Bhikkhu Cintita

Category: buddhism

  • From Thought to Destiny: The Pragmatics of Destiny

    Uposatha Teaching: First Quarter, December 14, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    Nirvana is both the beginning and end of Buddhist practice. We begin with accepting the truth of the Buddha’s enlightenment. Even before we have an understanding of what this is, we accept that the Buddha gained some special quality that we too can with time achieve in Buddhist practice. We end with Nirvana. We practice in between, gaining confidence in the Buddha’s enlightenment as we observe elements of our own character fall into place and gain glimpses of the ultimate goal.

    Nirvana, along with its companion, Rebirth, forms a context for Buddhist practice. Keep in mind though that practice is simply about skillful intentional action, that is, Karma. We have added the layers Habit, Character and Destiny to Thought and Act merely to explore the consequences of our intentional action, so that we better understand what it is to be skillful and why its cultivation is so imperative. As with the understanding of Rebirth the understanding of the goal of Nirvana is not without pitfalls.

    The Goal. Goals themselves are often put to unskillful uses. They quickly become objects of desire, clinging and obsession, and thus foster unskillful states of mind. “I gotta have that NOW! Oh, I can’t wait, I can’t wait.” Sugarplums are painful things to have dancing in your head. Nirvana can do that as well. Once achieved goals accordingly create an equivalent fear of losing what has been accomplished, or dissatisfaction in it. Don’t worry, you will not have achieved Nirvana in the first place if you have this level of clinging. How do you have a goal skillfully?

    It is important to hold skills lightly. Think of them as the North Star, guiding your path, but not something you need to actually reach (in fact the North Star is more and more out of reach the further you travel toward it; it ends up overhead). If you are learning a language, you just follow a fixed daily routine of practice, otherwise you will make yourself miserable striving to speak as a native and will eventually give up. Consider Gandhi’s life task; he just followed the daily practice of non-violent non-participation along with encouraging others to join him; he never would have endured his half-century campaign had he been obsessed constantly with driving the British out of India. Consider the misery of dieting to get slim, the repeated sacrifice of what needs to be renounced in the painful effort to be slim, then the disappointment after you abandon the discipline that you had barely been able to sustain, only to return to your former pleasingly plump condition. The goal can skillfully form a background context to occasionally consult to ensure you are headed in the right direction.

    The ways in which the goal of Nirvana has been framed seems to have played an important role in Buddhist thought. In China the notion of Sudden Enlightenment became very prominent. This is the idea that within this very life it is very feasible that one can attain Nirvana, without plotting out a path of development spanning many lifetimes. Zen literature is full of references to people who through practice and skillful instruction suddenly realize in a single instant Enlightenment, often with little preparation beforehand. These stories in a sense mirror the stories of the early Suttas of disciples of the Buddha who realize the final goal during a single discourse of the Buddha. However in the Suttas the presupposition is almost always present that these are people “with little dust in their eyes,” people who have already lived as recluses perhaps for many lifetimes, practiced meditation, developed virtue, reflected deeply on the nature of existence, and only needed the wisdom of the Buddha’s teaching to pull it all together. Within Zen even while embracing Sudden Enlightenment the contrasting notion that one should practice without a goal, simply practice. The notion that “We are already enlightened” encourages this. This is particularly evident in the teachings of Japanese Master Dogen (1200-1253), whose view was essentially that Enlightenment is not something you achieve, it is something you do, or fail to do, moment by moment. After all, the only way we shape Habit, Character and Destiny, or in fact anything else in the world, is through our intentional actions. Isn’t it enough just to get our intentional actions right, that is, to face each moment with a calm mind, virtue in the heart, and clarity about what is going on, and then act skillfully? Similarly, for the chubby person is it not enough just to face each day moderate eating habits? In either case the goal takes care of itself.

    It is important to distinguish striving for a goal from effort. Effort does not require clinging, which is painful, only discipline, which can be quite joyful. What we would call an awakened being, and arahant, someone who has attained the goal of Nirvana gets intentional actions right naturally and without effort, which is why we don’t even think of them as intentional or karmic any more, and would not know what else to do. The rest of us must meet each moment while being hammered by the typhoons and eruptions of impulse and obsession, assaulted by the flames and avalanches of passion and rage, so we must be able to put all that aside then act with a calm mind, virtue in the heart, and clarity about what is going on, and to enact Enlightenment. So effort does not vanish with the notion that we are already all enlightened. We still need to act like it.

    I suspect that, like much of Buddhist doctrine, the various ways of treating the goal of Nirvana are pragmatic adaptations of the Buddha’s teachings to differing cultural circumstances. It has been suggested that the idea of Sudden Enlightenment is related to the existence of greater social mobility in China than in India. In India there was not much expectation that one’s lot in life would change significantly within this lifetime, life required extreme patience, and many lifetimes to make progress. In China one might be born a peasant and die an advisor to the emperor, quick results could be expected in this lifetime. I doubt that the Chinese actually developed a way to become enlightened faster, they just framed to process in a more appealing, less frustrating way. For those that might have doubts about the veracity of Rebirth, which recall brings with it a sense of urgency in practice, the prospect of Sudden Enlightenment might also inspire to urgency in practice. The downside of all this is that the prospect of Sudden Enlightenment encourages clinging to the ultimate goal. This would explain the common accompanying theme of practicing with no goal as a wise defense against this clinging.

    Now let’s consider Western culture. We tend to be acquisitive, we tend to expect instant click-of-a-button gratification, we tend to interpret things as personal goals. These things require that we be extremely careful with Nirvana, Enlightenment and the other synonyms. Already these have become marketing tools for Buddhist products, including teachings, accompanied by promises of fast results. I recommend that people steer clear of such appeals. I personally like to teach in terms of Gradual Enlightenment but Steady Progress in order to mitigate greed and encourage patience. I teach in terms of Perfection of Character or Virtue rather than Ending of Suffering, or Eternal Bliss, because it is less about personal advantage, it suggests something you do for everyone rather than just for yourself. I tried teaching in terms of Responsibility for a while, but students seemed to think that was a bummer. (It is perhaps an advantage of being a monastic that I do not have to try to sell anything, like seminars, books and retreats; I don’t depend on teaching as a livelihood, I have no livelihood. This leaves me free to teach what is most skillful, like renunciation and disenchantment, rather than what appeals to the naive and commercially influenced understanding.) Most importantly is to settle into a well-defined daily practice routine, disciplined but not striving. The book will get written if you write a certain number of pages a day, competence will develop if you learn something new each day. Just take care of the day, the moment, the intention behind the action and the rest will take care of itself.

    Rebirth and Nirvana together give a broader meaning to the Buddhist path that extends beyond the confines of this one life. Although Nirvana is a distant goal for most, it is one toward which noticeable progress, along with occasional glimpses of its waiting arms, can be witnessed in this one life, and sometimes some recluse will actually attain this lofty goal of perfection of character. For most of us Nirvana simply provides a cathedral-like framework to contain our daily practice or aspirations.

    Greater than the One Life. The focus on this one life gives a limited view of the Buddhist path. Another analogy is perhaps in order.

    The focus of corporate capitalism tends to be limited to quarterly profits. Sometimes the executive vision is a bit more far-sighted as certain long-term perspectives are able to raise stock prices for the short term, but the performance of executives are by and large judged on the basis of quarterly profitability. This means that the global view is largely lacking; where will we be, say, one hundred years from now? The characteristic myopic decisions of individual corporations exemplifies what in Artificial Intelligence is known as Hill Climbing. The logic of Hill Climbing is that if you want to get to the top of the mountain in the fog, just keep walking up hill. The decision-making process is thus driven by a local metric, the contours beneath your feet. The weakness of hill climbing is that you almost always get stuck at the top of a foot hill and miss the top of the mountain altogether because you lack the global perspective. This is the problem of scrambling for short-term, measurable gain. Since corporations by and large can not sustain a long-term perspective, other human institutions are required that can. The scientific and technological research communities can afford a long-term view because at their purest they are generally not required to show quarterly results or any particular practical results. Their practitioners, sustained by job security (tenure and so on) provided generally through government funding, have the leisure to work on projects with very long-term goals, or simply advance human understanding of certain principles, like computability. They become a resource for future long-term corporate profitability, at little corporate expense. They also potentially provide a social conscience in corporate decision-making. (Unfortunately a great weakness of the corporate system is that more often than not warnings that would conflict with quarterly profits tend not only to be ignored actually suppressed through corporate control of media and through corporate lobbying of government agencies responsible for allocating funds for scientific and technological research.)

    Our individual spiritual focus tends to be similarly limited to quarterly results. Sometimes we are motivated to sustain a meditation practice through the inspiration of others, but generally we waste time scrambling for short-term measurable gain, wealth, reputation, fun, a new romance, kids off drugs and in school, the neighbor’s dog not barking all night, getting the upper hand in the battle of the bulge, finding the best cell phone service provider for the family, looking busy at work and so on. With so many petty concerns it is easy to lose sight of Nirvana, the overarching goal of the Buddhist life, the lofty peak that may lie many lives in the future, and instead get stuck at the top, or even half way up, a little hill. As a matter of fact, since Buddhists by and large can not easily, in the bustle of samsara, sustain a long-term perspective, another human institution is required to hold to that perspective as a constant reminder. This is a traditional role in Buddhism of the monastic Sangha. Its practitioners, sustained by lay donations, and at the purest giving up all temporal concerns that might distract them from the higher goal, have the leisure to work on something much bigger than their single lives. They become the conscience of the Buddhist, keeping him pointed toward the higher goal. On a quarterly basis the elements of Buddhist practice may not seem so urgent, but those periods on the cushion, meeting situations with kindness and insight, keeping life simple and peaceful, make an incalculably huge difference in the Destiny of the world.

  • New Post: The Dharma of Linux

    A Buddhist Monk’s Reflections upon Installing Ubuntu on his Laptop

    Linux is a computer operating system, a competitor, with a small market share, of Microsoft Windows. Dharma is the Buddha’s teachings on the perfection of human character, in its three aspects of Serenity, Virtue and Wisdom. I’m a monk, and I pack a laptop, Dell Latitude D420.

    Read the whole post here.

