The Dalai Lama has said that Buddhism and science are deeply compatible and has encouraged Western scholars to critically examine both the meditative practice and Buddhist ideas about the human mind. A number of scientists and philosophers have taken up this challenge. There have been brain scans of meditators and philosophical examinations of Buddhist doctrines. There have even been discussions of Darwin and the Buddha: Do early Buddhist descriptions of the mind, and of the human condition, make particular sense in light of evolutionary psychology? This course will examine how Buddhism is faring under this scrutiny. Are neuroscientists starting to understand how meditation “works”? Would such an understanding validate meditation—or might physical explanations of meditation undermine the spiritual significance attributed to it? And how are some of the basic Buddhist claims about the human mind holding up? We’ll pay special attention to some highly counterintuitive doctrines: that the self doesn’t exist, and that much of perceived reality is in some sense illusory. Do these claims, radical as they sound, make a certain kind of sense in light of modern psychology? And what are the implications of all this for how we should live our lives? Can meditation make us not just happier, but better people? All the features of this course are available for free. It does not offer a certificate upon completion.
Office Hours 6
Loading...
來自 Princeton University 的課程
Buddhism and Modern Psychology
3094 個評分
從本節課中
What is Enlightenment?
與講師見面
Robert WrightVisiting Lecturer
Religion Department and the Center for Human Values
Welcome to Office Hours.
Frasier and Milo extend their greetings.
[SOUND] Enthusiastically,
in Milo's case.
This is actually not the last Office Hours,
although it is the Office Hours associated with the final lecture of the course.
There will be another office hours probably about a week from now, but
in any event, I will let you know through all known media when exactly that is.
Speaking of Frazier and Milo,
there was a lot of turbulence this week involving Frasier and Milo.
Milo continued his quest to dethrone Frasier as alpha dog, and at one point,
I actually got a little concerned because he did actually mount the throne,
and I was afraid that things would get out of hand.
As it happened, Frasier did successfully rebuff that challenge.
But I realize that that we were approaching a dangerous
level of instability, so I decided to stage an intervention.
I decided that, that really nothing short of spiritual transformation on the part of
both dogs would do, and it worked out surprisingly well.
Here's what happened.
[SOUND] Excuse me, dogs?
Why don't you let your Buddha natures emerge and live in peace?
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Wow, it worked.
[SOUND] All right, let's get him to meditate now.
By the way, if you're wondering why Milo was meditating with his eyes open in that
last shot, well actually,
some Zen meditators do meditate with their eyes open.
So apparently, Milo will be studying under a Zen Master.
I guess that's a decision he's made.
Now, footnote, if you pay close attention to that last shot where
Milo was meditating, you will see on the floor a scrap of paper.
If you're wondering what that is, it's this, it's this.
Formerly a part of this book.
And if you're wondering how did they get detached, the answer is Milo,
only days earlier, had, as kind of a first step toward eating the entire book,
apparently, had chewed this off of the book.
This is actually true.
Milo had done this.
So what we have here is one day, this dog is
destroying Buddhist texts, and the next day, he is following the dharma.
And that just shows you that spiritual transformation can
happen [SOUND] like that.
Or, as in my case, it can happen very slowly and never be finished.
In any event, this leads us kind of to some questions
that some of the students have raised this week.
Okay, so Simona Holstein, or Holstein, has a question of
a particular relevance to me, but probably to a lot of you as well.
She writes, dear Buddhists, in some Buddhist transitions, and
especially in Zen, there's this attitude not to analytically explain terms such as
no-self and emptiness in order to allow the meditation, so
learn this through experience, which is the real learning.
Do you think that analytical understanding might be an obstacle towards
reaching this understanding?
Neil King replies, that actually,
in some Buddhist traditions, analysis is emphasized and valued.
In others, he says,
is discouraged in preference to a sheerly experiential apprehension of these ideas.
In any event, what I would say is certainly,
too much analysis during meditation can get in the way, I think.
And that's kind of a chronic problem for
me in part because I'm kind of in the business
of analyzing this stuff and both writing about it and teaching about it.
And it's kind of hard for me to forget about that sometimes when I'm meditating.
I would say though, I think, I hope, because if I'm wrong,
then I'm really not spending my time productively if I'm wrong about this.
[LAUGH] Then I'm not actively doing
damage maybe to the world if I'm wrong about this.
I like to think that there is ultimately
value in analysis in the following sense.
For me, at least, my motivation to practice is
strengthened by my belief that the practice is valid
in the sense of moving me closer to the truth, closer to a clear
perception of the every day world, and closer to morally defensible behavior.
