STEPHEN BATCHELOR – AFTER BUDDHISM –
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW HAVEN & LONDON - 2015
Who am I to tell Stephen Batchelor what to think? I
discovered Buddha in 1961 or 62 when I equally read the Bible, Shakespeare,
Thomas Mann, Buddha, Marc and Engels, Lenin and even a little bit of Mao
Zedong, not to speak of many other things and works like books on mathematical
logic and building technology. At the time the Quran was not on my personal
syllabus.
Buddhism never was a religion for me because for me a religion
is attached to the concept of God or some supreme being and the immortality of
the soul. Over the northern entrance of the cathedral in Clermont Ferrand the
French Revolution has left an inscription I would translate: “The French people
believe in the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul.” That makes
Robespierre’s republicanism a religion for me and it was celebrated in more
blood, equally blue and red, than necessary to sanctify e sectarian concept
that was nothing but the rejection of another. I have always refused such silly
dilemmas, either/or, it-is/it-is-not, half-empty-glass/half-full-glass (which
is not better than empty-glass/full-glass, even if it is in the balanced middle
point). Buddha did not invent the pragmatic dual approach he rejects. That
dualism has been in the air of Homo Sapiens since the apparition of vegetal and
animal life on earth enslaved to the day or night dualism that cannot be
modified. Buddha rejects it as being in contradiction with real life and he is
looking for a solution and thinks he found it in the middle way often reduced
to a point of balance between the two elements of the dualism we are talking
of. Buddha tried to invent or discover a third element in the choices we are
confronted to everyday and a dual vision of such choices is a reduction of
Buddhism.
But before getting into more detail let me say I am afraid
Batchelor falls in the trap “high five” and “full speed” with oppositions like
Buddha/Mara, good/evil or life/death. If Buddha states Mara to satisfy the
dominant ideology of his time it is to dismiss it because of the third element
he states over and over again: the real world. And the real world is in no way
one: it is a whole and infinite set of multiple and multifarious contradictions.
In fact, I found in Buddhism in these old times (1961-62, high
school times) a philosophy that stated continuity and I have later discovered
this continuity from one polar extreme to another is based on discontinuity in
all possible terms. That’s what is for me central in Buddhism, not two elements
in fact but three (at least, and I would say three in real life and four in
mental life). It is for me the starting point of any approach to Buddhism that
does not want to lose itself into sectarianism: “Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta.” “ANICCA.”
Everything changes all the time (and if something seems stable it’s because we
can’t or don’t want to see it change or see its changing). “DUKKHA.” Life is a
cyclical spiral, birth-life-death-rebirth, not in the superficial form of reincarnation
but in the natural form of seed-plant-flower-seed and for human beings – or all
animals – it is obvious “rebirth” is double: the human seed (male and female
conjoined) produces a new human being and the mental seed of a human being
produces a continuation beyond their death in other human beings. I will not
discuss the reincarnation ideology because it is nothing but an ideology to
satisfy a social vision and ambition (to set every individual in a place that
makes these individuals manageable, dominatable, controllable, etc.). “ANATTA.”
The third concept is that since everything and everyone changes there is no stable
essence to anything or anyone, hence no self, no soul, nothing that can be
associated to any living being from birth to death or even rebirth. Even
genetics would not say a human being is the genetic direct reproduction of
their fathers or mothers. Every human being is the haphazard association of two
real potentials, half from the mother and half from the father and no one can
predict the result. Modern science wants to control the result but it cannot
control the process itself, only modify it or influence it. And in fact it is
the genetic heritage of the mother since the beginning of humanity and the
genetic heritage of the father since the beginning of humanity that are carried
by the mother and the father that are mixed in a haphazard way at conception.
And that mixed heritage only determines the trajectory of the growth of the
individual without determining for absolutely sure what will come out of this
process of growth, a never ending process from {one half plus one half plus
mutations} to death.