     

  • From Thought to Destiny: Nirvana, the Perfection of Character 2/2

    Uposatha Teaching: New Moon, December 6, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    Last week we began discussing Nirvana in two of its aspects, Imperturbability and Awakening, that is, the affective and cognitive aspects. This week we consider the the remaining aspects of Highest Virtue and of Liberation, which ties together these three aspects.

    Highest Virtue. This is the result of developing the behavioral aspect of character, or the morality, and thereby brings us one again to the issue of Karma. Virtue comes with the erosion and eventual loss of unskillful roots of Greed, Aversion and Delusion and with the arising and growth of Renunciation, Kindness, Compassion and Wisdom. In fact, with the complete disappearance of Greed, Aversion and Delusion, and backed by Renunciation, that is, staking no personal claim in anything, and by the penetrating and encompassing insight of Wisdom, the factors of Kindness and Compassion are unleashed to bring the world unlimited benefit. A saint is born. This seems, in fact, to accord with the Buddha’s life story.

    However, there appears to be some confusion about what the Arahant, the one that has attained Nirvana, is capable of. Nirvana is frequently described as the End of Karma, referring specifically to the end of New Karma, that is, intentional actions, rather than Old Karma, that is, the cumulative results of past intentional actions, which may persist for a while after the attainment of Nirvana. For instance the following passage describes actions in accord with the Noble Eightfold Path as leading not only to the ending of skillful (bright) Karma, but also to the ending of unskillful (dark) Karma and everything in between, the ending of All New Karma altogether.

    The intention right there is to abandon this kamma that is dark with dark result, the intention right there is to abandon this kamma that is bright with bright result, the intention right there is to abandon this kamma that is dark and bright with dark and bright result. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma. AN 4.232

    Because Karma is a fabrication, that is a compounded thing, this provides a release from the arising of any slight suffering that would be associated with even skillful (bright Karma). Furthermore, with the end of Karma comes the end of Samsara, that is the end of Birth and Death, upon the physical death of the body. Rebirth, recall, is driven by Karma. But then, it seems that the arahant must be not only incapable of intentional action after Nirvana is attained, but also would be unable, in any case, to stick around to be of benefit in subsequent lives. So on the path nearing Nirvana the arahant has accumulated this huge reservoir of Virtue, only for it to be squandered in the attainment of Nirvana! Could this really be the case? It seems from the Suttas that the arahants were all capable of much more than sitting around blissfully drooling on their mudras, but apparently this is a common Mahayana understanding of what it means to become an Arahant: In response the Bodhisattva became a contrasting ideal, as one who stops just short of Arahantship, intentionally and nobly, in order to put this huge reservoir of Virtue to use for the benefit of all beings, in this life and in subsequent lives.

    The best way to resolve this question, whether the Arahant is capable of benefiting the world, would be to find an arahant and ask him, but I am not sure where to find one. However, I would suspect to find someone far from the common Mahayana view of the Arahant. For instance, there are alternative passages that suggest as much. The following example suggests that the skillful roots produce no karmic fruit in any case:

    In the same way, any action performed with non-greed… performed with non-aversion… performed with non-delusion — born of non-delusion, caused by non-delusion, originating from non-delusion: When delusion is gone, that action is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. AN 3.33

    The emphasis on non-delusion might suggest that particularly pure actions of non-greed and non-aversion are under discussion, ones without a hint of attachment to what is thereby fabricated. Perhaps these are the activities allowed the arahant. These might be quite spontaneous pure and simple acts of compassion and kindness in response to conditions as they present themselves with no attachment to results. The turtle is on its back, set it upright, what is there to say or even think about? There is nothing karmic about it in the sense of producing a lasting impression on the character or producing another Rebirth, but such simple actions can produce enormous benefit, coming from an limitlessly insightful, compassionate and kind mind. I think this is probably like the Taoist notions of no-mind and the action of no-action, which in fact became the Zen understanding of nirvanic behavior, as described like this in Twelfth Century China:

    People of the Way journey through the world responding to conditions, carefree and without constraint. Like clouds finally raining, like moonlight following the current, like orchids growing in shade, like spring arising in everything, they act without mind, they respond with certainty. — Master Hongzhi

    In other words compassionate and wise action becomes the natural function of an Arahant, just as the natural function of rain is to pitter-patter and the natural function of a door is to bar access until opened, requiring no particular intentionality on the part of the rain or door or even sense that a choice is being made.

    Liberation. In common usage Liberation means the freedom to do what you want: If you want to speak harshly of others, freedom of speech allows you to do so. If you want to eat ice cream, money in your pocket ensures that you can. In Buddhism Liberation is something deeper: It is freedom from having to want. It is therefore freedom from the constraints of our own minds, freedom from the annoying backseat driver in our heads that is constantly demanding that we go there and avoid that, all the while with little sense of what will get us into an accident or take us on a long detour. These directives have their origin in the fabricated self, that entity in the world but not of it, on behalf of which personal advantages are sought in the world and the dangers of the world avoided. They take the form of emotional cues, of lust, of disgust, of heartbreak, of anger, of longing of disappointment, of envy, of acquisitiveness, of stinginess, of pity, or sadness, that keep the mind in anxiety and turmoil and give rise to our actions. This is the human condition.

    Buddhism is about looking outside the box with the eye of wisdom. It is about seeing how our rich emotional lives, though providing good material for Italian opera, keep us constantly on edge, perpetually dissatisfied and trapped inwardly in a drama from which we cannot get free, all the while thrashing about outwardly a world of our own fabrication in horribly harmful ways. It is about transforming this insanity that we all seem to be endowed with, and instead to live worthwhile, satisfying and harmless lives, by liberating our actions from our basest emotions, by developing skill in our Karmic actions, turning away from our untutored emotional reactiveness. This is taking responsibility for our lives.

    The word Nirvana means extinguishing, as one would extinguish a fire. Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out that at the Buddha’s place and time the physics of fire was different that we commonly understand it, so that the image for us can be misleading. Something like liberation from painful bondage is intended. Ven. Thanissaro translates Nirvana as Unbinding. In ancient India fire was considered to be present everywhere, normally in a cool state. However when it comes into contact with fuel it tends to attach to it, at which time the fire becomes hot and visible, as in the Buddha’s famous Fire Sermon:

    Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame… The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame… The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame… The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame… The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. SN 35.28

    Nirvana is a matter of unbinding the fire from the fuel to return to the natural, and for people of India more pleasant, state. He does not mention it, but this is much like our modern understanding of Oxygen, normally tame and cool, but quite ready to turn aflame in the presence of fuel and spark. Flame is as a metaphor for the directions of of the backseat driver brings forth graphically the aspect of suffering.

    Liberation, it can be seen, summarizes the three aspects of Imperturbability, Awakening and Virtue. Imperturbability is the stilling of the flames, the turning away from the directives of the backseat driver, not getting caught up in the emotional life. Awakening results from seeing the world from a perspective other than through the flames of want, to see the world as it is on its own terms, and thereby recognize the insanity of the emotion-driven life. Highest Virtue is to recognize the sanity of the purpose-driven life and to behave in accordance with the world as it is.

  • From Thought to Destiny: Nirvana, the Perfection of Character 1/2

    Uposatha Teaching: Last Quarter Moon, November 29, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    The final Destiny for those on the Buddhist Path is Nirvana. “Nirvana” itself means Unbinding or Extinguishing, and has been described as the End of Suffering; the End of Greed, Hate and Delusion; the Destruction of Fermentations; the End of Karma; the End of Samsara or the Round of Birth and Death; the Deathless; Awakening, Enlightenment or Realization; Attainment or Realization of Emptiness; Liberation. Each of these phrases describes a specific aspect of Nirvana. A more encompassing description would be simply Perfection of the Human Character, or Finally Growing Up Completely. It is the North Star toward which we navigate in our practice. The one who has caught a first glimpse of Nirvana is called a Stream Enterer and is said to be no longer able to turn away from the Path to Nirvana, which is said to be attained within seven lifetimes. The one who has attained Nirvana is called an Arahant. This generally happens, for example, like this:

    Dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute, he … reached and remained in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing and realizing it for himself in the here and now. He knew: “Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.” And thus Ven. Sona became another one of the arahants. AN 6.55

    Few make it there in this life. The one who has shown us how to attain Nirvana is the Awakened One, the Buddha. Lets take the different aspects of Nirvana in turn: Imperturbability, Awakening, Highest Virtue and Liberation.

    Imperturbability. This is the result of developing the affective aspect of character. With the ending of craving, suffering ends. Craving ends with Greed and Aversion, with the fermentations, the taints on the human character. The ending of craving entails the arising of contentment in all things.

    In Nirvana, neither scantily clad lass, nor debonair hunk, neither chocolate cream cake a la mode, nor catchy tune, will make the heart beat faster with passion. Neither plunge into nest of snapping vipers, bite of bear, nor lunge of lion, neither ghoul, nor remorseless torture, will raise a hair in fear. Neither fender bender nor rude waiter, neither computer crash with total loss of data, nor out o’ cash with total loss of face, will curl the lip or wrinkle the brow one snippet in ire. Life simply ceases to be a problem or a struggle. The senses continue to function, even physical pain can still be discerned, but nothing is taken personally, ever.

    As a single mass of rock isn’t moved by the wind, even so all forms, flavors, sounds, aromas, contacts, ideas desirable and not, have no effect on one who is Such. AN 6.55

    This non-attachment runs very deep. The imperturbable mind, for instance, can have no stake in that which is compounded or fabricated, which is to say everything we think of as being a thing, because a compounded thing is always held with some degree of stress or suffering, even if it is a good intention, a skillfully motivated plan or a thing of great beauty. We’ll look at what it is with these darn compounded things in a few paragraphs.

    To be a mass of rock, unmoved by the wind, might seem a bit boring, like a bland soup without any spice. It certainly could not form the basis of a popular soap opera. But in fact, those who have attained Nirvana report an abiding feeling of bliss, just not in sensual things. It is the bliss of serenity, the bliss that arrives as suffering departs, the bliss of settling in with things as the are and not seeing them as personal problems, the bliss of contented abiding in this marvelous world. It is like a soup that, though bland, is simply healthy and nourishing to the body. It is the bliss of renunciation, of no personal stake, that abides by its own accord, that will not and cannot depart, no discipline required.

