James Hughes interviewed by Tricycle about transhumanism, Cyborg Buddha project

Buddhist magazine Tricycle recently interviewed the IEET's James Hughes about his unique take on transhumanism and Buddhism -- and how the two seemingly disparate philosophies should be intertwined.

Excerpt:

As a former Buddhist monk, Professor James Hughes is concerned with realization. And as a Transhumanist—someone who believes that we will eventually merge with technology and transcend our human limitations—he endorses radical technological enhancements to humanity to help achieve it. He describes himself as an “agnostic Buddhist” trying to unite the European Enlightenment with Buddhist enlightenment.

Sidestepping the word “happiness,” Hughes’ prefers to speak of “human flourishing,” avoiding the hedonism that “happiness” can imply.

“I’m a cautious forecaster,” says Hughes, a bioethicist and sociologist, “but I think the next couple of decades will probably be determined by our growing ability to control matter at the molecular level, by genetic engineering, and by advances in chemistry and tissue-engineering. Life expectancy will increase in almost all countries as we slow down the aging process and eliminate many diseases.” Not squeamish about the prospect of enhancing—or, plainly put, overhauling— the human being, Hughes thinks our lives may be changed most by neurotechnologies—stimulant drugs, “smart” drugs, and psychoactive substances that suppress mental illness.

More.

Richard Eskow, who did the interview, followed it up with a rebuttal of sorts: Cerebral Imperialism. In the article he writes,

Why “artificial intelligence,” after all, and not an “artificial identity” or “personality”? The name itself reveals a bias. Aren’t we confused computation with cognition and cognition with identity? Neuroscience suggests that metabolic processes drive our actions and our thoughts to a far greater degree than we’ve realized until now. Is there really a little being in our brains, or contiguous with our brains, driving the body?

To a large extent, isn’t it the other way around? Don’t our minds often build a framework around actions we’ve decided to take for other, more physical reasons? When I drink too much coffee I become more aggressive. I drive more aggressively, but am always thinking thoughts as I weave through traffic: “I’m late.” “He’s slow.” “She’s in the left lane.” “This is a more efficient way to drive.”

Why do we assume that there is an intelligence independent of the body that produces it? I’m well aware of the scientists who are challenging that assumption, so this is not a criticism of the entire artificial intelligence field. There’s a whole discipline called “friendly AI” which recognizes the threat posed by the Skynet/Terminator “computers come alive and eliminate humanity” scenario. A number of these researchers are looking for ways to make artificial “minds” more like artificial “personalities.”

Hopefully more to come on this intriguing debate.

An Introduction

Casey Rae-Hunter is guest blogging this month.

Greetings, all.

It's my pleasure to be contributing to Sentient Developments through the month of October. Being asked to come aboard was not quite as much of a shock as, say, US President Barack Obama getting a wake-up call about winning the Nobel, but as an avid reader of SD, I'm nevertheless honored to chip in at one of the finest future-forward sites on the planet (and maybe beyond).

Now that the flattery's out of the way, allow me to introduce myself and some topics I'll be covering during my tenure.

I'm a 35-year old political communications professional from Washington, DC. The core of my work is in media policy, which puts me at the spear's tip of fascinating debates concerning Internet and broadcast issues, copyright, technology and law. I probably won't be blogging about many of those topics, but I figured a little context is appropriate in this getting-to-know you phase.

Here's an important caveat: while I have an abiding interest in science and technology, I have but a layman's background in each. So as I'm waxing philosophic about H+ or possible futures in cognitive development, remember that I do so as a observer, not an expert. One of the reasons that I gladly accepted George's invite to contribute is because I knew it would be an incredible learning experience. I encourage readers to correct me where I'm wrong and not to be shy about expanding my horizons on any given topic.

