On Medium: Cosmic Neutrality and the Paradox of the Bodhisattva’s Virtue
Read on about the difference between philosophical and politically correct understandings of Buddhism, and how the enlightened Buddhist should be as inhuman as the universe.
Provacative essay. I've often wondered what Buddhism would look like if you stripped it of its contradictions and followed its metaphysics to their logical conclusion. I've even been tempted to write a story with a Buddhist villain: someone who accepts the premises of Buddhism but rejects the ethics and acts, purely egolessly, to end samsara by setting off a global nuclear war.
My own take on Buddhism is that, despite its denial of a self to defend or rescue, what Buddhist's are really doing is expanding their sense of self to encompass all things. This is nakedly obvious in Metta Bhavana meditation in which the Buddhist is directed to begin by meditating on one's own suffering in order to gain a feeling of compassion for oneself. Once this basic self-love is established, the Buddhist is supposed to extend that same feeling towards a friend or family member. Once the Buddhist loves his friend as much as himself, he then begins the same process over again, but this time directing his compassion towards a stranger. If he succeeds in feeling just as much pity and goodwill towards that stranger as he does towards himself and his friends, then he is ready for the final stage of the meditation: learning to love his enemy as much as he does himself. Serious Buddhists are expected to practice this meditation every day, for years on end, until it becomes ineradicably ingrained into their psyches. The sutras say that Buddha himself meditated like this every morning for the last forty years of his life. And yet the foundation for this entire process is self-love.
But then Buddhism wouldn't be the only system to be riddled with such schisms between theory and practice. As you remarked in your many essays: a cosmic perspective undermines all 'isms' to varying degrees, including humanism. In feeling compassion for worms over rocks, the Buddhists cannot help themselves any more than atheists like Sam Harris can when they write books on morality that taste suspiciously Christian in flavor. No matter how enlightened we might think we are, our egoism will assert itself no matter what. You'd have to suffer from (or enjoy) some bizzare combination of psychopathy, disassociation, and schizotypal personality disorder to be the kind of "person" who would perfectly embody Buddhist enlightenment. In other words: not a functional human being.
That's a very interesting take on Buddhism, and it would be quite logical (the extension of egoism and thus of self-love/compassion). My guess is that a Buddhist would consider that meditation to be a ladder you're supposed to kick out from under you once you've climbed it and seen through its imperfect conception of things, as it were. It certainly conflicts with the doctrine of no-self.
It also sounds like a Christianization of Buddhism since it's moralistic. What distinguishes Buddhism, I think, isn't selflessness but the mechanistic realization of why suffering is so common (because of craving based on egoism which is in conflict with the interconnectedness of reality). That realization includes the denial that a unified self exists, and that denial is just a special case of the wider repudiation of our simplifying concepts.
One of my main projects is to reconcile cosmicism with humanism, and indeed full enlightenment would amount to transhumanism, which would likewise conflict with humanism/liberalism.
"My guess is that a Buddhist would consider that meditation to be a ladder you're supposed to kick out from under you once you've climbed it and seen through its imperfect conception of things, as it were. It certainly conflicts with the doctrine of no-self. "
Yes, that's what the Buddha called "skillful means" (upaya). I forgot about that.
Provacative essay. I've often wondered what Buddhism would look like if you stripped it of its contradictions and followed its metaphysics to their logical conclusion. I've even been tempted to write a story with a Buddhist villain: someone who accepts the premises of Buddhism but rejects the ethics and acts, purely egolessly, to end samsara by setting off a global nuclear war.
ReplyDeleteMy own take on Buddhism is that, despite its denial of a self to defend or rescue, what Buddhist's are really doing is expanding their sense of self to encompass all things. This is nakedly obvious in Metta Bhavana meditation in which the Buddhist is directed to begin by meditating on one's own suffering in order to gain a feeling of compassion for oneself. Once this basic self-love is established, the Buddhist is supposed to extend that same feeling towards a friend or family member. Once the Buddhist loves his friend as much as himself, he then begins the same process over again, but this time directing his compassion towards a stranger. If he succeeds in feeling just as much pity and goodwill towards that stranger as he does towards himself and his friends, then he is ready for the final stage of the meditation: learning to love his enemy as much as he does himself. Serious Buddhists are expected to practice this meditation every day, for years on end, until it becomes ineradicably ingrained into their psyches. The sutras say that Buddha himself meditated like this every morning for the last forty years of his life. And yet the foundation for this entire process is self-love.
But then Buddhism wouldn't be the only system to be riddled with such schisms between theory and practice. As you remarked in your many essays: a cosmic perspective undermines all 'isms' to varying degrees, including humanism. In feeling compassion for worms over rocks, the Buddhists cannot help themselves any more than atheists like Sam Harris can when they write books on morality that taste suspiciously Christian in flavor. No matter how enlightened we might think we are, our egoism will assert itself no matter what. You'd have to suffer from (or enjoy) some bizzare combination of psychopathy, disassociation, and schizotypal personality disorder to be the kind of "person" who would perfectly embody Buddhist enlightenment. In other words: not a functional human being.
That's a very interesting take on Buddhism, and it would be quite logical (the extension of egoism and thus of self-love/compassion). My guess is that a Buddhist would consider that meditation to be a ladder you're supposed to kick out from under you once you've climbed it and seen through its imperfect conception of things, as it were. It certainly conflicts with the doctrine of no-self.
DeleteIt also sounds like a Christianization of Buddhism since it's moralistic. What distinguishes Buddhism, I think, isn't selflessness but the mechanistic realization of why suffering is so common (because of craving based on egoism which is in conflict with the interconnectedness of reality). That realization includes the denial that a unified self exists, and that denial is just a special case of the wider repudiation of our simplifying concepts.
One of my main projects is to reconcile cosmicism with humanism, and indeed full enlightenment would amount to transhumanism, which would likewise conflict with humanism/liberalism.
"My guess is that a Buddhist would consider that meditation to be a ladder you're supposed to kick out from under you once you've climbed it and seen through its imperfect conception of things, as it were. It certainly conflicts with the doctrine of no-self. "
DeleteYes, that's what the Buddha called "skillful means" (upaya). I forgot about that.