    A favorite story from the Suttas relates that Ven. Bhaddiya Kaligodha was often heard by other monks to exclaim, “What bliss, what bliss!” Since he had, as a layman, been a king, they assumed that he was reminiscing, that while he had let go of all of his cushy advantages physically, he was still having trouble with unskillful thoughts. Upon word of this, the Buddha summoned Ven. Bhaddiya and discovered that the monks were underestimating his realization. This was Ven. Bhaddiya’s account:

    “Before, when I was a householder, maintaining the bliss of kingship, I had guards posted within and without the royal apartments, within and without the city, within and without the countryside. But even though I was thus guarded, thus protected, I dwelled in fear — agitated, distrustful, and afraid. But now, on going alone to a forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, I dwell without fear, unagitated, confident, and unafraid — unconcerned, unruffled, my wants satisfied, with my mind like a wild deer. This is the meaning I have in mind that I repeatedly exclaim, ‘What bliss! What bliss!’”

    A couple of analogies might help to understand the affective experience of Nirvana. Suzuki Roshi used to tell his students who, like good Westerners intent on results, expressed too much greed for Nirvana, “How do you know you will like Enlightenment?” In fact, we don’t like the idea of giving up sensual pleasures, nor fame and gain. But consider how much you gave up in the process of growing up. Toys and games and interpersonal concerns that one year seemed so enticing the next year had no appeal. All of the elements of samsaric existence are one by one similarly shed in the process of Finally Growing Up Completely. The toys and games and interpersonal concerns are themselves, in the end, simply boring. In contrast, consider the moments of bliss that meditators commonly experience in the utter stillness of samadhi, and most people have experienced spontaneously in occasional moments of serenity, sometimes in the gaps between worrying about this and worrying about that. This bliss seems to arise naturally just by making room for it.

    Awakening. This is the result of developing the cognitive aspect of character, or the wisdom faculty. It is seeing things clearly as they really are, rather than through the lens of our concepts. This is not omniscience—the Buddha apparently was not omniscient—but rather more like being able to see the fabric out of which reality is sewn, in particular the impermanence and non-self of all things, the unceasing contingency and flux of reality, even as we humans try to comprehend it with fixed and solid conceptualizations. That which is compounded or fabricated only to quickly fade, we take to be things that exist more substantially, independently and reliably than they deserve. We thereby live most of our lives in a Fabricated World that cannot keep possibly keep pace with reality, a world that we take very seriously, but which is in fact Empty. Living in that Fabricated World, we stake our claims to many of the things we find there and because they cannot keep pace with reality, stress or suffering arises; they will always disappoint our expectations or demands, they become problems. Now, what you are reading is a very conceptual account of the nature of compounded things, which I hope has a its own logic. The highest Wisdom, realized in Nirvana, is to see these things directly, to see right through that Empty Fabricated World in which we dwell to the actual reality of things as they are.

    Impermanent are compounded things,
    Prone to rise and fall.
    Having risen, they’re destroyed,
    Their passing truest bliss.

    Suffering are compounded things,
    Prone to rise and fall.
    Having risen, they’re destroyed,
    Their passing truest bliss.

    Insubstantial are compounded things,
    Prone to rise and fall.
    Having risen, they’re destroyed,
    Their passing truest bliss.

    The compounded thing to which we stake the greatest claim is, naturally, Me, the Self. And this becomes, naturally, the source of our greatest delusions, our greatest suffering and our greatest misguided efforts. The second greatest claims are to those things that the Self identifies itself with: this body, this mind, this intellect, this sparkling personality, this style of attire. The third greatest claims are the compounded things the Self thinks it possesses, that is, the things the Self stakes a claim to: this spouse, this car, this bank account, these power tools, this power. In Awakening this all becomes transparent, it dissolves into Emptiness, and the reality is seen directly, there is nowhere where one can discernibly stake any claim at all. There is a kind of cruel hoax in thinking, as we embark on Buddhist practice, that progress toward Nirvana is some kind of self improvement, in seeing the bliss of Nirvana, for instance, as a My Birthright, as something that I hope someday to stake a claim to. The hoax is that, when I finally arrive, there is no Self to stake the claim; in fact that is the most prominent feature of Nirvana, the absence of a stakeholder.

    In the Fabricated World that we take as reality things exist in and of themselves, and if not permanently, then at least with a lifespan. You, your Self, has a life span, you are born, you live and you die. When you see through that Empty world there is only continuous change everywhere, you are hard put to find something that behaves with a well-defined birth, lifespan and death. There is no Self that abides so long, there is no birth, only an evolution from whatever preceded and no death, only an evolution to whatever follows. The reality behind the Fabricated World is therefore sometimes known as the Deathless, which is the reality you recognize on attaining Nirvana. It is also sometimes called Emptiness, but this is a bit of a misnomer: It is the fabricated world that is Empty; the reality behind it is actually quite rich and full, just not full of fixed Things.

    A couple of pointers might be helpful in understanding the cognitive experience of Nirvana. For many this is the most obscure point of the Buddha’s teachings. First, an intellectual understanding is of limited value. This is the best intellectual understanding I can convey here, and at its best an intellectual understanding provides only the closest jumping off point from which to plunge into an experience beyond concepts, beyond language. And this experience should represent a radical reorientation. For example, a theoretical physicist while on campus inhabits a curious intellectual word of strings of vibrating probabilities that have already jumped this way or that depending on who is observing at the moment, but at home inhabits the same world—wife, dog, kids, dinner, TV—that most of us inhabit; the one does not impinge on the other. The Deathless should impinge, though this requires some courage on the part of the practitioner. If it does not impinge you will continue to be caught up in suffering, in Greed, in Hatred, in misperceptions, in unskillful and harmful behaviors. Second, there is another means to develop the abilty to see through the fabricated world: Don’t be a stakeholder. Seeing through the fabricated world helps you to stop being a stakeholder. It works the other way as well. Just as money seems very real to the person who keeps earning and spending it, and God seems very real to the person who keeps praying to Him, the fabricated world will seem very real to the person who continues to have a stake in the things that it offers. This is a reason that Renunciation along with the meditative and ethical practices that loosen the grip of Greed and Aversion are critically important.

    … to be continued next week.

  • From Thought to Destiny: Perspectives on Rebirth

    Uposatha Teaching: Full Moon, November 21, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    Rebirth raises Western eyebrows. For those disposed to religious skepticism it may be a deal breaker. For others it may be an opportunity either to overhaul Buddhism or after all these years finally to reveal the Master’s true intent. Lest readers become too sure of themselves let me point out four viable views of Rebirth.

    1. Rebirth is Literally True. Probably this is the dominant view historically.
    2. Rebirth is a useful Working Assumption to frame our practice. Recall, for instance, that the Buddha recommends this to the skeptical.
    3. Rebirth is an Approximation for something more subtle. Recall Niels Bohr’s dictum, “Truth and clarity are complementary.” Rebirth is clear; if we look a bit deeper we may get closer to a less tractable truth. I will briefly consider below that Rebirth is an approximation of Karmic Spillage of last week’s discussion.
    4. Rebirth is a humbug; it has no productive role in Buddhism. This is the position of many Western Buddhists, perhaps most articulately represented by Stephen Batchelor.

    To summarize the discussion of the last few weeks, in “Is Rebirth Verifiable?” I considered the case for 1., though not conclusively. In “The Pragmatics of Rebirth” I suggested that either 1. or 2. has a productive role in framing the Buddhist Path, and that could well be extended to 3.. In “Buddhism with Beliefs” I argued that Working Assumptions, as in 2., even if literally false, are not only common but also productive parts, not only of religion but of almost any realm of human affairs. I also pointed out that Approximations as in 3. are the rule in Scientific discourse. The most distinguished advocate of 4. is probably Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, possibly the most influential Thai monk of the Twentieth Century. While 1. and 4. are the opposing literalist viewpoints, 2. and 3. each involve a more subtle understanding of religious truth and of the meaning of Rebirth. I hope no readers go off in a broken-deal huff over the issue of Rebirth; whatever your persuasion you will find yourself in good company.

    This model of Karmic Spillage does not exclude the conventional karmic model of Rebirth; it may well supplement it, that is, while some karmic dispositions are transmitted genetically, culturally and through emulation, others may be transmitted by Rebirth. This gives another way in which to evaluate the veracity of Rebirth: Rather than seeking verification for the process of rebirth, we can turn the question upside down and ask instead what is not due to rebirth. If the transmission of all karmic dispositions is accounted for in terms of well-understood mechanisms, then Rebirth becomes vacuous. If, on the other hand, elements of transmission have no reasonable explanation in terms of conventional mechanisms, the case for Rebirth, or some unknown mechanism, is strengthened. This as a means of evaluation highlights the importance of cases in which, for instance, genetically identical twins, exposed to the same cultural, familial and social circumstances manifest differences in character.

    Even if Rebirth as literally understood cannot stand on its own two feet, it might stand as an approximation of Karmic Spillage, The framework of Rebirth has some pragmatic value not immediately evident in Karmic Spillage: The linearity of Rebirth makes Karma and the path to Nirvana more of a personal project. Even while Buddha discourages the personal until the project is well underway there is solidity in the thinking of the project as involving step-by-step personal development over a long period of time. Expression in these personal terms also reminds us that our practice is primarily focused on the internal world of our own thoughts, our skillful and unskillful intentions. Nonetheless, Karmic Spillage also points to a way in which moment by moment skillful karmic decisions have consequences that transcend this single current life, in fact even more profoundly, than in the serial Rebirth model since karmic consequences are transmitted laterally and expansively as well as into the future.

    The Buddha could conceivably been aware that Rebirth is an approximation of a process something like Karmic Spillage, but chose to express his understanding in terms of a traditional model that would have been widely understood in his day. Nagapriya suggests that adopting previous religious framework to new system like remodeling old building, the structure is not completely recommended by the function. This may be why Rebirth is so peculiar on first sight in the West.