That is my first point. I do not start from the same
starting block as Stephen Batchelor. He centers his work on what he calls the
four tasks. First to comprehend “dukkha.” Then to let go of the arising of “tanha”
he calls reactivity. Then to behold the ceasing of “tanha.” Finally, the
cultivation of the eightfold path. This process leads to the arising of
illumination about things previously unknown. This is for him enlightenment,
hence “nibbana,” that he calls “nirvana” using the Sanskrit word. And strangely
enough he more or less locks up this approach with a long attempt to
demonstrate that Buddha himself, who he calls Gotama, was a pragmatist and as
such refused any orthodoxy, any set of concepts that could not move. And that’s
just what I consider Batchelor’s mistake. This question is fundamental. What
did Gotama discover when he walked into his city and saw the sick man, the dying
man, the poor man (by the way men not women, so has it the canon)? Did he only
see the suffering of these people or did he capture the idea that no matter
what, one has to go through a constantly changing process that may make one
sick, make one die or make one poor. Note the canon does not consider that life
may make one healthy, make one live or make one rich. The discovery is not in “dukkha”
as plain suffering but “dukkha” as a cyclical change that may – we could have
an argument on that may some want to see as “will” or “shall” – lead to
sickness, death or poverty. The real discovery is not “dukkha” as suffering but
“dukkha” as change. The basic concept is “anicca,” change, constant permanent
change, impermanence as some translators say. If you start from “dukkha” seen
as suffering then you come to “tanha” (reactivity as Batchelor calls it) which
is an attachment to something, anything that attracts your attention and brings
pleasure for a short while at least and the attempt to freeze that pleasure
into long lasting pleasure, which is absurd and impossible because it tries to
prevent change and that is beyond pragmatic realism.
That leads me to an important remark. Batchelor wants to
recapture Gotama and the people around him in their historical dimension and
reality. He suggests a few ideas that are interesting but based essentially on
direct comparison and very few facts. If a historian wants to reconstruct a
period of the past, he cannot be satisfied with considering some documents and
in these documents similarities. One has to consider absolutely all documents
avaialable from the concerned period and to look for the differences in these
documents because the meaning of these documents, hence the meaning of the
historical period come from the differences and not the similarities. The
similarities give some indication on what is accepted by all but that is not
the meaning of the various documents. It is only the common denominator. What
makes the value of various fractions with a common denominator is not the
common denominator but the numerator. The fractions 25/198 and 37/198 is not in
the possible analysis, decomposition and scrutinization of the denominator but in
the numerator that says one is bigger than the other. At the same time this
work is historically interesting but as for the value of Buddhism in the modern
world it has absolutely no impact, no utility. It is not because Buddha was a
pragmatist that I have to be a pragmatist. I have to be a pragmatist because
that’s the only way to survive in any human world. But then what is original in
Buddhism that I can implement in the modern world? Then we have to consider the
concepts.
That’s why I start from “anicca/dukkha” because this
cyclical reality (and it is reality not fiction) leads to the second reality in
the desire of any individual to stop the first one and to stop it at a moment
of pleasure because of the attachment, excessive attachment to that particular
moment of pleasure and that is called “tanha” not in its reactive dimension
because man is a reactive being and reactivity is fundamentally human and
cannot be negated without negating humanity itself, but in its excessiveness,
excessive reactivity and I prefer excessive attachment. Loving flowers is a
reactive attitude or stance but it is not reprehensive or dangerous if it is
not excessive, whereas excessive attachment to flowers can become dangerous to
the individual who reaches that level of reactivity. I taught this difference in
Pidurangala, Sri Lanka, to my students there in the monastery: you can love
anything or anyone as long as your love does not become excessive attachment or
obsession. You can love a person in many ways but if that love becomes
obsessional then you are a slave and since your freedom is negated you will not
be able to be reactive to change and you will run into the wall head first
since you will not be able to adapt to new conditions.
Buddhism is a philosophy of constant permanent change or
impermanence. That’s the real core of this philosophy: permanent impermanence.
You add to this the cyclical nature of this impermanence and you get to the
obvious premise that one has no self, anything or anybody has no permanent
essence. And that builds up “anicca-dukkha-anatta.” “Tanha” (excessive
attachment) is the perversion of this first reality, the attempt to stop this
reality, to freeze real life, hence to negate life itself.
The next and fundamental problem – and Batchelor does not
understand it at all because he is not a linguist – is the connection between
the mind and language, or I should say the physiological-senses-brain, the mind
and language. The five physiological senses work in connection with the brain
which is a physiological organ. But this activity produces in the brain the
need to construct a virtual level that is the mind and this mind cannot be
constructed if language, words first of
all are not associated to the sensations turned into perceptions by the brain.