Okay?
And I didn't reach that conclusion by taking a Buddhist word for it.
I reached that conclusion through analysis,
and including some of the analysis that I've shared with you in this course.
So for me, taking a very close look at these ideas
and comparing them with what psychology and
our understanding of evolution have to say about
these matters, has been very valuable to me,
because it's actually convinced me that the practice is worthwhile.
Naturally to another thread that occurred in the discussion forum.
So Lorenzo Rubio started out by saying, with the provocative assertion,
Buddhism was an amazing guess made 2500 years ago, but the truth is evolution.
And then he went on, said some other stuff,
that provoked replies, predictably, perhaps.
So Alexander or any of several other pronunciations,
says, later in this thread, if we follow the takeaway message
from Professor Wright's course regarding Darwinian Buddhists enlightenment,
do you think it ultimately matters whether one chooses
evolutionary psychology or Buddhism as their path?
To which Cula Aggi or Sula Aggi, or in any event,
C-U-L-A-A-G-G-I, replied, does evolutionary
psychology even propose a path to freedom from all kinds of grief?
I thought it was an analytical study of mind and mental processes,
not a guide to freedom from suffering.
Alexander then, no, this is from KMin, K M-I-N,
possibly not the person's real or at least, entire name, in any event,
says, as far as I understand, Darwinian enlightenment,
coined by professor, means the removal of all kinds of biases and
distortions, the vestiges of human evolution in our perception of the world.
Okay, so I think maybe I I must have failed to make myself entirely clear.
Possibly because I wasn't clear on some things in my own mind.
In any event, what Kola Agim, or
choose your pronunciation,says is true.
When, I think it's a she, judging by a picture of a very,
very young child, presumably younger than this person.
Says, I thought it was an analytical study of mind, meaning evolutionary psychology,
not a guide to freedom from suffering.
True, evolutionary psychology is not prescriptive.
It is descriptive.
It is not a path.
And that actually leads to how I got interested in Buddhism.
When I finished my book, The Moral Animal,
I was more conscious than ever of kind of the biases and
distortions, and in particular, moral biases that
afflict us, By virtue of our having evolved.
But one thing I notice is knowing about these things did very little to help.
It was no prescription.
In some ways, it just made life more painful because
you didn't kind of become a better person or,
I mean, you could, the self-consciousness about moral biases,
I think, can lead to improvement.
But it can also just lead to, in a way, more suffering because you're more
painfully aware of the sort of deficiencies of perception and behavior.
So, one way to put it is I felt I had found the truth, but not the way.
Jesus said, I am the, he said various things.
I'm the life and the truth and the way.
Anyway, I'm the light and the truth and the way?
I'd have to look up that.
Anyway, he said he was both the truth and the way.
Okay, I"m back, and through the magic of technology,
I know now exactly what Jesus said, at least according to the Book of John.
He said I am the way and the truth and the life.
So anyway, the key things here are truth and the way.
I kind of felt that with evolutionary psychology,
I had found the truth, at least pending further scientific progress.
In other words, the most plausible theories far as I can tell, but
not the way.
And that is why meditation is interesting to me,
it promises to be the way.
It's interesting looking that quote up reminded me of that
immediately after that, Jesus says no one comes to the Father except through me.
In other words, Jesus is the only path to salvation, belief in Jesus.
The reason that's interesting to me is because this book I'm writing about this
stuff, I had thought about calling the truth in a way.
Because it gets at kind of what I see is relationship between evolution and
psychology and Buddhist meditation.
On the other hand, the way, I mean in addition to that title sounding
really annoyingly grandiose and pretentious in the eyes of some people,
no doubt, there is the problem that the way it suggests, there's only one way.
And I wouldn't suggest that.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that Buddhist meditation is the only path
that gets your roughly where I would like to go.
A lot of meditative traditions and, for that matter, therapeutic traditions,
there are a lot of ways to kind of improve your perception and your behavior.
But in any event, I hope
this helps a little to clarify what I see as the relationship
between the kind of Darwinian worldview and a Buddhist worldview.
I see to some extent a division of labor between them.
And so Darwinian Enlightenment, by that I mean suppose you just knew nothing about
Buddhism, but you saw what kind of filters and
biases have been put on our perception by evolution.
What would then your conception be of clear vision?
What would your conception be of enlightenment?
And then, to what extent does that correspond to what a Buddhist
means by enlightenment.
That's what some of this course has been about.