    The main point of this speculation, however, is not to do science, not to look for an empirically verifiable truth, but to find a proper context for Buddhist practice. I discussed in previous weeks the usefulness of Working Assumptions or myths in religious practice. Our doctrines should be held lightly, first, so that we do not get caught up in meaningless speculation, perhaps when challenged hardening into religious fundamentalism, and, second, so that our religious aspirations are not put on hold awaiting the results of scientific evidence. It would be a source of great discomfort to think that the entire foundation of one’s religious practice and understanding could be undermined by new developments in science. Consider that one might be instructed in practice to “sit like the Buddha.” This does not mean by that one is the Buddha, but it is an efficiently communicated effective instruction: It works. Likewise in Vajrayana traditions one might be instructed to identify with her guru; it is not a matter of literally becoming her guru in an independently verifiable way. Similarly, we can practice as if we were able to continue life after life until we reach Nirvana, the highest perfection of human character, and thereby abide in an efficiently communicated and effective frame of mind for the purpose of practice.

    At the same time, science can help us to stand back and see our practice from another perspective. It is helpful to understand how we impact the world when we hold on to greed or hatred, or when we act from a point of renunciation and kindness, or how our views shape our actions and ultimately the world in which we live. This wider perspective has always been integral to Buddhism, particularly the ecological view of dependent origination that science only significantly came to appreciate in recent years. I can say that the Butterfly Effect has had a profound effect on how I view my engagement in the world and the importance of grounding that engagement in Buddhist practice. Karmic Spillage is perhaps a more immediate invitation to Science to study Karma in more detail than is Rebirth. It is important at the same time, however, that we not allow the coldly analytical nature of most Western science to dissect an essentially holistic living body of mutually reinforcing practices and understandings into a meat market of independent parts, ready for human consumption.

    Rebirth is important in the Buddhist project because it frames practice in a way that makes its implications much greater than this single short life, in terms that make compromising one’s highest aspirations for temporary comfort less compelling, implications that involve transcending much more than the fleeting pain of the current existence. In fact our practice does have that global importance, which is for many most only evident through tracing the consequences of Karmic Spillage, but which is most readily visualized in the process of Rebirth. Beliefs are not as a rule that important in Buddhism; of primary importance is our mindset, in particular, one that encourages us to live our lives karmic act after karmic act with utmost virtue. What conceptual apparatus will keep us steadfast is likely to vary over the range of Western students of Buddhism, from the wary to the wily. How we think of Rebirth is something we best come to terms with, but we have lighter options than rigid dogma.

    In any religious enterprise it is important that one embed your (current) life into something greater than yourself, rather than embedding something smaller than yourself into your life. This is why traditional psychotherapy or an interpretation of Buddhism in traditional psychotherapeutic terms is a poor substitute for Buddhism or for any other functioning religion: it simply adds something to your life to make it more comfortable and fails to embed your life into something greater to make it more meaningful. This is not just about religion: scientists, scholars, artists, writers, activists, philanthropists, matriarchs and patriarchs. I think all discover this. For instance, consider the difference between, on the one hand, the scientist who sees himself embedded in an evolutionary cooperative ongoing centuries-old effort to make sense of the universe, as opposed to, on the other hand, the scientist who does a job in order to get paid and maybe gain some fame. You find scholars of both kinds. The former, I maintain, sees a deep meaning in science, and in the life of a scientist, the latter only temporary convenience and comfort. The latter scientist lives a small life, a bit to be pitied for missing the point. This is analogous to the priest who initiates the centuries-long building of a magnificent cathedral as opposed to the village cleric who builds himself a church, or the Buddhist who regards Buddhism as psychotherapy as opposed to the one who sees its transcendent value. (This is not meant to deny the therapeutic value of Buddhism in this life, which is important, only to state that it is a limited perspective.)  For it is only this embedding of your life in something greater than this life that allows you to fully transcend the self, which the Buddha explicitly put at the heart of Buddhist practice and teaching. This, as I understand it, is the real meaning of Rebirth in Buddhism, embedding your current life into something transcendent.

    As an additional note, in spite of Western skepticism (which will prove ultimately valuable), we have an advantage in the West in that our Buddhist practice is naturally embedded in something greater than ourselves, namely the long but slow historical process, already almost two centuries old, of bringing Buddhism to the West. Like it or not, each of us carries enormous influence and responsibility in a process that is much greater than ourselves, and influence and responsibility that is not so evident in lands where Buddhism has long been established. For many of us being a pioneer in this sense can lend great meaning to our lives of practice.

  • Bearing Witness in Austin, Texas

    This recounts the experience of me and a group of fellow Engaged Buddhists and reflects on what it takes to be of benefit to Society.

    Politics as Usual. We normally think of a political process as dialectical in the West. We advocate the position that is Right, that accords with reality, that is compassionate, that will benefit the most people in the best way, and we oppose the others who advocate a different position, which is, of course, Wrong. Our purpose is …, well, that is where things get murky. I would like to say, our purpose is to make our position, the Right one, the one embraced by a majority and the basis of public policy. But that so rarely happens that we end up seeking more modest victories, like Going on the Record with what is Right, or Causing Vexation those who are Wrong.

    More.

  • From Thought to Destiny: Rebirth and Karmic Spillage

    Uposatha Teaching: First Quarter, November 14, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    We have been considering the Buddha’s teachings on Rebirth for the last few weeks, including the pragmatic case for Rebirth and the scientific case for Rebirth. I want to consider this week a parallel phenomenon that might help us understand the Buddha’s teachings on Rebirth, one that has much of the pragmatic value of Rebirth but is more grounded in a more scientistic understanding (that is grounded in commonly accepted observables) of Karmic consequence.

    Karmic Spillage. Aside from missing a mechanism by which Rebirth can happen, the traditional Buddhist account of Rebirth seems to account for only part, and perhaps a small part, of the migration of Karmic dispositions from one life to another. Recall that Rebirth is not the continuance of You, that is, of a Person, Soul or Self, after your death, but rather the transmission of the stream of karmic dispositions from your current life to a serially succeeding life, where, delivered as a neat package, it can continue to evolve according to one’s practice. However, there are many other better understood paths for the transmission of karmic dispositions from one life to another and this suggests that Rebirth as traditionally understood can be no more than a part of karmic transmission. The following are some other sources and targets of our Karmic dispositions. Notice that each of these involves transmission of karmic dispositions from life to life, but in a lateral, not in a serial, fashion.

    1. Genetic influences. Many of our inborn karmic dispositions seem to be inherited from our parents, not from a recently deceased being. The genetic conditioning of predispositions is well established in modern science. These include not only highly individualized tendencies, such as a predisposition toward anger or toward alcoholism, but also species-wide tendencies such as a predisposition toward affection or toward play.
    2. Emulated behaviors. Many behaviors are simply learned through example from parents and others in the immediate environment or even from TV characters. There is some evidence that humans learn behaviors simply by observation. So, it is common that if a parent smokes, the child will grow up to smoke, if the parent is abusive, the child will grow up to be abusive. If the parents are studious and like to snack, the child will grow up studious and disposed toward snacks.
    3. Cultural influences. The culture in which an individual is embedded sets norms for behaviors and values and provides a set of role models which the individual is encouraged to emulate. If the culture is tolerant and creative, the individual will tend to be tolerant and creative. Unfortunately we live in a mass- media culture that is to a high degree deliberately manipulated by commercial and political interests to encourage greed and aversion with alarmingly adverse effects on the well-being of the individual.
    4. Stimulus and response. Association with a person of certain karmic habits to which you must habitually respond produces new karmic habits in yourself. This is different from emulating another’s behavior.
      For instance, actions performed out of anger tend to adversely affect others, in whom anger or fear may thereby be evoked. Living with an angry person may turn you into either an angy person or a fearful person, as your emotional response becomes habitual.
      Notice that in this case your particular karmic disposition might not show up as the same particular disposition in another, as your anger may show up as another’s fear, or your kindness may show up as another’s sense of security. I speculate however that unskillful factors in yourself will tend to evoke unskillful factors in others and that skillful factors in yourself will tend to evoke skillful factors in others.
      Likewise a single stimulus can initiate a chain of stimuli and responses that grow progressively in karmic consequences, as when speech motivated by hate inspires another to commit an act of terrorism which leads, along with injury and loss of life, to fear, anger and plans for vengeance.

    Most of these factors poorly understood in Buddha’s day. But, in fact, your Karma, constantly spilling over others, becomes their karma. And their Karma, constantly spilling over you, becomes your Karma. Although the transmission is lateral, your karmic dispositions may be carried into the future and past the end of your own life, in fact indefinitely, by those who outlive you. However, unlike through the conventional model of Rebirth, through these mechanisms your karmic inheritance is not delivered to you in a neat package at birth to be worked on during your life, and your karmic heritage is not neatly packed together at death to be delivered to a single individual at birth. Rather your karmic inheritance is delivered from many sources and your karmic legacy is dispersed widely and selectively, both throughout the span of your life.

    For instance, your present alcoholism may still persist a century from now, in your great grandchildren, or in the great grandchildren of your current drinking buddies, and may have been alive in your great grandfather or in the great grandfathers of your drinking buddies. In fact tracing your karmic legacy can become very complex indeed: Your greed or the cumulative greed of you and people like you can through the fabric of human and social relations, through economic and political forces, show up unknown to you in violence and war elsewhere, with their own grave karmic consequences. Similarly a single karmic act on your part, for instance, yelling at someone in anger, could well initiate a series of Karmic actions involving many actors with grave Karmic consequences of which you will never be aware.

    Similarities of Karmic Spillage and Rebirth. Karmic spillage does not contradict Rebirth; if it did it would defeat Rebirth, since it is independently verifiable. It does, however, cover much of the same ground, the transmission of karmic dispositions from one life to another. Its primary difference is that it includes in its purview lateral as well as serial transmission..The ripening of karma beyond the present life also acquires an even more profound dimension: As in the case of hateful speech ripening in the great suffering of a terrorist bombing, it is easy to appreciate that virtually all of our actions have consequences, often unseen, beyond ourselves, In fact the Butterfly Effect.tells us that the consequences of actions are unlimited, each action effectively has the capacity to write future history.