The mind and language build each other at the same time, simultaneously, in a
parallel evolution. This is essential and after Bertrand Russell’s work on the
mind and what came then from the fields of biology and psychology, including
non-clinical psychiatry, we have to come to a chain of actions that build human
civilization. These actions are “to-sense/to-perceive/to-name/to-experiment/to-speculate/to-conceptualize.” Most animals
would only sense and perceive, maybe identify without any name, hence only
instinctively as positive or negative, friendly or dangerous, etc. Human beings
(and a few hominins before them and the top hominids have the ability to
articulate consonants and vowels in a growing perspective from the hominids to
Homo Sapiens seen as the top hominin. That ability enables Homo Sapiens to name
things, both items and processes, and thus to build a lexicon and a syntax. It
is this ability that leads to experimenting and speculating, and that brings
the mind and the language of humans to the level of conceptualization which is a
slow process through which each individual has to go because it is in no way in
the genes of the individual though the capability to articulate vowels and consonants
is physiological. Language is not physiological though it cannot be built – or
acquired – without this physiological capability contained in the articulatory
system, the brain and particularly the Broca area that coordinates all
sensori-motor activities of man.
Batchelor has not fully explored this concept of a middle
way. When he says meditation can only develop if you have the mental ability to
develop a vision and the technical ability to enter a meditative procedure that
will enable your meditation to reach the mental vision that is in you. He is
probably pragmatic on the question but when he says the proper way to look at
the problem is to find some balance between the two somewhere at a middle point
between zero and the maximum for each of the two requirements, he is wrong
because every individual has to develop both his meditative technique and his
mental vision to the maximum possible for them. No balance but maximum and maximum
though each individual will have their own maximums that will vary from one
individual to the next. You can have the technique and the vision and yet that
will not produce any productive meditation if there is not a third element
which is called motivation or desire to attain something. If you do not
implement the procedure with a strong enough motivation it will produce
nothing. Before to advance on that path you have to ignite the engine of it,
and the engine is your desire/motivation to take that path.
That’s fundamental in human mental abilities. It is basic in
linguistic processes knowing that linguistic processes are the constructs of
the joint work of sensorial capabilities, articulatory capabilities and
cerebral capabilities that produce mental abilities, knowing that a capability
is a given and an ability is a construct. Anyone has the capability to develop
a vision. Anyone has the capability to concentrate into a meditative state. But
if each individual does not develop these capabilities to produce the ability
to conceptualize, to bring together the two thanks to their motivation, they
will never be able to meditate in any effective way, to enter and proceed on
the eightfold path, on the path to mental liberation and creativity. It is
obvious I do not want to enter any technical level in this field because it
would lead us too far. Linguistics is a very complex and even complicated
science full of debates and contradictions.
To conclude on the point, the middle way is not some static
equilibrium point between two extremes. It is the stepping over the limitations
of both the visionary capability and the meditative technique with the third
dimension of motivation and what some call in the Pali dhammapada the
onepointedness, the desire, will and power to have one objective and to try and
reach it, that objective being of course impermanent, changing all the time not
in all possible directions but in depth and transcending development, at times,
and only at times corrective modifications.
But this onepointedness applied to the visionary capability
and the meditative technique is what we call today conceptualization. All human
beings are able to conceptualize, though not all of them at the same level, but
this conceptualization runs into some difficulties. First the visionary capability in analyzing and synthesizing
reality in a pragmatic and realistic way. Second
the technical capability to see forms, patterns, structures in the vast
totality of what people have analyzed and synthesized, what I consider to be
the “samsaric” whole from which some patterns, gestalts can emerge when the
meditating individual is trying to get a full picture, and one tool for this to
happen is the proper control and use of language. Third the motivation of each individual to get on that path
and strive to go on and on along it in spite of difficulties and traps.
This is to say this book that calls for a realistic and
pragmatic implementation of basic concepts and procedures contained in a
reevaluated version of Buddhism to produce a secular guide to life is
essential. We – I mean the whole humanity – has to retrieve and reprieve
Buddhism from all orthodox reductions, no matter which or what or where from.
The very concept of Dalai Lama is an absurdity. Even the Catholics know that
the Pope is not the reincarnation of Peter by God’s decision but the choice of
a set of human beings who vote for the next Pope in a procedure that is
materially and pragmatically determined, governed and controlled. If we
captured Buddhism as a philosophy that can be of great use in the modern world,
we could really improve our future. Otherwise we would and will lock ourselves
in some mental prison that will lead to all kinds of evil effects including war
of course.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 1:17 PM