Okay, Linda Shepherd, who I guess gets credit for
asking this question via both Twitter and Facebook, says,
I wonder why there seems to be no mention of serenity in the concept of not-self.
Unless, I missed it along the way.
To me, that word holds great appeal and suggests a calmness we don't seem to
achieve these days without some thought and effort.
Well, I certainly think, people who've had the kind of full-on not-self experience
I've heard this, I think some of them, people who say they've had that experience
would often describe it as involving serenity, peace of mind, and so on.
What I would attest to is just that kind of everyday meditative practice
can involve that.
And I think it's important that it involve that.
There is, because, it is kind of,
it's one thing that keeps me coming back and practicing every morning.
And there's a lot of emphasis on how you should meditate with no expectations,
and not seeking anything in particular.
There's some truth to that,
because, seeking a particular experience can get in the way.
At the same time lets be realistic,
people who are meditating are generally doing it for a reason.
There is generally something they want to get out of it.
It helps to have something that sustains the practice.
And, in my experience, getting to a point of serenity,
however brief, every morning, is something that can keep you coming back.
What's interesting to me is that the moment of serenity can also be
a moment where you see yourself as seeing things clearly.
In other words, the moment where you're just viewing your breath after, for me
whatever 10, 15, 20 minutes of meditation, finally my mind has quit wandering.
And the distractions are subsiding, and
I get the sense that I'm just, that's just my breath, I'm just observing my breath.
That can be a not really peaceful pleasant moment and
also a moment apparently of clarity.
There's a sense that, or a bird song or anything else, there's a moment,
the feeling that you've kind of stripped away a lot of the accretions of history.
Our entire evolutionary history, and then my personal history,
all the history that informs the narratives we spin about our
perceptions and the likes and dislikes we bring to our perceptions.
I don't want to suggest that we can necessarily strip away all
those accretions.
There is this kind of theoretical question that Leda Cosmides
brought up in the course.
Wait a second, is there such thing as a view from nowhere?
She's an evolutionary psychologist, and she She raises that question.
It's a good question.
I'm not sure there is, but anyway, you can strip away a lot of the junk.
And it's just interesting to me that This feeling of serenity can correspond
to coincide with the feeling that you're actually seeing clearly.
And that's positive reinforcement and can keep you coming back.
And that's the moment I was kind of alluding to in the last lecture when I
said that one thing even the naturalistic version of Buddhism
can involve, is the sense of contact with the actual truth.
I mean, the sense of contact can get deeper than that, I'm sure,
deeper than just the sense that I'm seeing my breath clearly.
But it can be a very powerful feeling.
Okay, I think I've said enough about that.
Okay, now we come to a moment of great controversy.
There's a controversy in the discussion forum over whether there was something
wrong in lecture six.
Now, of course, people never admit that they've done something wrong.
So there couldn't be something wrong in lecture six,
there could be something misleading in lecture six.
But for there to be something wrong in lecture six,
would mean that I did something wrong.
And people don't do things wrong, I mean other people do
things wrong, but you and I, we don't do, right?
Okay, so that's going to be my argument.
There was something maybe misleading in lecture six, and it came when Gary Webber,
who's a really interesting person in part because the depth of his everyday.
Well, the distinctiveness of his everyday perception of the world has been
to some extent scientifically confirmed as we discussed in the thing.
In other words, his brain, when he's just not even meditating, looks like the brain
on this one particular dimension, that the brain scan captures,
looks like the brain of someone who's in deep meditation.
That's one reason, very interesting to me.
Anyway, we were talking about what I call the exterior version of not self.
In other words, not just a sense of looking inward and going,
wait a second there's nothing there that's a self.
But sense of looking outward and going,
wait a second the bounds between what I think of in myself are not so distinct.
They're actually very porous and there's actually
an interconnection between the stuff in here and the stuff out there, right?
And I wanted to drive home the kind of moral implications that it can have.
In the sense that, this apprehension of innerconnection with the world
can, as a practical matter, reduce people's incentive to do bad things to
things out there, since after all, you're interconnected with them.
Okay, so that was kind of my agenda.
Now, but in the course of that Gary said the following, you perceive it this way,
that everything is all one thing.
This is a cliche, a mystical statement, but it really is perceptible.
You can deeply sense that everything is all one thing.
This got Gary and me in trouble.
Lisa Dale Miller wrote in the discussion forum, Buddhist philosophy does
not espouse oneness, interdependent co-rising or the theory of
emptiness implies that nothing exists independently of anything else.
Not that all phenomena are one.
Oneness is a brahmanical concept.