    Karmic Spillage can be given a clear pragmatic function in Buddhism in providing a view that the consequences and goals of practice extend far beyond the comfort of this one life. Buddhist practice is about meeting the present moment and acting appropriately, that is, with Karmic purity, over and over. Rebirth puts that in the wider context that helps us recognize why we do that, what the full consequences of our virtue or nonvirtue are. To paraphrase Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

    To take full cognizance of the principle of Karmic Spillage will give us that panoramic perspective from which we can survey our lives in their broader context and total network of relationships.

    The difference from Rebirth is that the Goal becomes much more ambitious, not the building of a cathedral or of a single Buddha, the perfection of a human character, but rather the perfection of all human character. Karmic Spillage gives our practice more of a Mahayana flavor. This is a cooperative endeavor that requires a great faith that others will be there to move all of human society karmically in the right direction, now and in generations and centuries to come. Along with patience this project contains within it a sense of urgency as the huge consequences of our karmic actions for the larger society dwarfs all petty considerations in our small lives; after all the consequences of every decision they we make has huge consequences. This means you will continue to practice virtue, even under the pressure of bad times or of good short-term gains, not only because your actions have immediate consequences beyond yourself, in the example you set and in the responses you evoke, but because it is your internal virtuous karma will influence your future actions. Your small life will acquire huge meaning in the context of this project. Sicknesses, deaths, births, falling stock prices will barely deter you in your determination to see the work continue without interruption. Embedded within a karmic network extending far beyond this current life, your attitude, motives, inspiration and relation to practice would be profoundly different and your progress greater in this life than otherwise.

    Monastic practice serves as an example. Generally defined as the path to the perfection of a single human character, the monastic practice also entails inspiring others and ensuring the integrity and continuity of the Buddhasasana. This is the obligation to ensure that monastic actions are always worthy of emulation, that they exhibit virtue, that their consequences will always encourage, and not weaken, the success of Buddhist understanding and practice for all and for future generations, that is, that they move in the direction of ending afflictions for all beings..

    Next week we will conclude the discussion of Rebirth by summarizing the variety of perspectives we have discussed in the last few weeks, including whether to take Karmic Spillage as a substitute or as a supplement to Rebirth.

  • From Thought to Destiny: Is Rebirth Verifiable?

    Uposatha Teaching: New Moon, November 6, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    For many Westerners, for instance, most educated Americans and many with upbringing in religions that reject the possibility of this phenomenon, rebirth as literally understood belongs in the same category as the efficacy of Tarot readings, abductions by extraterrestrials and the healing powers of crystals. In short Rebirth is commonly regarded as a product of active imaginations with no possible support in modern science. On the other hand, Rebirth is a foundational concept in Buddhism, at least in the way Buddhist doctrine has been traditionally presented. There are a variety of ways in which the concept can be appropriated or interpreted, as we will see next week, but here I would like to consider the case that rebirth in its quite literal sense actually might be true, and verifiable, … scientifically. The case is far from conclusive, but it is stronger than many readers might initially suppose. Given that Rebirth has an important pragmatic function in Buddhism, it would be most satisfying if it actually turned out to be factually true. Let’s see if it is so.

    Who believes in Rebirth? In many Buddhist countries rebirth is almost as commonplace as paternity. In Burma a large percentage of the population seems to know, or claim to know, who they were in the previous life, commonly a family member or a friend of the family who died a year or so before the person in question was born. Generally the identity is established by a dream the mother or another family member had, by personality traits that emerge in the youngster, and or by physical characteristics such as birth marks. Often ghosts, assumed in Buddhist terms to be pretas, or hungry ghosts, of the newly departed are spotted near some associated location.

    An example, as revealed to me, concerns a Burmese immigrant I know, whom I will call Ma, who lives in Minnesota. Two years ago her husband died after having received a liver transplant. One night she had a dream in which he spoke to her about returning to her. The same night a younger Burmese woman, I think a relative, who was staying in her house had a dream about him. Subsequently this other woman became pregnant. Later on Ma had a second dream in which her lost husband told her the exact day he would return to her and the younger woman happened to give birth on the stated day. The baby had a birth mark resembling the scar Ma’s husband had from his liver transplant. Ma is not fully convinced that this little baby boy is really her husband, actually she seems a little embarrassed at the prospect, but many of her friends and relatives accept it without question. For most Burmese rebirth is simply a fact of life and rebirth into the range of friends and family is commonly witnessed in this way.

    I’ve noticed that belief in the reality rebirth is very common among Western Buddhists who have been practicing seriously for many decades, many of whom are highly educated monks and nuns. Some claim that it is a reality that simply makes more and more sense as one’s practice deepens, though I am not aware that any of this group have actual memories of previous lives. This and the everyday experience of the reality of rebirth among Burmese and other populations might, however, be dismissed as the kind of tangibility that develops when one’s habitual behavior and thinking presupposes something as reality, as we saw two lunar phases ago, with regard to belief in God or in money. The commonness worldwide of some kind of belief in reincarnation can also be dismissed as wishful thinking.

    Rebirth and Science. The reason rebirth seems far-fetched to many Westerners is that it seems to certain metaphysical and methodological assumptions that are commonly accepted in popular science. In particular Rebirth would seem to require the transmission or copying of a karmic snapshot, a set of habit patterns and other karmic factors, from the point where it is associated with a dying physical body to the point where it becomes associated with a newly conceived physical being. This raises two red flags: First, what could the medium or mechanism of transmission possibly be? Second, how could mental factors possibly be disassociated from the living material brain from which they arise for long enough for transmission to occur?

    As for mechanism of transmission, I am aware of no substantive proposal. However, this by no means constitutes a disproof. One hundred and fifty years ago there would have been no possible way a radio or a cell phone could possibly work. The mechanism of transmission was simply unknown. There was for a long time no apparent causal mechanism to explain the spread of disease from one individual to another, leading to the postulation of some kind of evil presence that could transmit itself to a proximate individual, a postulation that turned out to be substantially and observably correct. When Isaac Newton proposed the force of gravity, which keeps us anchored to the floor and keeps the moon from flying out even further into space, eyebrows were raised: What is the mechanism? There is no rope or any other observable substance to causally connect the earth and moon or glue to connect the floor and my shoes in the intended way, and the incipient scientific community initially balked. It was only two hundred years later that Einstein discovered a causal mechanism in the curvature of space, which, ironically, if presented at the time of Newton would have raised eyebrows through the roof! Fortunately well before Einstein’s time the invisible force had been widely accepted anyway for its explanatory efficacy.

    As for disassociating mind from brain, the materialist assumption that the mind exists only as an emergent property of the brain or some other material substance might well be wrong. Materialism is indeed a dominant metaphysical assumption of science, but we need to be careful not to confuse Science with Scientism. Scientism is the faith that the current state of scientific consensus is absolutely true, even while science evolves quickly, continuously and often radically. Actually Scientism often it seems to take as its basis Nineteenth Century understanding, when there was much more confidence in scientific results. Science itself is something that is at the same time highly conservative and critical of radical ideas—it has to be, there are a lot of wacky ideas to filter out—but also ever evolving in radical ways as the merit of a radical idea is eventually recognized.

    As a matter of fact, no one has every convincingly suggested how mind emerges as a property of the material world. The relationship of mind to matter has been debated since antiquity and continues to be debated to this day, with not only philosophers but increasingly with scientists and now physicists falling on both sides of the debate. As a metaphysical assumption materialism has served science well; that does not mean it will always do so.

    Dr. Ian Stevenson

    Evidence of Previous Lives. One man, more than anyone else, seems to have brought rebirth into the realm of objective scientific investigation: the late Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia. His results have never been widely accepted in the scientific community for they suggest radical conclusions, but his methods seem to meet the highest standards and the data he and his colleagues have accumulated over forty years is voluminous. What also impresses me is that he also seemed to have absolutely no interest in the popular appeal his work could have had from an early date outside of the scientific community; he worked rather obscurely and single-mindedly pursuing a sound scientific case for Rebirth, as well as Out-of-Body Experiences and Near Death Experiences, which similarly challenge materialist assumptions. Out of thousands of cases of Rebirth in his records, making every effort to find some potential basis for discounting each one, he has isolated a body of cases which seem to defy any reasonable explanation except as genuine cases of Rebirth. At the same time his stated claims are rather modest, regarding his results as “highly suggestive” of the reality of rebirth. By the way, he debunks hypnosis as a source of evidence for Rebirth, as the large number of people who have been Cleopatra or Napoleon in previous lives would suggest.

    Here is what a typical case of Rebirth looks like: First, from the earliest stages of her speaking career, a child will describe events and places that should be unfamiliar to the child, giving herself a role in the narrative, and often referring to some unfamiliar people as mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, best friend, and so on. The apparent memories are often quite detailed, including specific names of people and places and physical descriptions. The memories of these circumstance almost always fade by the age of about eight. In 70% of all cases there is a description of an unnatural death, generally by accident or even by murder. Very commonly the child will have a phobia in the present life, such as fear of water, that correlates with the reported cause of death, and sometimes even birthmarks or birth defects in the present life that correlate with injuries that would have been sustained in such a death.

    Second, at some point, through investigation or accident, a place or family matching the child’s description is discovered and found to match the child’s description in almost every detail. Sometimes Dr. Stevenson is actually present by this time. The child is brought into the matching environment and displays a clear familiarity with her surroundings, recognizing people by appearance, being able to navigate through the house effortlessly or to describe rooms before entering them. Being in the environment evokes additional memories and the child is able to tell people things that the correlated deceased would know, sometimes even things like where some money or important documents are hidden that the family in this environment was unaware of. Sometimes autopsy or eye witness reports reveal that injuries sustained by the deceased at the time of death indeed match, sometimes in uncanny detail, birthmarks found on the child. A particularly interesting correlation made in examining Dr. Stevenson’s data, is that degree of “saintliness” (I don’t know how this is measured) in the previous life tends to correlate strongly with economic status in the current life and significantly with social status.

    The case for Rebirth can only be made to the extent that it can be established that the child’s alleged memories were not communicated through a more conventional means. For instance, is there any way the child could have known about the deceased’s environment by being told? Are the witnesses to the child’s memories reliable in memory and character? Did they embellish what the child described, perhaps after the deceased’s environment had been observed? Did they prompt or feed the child with information that they were already aware of? Do the parents of the child have an ulterior motive, such as wishing for a breakthrough appearance on Oprah as a way to tapdancing stardom? Is the whole thing a hoax or a fraud concocted by the child’s family into which the child was recruited?

