'm seeing these days is that where there is a discrepancy that it often makes sense to opt for our own tradition. I think neuroscience will change everything by giving us physical data about various mental states - putting abhidhamma on a scientific footing by identifying not only the physical neural correlates for each mental state, but also clarifying the processes which give rise to them. Then if we set that in an evolutionary biological-ecological framework (preferably one consistent with the word of Margulis and Lovelock) then I think we will arrive at a new understanding of human beings, their potential, and how to unlock it.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Jayarava, I'm really excited that you are pursuing this direction, and look forward to seeing where it leads.
I don't know if you know about the work on naturalistic spirituality posted on the web site of the Center for Naturalism. I think it might be to your taste. It is an attractive, positive account of an atheist, science-compatible spirituality, pointing in a direction that might be appealing beyond the converted. There's also quite a lot of Buddhist influence.
The URL is http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htm .
Like you, I split my thinking between early Buddhist history and the Buddhist future... somehow the two seem to shed light on each other, although it's hard to say quite how.
One point I've made in a couple of posts, and plan to elaborate on, is that contemporary Western Buddhism is modernist (as brilliantly explained by David L. McMahan in his _Making of Buddhist Modernism_). And that makes it appealing to the Baby Boom generation. But modernity is arguably already past; and modernist Buddhism does not seem to be appealing to nearly as many in later generations.
The answer to "why should I care about this" given by modernist Buddhism was "it's modern". But for generations for whom modernity is ancient history, that is not attractive.
Some new articulation of what Buddhism has to offer, in our fragmented post-systems world, is needed. I'm trying to work toward that... and possibly that is a way of thinking about what you are doing also.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Hi David
"The making of Buddhist modernism" is on my Amazon wish list, but its expensive! Not quite sure what you mean by modernism in this case - can you send some links to your own writing on this?
I see a lot of Romanticism - rejection of intellect, embracing emotion as more real and true, and valorisation of the supernatural - amongst Buddhists. Western Buddhism, as you say, is dominated by people of the post-war Baby Boomer generation - the Triratna Order for instance is still drawing heavily from that same generation for its membership, and the average age of the Order is increasing accordingly. They also gave us the hippies, and I'm inclined to agree with John Lydon on the subject of hippies.
But I'm also seeing all this in the framework of evolutionary biology and neuroscience, and from the perspective of the philosophy of Thomas Metzinger (who seems to have changed my life!). I don't think the rather confused and aggrieved Dawkins approach (people are just gullible and stupid if the facts don't cause a change of heart) is much help. We need to look at what people need and why it gets expressed in beliefs and convictions which run counter to what empiricism tells us about the world.
What is it that brings about a change of heart? Not facts, that's for sure. Look at cinema adverts (about the only kind I get much exposure to, and then only about 6 or 8 times a year) - cars, perfume, booze - no information supplied, only images and suggestions that this will make you happier than you are now. Buddhists needs to learn from these arch-persuaders (using that term in the Gladwellian sense) and make our pitch.
Taking in a lot of info at the moment, but hoping for some kind of synthesis. Maybe I'll call it "Being someone, going somewhere" or "Empirical wisdom" :-)
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Well, McMahan's "Modernism" book certainly changed my life...
He looks at the ways in which Buddhism has positioned itself relative to three modern/Western intellectual trends. They are science (and the European Enlightenment generally); romanticism (which was a reaction to the Enlightenment); and Protestant Christianity.
I haven't really written anything about the relationship between Buddhism and science, which you might be most interested in. I'm interested but don't see to have anything new to say at the moment.
I read his book just after finishing a series of posts titled "We matter to Buddhism", which turned out to cover some related topics. You might like some of "A Dzogchen-shaped hole in the culture" from that series. It talks about Buddhism and the Death of God (in the West). In the series, there's also an attempted explanation of the "no Buddhists under 40" problem, in terms of consumerism.
I have been writing about romanticism on the Meaningness site. Romanticism is an aspect of monism... There's a blog series about it that starts here.
I'm seriously considering starting Yet Another Web Site just to discuss the implications of McMahan's book.
I'm looking forward to your writing about Metzinger. By chance, I've just come across a review of his book by the Center for Naturalism (which I mentioned in my last comment).
Saturday, January 22, 2011
David, I don't know if you were aware that Tom Clark and I did an interview for The Secular Buddhist podcast that will be out in a few weeks? That web page you linked is one we discussed, great to see!
Yes, Making of Buddhist Modernism is a good book, I particular like the way he denotes some of the qualities of modernism, and how it's impacting early Buddhism. Jayarava, mine's on the Kindle, that's a bit less expensive, just not as pleasant to read on a computer.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
David, I don't know if you were aware that Tom Clark and I did an interview for The Secular Buddhist podcast that will be out in a few weeks? That web page you linked is one we discussed, great to see!
Yes, Making of Buddhist Modernism is a good book, I particular like the way he denotes some of the qualities of modernism, and how it's impacting early Buddhism. Jayarava, mine's on the Kindle, that's a bit less expensive, just not as pleasant to read on a computer.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Thanks David
I've just read Buddhism is for Boomers and I think you take on it is very interesting. I had toyed with trying to write something like it but got bogged down trying to tease out the important issues. The lack of a coherent culture does stand out! I'm 45 but I don't identify with the Boomer generation - I'm with John Lydon in not trusting hippies (though my Order is run by ex-hippies, many of whom were switched on by acid!).
