- Buddhism alone not merely encompasses this late-revealed truism, it makes it the basis of a new moral order that sees the annihilation of the self as the inelutable first step in our mastery of the existential predicament that doggedly besets us in this sorry world. A few concluding words — there remains a metaphysical (and theological) hiatus in dealing with ‘being’ without a reference to that other great existential puzzle — the transformative aspect of life that is generally subsumed under the title ‘becoming’.___________________________
by R. Chandrasoma
(April 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The chief metaphysical concepts in Buddhism are those relating to the issues of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ in the perceived world. The word ‘being’ has ontological implications - it refers to the ultimate stuff or ‘things’ out of which our world is constituted. From a religious point of view, sentient beings or persons form a class apart and are ontologically pre-eminent. Not surprisingly, Buddhists regard the study of the interactive dynamics of persons as the explanatory key in our quest to bring meaningful order to the bewildering complexity that assails our senses and challenges the instruments of cognition that depend on them. It must be made clear from the outset that the Buddhists have no general ontology - that is, an explanation of how the Universe is strung together. If we ignore the obvious archaisms, there are no descriptive propositions on the nature of the fundamental building-blocks of the world we inhabit.
It is true that in Folk-Buddhism we have colourful descriptions of Heavens of varying degrees of corporeal refinement and nether-worlds (hot and cold) tailored to suit the quantum of retributive punishment that must be meted to the evil-doer. These fancy stories lie quite outside the corpus of rigorously defined mainstream Buddhism. So far as the latter is concerned, the doctrine is studiously silent — Buddhists have no explanation as to why the visible Universe is fifteen billion years old and is in steady cosmic expansion. Nor have they a clue as to the significance of Black-Holes, Neutron Stars, Colliding Galaxies and Alien Life-Forms. They have, of course, nothing comparable to that great ‘Mystifact’ of the theists - who see a Loving Father as the Creator of all this mind-boggling cosmic fandangle. A most unlikely back-drop to the puny adventures of homo sapiens (his errant beloved) on this rocky little planet in the boondocks of the Universe!
Non-Buddhists will rightly ask, ‘what is your central concern if the nature of the world falls outside the arena of useful discourse?’ This question has been famously answered — it is the finitude and misery of man and the resolution of the existential puzzle of his helplessness and hopelessness in the blinding flux of events in which he finds himself fatefully enmeshed. It is this dire predicament that has the greatest significance and the highest reflective priority.
The nature of the world must be re-interpreted to reflect the urgency of the task of escape from a seeming inexorable bondage — the cycle of bird and death ridden with the anguish of a baffling momentariness. It is in this context that the metaphysics of ‘being’ — the nature of ‘persons’ - becomes pivotal in the resolution of the religious issue - the issue of ‘right conduct’ when faced with the kind of existential conundrum briefly described above. Can ‘release’ be obtained by appealing to the Gods? Buddhists reject this easy path because (among other compelling reasons) there is a fatal weakness in calling upon the Great Author to undo that which he instituted in the first place.
The explanation proffered - that insight which made our Compassionate Teacher the Enlightened One — is based on a ‘deconstruction’ of the person that is caught up in the samsaric struggle. The doctrine of the Five Aggregates makes the reflective ‘I’ — the Cartesian Ego - a structuralist figment, a pervasive illusion arising from the process-dynamics of that which is conventionally identified as being or ‘self’. Briefly, that which is misidentified as the soul, self or ‘core-being’ is a fleeting awareness based on the momentary interaction of the functional modules of the mind-body complex. What are these modules or functional unities that cause the great deception? They are classically identified (in Scholastic Buddhism) as corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. There is no doubt that this schema needs reformulation in the light of what we know today of neurophysiology and cognitive science. For instance, the ‘mental formations’ of the classicist surely stands for the ‘innate drives’ studied by ethologists and zoologists. The word ‘consciousness.’ (vinnana.) used freely in the Abhidharma is a portmanteau word meaning hereditary recollection as well as awareness. The kind reader must disabuse himself of the notion that what is attempted here is a re-definition based on modern science — that would be egregiously wrong. It needs emphasizing, nevertheless, that it is the profound insight that matters — not textual fidelity or the parrot-like repetition of a set formula.
And, what is this profound insight? Let us answer this by pointing out a remarkable convergence of views based on contemporary work in neurophysiology. The ruling physicalist paradigm on the functioning of the brain speaks of a ‘parallel distributed array of functional modules’.
The physical basis of the mind — the corporeal self — is a collection of dynamic units massively parallel in operation yet cross-linked and capable of a momentary holistic performance. Awareness — or self consciousness — is a dynamic property of this functional ensemble and arises through sensual focussing. It would take us too far into the technicalities of neurophysiology to deepen our understanding of this vastly-complex neuronal system, but the message is clear — what is called the ‘self or ‘ego’ has no enduring epistemic basis. Indeed, about 99% of the work of the brain is unconscious or robotic. The interludes of awareness have a ‘personalised’ aspect that is mistaken for a permanent (and commanding) entity called the self. This extraordinary reduction of neurophysiological doctrine to tally with fundamental Buddhist thinking on these matters (The Doctrine of Anatta) has not escaped the notice of leading figures in the world of neurophysiology and cognitive science. Indeed, a world-renowned expert in these fields — Professor Francisco Varela — has declared himself a Buddhist and has made it his mission to effect a grand synthesis between the sophisticated formulations of neuroscience and the ancient truths of Buddhist psychology. One must hasten to add that such revelatory parallels cannot be a substitute for the moral and eschatological aspects of Buddhism.
The latter constitute a great edifice of intuition and understanding that sets the course for righteous conduct and, as the crowning spiritual achievement, the bliss of Nirvanic release. These are matters that transcend scientific understanding. It is undeniable, however, that the false reification of that which we identify spuriously as ‘self’ — now acquiring the weighty imprimatur of modern science — has devastating implications for all brands of Theism.
Buddhism alone not merely encompasses this late-revealed truism, it makes it the basis of a new moral order that sees the annihilation of the self as the inelutable first step in our mastery of the existential predicament that doggedly besets us in this sorry world. A few concluding words — there remains a metaphysical (and theological) hiatus in dealing with ‘being’ without a reference to that other great existential puzzle — the transformative aspect of life that is generally subsumed under the title ‘becoming’.
On this issue the Buddhists have a doctrinal position of great subtlety called ‘Dependent origination’ (Paticca Sammupada). Here, too, there is an urgent need to realign the classical thinking with developments in Quantum Physics without in any sense mocking or degrading the pristine formulation.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment