Just finished reading Why Buddhism is True by Robert Wright. It’s the third book by Wright that I have read the other two being The Moral Animal and The Evolution of God. Overall, enjoyed the book and I recommend it. Most of the book is based on how natural selection hasn’t necessarily shaped us to be good observers of the self and necessarily good practitioners of what makes for a cohesive society. Wright spends some time on the not-self concept and here I also largely agree with the concept. Though occasionally he does seem to flip between not-self and no-self language. The former seems to refer to and illusion of self and the latter was not clearly delineated for me. There is a fair amount about Wright’s meditative practices. Well, I was not persuaded to meditate formally, but I might experiment when going to sleep, even though he had a fellow yogi snoring during one meditation session. Of course this results in the realization of dependent origination or as he calls it interdependent co-arising. So far, so good. But there were some clouds on the horizon for me. In the first 200 odd pages there were some mentions of attaining freedom; this of course for me is a little like a red rag to a bull.
There is a reasonable discussion of essence. An example of essence might be, my father’s pen knife which is lost. I suppose I could get another one just like it, but it would not be the same. My father had sharpened the penknife himself, likely many times. Is there something to a pattern of atoms and molecules in the steel that my father has imparted an essence? I think most people have an understanding of my sense of attachment to that particular penknife. Also they intellectually can see the nonsensical aspect of that attachment to the penknife’s “essence”. Meditation also provides abilities to help quell negative feelings like annoyance.
On page 198, Wright wrote, “Our intuitive conception of self and its bounds is in that sense [things both inside and outside of our skin] arbitrary.” Of course here I agree with Wright. But after this page I have several ‘stickies’ where I would like to take Wright to task.
The first issue is nirvana, to reach this state one has to be “unconditioned”. This roughly translates to uncaused. Really? Apparently the mechanics of reaching this state involve mindful meditation. No surprise I suppose. Liberation from a persistent craving of pleasant feelings. Well I don’t actually have a craving for persistent pleasant feelings. Most of the time I am blissfully unaware. I just go about my day.
Wright writes with zeal regarding the mind/brain altering properties of meditation. I am reminded of Sam Harris’s Waking Up and Michel Pollan’s How to Change Your Mind to use entheogens for so called enlightenment. I do wonder, just an aside Wright, was critical of Harris regarding his views on Islam. Wright apparently described Harris as “annoying”, I can’t but feel a sense of irony here. While I suspect both meditation and entheogens will alter your brain, so will playing lots chess, music and squash.
Wright talks a fair bit about enlightenment in the Buddhist sense and the way I read it he seems to think he is gaining enlightenment through meditation. Here this brings to mind three quotations, If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him; Linji Yixuan. Here, I can only interpret this as if you think you are thinking you have become like Buddha and found enlightenment: Stop it!. The second by Joseph Campbell would warm the cockles of any agnostic: … to know is not to know. And not to know is to know. This I believe may well be derived from ancient Indian scripture. And the third, a more secular Chase after the truth like all hell and you’ll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow. Of course I think Wright is wise enough to be uncertain, but this is just food for thought.
Another aspect of the book that I would be careful about is suggesting that meditation can inform our morality. Personally I have been slowly stepping away from concepts like morality. I agree we have a sense of morality, at least those of us with a healthy psyche; but when our supposed consciousness (even of our meditative practices) is put in charge what to put into our sense of morality, then I am a little concerned. Just look at the everyday news and we can see where ‘morality plays’ are not doing so well. It is a little bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
I have read a few books on Buddhism. Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thích Nhất Hạnh compares and highlights similarities between the Buddhist and Christian traditions where they might exist. I was not convinced but then he does explain nicely dependent origination described as his concept of interbeing. Having said that, it could be argued interbeing is simply sexed-up ’cause and effect’. In Ten Zen Questions, Susan Blackmore explores various aspects of consciousness through the practice of Zen meditation. I loved her Am I Conscious Now? chapter. Buddhism for Dummies by Jonathan Landaw and Stephan Bodian probably was the most useful from an academic understanding of the Eastern traditions, but obviously one book has to be somewhat limited. On reading “Dummies”, I came to a conclusion on Buddhism, close but no cigar.
And finally, Wright’s acknowledgements he thanks the John Templeton Foundation for “generous support”. This is a red flag for me; I suppose I should not judge the book by its cover or its funding, but by its contents. Then there is the question would I take money from that Foundation? If I wanted to maintain my ideological purity then the answer is “No!”. If I was logical I would take every penny from the Foundation I could in that it would limit money spent on ideas that I think of as “more harmful”. The Foundation is likely legally required to distribute its interest.
While Wright talks about his Southern Baptist upbringing, and here I think he has walked well away from the from the magical thinking of deities and the like and he is firmly in the secular. Nevertheless, I suspect aspects of his Baptist early indoctrination still reverberate around his current world view. Which of course is totally unsurprising bearing in mind dependent origination. This is true for all of us, might not be Baptist though.
I have concentrated more on the bits I disagreed with. This seems to be my style. I recommend this book, it’s written with an easy humour.
rom's corner 