    Stevenson’s method is establish or discredit the credibility of the account at every stage. For most cases in his files the case cannot be made convincingly. Perhaps the rebirth happened within the same village or immediate family as the previous death, leaving too many channels by which information about the previous life could have been communicated to the child, or some immediate family member was familiar with the previous life situation in a remote village. However, there are cases in which the connection with the previous life circumstances is made only after the researcher, Dr. Stevenson or one of his heirs, is on the spot before the deceased’s identity or environment is investigated, so that the researcher can directly solicit data to try to match the child’s memories, or better yet if the researcher is able to solicit a substantial portion of the child’s memories himself. However, there are cases where data is deemed highly reliable because of the number of witnesses involved, or because someone actually took written notes of the child’s early memories. Possible motives for hoax were closely scrutinized; in no case did the researcher offer a reward or reimburse the family for their assistance in collecting data. In most cases a hoax or a fraud would have been difficult to pull off because of the large number of conspirators that would have to be involved, and because of a young child’s limited ability to sustain an elaborate lie.

    The upshot is that Dr. Stevenson’s data includes a substantial set of cases that absolutely defy any non-parapsychological explanation, in which every possibility of conventional communication to the child about the circumstances of the previous life or subsequent distortion of the child’s account by others can reasonably be excluded, and in which the number of details and accuracy of the memories and matching situation cannot rationally be attributed to pure chance.

    If the University of Virginia research is compelling, it does not provide evidence for the complete Buddhist model of rebirth. First it does not suggest rebirth is a widespread phenomenon, only that it does occur. Memories of rebirth are rare, but that does not mean rebirth is necessarily rare; memories may be lost in most cases just as most early childhood memories are lost with age. It is intriguing that the vast majority of remembered previous lives end unnaturally, which might indicate a disruption of the tendency to forget memories of previous lives, but might also suggest that rebirth only occurs when a life has not run its natural course. It says little about the six traditional realms of rebirth and but does provide a bit of evidence of the Law of Karma spanning multiple lives.

    Being Rational. At some point in the accumulation of evidence belief in a far-fetched notion will stop being irrational, and at some later point not to believe it will start being irrational. Usually in between you can only raise your eyebrows and shrug your shoulders. For instance, a “poltergeist” was a frequent visitor to my house in Austin some years ago over a couple of months. Its M.O. was to ring the doorbell spontaneously. I would answer the door, but no one would be there. After conclusively excluding colluding teenage pranksters, I hypothesized an intermittent electrical short. I investigated the likely doorbell button, leaving only the very unusual possibility of a short in the wires somewhere in the wall. It was a clear case; that was the only possible explanation, though the actual trigger for the intermittent short was still a mystery; I could not correlate it with weather, for instance.

    However, then came the last visit of the poltergeist: In this case I happened to be standing about eight feet, just a couple of steps, from the front door talking to my seated daughter, so there were two witnesses to this event. Also in this case I reached the door in about one second under the impression that it involved someone in utmost distress rather than a poltergeist. Not only had the doorbell rung but at the very same time what seemed to be a heavy fist had pounded twice on the door quite clearly and loudly. I took the two steps to the door, swung it open and … no one was there! I’ve been in this space of eyebrow raising and shoulder shrugging, and even jaw dropping, ever since. I just don’t know what to make of it. It befuddles anything I would take to be a rational explanation. All I can say is that I no longer discount others’ accounts of poltergeists.

  • From Thought to Destiny: The Pragmatics of Rebirth.

    Uposatha Teaching: Last Quarter, October 31, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    “…, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dharma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.” – Bhikkhu Bodhi

    Last week we discussed two criteria be which we an evaluate any Buddhist doctrine, (1) whether it makes pragmatic sense and (2) whether it is actually true in an independently verifiable way. The first is most the explicitly articulated the Buddha, for instance,

    “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness’, enter on and abide in them.” (AN 3.65)

    Consideration of this criterion answers the question, Why did the Buddha feel the need to integrate Rebirth into his teachings? I ask the reader to put aside for the time being any opinions you may have about (2), in particular, doubts about the veracity of Rebirth, so that we can study its pragmatic function on its own terms. Money has a pragmatic function independent of whether it is actually real. Sherlock Holmes was a great inspiration to me when I was a kid, even though he never existed, though I kinda wished he had. Rebirth must have a critical a role on the Path if the Buddha taught it.

    Felicitous Rebirth. The function of Rebirth is not the promise of immortality. In the West we find rebirth reassuring as a remedy for death, but this is not an Indian attitude. However given that rebirth will occur, a felicitous rebirth is generally considered desirable, which is to say, a rebirth in:

    • a deva realm, or
    • the human realm.

    Similarly an unfortunate rebirth is considered undesirable, that is, rebirth in:

    • the hell realm,
    • the animal realm,
    • the hungry ghost realm, or
    • the realm of the angry titans.

    So, an immediate function of Rebirth is to encourage virtuous thought and conduct with the aim of obtaining a felicitous rebirth and avoiding an unfortunate rebirth. On the other hand, one does not have to look to the following life to find this incentive. We have seen in a past post in this series that prominent karmic patterns tend to place people in this life into persistent psychological states and that the six realms of rebirth serve as metaphors for these states. For instance, someone enmeshed in the interplay of both greed and anger will find themselves as if abiding in hell in this very life with no relief. Deep remorse for a single terrible act can thrust one into that same realm in this life.

    If someone is so fortunate as to be reborn into the human realm, that the specific circumstances of one’s rebirth will be more or less felicitous depending on:

    • health
    • longevity
    • wealth
    • friendship

    … and so on. We have also seen in a past post that prominent habit patterns tend to determine one’s fortune in this life in ways that correspond closely to the circumstances of human rebirth.

    The realm and human circumstances of Rebirth are attributed to the Law of Karma, as are abiding psychological states in this life. In both cases there is an incentive from the point of view of one’s own welfare to think and behave skillfully in order to develop skillful habit patterns and a karmically strong character. Rebirth into a particular destination adds color, drama and intensity to the Karmic results predictable in this lifetime, much as one would expect from a good myth. Thereby the Law of Karma and Rebirth promote virtue, that is, Avoiding Evil, Doing Good and Purifying the Mind in this life.

    Although Buddhist practice ultimately aims at the perfection of human character, or Nirvana, Rebirth in a felicitous realm tends to define an intermediate goal that can become the dominant consideration. Pure Land Buddhism, a major branch of Buddhism in East Asia, as I understand it, focuses on the rebirth in a heavenly realm, the Pure Land, by the grace of Amitaba Buddha, who dwells there. The intermediate goal of a felicitous rebirth fits awkwardly into Buddhist doctrine because it is based on greed, seeking personal advantage. On the other hand such teachings are common in Buddhism, but generally as provisional teachings or as a skillful means to point those not yet firmly grounded in Buddhist practice toward the Path. In the West heaven and hell, “The Judgment” and an omniscient Santa Clause play similar roles. Self-serving motives can easily evolve into pure intentions with the continuing practice of virtue.

    The Tedium of Cyclic Existence. Part of the Buddhist understanding of Rebirth is that we have been at it since beginningless time, and until we attain Nirvana we will be at it for countless lives in the future. The realization that we have been there, done that millions of times already adds color, drama and intensity to what we begin to realize about this life, that we keep repeating the same mistakes, get stuck in the same places, over and over again. This is called having been around the block. This encourages a turning away from the things of this life and toward Buddhist practice, as a way to break this monotonous cycle. The Buddha said,

    “Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?… This is the greater: the tears you have shed…”

    He also talked about the mountains of bones we have left behind. This kind of dispassion for continuing existence has always seemed to me to have been something that must have resonated better with the culture of ancient India more than with the modern West. But again it refers to a condition that we can recognize without looking beyond this life. Again, Rebirth underscores this, like a good myth.

    Higher Purpose. The Great Cathedral in Cologne, Germany began construction in 1248 A.D. and was to be magnificent. It was completed in 1880, over six centuries later! This makes me think of the original founders of the Cathedral, and marvel at what their motives were and what inspired them to start a project of this size that would not live to see past the very earliest stages. This undertaking certainly required a great faith that others will be there to continue the work through the generations and centuries to come. It certainly required patience when progress must have seemed so gradual in their lifetime. Along with patience it must have fostered a sense of urgency as the significance of this project dwarfed all other considerations in the lives of these founders; after all every decision they made was for an eager posterity, for untold generations to come, long after the ephemeral gains, losses and fatigue of their small lives had long been forgotten. Their small lives must have acquired huge meaning in the context of this project. I imagine that sicknesses, deaths, births, droughts barely deterred the founders in their determination to see the work continue without interruption.

    Can we bring the Cologne founders’ faith, patience, urgency, meaning and determination to our Buddhist practice? If we think that our practice is about making our present lives more comfortable it will be like beginning construction on a village church which we will live to occupy and preach in. We would hire the workers, be upset when delays postpone the time of our occupancy, introduce our own delays as setbacks in our own lives seem for the time being to be more important than getting this darned church finished. The goal of ending dukkha and the means of renunciation will for the most part give way to that of achieving more immediate small pleasures in life. The result might be competent, but hardly magnificent. No matter what choices we make they will be erased on the breakup of our bodies.

    The aim of Buddhist practice is about the perfection of the human character, it is about making something magnificent: a BUDDHA. What would your motives have to be and what would inspire you to start a project of this size since if you are like most of us you will not live to see it to completion in this life? This undertaking certainly will require great faith that the work will continue after the failure of your physical body through the generations and centuries to come, as Rebirth allows. It will certainly require patience when progress seems so gradual in this lifetime. Along with patience it will foster a sense of urgency as the significance of this project dwarfs all other considerations in this life; after all every decision you make will be for a world eager to end suffering, long after the ephemeral gains, losses and fatigue of your small present life is long forgotten. This means you will continue to practice virtue, even under the pressure of bad times or of good short-term gains, because it is your virtuous karma that will carry over into future. Your small life will acquire huge meaning in the context of this project. Sicknesses, deaths, births, falling stock prices will barely deter you in your determination to see the work continue without interruption. Aside from the prospect of the actual attainment of Buddhahood in some future life, your attitude, motives, inspiration and relation to practice would be profoundly different and your progress greater in this life than otherwise. Bhikkhu Bodhi, I think, makes the same point:

    “To take full cognizance of the principle of rebirth will give us that panoramic perspective from which we can survey our lives in their broader context and total network of relationships. This will spur us on in our own pursuit of the path and will reveal the profound significance of the goal toward which our practice points, the end of the cycle of rebirths as mind’s final liberation from suffering.”