Speaking of "given topics," one that I plan to examine in some detail is that of neurodiversity. In August 2009, I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, confirming what my wife and I had long suspected. Part of my coming to terms with this new information was to begin publishing an adult-AS blog, Autistic in the District, which functions as an adjunct to my main site, The Contrarian Media — a daily publication featuring 11 active contributors who write on everything from paranormal investigation to politics. To be sure, I could have tossed in the occasional rumination on living with "high functioning autism," and no one would've been outraged. Yet I wanted to personalize my experiences in the form of a true web journal, which The Contrarian most assuredly is not. My wife also wanted to offer "aspie"-oriented book reviews and talk about the positive aspects of being a "neurotypical" spouse married to someone with AS. Because a lot of what's online is pretty negative in that regard.

I'm not gong to go into the litany of reasons I decided to "disclose to the world," but the predominant motive was to serve as a positive example for other adult aspies. It's important to remember that the condition is relatively new in terms of clinical understanding and observation, having only been part of standard Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) diagnoses since 1992. That means that most of the current strategies vis-a-vis Asperger's focus on children and young adults. There's nothing wrong with this, but having grown up in an era when there was no "autistic spectrum" — just tragically non-communicative individuals whose condition was thought to be brought on by "refrigerator mothers" — I know there are a great many other adults with AS who might feel sympatico with my own aspie experiences. I'm also interested in contributing to the robust public debate about whether Asperger's and other PDDs are actually gifts, rather than afflictions.

So what does any of this have to do with cognitive destiny and/or design? That's what I hope to ponder during my October hitch. Of course, I may also do the occasional theoretical tap-dance around the Fermi Paradox and the intersection of Buddhism and neuroscience. Because this is Sentient Developments, after all!

But I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks again to my gracious digital host — I'll talk to you soon. . .

Casey Rae-Hunter is a writer, editor, musician, producer and self-proclaimed "lover of fine food and drink." He is the Communications Director of the Future of Music Coalition — a Washington, DC think tank that identifies, examines, interprets and translates issues at the intersection of music, law, technology and policy. He is also the founder and CEO of the Contrarian Media Group, which publishes The Contrarian and Autistic in the District — the latter a blog about Asperger's Syndrome.

Where science and Buddhism meet [video]

Where Science and Buddhism Meet from Gerald Penilla on Vimeo.

A question for my readers: Is this an accurate assessment of quantum physics and the ways in which Buddhism intersects with science?

A World Without Suffering?

David Pearce is guest blogging this week.

In November 2005, at the Society for Neuroscience Congress, the Dalai Lama observed: "If it was possible to become free of negative emotions by a riskless implementation of an electrode - without impairing intelligence and the critical mind - I would be the first patient."

Note that the Dalai Lama wasn't announcing his intention to queue-jump. Nor was he proposing that high-functioning bliss should be the privilege of one special group or species. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, but in common with classical utilitarianism, Buddhism is committed to the welfare of all sentient beings. Instead, the Dalai Lama was stressing that we should embrace the control of our reward circuitry that modern science is shortly going to deliver - and not disdain it as somehow un-spiritual.

Smart neurostimulation, long-acting mood-enhancers, genetically re-engineering our hedonic "set-point" (etc) aren't therapeutic strategies associated with Buddhist tradition. Yet if we are morally serious about securing the well-being of all sentient life, then we have to exploit advanced technology to the fullest possible extent. Nothing else will work (short of some exotic metaphysics that is hard to reconcile with the scientific world-picture). Non-biological strategies to enrich psychological well-being have been tried on a personal level over thousands of years - and proved inadequate at best.

This is because they don't subvert the brutally efficient negative feedback mechanisms of the hedonic treadmill - a legacy of millions of years of natural selection. Nor is the well-being of all sentient life feasible in a Darwinian ecosystem where the welfare of some creatures depends on eating or exploiting others. The lion can lie down with the lamb; but only after both have been genetically tweaked. Any solution to the problem of suffering ultimately has to be global.

In the meantime, I think the greatest personal contribution to reducing suffering that an individual can make is both to:

1. Abstain from eating meat
2. Make it clear to his or her entire circle of acquaintance that meat-eating is abhorrent and morally unacceptable

Such plain speaking calls for moral courage that alas sometimes deserts me.

I know many readers of Sentient Developments are Buddhists. Not all of them will agree with the above analysis. Some readers may suspect that I'm just trying to cloak my techno-utopianism in the mantle of venerable Buddhist wisdom. (Heaven forbid!)

