Why Buddhism is True

[camerata]

 

Why Buddhism is True (And Why You Can Blame Natural Selection for Your Suffering)

 

In this adaptation from his new book, Why Buddhism is True, Robert Wright explains how evolutionary psychology supports the Buddhist diagnosis of the human predicament.

 

By Robert Wright

 

The Matrix is sometimes said to be a “dharma movie” because it allegorically captures the human predicament as Buddhism depicts it: Life as ordinarily lived is a kind of illusion, and you can’t be truly free until you pierce the illusion and look into the heart of things. Until you “see it for yourself,” as one character explains to Neo, you will remain in “bondage.”

 

That robot overlords are behind the illusion afflicting Neo is in one sense a blessing. They give him something to rebel against—and rebellions are energizing! An oppressive enemy focuses the mind and steels you for the struggle ahead.

 

That would come in handy with the Buddhist struggle against illusion, because meditation, a big part of that struggle, can be hard to sustain—getting on the cushion every day, even when you don’t feel like it, and then carrying the insights from meditation into everyday life. Too bad that in Buddhism there’s no evil perpetrator of delusion to fight!

 

In traditional Buddhism, actually, there is: the Satan-like supernatural being named Mara, who unsuccessfully tempted the Buddha during the epic meditation session that led to his great awakening. Mara, though, has no place in the more secular Buddhism that has been spreading through the west in recent years. Kind of disappointing.

 

But there’s good news on this front. If you would like to think of meditation practice as being a rebellion against an oppressive overlord, there’s a way to do that: just think of yourself as fighting your creator, natural selection.

 

Full article:

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/why-buddhism-is-true/

 

[piersbeckett]

Great title, great idea - showing the much suspected truth of Buddhist thinking by bringing the philosophical closer to the scientific. 

[fashionablesally]

Religious stuff always ends up controversial. I am not a religious person but Buddhism values have always stood out to me.

[VincentRJ]

Interesting article! I tend to agree with most of the points made in the article. We are products of our evolutionary heritage. The guiding force of all life forms is survival and reproduction. That's what distinguishes the inanimate from the animate. All life-forms, whether bacteria, insects, plants, tigers, monkeys or humans, do whatever is necessary to survive.

 

We tend to kid ourselves that we are special because of our religious explanations for our creation, but such religious beliefs, however benign and peace-loving, do not seem to have stopped the continual slaughtering of other humans in the interests of the survival and dominance of a particular group, tribe or nation, throughout the history of humanity. This is pure animal behaviour.

 

As a result of our increased brain power, we are able to cause far more devastation than any other animal on the planet, when we give free reign to our animal instincts.

 

However, there is a value in religions, at their best, and I emphasize 'best' because there's a lot of clap-trap and nonsense in all religions, which has to be sorted out, through a process of rational thought, as represented by the advice given by the Buddha in the Kalama Sutta.

 

It is the peace-loving aspect of all religions which tends to counter the aggressive instincts of our animal condition.
The Christian principles of 'Love thine Enemy', 'Love thy neighbour as oneself', and so on, and the Buddhist principles of 'Do no harm to any sentient creature', are designed to counteract, and offer a solution to the problems resulting from our animal instincts.

 

Unfortunately, our animal instincts are so strong that even those who claim to to be Christian or Buddhist will often give way to their animal instincts. Look at what's currently happening  in the Buddhist country of Myanmar, with regard to the Rohingha. What's happening is clearly against fundamental Buddhist principles, but fundamental animal instincts have dominated, in this case, despite the Buddhist culture.
 

[camerata]

Off-topic posts have been deleted.

[camerata]

Interesting idea: that natural selection is our Creator.

 

The book is a New York Times best-seller, which I guess means that non-Buddhists find it interesting.

 

There's an interview with the author on the Secular Buddhism website.

[fashionablesally]

5 hours ago, camerata said:

Off-topic posts have been deleted.

Whatcha mean? Lol

[VincentRJ]

On 9/19/2017 at 8:27 PM, camerata said:

Interesting idea: that natural selection is our Creator.

 

Yes. I found the use of the expression 'Creator' a little odd, but Robert did qualify his use of the term with the following statement, "The starting point is that natural selection “cares” about only one thing. (I put “cares” in quotes because natural selection is a blind process, not a conscious designer.)

 

Nevertheless, having admitted that natural selection is a blind process, he continues to use the term as though 'natural selection' is a 'thing' or a 'being' with its own agenda, as in the following phrase: "If you look at the full array of tools natural selection uses to get us to serve its values...."