    Drawbacks of Rebirth. The other side of the Buddha’s pragmatic criterion is stated,

    “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.”

    Is there a case for abandoning Rebirth on pragmatic grounds?

    If it is not factual, might lead to unwarranted consequences outside of practice domain, just as holding Creationism tightly interferes with science education, holding that we are the chosen people or that God hates gays leads to oppression, or defining the world as the stage for a battle of good and evil leads to intolerence. Rebirth has relatively little to say about this life. For the same reason Rebirth is hard to verify or falsify through evidence in this life, its consequences in in this life are rare. It defines a context greater than the current life, which, as we have seen, serves the pragmatic function of orienting the Buddhist toward sincere practice, including virtuous behavior, in this life. But let’s look at a few of the perhaps adverse implications.

    Rebirth reinforces a sense of self as something eternal, or at least more eternal. For those of us who fear death this may be reassuring, but for those of us who want to let go of the idea of an eternal self, this may be an impediment. Craving for rebirth in a happy destination is related to this.

    We have seen in earlier postings that some misunderstandings of Rebirth and the Law of Karma have some unfortunate consequences. One of these is blaming victims, as in, “It is his own fault that he is poor, he must have done something bad in a previous existence.” We tend toward passivity, if we think bad things are karmic results that need to play themselves out, and toward confidence in the rightness of social order that makes class distinctions. It seems to be the case that the Buddha avoided endorsing the understandings that lead to unfortunate consequences, though these misunderstandings have crept back into much of Buddhism.

    Conclusion. Rebirth has a clear pragmatic function in Buddhism in providing a view that the consequences and goals of practice extend far beyond the comfort of the present life. Buddhist practice is about meeting the present moment and acting appropriately, that is, with Karmic purity, over and over. Rebirth puts that in the wider context that helps us recognize why we do that, what the full consequences of our virtue or nonvirtue are. The question that remains is, Do we have to believe Rebirth is factually true in the sense of being independently verifiable in order to receive the benefits, or is it enough that we accept Rebirth as a working hypothesis or useful myth, or is it enough for some of us just to meet the present moment with unflagging virtue? The Buddha suggests that it is enough for those who harbor doubts the reality of Rebirth, to act according to Rebirth anyway, and that thereby because they are ahead in the game if Rebirth turns out to be true, and that they will optimize happiness in this life if it turns out not to be true.

    Next week I would like to consider the evidence that Rebirth is real, and independently visible.

  • From Thought to Destiny: Buddhism with Beliefs.

    Uposatha Teaching: Full Moon, October 23, 2010.

    Index to Current Series
    “    Thought – Act – Habit – Character – Destiny”

    A visitor to Niels Bohr’s country cottage, noticing a horseshoe hanging on the wall, teasing the eminent scientist about this ancient superstition. ‘Can it be true that you, of all people, believe it will bring you luck?’
    ‘Of course not,’ replied Bohr, ‘but I understand it brings you luck whether you believe it or not.’

    Last week we began discussing Rebirth. In the West we tend to get very edgy about religious doctrine, seemingly from the time Science began challenging much religious doctrine about four hundred years ago, but certainly with the rise of religious fundamentalism (and even the recent development of an equally fundamentalist atheism). I want to take a rest this week from the specific concerns of Karma and Rebirth to reflect on the general nature of Buddhist doctrine, since many of the same issues that have plagued religion in the West start to arise around Rebirth in Buddhism. The core of the issue is the existence of Pretense in Religious and in Buddhist doctrine: Just how much is just made up and how much of it is True in some kind of independently verifiable way, to what extend is what is Pretense distinguishable from what is True, and does it really matter?

    Pretense in Buddhism. By and large many in the West have found Buddhism refreshingly free of doctrinal Pretense and much more in line with scientific thought than other religions. Einstein and others have declared Buddhism the religion most consistent with science. Even some of the militant atheists seem to have a soft spot for Buddhism. I think there are several reasons for this.

    1. Buddhism is very much about practice, about human beings acquiring and refining skills, that as a practical matter require tuning in to things how they really are and working with them on their own terms.
    2. The Buddha in his teachings explicitly discouraged philosophical speculation, he kept doctrine very lean and focused, specifically on the task of ending suffering. If something had no pragmatic value in terms of bringing one further on the Path, the Buddha would not teach it, as the Handful of Leaves simile (Simsapa Sutta, SN 56.31) shows.
    3. The Buddha encouraged personal investigation of the mind as leading to the highest level of conviction and of wisdom. This includes recognizing delusion the root of all as unskillful mental factors. In this way Buddhism has tended toward the deconstruction of Pretense, not only in religious doctrine but in its many common everyday guises.

    It is true that the Suttas make many references to miraculous events, supernatural powers such as levitation, teletransportation, mind reading, meetings with devas and so on, but these are not matters of Buddhist doctrine. Most are almost certainly embellishments to give these ancient texts more color. If the Buddha or early Buddhists actually believed in such things, the Buddha effectively kept them outside of the scope of Buddhist doctrine and practice by asking that his disciples to give up interest in developing paranormal abilities, as distractions from the real work of ending suffering. One might conceivably imagine a Buddhist fundamentalism that insists that all these spurious things mentioned in the Suttas are to be taken literally as stated, but this fundamentalism would just seem silly in the light of the Buddha’s clear pronouncements (see 2. above) that if these things do not carry us forward on the Path they just don’t matter. I’ve never heard of such a fundamentalism.

    Putting aside for the moment the question of Pretense in Buddhist doctrine, let me make some more general observations about Pretense in human affairs.

    Pretense in Human Affairs. Pretense is a human capability, and humans certainly have this capability for practical purposes. Consider that all of fiction, including theater, movies, novels, operas, and so on, are Pretense. Entertainment without Pretense would be pretty slim indeed. Most children’s play is Pretense, and most mammals seem capable of play. Dogs pretend to fight with one another, to chase sticks as if they were chasing prey. This enables them to practice and develop skills prior to real fighting or real hunting. Humans do the similar things. Play also underlies many ritual or ceremonial enactments in religion, whose rationale is not necessary in the acts themselves but in their function in developing skill. In various schools of Buddhism, for instance, food offerings to Buddha statues are common, clearly a Pretense, but in Buddhism almost always recognized as such: The point is that offering food to the Buddha develops skillful states of mind, not that the Buddha is really going to eat what is offered. It’s play.

    A baseball game, also a kind of play, is a Pretense, even for spectators. While there are real physical actions going on, these actions have interpretations that are just made up, a running Pretense that accompanies the physical actions, a counting-for-something. Someone hits a ball with a stick and it counts as a home run. Someone touches someone else with a ball and it counts as being “out.” Three “outs” and the other team comes up to bat. A sport, for many, one of the most tangible experiences in life, is Pretense.

    Nothing I know of illustrates the usefulness, and at the same time the palpability, of Pretense as well as money. Money, as we know it today, believe it or not, does not exist! Historically money has had a physical counterpart, for instance, clams, cattle, silver, gold, then paper, for which a running Pretense of counting-for-something was critical, in this case having a certain value in commercial exchange. The physical part has gone almost completely by the wayside. The physical money we carry in our pockets now is a very small portion of the money supply. The rest is not backed by tangible gold or silver, but created at will by banks, as something that is measured and tracked, nowadays in computer memory, but does not actually exist in any material form whatsoever. It only exists in terms of the relationships humans assume they have to it. Yet few things are as real and as important to people as money. An interesting question is, To what extent do people have to believe in money in order to use it? Does it lose its usefulness if people recognize its Pretense? An article in The Onion imagines a scenario in which the economy grinds to a halt as “Nation Realizes Money Just A Symbolic, Mutually Shared Illusion.” On the one hand, I am sure most bankers are aware that money does not exist, yet have no problem with using it, or with getting rich. Meanwhile, most of the rest of us attribute some substantial reality to it that is not there. We think it is gold or silver, for instance, that the bank is keeping for us in a box labeled with our account number, or that the bank keeps a record of which particular bars of gold at Fort Knox belong to us, or who the back lent our money to.

    Human interpersonal affairs are riddled with Pretense. For instance, respect seems like something substantial, insofar as emotions are real experiences. But I don’t think respect works that way. Our society teaches who we respect, for instance in Burma children are taught to respect parents, teachers, monastics and old people. On encountering such a person I would allocate a certain level of respect; He’s really really old, so I will give him a lot of respect. Then I would proceed to enact that respect, and that will indeed give rise to a certain emotional state. But respect as something you can give has no tangible existence in itself, it is more like the Pretense of keeping score in a game. Of course we often allocate respect to those who can potentially benefit us, such as rich people, or withhold respect in order to express our disapproval of something they have done. Much of our social and cultural behavior is determined by Pretense, and with tangible results.

    Pretense is something we use to manipulate others, especially children and the gullible. Children are told for their own safety that the Boogie Man will “get” them if they get out of bed at night, or to ensure their good behavior that Santa Claus is keeping a list of who’s naughty and nice. Usually children only half-believe these untruths til they turn them back on their parents, pretending to believe them to their own advantage. We also tell ourselves falsehoods, without having to actually believe them, to invoke certain behaviors. If you are afraid of public speaking you might imagine that instead of standing before an ocean of attentive faces you are standing in a cabbage patch, with maybe one attentive crow. Pretense may be how we psych ourselves up for various tasks, like imagining yourself as a modern Cary Grant in order to phone up the woman you just met to ask for a date. It might work, so why not?