In fact the abolitionist project is just a blueprint for implementing the aspiration of Gautama Buddha two and a half millennia ago: "May all that have life be delivered from suffering". I hope other researchers will devise (much) better blueprints; and the project will one day be institutionalized, internationalized, properly funded, transformed into a field of rigorous academic scholarship, and eventually government-led.

I've glossed over a lot of potential pitfalls and technical challenges. Here I'll just say I think they are a price worth paying for a cruelty-free world.

Many thanks to George for inviting me to guest-blog this week. And many thanks to Sentient Developments readers for their critical feedback. It's much appreciated.

David Pearce
dave@hedweb.com
http://www.hedweb.com/

Image: Alex Grey

Jeffrey Kripal on Aldous Huxley and the 'neural Buddhists'

Writing in the Chronicle Review, Jeffrey Kripal argues that a kind of Huxley renaissance is under way. "It is worth returning to Huxley," writes Kripal, "not as he has been for us in the past — the author of the prophetic, dystopian Brave New World — but as he might be for us in the future."

Kripal sees a connection between Huxley's work and that of the burgeoning neural Buddhist movement. He writes:

But Huxley was suspicious of gurus and gods of any sort, and he finally aligned himself with a deep stream of unorthodox doctrine and practice that he found running through all the Asian religions, which, he proclaimed in Island (his last novel, published in 1962), was a "new conscious Wisdom ... prophetically glimpsed in Zen and Taoism and Tantra." That worldview — which Huxley also linked to ancient fertility cults, the study of sexuality in the modern West, and Darwinian biology — emerges from the refusal of all traditional dualisms; that is, it rejects any religious or moral system that separates the world and the divine, matter and mind, sex and spirit, purity and pollution (and that's rejecting a lot). Put more positively, Huxley's new Wisdom focuses on the embodied particularities of moment-to-moment experience, including sexual experience, as the place of "luminous bliss."

Science, particularly what would become neuroscience, was a key part of that mature vision. Very late in life, Huxley would drift further and further into an oddly prescient fusion of Tantric Buddhism and neurophysiology, a worldview captured in the "neurotheologian" of Island, identified there as someone "who thinks about people in terms, simultaneously, of the Clear Light of the Void and the vegetative nervous system." This Buddhist neurotheologian was in fact a fictional embodiment of Huxley's own philosophy, which we might frame as "the filter thesis." Following the philosophers Henri-Louis Bergson and C.D. Broad, Huxley consistently argued that consciousness was filtered and translated by the brain through incredibly complex neurophysiological, linguistic, psychological, and cultural processes, but not finally produced by it. We are not who we think we are. Or better, who we think we are is only a temporary mask (persona) that a greater Consciousness wears for a time and a season in order to "speak through" (per-sona). That old English bard had it just right, then: The world really is a stage.

Read the entire article.

Convergence08: Hughes and LaTorra on Digital Serfs and Cyborg Buddha

Connections being drawn:

Speculations about work, leisure, income and automation (very topical given Marshal Brain's recent talk at Singularity Summit). Future issues include ongoing technological and cultural globalization, along with the impact of robotics and expert systems and the potential for structural unemployment.

We have to plan for radical economic dislocation and take this scenario seriously. We need to have a renegotiation about leisure and work.

Couple of ways to deal with this:

1. We could go on permanent vacation -- but many of us have defined our lives according to our labor. Hughes says this is a recent phenomenon.
2. Redistribution of unemployment -- e.g. change career paths, distribute work, etc.

Another proposal is a basic income guarantee, ensuring that every citizen has a certain kind of income. A proto version of this has been established in Brazil. Establishing a social safety net.

The cyborg Buddha part of this: to ensure that the life of leisure will lead people to a life of social and psychological flourishing, rather than the opposite. We will have a great wealth of time (an unprecedented opportunity), the question is what to do with it. Society should encourage people to use this time to work on individual growth.