[camerata]

I think it is just a literary device. Richard Preston uses it in his books about viruses to make non-sentient globs of protein sound extremely sinister.

 

The book is available on Kindle, so I will definitely be buying it.

[VincentRJ]

On 9/20/2017 at 10:13 PM, camerata said:

I think it is just a literary device. Richard Preston uses it in his books about viruses to make non-sentient globs of protein sound extremely sinister.

 

The book is available on Kindle, so I will definitely be buying it.

I agree. It's a literary device. But the same could be said of all the supernatural stories in religions in general. When we're in a 'scientific mode', I think we should be more precise in our terminology.

 

I also have a Kindle, and might buy the book. The only reservation I have, is that I don't seem to have the time to read all the books I've already bought during the past years. I don't think I ever finished reading Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy which I bought several decades ago. It's only around a thousand pages. 

 

I haven't yet read the Pali Canon, which is much more than a thousand pages, more like a huge encyclopedia. 

[camerata]

Try Bhikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (The Teachings of the Buddha). He orders the teachings by topic, each followed by an explanation in plain English.

[superglue]

'How to live without FEAR & WORRY'

'GEMS of Buddhist WISDOM'

 

The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation' - Tapei Taiwan

[VincentRJ]

On 9/21/2017 at 6:10 PM, camerata said:

Try Bhikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (The Teachings of the Buddha). He orders the teachings by topic, each followed by an explanation in plain English.

I found the book on Amazon for A$10 in e-book format. I've added it to the hundred or so books I already have on my Kindle. I don't know when I'll have the time to read it. That's the problem. I already have a pretty good overview of Buddhist principles and practices, but I'm not particularly motivated to reduce my own suffering because any suffering I might have is so difficult to detect.

 

I'm already quite relaxed and calm with no major problems, health-wise or other-wise, thankfully.

[camerata]

But what if you are run over by a bus tomorrow and become a paraplegic?

[superglue]

I was in Fang for 2 days when I was hit by a pickup. I am now confined to a wheelchair for the rest of this life.

I must adjust to what is - I have no choice in the matter.

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, camerata said:

But what if you are run over by a bus tomorrow and become a paraplegic?

I would then have the time to read all the e-books on my Kindle. 

 

Anyway, isn't it a major Buddhist principle that only the present moment exists. Worrying about what might happen in the future is ridiculous. Trying to be mindful all the time is good advice and should reduce the risk of accidents occurring. That's all one can do, and avoid taking unnecessary risks of course.

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, superglue said:

I was in Fang for 2 days when I was hit by a pickup. I am now confined to a wheelchair for the rest of this life.

I must adjust to what is - I have no choice in the matter.

Sorry to hear that. Is this why you are now interested in Buddhism, or were you also interested before the accident occurred?

 

[superglue]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry to hear that. Is this why you are now interested in Buddhism, or were you also interested before the accident occurred?

 

My interest in Buddhism commenced in 1984 (the year I got sober via AA).

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, superglue said:

My interest in Buddhism commenced in 1984 (the year I got sober via AA).

Was that before or after the accident?

[superglue]

9 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Was that before or after the accident?

I had the accident 2 years ago.

Buddhism - AA - 1984

[superglue]

1 hour ago, superglue said:

I was in Fang for 2 days when I was hit by a pickup. I am now confined to a wheelchair for the rest of this life.

I must adjust to what is - I have no choice in the matter.

That was 2 years ago.

[Moo du]

As the Lord Buddha taught, we should distance ourselves from our feelings.

Beeing kind, thoughfull and caring, leads the way to self realisation.

 

And for me, it works.

 

In any discussion about the teachings of the Lord Buddha,

I will be kind, humble and not reffering to anybody personaly

 

as this was the teaching.

[camerata]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I would then have the time to read all the e-books on my Kindle. 

 

Anyway, isn't it a major Buddhist principle that only the present moment exists. Worrying about what might happen in the future is ridiculous. Trying to be mindful all the time is good advice and should reduce the risk of accidents occurring. That's all one can do, and avoid taking unnecessary risks of course.

 

What the Buddha said was that good intentions/actions in the present result in a better future. This doesn't mean that doing good now will enable you to dodge future disasters, but it will prepare you to deal with them and suffer less as a result.

 

What I was getting at - based on my own experience - is that practising the dhamma has a slow, but cumulative effect on one's mental states. If one has been practising for a decade and then gets hit by a bus, the preparation has already been done and the suffering will be less. Taking up the dhamma after the accident would be less effective. This is quite different from, say, being converted to Christianity by some Billy Graham style evangelist, where there is a radical transformation of mental orientation in a very short time.