Buddhism Modernism is starting to look more interesting and I'll definitely read it sometime soon.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
@Ted I didn't know -- thanks for the tip. I'll look forward to it.
(For those who don't know, Tom Clark is the director of the Center for Naturalism.)
@Jayarava Glad that the no-coherent-culture point makes sense to you! There seems to be a cut-off in the '60s -- this idea is apparently obvious to most people born after 1970, and incomprehensible to those born before 1960. I was born around the cusp, in the early 60s.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The most important kamma is the one that made us take a human birth, and all the baggage that entails. Our genetic inheritance is profoundly moral, in the sense that all sentient beings are equipped to respond to "value" ... even those beings without self-awareness. Damasio develops this idea of "value" in his latest, "Self comes to Mind." His ideas are more rigorous than what I have read under the heading of evolutionary psychology.
I don't have a theory about kamma, but simply notice that the ideas of evolutionary psychology have a mythic, story-like quality similar to re-birth stories. Apparently, the human has multiple potential behavioral patterns that can be triggered in different environments. This makes us adaptable. However certain patterns are ethically beautiful and pleasant, and and others not so much. That is, evolution is affected by culture and the phycisal environment, in the sense of which behavioral routines are triggered and which ones remain latent. If that's not moral, I don't know what is.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
About five khandas and the unconscious/subconscious. My practical application of Damasio is to consider form / rupa in the kandhas in terms of the subconsciously triggered changes in one's physical body. That is Damasio's narrow definition of "emotion" [in contrast to most psychologists who emphasize all the ensuing "emotional" proliferation]. Then, when mind cognizes the changes in the body, that's Damasio's "feeling," a very exact equivalent to vedana. Perception, volition, and consciousness follow along.
It is enough for me to class the initial subconscious process, that which triggers the bodily reactions, as anusaya. As Bhikkhuni Dhammadinna said, those processes are to be inferred from the resulting feelings.
The important consequence of my approach is a more dynamic understanding of how the 5 kandhas operate together as a juggernaut, propelling us along in samsara.
I am not yet writing so much, but starting to build up a teaching practice here in California.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
I am sorry to shift the focus of the discussion outside Buddhism.
I (and many others, indeed…) have been thinking a lot about how can philosophy change our lives. I tend to agree with your point, one can win other people's attention not because of "being right", but rather because of "being attractive". I would add that one also need to be able to supply them with a plausible narrative about how to justify to themselves that they are attracted to X.
But can a genuine spiritual project look for interesting intellectual (etc.) achievements (such as the "discovery" of evolution) and at the same time involve in narrating them in an interesting way? And how can the latter operation avoid being just a further example of obnubilation?
In other words: if (for instance) I am convinced that science is a good thing to study, because it fosters critical thinking, I should try to make people enjoy the idea of studying it. But by making them like the idea, am I not trying to convince them to do something without critically thinking about it?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Hi Elisa
Good points and questions. The subject in this post is broader than Buddhism.
Is it a contradiction to get someone to like something enough to think about it critically, and is it possible to think critically about something you like, are interesting questions.
I'd say that we don't really work alone - other people will help us to see our subject critically by criticising our ideas; and perhaps showing us that our facts are wrong, or that our interpretation is absurd. Knowledge seeking is a collective endeavour.
Critical thinking requires interest and motivation. Interest requires attraction; motivation requires desire or aversion (or both). Charismatic teachers get more attention - I was reading recently about Eckhart Tolle being more popular than all mainstream Buddhist teachers put together.
We are emotional beings first and rational beings second. (so science tells us anyway).
Our manner in communicating is important because we are not communicating to machines but to human beings with feelings. So for instance I find Richard Dawkins factually accurate, but absurdly rude about people. I quite understand why he fails to get his message across. Compare him to the Dalai Lama whose English is appalling, whose ideas about people are medieval and superstitious, but who is constantly on message when it comes to friendliness and positivity. Dawkins can't understand why someone like the DL is more influential than Dawkins himself is - because he understands genes, but he doesn't understand people (and I suspect he maintains some of the upper-class English prejudice against the common people).
Would the world have changed much earlier if Socrates had not angered the Spartans; or Galileo not been so obnoxious to the Pope so that it took until the 20th century for the Catholic Church to accept that the earth goes around the sun? I've often wondered.
Today's science is so complex that it cannot be understood by average people, unlike classical physics which can be. I've just read Stephen Hawkings' latest book on it. I have to say that it is readable but I am no wiser about the universe because I know that I do not understand even the basics of his pet theory. The level of interest required is beyond me. M-Theory (11 dimensional quantum string/brane theory) is incomprehensible without PhD level math. So an interpretation and presentation is going to be vital if we are to have any idea about it.
I'm going to be writing more on this subject as it interests me and I'm trying to think critically about it :-)
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Good point. Buddhism in general and the Dalai Lama in particular may make us (me, at least) aware of the fact that winning other people's hearts does not necessarily involve cheating them.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011