Future technologies will allow people to descend into a dystopian horror. The challenge will be to convince people not to choose this path. The pending range of bliss states is not enlightenment. What we're living in now is a kind of virtual reality, it's not the truth -- and we need to see things the way they really are. Bliss states are a part of this virtual reality.

LaTorra argued that modern demands for material goods have prevented many from pursuing a more spiritual path. If economic pressure were off, people would be given the opportunity to spend more time and be less fearful of following the Buddhist path.

The Cyborg Buddha project is about laying the groundwork and helping people along the right path. Of importance is to help people deal with new technologies.

Blissing out: no growth, no stasis, no inner personal or spiritual life. It's a trap.

Today we have the opportunity to create a society in which people can pursue a more rigorous spiritual life, including more time to meditate.

Future society will allow more people to use this leisure time and not be dependent on others.

Neurotechnologies will also dissipate our sense of an autonomous, single self -- a notion that jives very well with Buddhist beliefs.

Is it unBuddhist to want to live forever, a form of attachment? Hughes says it's okay to have the opinion that you want to keep on living.

The Contrarian on Buddhism and transhumanism

"Transhumanists are sometimes ridiculed as narcissistic and deeply unsatisfied geeks, but the best of their lot are obsessed with improving the conditions for all life. They call it "uplifting," but is it really so different from the bodhissattvic mission of liberation for all sentient beings?" -- Casey Rae-Hunter

Thich Nhat Hanh on presenting Buddhism to the West and vice versa

When asked, "What do you think are the best ways to present Buddhism to the Western Students?," Thich Nhat Hanh replied:

"I think Buddhism should open the door of psychology and healing to penetrate more easily into the Western world. As far as religion is concerned, the West already has plenty of belief in a supernatural being. It's not by the law of faith that you should enter the spiritual territory of the West, because the West has plenty of this."

This is a particularly revealing quote about Buddhism, not just because it addresses the West's general sense about Buddhism being 'just another religion,' but in the unique way Buddhism is perceived by its practitioners and how it works as a methodology to a) assist in the study of human psychology and b) help relieve and remedy common psychological and emotional problems.

When asked how Western thought can contribute to Buddhism, Nhat Hanh answered, "democracy and science." He writes,

"Personally, learning about science has helped me to understand Buddhism more deeply. I agree with Einstein that if there is a religion that can go along with science, it is Buddhism. That is because Buddhism has the spirit of nonattachment to rules. You may have a view that you consider to be the truth, but if you cling to it, then that is the end of your free inquiring. You have to be aware that with the practice of looking deeply, you may see things more clearly. That is why you should not be so dogmatic about what you have found; you have to be ready to release your view in order to get a higher insight. That is very exciting."

Source: The Best Buddhist Writing 2007, ed. Melvin McLeod.

Buddhist Geeks

Vince Horn and Ryan Oelke, collectively known as Buddhist Geeks, offer regular podcasts that are "seriously Buddhist and seriously geeky."

Be sure to check out their podcasts with transhumanist James Hughes: Parts I, II & III.

Instant bad karma

I was at Pinery Provincial Park last week where I spent most of my time on the beach. The Pinery is on the south shore of Lake Huron and is one of Southern Ontario's best kept secrets.

Like any large body of water, Lake Huron can be unpredictable. Even water that's as still as glass can pose dangers. The wind often blows into the lake causing a deceptively dangerous situation.

It was on such a day last week that the wind taught me a lesson about indifference and how quickly selfishness and apathy can catch up to you. Nothing too dramatic, mind you, just a nice Buddhist moment that reminded me how karma can bite you in the ass in unpredictable ways.

Over the course of the day I watched a number of inflatable items blow into the lake--much to the dismay of their owners who couldn't swim fast enough to retrieve their drifting items. One by one their floating beach gear would disappear over the horizon; it was like watching helium balloons rise up into the sky until they ventured beyond sight.

At one point I noticed an air mattress very close to me blow into the water. There was a man in his early 20's next to me who had just finished his swim and was putting on his socks and shoes. I assumed it was his mattress. He didn't notice that it was floating away.