 

To anyone who says "I don't suffer" I would say, "But you will in the future," if not from an accident, then from health problems in old age. So the dhamma is a form of insurance. You have home insurance, right? But your home isn't on fire right this minute, is it?

[honu]

There are different ways to take Buddhism, and I just ran across one way that's probably hard for most to relate to, and for me, in the form of Jim Carrey claiming that he no longer exists.

 

Of course the point is that no one does, or ever actually did, in some limited sense, the Buddhist no-self idea.  It seems to me that one has to work past that a bit to retain some degree of common sense.  Or then again maybe he does have a balanced, insightful, functional take on the limitations of the assumption of a permanent self and he just comes across like some sort of nut-job, which spins even more negatively because he also looks like a meth user now.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

21 hours ago, camerata said:

To anyone who says "I don't suffer" I would say, "But you will in the future," if not from an accident, then from health problems in old age. So the dhamma is a form of insurance. You have home insurance, right? But your home isn't on fire right this minute, is it?

When I implied that I wasn't suffering, I was describing my normal or usual state of affairs of having no worries, no uncontrollable desires, no depression, no agitation, no anger, no regrets, no financial debts, no health problems, and so on.

 

I'm not overweight. I keep myself in good health by eating wholesome food, exercising regularly, and fasting now and again for a few days at a time.

 

I have a belief in natural medicines and natural remedies. If I were ever diagnosed with cancer, I'd attempt to cure myself through fasting. I know that I can fast without suffering for at least for 4 or 5 days, the maximum I've tried so far.
If I were to start thinking that I shall suffer at some time in the future, then such a thought, in the present, would actually be itself a form of suffering.

 

Not only is my home insured against fire, I've also protected my home from the consequences of a bush fire by removing all the natural trees that were growing close to the house.
Likewise, I not only have free (or very low cost) health insurance as an Australian pensioner, I take personal care of my own health in order to reduce the risk of future health problems.

 

Of course, it's undeniable that we're all going to die at some point in the future. However, the purpose of modern palliative care is to reduce suffering.
 

[superglue]

I agree. But some are pedantic.

We are aware of the general philosophy of Buddhism that life is suffering.

It is a matter of degree.

[camerata]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If I were to start thinking that I shall suffer at some time in the future, then such a thought, in the present, would actually be itself a form of suffering.

 

 

Accepting the fact that unexpected accidents can happen at any time and planning for them does not mean you worry about them all the time. You have home insurance but I'm sure you don't worry about the possibility of a fire all the time.

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, camerata said:

 

Accepting the fact that unexpected accidents can happen at any time and planning for them does not mean you worry about them all the time. You have home insurance but I'm sure you don't worry about the possibility of a fire all the time.

Accepting that unexpected accidents can happen is merely accepting reality, just as one should accept that one will eventually die. However, planning for every possible accident that one can imagine might happen, could send one crazy.

 

It's true one wouldn't worry about the possibility of a fire all the time, and one wouldn't worry about a car accident or plane crash all the time. However, if one is worrying just a small part of the time about a hundred different adverse events that could happen, and planning for them, that represents a lot of worry.

 

Better to live in the present, always be mindful in accordance with Buddhist principles, and take the automatic and sensible precautions that are obvious, such as wearing a seat belt when driving a car, or insuring one's house for riverine flooding if one lives in a flood plain near a river, or automatically including travel insurance when one buys a plane ticket, and so on.

[camerata]

In Buddhism the "seatbelt" is the cultivation of the mind. It isn't a different plan for every possible contingency, it's a readjustment of the mind to handle all contingencies.

 

As Ajahn Chah once said, if your feet hurt because of rocky ground, you don't attempt to cover the entire world surface with rubber, you put on a pair of rubber sandals.

[oldhippy]

15 minutes ago, camerata said:

In Buddhism the "seatbelt" is the cultivation of the mind. It isn't a different plan for every possible contingency, it's a readjustment of the mind to handle all contingencies.

 

As Ajahn Chah once said, if your feet hurt because of rocky ground, you don't attempt to cover the entire world surface with rubber, you put on a pair of rubber sandals.

The rubber sandals analogy illustrates both the strength and the weakness of both western and  buddhist thinking:  of course there is no point in covering the world with rubber (= western thinking), but as long as my feet don't hurt, I don't care about other people's feet (= buddhist thinking).