By brahmanical, well for very rough purposes we can substitute the word Hindu,
since everyone kind of has a sense of what that means.
Let's just say that, even though there are a lot of things that Hindu can mean.
Still, oneness is a brahmanical Hindu concept associated with
the existence of a transcendent, separate self or atman.
Okay, she's right.
She's actually right.
So to say that everything is one, Would,
at least if you look at kind of mainstream Mahayana Buddhist philosophy,
to say that everything is one would not be consistent with that.
So in that sense what Gary said is misleading.
Let's see, where do I go from here.
To try to drive home the distinction,
let's just go back, let's do a [INAUDIBLE] history.
So there is this idea within the Hindu tradition that atman equals brahman.
Atman means self, right, you may recall from lecture two or three.
Brahman, well atman,
in the Hindu tradition you can think of self or soul, okay?
An individual's kind of, maybe soul is the best way to think of it.
Brahman you can think of as this kind of universal soul, maybe.
Again this is all very crude, and misleading,
I'm not wrong, no I don't think it's too misleading.
But it's rough, okay?
Brahman, universal soul, there's this idea in Hinduism, atman equals brahman.
In other words, we are all part of the universal soul.
Your soul is a manifestation of this universal soul.
Kind of a reassuring idea, and
was an idea apparently prevalent in the Buddha's day.
And the conventional thinking is that the Buddha went in kind of exactly
the opposite direction and said, not only is atman not brahman,
atman doesn't even exist, okay?
I don't even buy this idea of atman.
This idea of a distinct, coherent, persistent, self or soul.
And so that's the distinction Lisa is getting at.
To say that everything is one sounds like this Hindu idea that
there is this substantial self and it's one with everything else.
Whereas, no, I think the way she'd put it and
I think the way it is put in Mahayana philosophy.
As for Theravada, Theravada I think doesn't emphasize this philosophically.
They have a different view.
It's just that it's not so emphasized.
But anyway, the idea in Mahayana philosophy is that yes,
there is continuity between what's in here and what's out there, but
that's because in a sense there is nothing of substance in here, and
nothing of substance, out there.
That's where this concept of emptiness comes in.
There is nothing with essence out there, and
what we think of as a self doesn't have essence.
So, maybe you'd want to [LAUGH] describe
that concept by saying everything is one because there's continuity, but
it is a continuity of emptiness, not a continuity of fullness, okay?
That's the distinction, again,
roughly speaking, we're getting at.
Now, here's what I'd say.
So actually, later, Gary says something that's closer to that.
Later in what was in the lecture.
I say to him, I say so it's like you identify with everything, and
he basically says no, he in a way backs off of the interpretation.
That the people are objecting to as not being Buddhist in a way.
When I say so you identify with everything,
he says I don't identify with anything.
I mean there's nobody here to identify with me or anyone else.
In other words it's empty in here.
He says quote, it's just an empty, still presence here, which is there.
So there he's kind of saying there's emptiness here and emptiness there, and
that's where the continuity is.
I think that phrasing would be closer to what's meant.
But, or at least what Lisa would like to hear.
Probably not exactly what she'd like to hear.
But anyway it's closer, but what I want to mainly say is,
I didn't bring him on to articulate Buddhist doctrine,
I brought him on to describe the experience of,
of this dissolution of the bounds of that self.
The meditative experience which I think is so consequential and
to talk a little about how it changes the way he looks at things.
So that was all I was up too.
He was meant to be a witness to experience and not to doctrine.
And in fact there are lots of Buddhists in good standing who when
they have this experience if you ask them to describe it,
that's the other thing, I should've mentioned as, who else?
My notes are kind of messed up here but Holly June Graves notes that Gary actually
is in some ways a fan of what we can call Hindu philosophy and that's true and
I should have noted that he's eclectic, he's not exclusively Buddhist.
On the other hand, he studied for years and
years and years in the Zen tradition of Buddhism.
And I think he believes his current perspective is to a large extent,
a natural outgrowth of that and largely consonant with him, but I'll,
consonant with that, but I'll let him speak for himself.
Anyway, where was I?
I think this is where I was.
A lot of Buddhists
who are serious Buddhists and are pretty steeped in the prevailing philosophy,
who when they describe the initial experience of the dissolution of
the bounds of the self, they are just not too picky about how they describe it.
They say like, I'm identifying.
Anyway, let me just say this.
My main point was to describe how it feels,
how it can feel when the bounds dissolve.
Now, once you've, once the bounds are dissolved,
the, you know, how exactly you describe that is kind of a pivot
as to whether you describe it in the Hindu way or the Buddhist way.
And that is a genuine distinction.
But I was trying to get at the experience.
So Avik Mitra,
Gets at what I was getting at when he says as part of this discussion,
are we talking only about subtle semantics or direct experience.
Experientially, if one finds oneness and another finds interdependent co-arising,
which is quoting something I think Lisa said,
then can one claim that one has a monopoly over enlightenment, nirvana?
So he's getting a distinction between kind of experience and
doctrine, but In defensively Lisa she's not
I think saying she has a monopoly over the truth she's not being dogmatic here.
She's not saying that her interpretation is right and
the one she attributed to Gary was wrong.
She's just saying they're different and
as a matter of philosophical clarity, we should recognize that, which is true.
But again it is very hard to describe the experience,
you know I was talking about without lapsing into talk that seems
to attribute substance or essence to you know whatever.
Anyway sorry, I've got a, do I sound defensive here,
is that why I've gone on for like three hours on this?
All of this gave me an interesting idea.
And I think this is going to annoy the people who are annoyed by Gary,
even more than Gary annoyed them.
So let me try this out.
What I thought for the first time was
Okay, you got the Hindu idea of Atman equals Brahman,
the soul is a manifestation of the world's soul, universal soul.
Then you've got this Buddhist and especially Mahayana Buddhist idea
that know that continuity is better described of a continuity of emptiness.
And I realize for
the first time that maybe the meditative experiences
that Hindus have, that seem to affirm their description of things.
And that Buddhists have that seem to affirm their description of things,
maybe those meditative experiences are essentially the same.
Maybe the same thing is happening in their heads.
Even bio chemically and
maybe it's fundamentally the same apprehension in some sense.
Now it may be different in terms of conceptual overlay.
It may be that the tradition they've come up in affects the interpretation but
maybe the experience is fundamentally the same.
And I guess I might suggest that the real question
is does it lead to the same kind of behavior?
If it makes both of them more considerate of their fellow beings, that's great.
And I don't think the people who complained about
what Gary said would necessarily dispute that.
Again they are not being dogmatic as far as I can tell, they are just asking for
intellectual clarity.
But you know could be that, it's the same experience,
same moral implications and you know.
Who am I to say which one is the truth?
I don't, again this is why I'd say I would never say any one way is the way.
There are a lot of ways and for clarity of vision to be reached.
And for my money, one of the main gauges of clarity and
vision is does it lead you to treat
other beings the way they kind of just, in some instances, deserve to be treated.
Does it make you a better person or not?
And by the way,
you could say the same things for mystical experiences in the Abrahamic tradition,
where people would describe it as union with the divine.
Christians, Muslims, Jews might have
these kinds of meditative experiences describe it as union with the divine.
And maybe it's fundamentally the same thing.
And again, if that leads to good moral behavior,
then I would say, more power to you.
Milo, on the other hand, [SOUND] sounds like he's getting ready for a walk.
And I certainly have gone on long enough.
So I'll give you your weekly shot of Milo up close.
Milo, could you just pose so I can let them
see what the enlightened Milo looks like.
Okay, you'll note the difference, right.
You see the difference now that he's following the dharma?
Look at that.
Look at the wisdom.
Look at that, see?
And he's so non-judgmental.
See, he's just looking with curiosity and interest.
He's not judging me.
He's just saying Bob, if we don't go for
a walk pretty soon Things are going to get ugly in this household.
But that's not the same as being judgemental.
Okay, so enough, enough
Now you understand why there was something misleading arguably,
but not wrong in, okay so there will be other offices.
And 1 thing I want to get back into, a couple of things.
This question of Buddhist activism, which continues to be raised.
In other words, does the Dharma kind of sap your activist energy or.
And the related question of like, I've been throwing around moral truth,
good, bad, and I did it in a lecture.
And there is this question of wait a second,
can you talk about moral truth from a Buddhist's perspective?
Don't you transcend the whole conception of good and bad?
And these are good important questions.
I want to get back to those too.
This is one reason we are going to do another office hours.
But also because there will be ongoing discussion in the forum, Facebook,
Twitter, even though the course per say is over.
So we'll have at least one more office hours and
we will check in on the dog's spiritual progress.
And I will let you know when exactly, I mean probably a week from, yeah,
probably on Monday as usual and office hours will show up.
In any event, I will let you know through all known media.
Thank you so much for continuing to talk.
Please keep it up so that I'll have an excuse to do this next week.
See you.