And for some strange reason I stood there on the beach paralyzed in indecision. I was unable to act. All I had to do was shout out to him that his mattress was floating away, but I couldn't muster a voice. Or I could have swam for it myself, but I just stood there transfixed by the sight of the mattress getting farther and farther away.

As I stood there twiddling my thumbs it got so far away that I figured it was hopeless so I decided to ignore the situation outright.

But I was shocked at my indifference and my inability to help when I could have easily done so. I wondered what the hell was wrong with me.

And then a realization hit me: that wasn't his mattress, it was my mattress! It had flipped over and I didn't recognize the color.

In that instant I had suddenly become the other.

And I was struck with the feeling that this served me right--that the cosmos had conspired to teach me a lesson about apathy, inaction and the failure to project beyond one's self. My own indifference about helping another person had actually cost me my own air mattress.

Well, almost. I dove into the water and swam like hell to get it, laughing all the way at the absurdity of the situation.

Sometimes lessons are not so subtle.

Currently reading: The Best Buddhist Writing 2007

I'm currently reading The Best Buddhist Writing 2007, a compilation that was put together by Melvin McLeod and the editors of the Shambhala Sun. I cannot recommend this book highly enough -- very engaging and hard to put down.

Synopsis:

Containing writings that are variously wise, witty, heartfelt, and profound, this is the fourth volume in an annual series that brings together the year’s most notable literature inspired by Buddhist philosophy and practice. Selected by the editors of the Shambhala Sun, North America’s leading Buddhist-inspired magazine, the pieces in this anthology offer an entertaining mix of writing styles and reflect on a wide range of issues from a Buddhist point of view. The collection includes writings by the Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard, Dzongsar Khyentse, Diana Mukpo, Thich Nhat Hanh, Charles Johnson, Susan Piver, bell hooks, John Tarrant, Natalie Goldberg, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Thinley Norbu, Karen Maezen Miller, Pema Chödrön, and Norman Fischer, among others.

Here's the editorial review from Publishers Weekly:

The fourth annual collection of best Buddhist writings, as in previous years, reflects breadth and diversity among English-speaking Western Buddhists. This collection is notable for the number of reflections on love—true love, mother love, a culture based on love—that offer refreshing change from more cerebral teachings on no-self. Even as he ages, venerable Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh continues to pour forth teaching in his distinctive lyrical way, embodying what is meant by bodhisattva, a Buddhist saint. Dying mothers, cancer, crazy siblings, violent men in a prison yard—such concrete situations all provide food for Buddhist reflection and response. Not every piece is equally accessible, which is not a problem but a caution for some readers. Two essays of Tibetan textual commentary require patience and advanced knowledge. Anthologies are not always well served by including A-list writers; Alice Walker's essay is beautiful in parts but contains undisciplined rambling in other sections. It's interesting to hear less well-known voices, alongside those of the Dalai Lama or the American nun Pema Chödrön, who also contribute pieces. This series does a great service by highlighting views and themes as they modulate with each passing year.

Latest podcast posted: 2008.04.01

The latest episode of the Sentient Developments Podcast is now available. Alternative audio formats are also available.

This episode:

Considering the Hadron Particle Accelerator and asking the question: When is an existential risk TOO risky?

What the Fermi Paradox tells us about humanity's future: Making claims about what advanced civilizations DO NOT do.

Christopher Hitchens gets it wrong about Buddhism.

The art of Anya Langmead

More about Anya Langmead.

Sentient Developments wins 3 Blogisattva awards

The 2008 Blogisattva Award winners have been announced - the awards for best Buddhist blogging - and Sentient Developments won three awards:

Best Achievement Blogging on Matters Scientific.

Best Science Blog Post “Perils of a Digital Life.”

Best Engage-the-World Blog Post “Meat eaters are bad people.”

Buddhism vs Transhumanism? (more)

From the "Buddhism vs Transhumanism?" comments section Casey writes:

Can you amplify your statement about Buddhism being concerned with "the optimization of subjective experience?"

It seems to me that subjectivity, or the idea that there is a discrete "you" to futz with, is the first thing to be transcended through unconditioned acceptance.

