DALAI LAMA FOUNDATION – STUDY GUIDE FOR “ETHICS FOR THE NEW
MILLENIUM” BY HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA – LOS ALTOS STUDY GROUP – MARCH 2004
Though religion is declared to be
valuable but not necessary, the whole approach is entirely molded in the
metaphysics of the religion that is behind the Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism. I
do not pretend to go into a full analysis of this religion here, but I would
like to make a few remarks on the main concepts of the book.
The first and surprising central
concept is that of “suffering” which is never quoted in Pali, hence “dukkha,”
but only in this English translation which is the worst possible translation.
“Dukkha” refers to the cycle of “birth-life-decay-death-rebirth.” Thus it
refers to death as soon as birth, even death in birth when reducing it to
“suffering”. If you reduce it to “suffering” you do not understand the
dialectics of Buddhism. “Dukkha” is the opposite of “sukha.” “Dukkha” is the
fact that any event of life has a beginning, a period of existence (growth and
decay) and an end to eventually be reborn like a plant from a seed. This is
connected to dissatisfaction, the fact that the phenomenon we are dealing with
does not exist before its birth and will not exist after its death and its
birth necessarily leads to its death. In other words life is a fatal, lethal,
deadly business. But there is sukha on the other hand. Before decaying any
phenomenon has to grow and develop. Before dying any phenomenon has to be born
and grow and then only decay. Reducing “dukkha” to “suffering” erases the joys
and the happiness of life, or it makes them purely artificial since they
require a voluntary, hence non-natural, hence not arising from the natural
circumstances in and around the concerned human subject but from his ethical
decision to follow a certain path that cannot be natural since it is
superimposed onto the natural human being. Love, compassion and empathy are not
natural in man but the result of ethical choices guided by some ideological
choices.
This centering of the whole
vision on suffering, what’s more, shifts the center of interest from the
phenomenon itself to the individual experiencing this phenomenon, as if the
phenomenon had maybe not no existence but at least no value outside the vision
this individual may develop. This is very dangerous. The phenomenon exists and
occurs outside any individual who may be observing or using it. In fact the
phenomenon does not even need to be observed or used by any individual to exist
and develop. The Dalai Lama would probably agree but some formulations are
inadequate.
This reduction of “dukkha” to
“suffering” has far-reaching consequences.
It does not understand “dependent
origination” properly. Once again this translation of “paticcasamuppada” is
reductive. We are dealing here with a vision deeply embedded in Pali (and
before Pali in Sanskrit and hence in probably most if not all Indo-Aryan
languages). It is what is called the “preterit participle.” This preterit
participle builds “nominalized” clauses attached to main verbal clauses and
they express the fact that a set of circumstantial elements, actions or events
are fulfilled and that this fulfillment enables another element, action or
event to develop, to arise. This construction does not exist in Indo-European
languages. That is a main difference between the two cousin linguistic
families. This does not mean there is a cause and then an effect. It is not a
connection based on causality but only on circumstantial fulfillment. Of course
we can consider rain and sunshine are the causes of the growth of plants but
that is not what happens in the real world. When rain and sunshine have been or
are fulfilled up to a certain level then plants may grow, and at times they
don’t because another circumstance is not fulfilled like the proper temperature.
It is not causation but it is a set of circumstantial fulfilled elements and
when this fulfillment is reached then another element develops, arises. That
sounds logical because behind the universe there is no philosophical thinking
mind that dictates in a way or another the fate of the cosmos. Evolution is
produced by haphazard mutations (that might though be influenced by the
circumstances in which they occur) selected within a constraining
circumstantial environment.
The second consequence is that
the vision of the real natural world, of which man is an animal member, is
entirely negative and then positive elements can only come from virtue, from a
cultivated human dimension of this human animal. But this human dimension of
the human animal is not really specified in its/his/her fundamental Buddhist
dimension, the mind which is in fact two Pali concepts, “mana” and “citta,” the
first one being the more or less abstract capability and the second the various
states of mind a mind can develop in various circumstances. I insist on these
two concepts because it clearly states that the mind is not something that
exists ready made in man but something that is a double process: a process in
the confrontation of man to his/her environment and a process in its being a
constructed dimension of the brain, and I insist on brain here. The Dalai Lama
insists on the voluntary and systematic constructive attitude and action of any
human individual to build empathy and compassion, but he misses the point at
the level of the mind and the brain. He does not see the fundamental existence
of this mind as a construct of the brain confronted to the world through the
senses.
Compassion and empathy are the
result of the mirror neurons in the neo-cortex. These mirror neurons enable an
individual to imitate what another individual does in front of him/her, but
also to share the emotions of the other person and his/her emotions with the
other person. This neuronal fact is the very basis of compassion, empathy and
love. This is typically human. But it is a physiological fact supporting a
mental and behavioral phenomenon.
In the same way the Dalai Lama
misses the fact that our brain is both animal and human. Animal in what we call
the old brain only based on instinct and first of all on the survival instinct
that states the individual has to survive at all cost in front of any danger,
and the best way to survive is preemptive attack. But the neo-cortex enables a
human being to develop a mind and that mind is the reflection and the
construction of the brain. It is hierarchical, it works in stages: from smaller
features to larger items, and from discrimination to identification and then
later from simple sensorial capture to recognition, when the item has already
been identified. This gives the mind the capacity to conceptualize and to build
some abstract thinking and thus control the behavior of the individual this
mind inhabits after having been constructed (and that construction is never
finished).by the confrontation of the individual (and his/her brain) with the
circumstantial, existential and experiential situational environment through
the six sensorial organs of this individual, the mind being the sixth sensorial
apparatus of the human individual.
Hence we come to the conclusion
that the initial reduction of “dukkha” to “suffering” leads to the
impossibility to integrate the most advanced research in brain neuroscience
which makes the very ethical principles the result of the very particular way
human beings, as a species, can survive in their world by producing a
conceptualized vision of this world in order to both survive AND DEVELOP, the
second dimension being most of the time forgotten by the adepts of the survival
instinct like Ronald Lafayette Hubbard or ethics. Then what the Dalai Lama
states as a voluntary action would become a voluntary ethical choice among
possible responses to the environment, responses and choice both arising from
the mind of any particular individual. And that’s how Homo Sapiens when
becoming the human species we are today, invented all kinds of conceptualized
mental – and practical – systems – and weapons-tools-artifacts – to understand
and control his/her environment: language, communication, arts, religion,
philosophy, science and that process will never be finished since there will
always be something more to understand.
Then education becomes essential,
not to preach – or graft if not brainwash – ethics into the student’s behavior,
but to develop ethics in the ever mostly-self-constructing mind of any
individual confronted to any circumstantial, existential and experiential
situational environment to which this individual has to respond.
In other words the Dalai Lama has
it entirely right but on premises that are not correct because they are not in
phase with modern science, and yet it would be very easy to build the
correspondence between this philosophy and modern science, knowing that there cannot
be two identical minds in this world, that some minds have developed positive values
and some others negative values, and that at any step in life there is always a
mental choice to make, hence an ethical choice to make. The motivations of
these choices can be of any type, sort or kind from the most negative to the
most positive, from pure hatred to absolute love.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 2:33 AM