    Pretense in Religion. Since Pretense plays a role in so many human affairs it is hardly surprising to find it in religion. A Religion is a recommendation for a Way of Being, where a Way of Being is how we choose to live our lives, both internally and externally. It is a framework that integrates worldview, attitudes, goals, values, habits, comportment, activities and relations of one’s life into a particular form. It is the basis of how we value what we do in our lives. A religion supports a Way of Being through teachings and practices, often rituals and ceremonies, images and myths, a program of religious education, and so on, Doctrines are typically a part of the mix since what we believe, or at least accept as a working assumption, shapes how we are. Whether the function of religion is best supported by Truth or Pretense is a matter of investigation.

    Nowhere is Pretense more prominent than in God. (I hope I am not stepping on readers’ toes when I describe God as a Pretense.) He exists only in the relationships that people of faith have to Him. When one grows up with God, and develops a personal relationship with God, according to God the central role in the universe, and to oneself a subservient role, interpreting other things of the world in relationship to God, then God becomes quite palpable. Like money, God does not actually exist, yet most people of faith attribute some substantial reality to Him that is not there, they imagine, nay are convinced of, an actual living being, human in appearance, masculine in gender, who lives in a realm somewhere in space; or they imagine a presence found in all things and manifesting all things. How He exists does not matter so much as His function in the lives of people of faith.

    Like money, God has a function. The most immediate function, as I understand it, is that God dethrones the Self from the center of the universe, He represents something greater than the Self, so that one’s actions can then be valued not in terms of seeking personal advantage but in terms of serving God. This can make a huge and beneficial difference in how one leads one’s life, a function comparable to that of the Buddhist teaching of non-Self.

    Other examples of Pretense in religion are Heaven, Hell and an eternal life in one or another depending on your behavior and your beliefs while you live on Earth. They also can become quite palpable if you orient your life around this set of views. I think of this kind of Pretense as like the Boogie Man, as a determinant of behavior that relies on Greed and Fear along with a degree of conviction in the Pretense.

    Every religion seems to have a rich mythology, and most have an elaborate metaphysics, an easy target of ridicule for outsiders in this multi-religious world. The question naturally arises, Do the faithful believe all of this? Can one accept a Pretense as a working assumption and enjoy its benefits without actually believing it? Putting aside religious fundamentalists, my observation is that most faithful hold their Pretenses lightly, often regarding them as useful tools in negotiating life, much like money, but, when pushed, not literally true. This is why scientists can be Christians, Jews and Muslims. Karen Armstrong maintains that most people in most lands throughout history have simply never thought about the difference between Pretense and Truth, and would not particularly care. Fundamentalism, she maintains, is a modern phenomenon that has grown in frightened confusion about the challenge of the European Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution.

    Pretense in Science. If Pretense plays such a prominent role in so many realms of human endeavor, does it also play a role in Science? Science concerns understanding the natural world in an independently verifiable way. As such, Science is probably the realm most concerned with a purity of understanding unblemished by Pretense. Science is commonly seen as concerned with putting Pretense completely aside in favor of Truth. But that is not so easy.

    The idea that there is an purely objective Truth out there, and that the task of scientists is to describe that Truth has become more and more a quaint Nineteenth Century notion. It seems scientists never succeed in matching their descriptions to reality which proves rather ineffable; rather the best they can do is produce conceptual Approximations. This led Niels Bohr, for instance, to state, about his own field of research, “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature…” Scientists are captives in the realm where they can only make things up, Pretenses which always have some distance from Truth, the more clearly formulated the more clear the separation, or as Niels Bohr also stated, “Truth and clarity are complementary.” He also made the very “Zen” (if you will allow me the use of this word as an attribute) statement, “A physicist is just an atom’s way of looking at itself.”

    In short, scientists also depend on the human capacity for Pretense. The best Science can do is hold Pretense to a higher standards. The scientific method places strict restraints on the testability of Approximations. More and more, scientists speak in terms of models of Reality realizing that at some points their descriptions will fail to match puzzling new data, and will eventually give way to another model that makes a closer Approximation. There is an element of Pretense in every description and Science is not immune.

    The Hazards of Pretense. What of the long-standing debate between science and religion? Science has higher standards of Pretense, reflective of its function of understanding of the natural world. Religion has varying often weak standards of Pretense, but reflective of its more pragmatic function of recommending a Way of Being that people actually live with. As we move from realm to realm, for instance from commerce to science, from science to sports, from sports to religion, and from one religion to another, our Pretenses become out of place. Science at least has a method of discussing and sometimes even resolving differences among alternative Approximations. Although these Approximations can be tightly held there is a awareness that scientific doctrine evolves, that there are no absolute unchallenged theories or models. Interfaith dialog and the study of Comparative Religion fosters a similar awareness that there are no absolutes in religious doctrine, highlights the Pretentiousness of much religion and encourages the faithful to hold on to doctrine a little less tightly. We have a long way to go. The problem with Pretenses, even if they serve a function in a religious or social context, is that they can go frightfully askew when applied to another context. They are, after all, delusions. For instance, the Pretense that money exists physically creates confidence but hides from public scrutiny how easy it is for banks to manipulate the money supply to their own advantage. The Pretense that anyone who takes his own life will go to Hell discourages suicide but creates distress should a family member nonetheless do so. The Pretense of Creationism applied to school board decisions interferes with Science education.

    The delusive nature of Pretense is often exploited to manipulate others. The divine rights of kings, the idea of a better life hereafter, the battle of good and evil, the promotion of “free markets” as an unquestioned force for good, the equation of a brand of soft drink with sex appeal, and even a strict interpretation of the Law of Karma have all been used as forms of social control. I recently ran across a disingenuous twist on this recently. There are at this time some American Conservatives who seek to eliminate the Social Security trust fund. One of them made the argument that the fund does not have any “real money” in it, “only I.O.U.s.” Well, uh, nothing has any real money in it!

    More Pretense in Buddhism. Buddhism is a recommendation for how we choose to live our lives, both internally and externally. It is a framework that integrates worldview, attitudes, goals, values, habits, comportment, activities and relations of one’s life into a particular form. It is the basis of how we value what we do in our lives. Buddhism does this through teachings and practices, often rituals and ceremonies, images and myths, a program of religious education, and so on. Ven. P.A. Payutto, a Buddhist scholar-monk, gives one specific example of what he calls a “Buddhist attitude”:

    If you see your friend walking towards you with a sour look on his face, a common non-Buddhist attitude would think he was angry at you. This would evoke a negative reaction, maybe thinking, “He can get angry, well so can I” and wearing a sour expression in response. A Buddhist attitude, on the other hand, is not to look with an aggravated state of mind, through liking or disliking, but with the objective of finding out the truth according to causes and conditions … “Hmm, he’s looking angry. I wonder why my friend is looking angry today. Maybe somebody said something to upset him at home, or maybe he’s got no money, or maybe … ”

    That is, you look for the real causes for his expression in order to respond appropriately, seeing the world as it presents itself, as a network of interdependent conditions and consequences, rather in terms of a fortress self waiting to defend itself from the next attack in a mass of emotional and instinctual drives. This illustrates the habit that Buddhism cultivate of probing always further, asking what has not been asked before, seeing beyond our narrow interpretations of things. This even goes so far as developing the skill to go beyond conceptual understanding to comprehend things directly in an intuitive way.

    In this regard, Buddhism has understood for many centuries what Western science began to suspect only around the turn of the Twentieth Century, that no description is ever True in an absolute sense. At best it is an Approximation. This is the teaching of Emptiness, most thoroughly elucidated by early Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna, but directly flowing out of the Buddha’s teachings. The Self is also an Approximation, not only useful but necessary as such, and one that would generally meet the Scientific standard of a good model, but an Approximation that ultimately fails to accord with reality, and according to Buddhism thereby becomes the cause of human misery. As stated above, the doctrine of non-Self serves much the same function of God in other religions in dethroning the Self from the center of the universe, thereby developing humility. Notice, however, that the Buddhist teaching does this by removing a pre-religious Pretense rather than by adding a religious one. In fact, if Buddhist doctrine contains Pretenses, these are more than outweighed by the common pre-religious Pretenses that it challenges.

    Nevertheless, it would be surprising if the Buddha were to have adopted a perfect European post-Enlightenment or scientific notion of truth as a foundation of his thought. To begin with, he lived twenty-six centuries ago. To end with, his interests were not in Science or Philosophy, but in the practical skill of living this human life in the most worthwhile way. It is significant that in the Kalama Sutta, often quoted by Western free thinkers,

    Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.

    …

    Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them. AN 3.65

    This leaves open the question of whether these things are independently verifiable. In fact, if it were the case that humans were incapable of acknowledging impermanence, death and the suffering of life these criteria would recommend a more Pretentious Buddhism. However, the Buddha, and many generations of his disciples have shown that this was not the case. But it is no wonder that the Buddha endorsed many elements of religiosity, for instance, gestures of respect and rituals, that have a degree of Pretense, but are more in the spirit of play than doctrine. Without the attribution of paranormal powers to these activities, these lead to benefit and happiness in helping to develop skillful states of mind. It is significant that if a teaching led to harmful exploitation, as in social control, it would have to be abandoned by these criteria.

    Nevertheless, the Buddha realized his teachings were often at odds with speculative philosophy. In the Apannaka Sutta (MN 60) the Buddha considers four theses that according to him are false, but which he realizes many consider may be truthful, for instance, that there is no outcome of evil, so it does not matter what actions to perform, or that there is no opportunity to correct defilements or to purify the mind because everything is predetermined. He then recommends that, unconvinced, the practitioner make the Working Assumption that these are false, because no harm will result from this working assumption if the thesis is true, and great benefit will result from this working assumption if the thesis is false. One of the theses is annihilationism, its denial, which the Buddha endorses, is Rebirth. Rebirth is recommended as a working assumption because it provides incentive to practice.

    In summary, I hope I have made room for two criteria for evaluating the assumption of Rebirth. First is the pragmatic criterion of whether this assumption leads to benefit and happiness. If it did not, the Buddha clearly would not have endorsed this assumption, according to the Simsapa and Kalama Suttas. Second is the objective criterion of whether this assumption can be independently verified, or is simply Pretense. This criterion reflects modern Western predilections more than any explicitly stated criterion of the Buddha. Nonetheless, the Buddha’s method elsewhere so effectively undermines doctrinal Pretense that it bears careful investigation. Next week I will write on “The Pragmatics of Rebirth” and the following week ask, “Is Rebirth Independently Verifiable?”