Take away the film, the projector and what do yo have? The bulb, which is analogous to the necessarily mysterious, unconditioned mind.

Buddhism is fundamentally against "add-ons" to the individual sphere, as mind is already junked up with the projections of ego as is. The practice, as I understand it, is more about stripping away.

That said, I'm curious about scientific improvements to the biological species, as well as the possible transference of consciousness to a non-bio realm. But for now, I'll continue plodding down the Path.

Indeed, while Buddhists would deny the existence of the self, there is no denying the fact that we observe (what appears to be) reality and are deeply entrenched in the condition that is life. Escape into monastic existence is not in the cards for most of us, and Buddhism is sympathetic to this.

Having a transhumanistically optimized mind is one thing (ie augmented intelligence and memory), having an optimized consciousness is quite another. How we interpret the world and how we internalize moment-to-moment processes (particularly as they are driven by our emotions) is where I think Buddhist discourse is particularly helpful and can work to inform the transhumanist mission.

Working to develop the ideal conditioned mind is the central goal of intrapersonal Buddhist practice, and to this point in history meditation has been the key method in achieving this. Might there be other ways? Imagine a future mod that could immediately rewire a mind to be as disciplined and aware as those of practicing monks.

Sign me up.

Today, a number of Buddhists use the latest in neuroscience to study the make-up of conditioned minds in order to gain an understanding of the neurochemical and cognitive processes behind such functions as happiness and mental acuity. This will not just help to improve meditative and mindfulness practices, but also in the development of the so-called contemplative sciences and advanced neurotechnological interventions.

As for improvements, I do not believe there is anything within Buddhist discourse that forbids human enhancement. Intention is what matters. If we enhance to keep up with social pressures, then that is a problem. If, on the other hand, we work to alleviate human suffering and foster meaningful lives, then I believe modification is in tune with Buddhist values.

The space of all conscious life is likely to be hugely vast, and Buddhists naturally understand the importance of respecting different kinds of sentient life.

On this topic, check out: Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge by B. Alan Wallace and The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by Dalai Lama.

Buddhism vs Transhumanism?

Here's my response to The Contrarian's article, "Buddhism vs Transhumanism."

Hey Casey, great post.

Regarding your statement, "Buddhism seeks to improve conditions not through transcendence, but rather acceptance," one must acknowledge the need to accept things when they are beyond our control.

Consequently, as compassionate Buddhists who are concerned about not just the suffering of all sentient life, but the optimization of subjective experience as well, we are motivated to work to find solutions that put as much control into our hands as possible. Buddhism does not imply passivity.

Also, transhumanism, as a form of applied science and technology, is an epistemological tool whose proponents seek to find the true nature (and alternate modes) of being and existence. That's also the goal of Buddhism -- the seeking of the true nature of reality.

And finally, one of my favourite Dalai Lama quotes (which I'm sure you've already read): "My Tibetan goals are the same as those of Western science: to serve humanity and to make better human beings."

Cheers!
George

Hitchens gets it wrong about Buddhism

"Don't believe me, don't believe anybody, don't accept anything based on tradition. Don't believe anything based on the fact that your community believes this or your country believes this or the people that you are around believe this." - Buddha

I’ve never really paid much attention to Christopher Hitchens, renowned and reviled critic of all things religious. But when my brother recently brought his anti-Buddhist sentiments to my attention I had to take a closer look.

As it turns out, he does indeed have some very uncomplimentary things to say about Buddhism.

Hitchens essentially believes that the West has been duped by what he regards as just another religion filled with all the usual trappings. He regards Buddhism as a “faith” that “despises the mind and the free individual." He says it preaches submission and resignation, and that practitioners come to regard life as a “poor and transient thing.”

In his book, God is not Great, Hitchens writes,

"Those who become bored by conventional "Bible" religions, and seek "enlightenment" by way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana in any form, had better take a warning. They may think they are leaving the realm of despised materialism, but they are still being asked to put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals."

Wow. Pretty harsh stuff. Hitchens doesn’t mince words and slams into Buddhism like he would any other religion.

That's all fine and well, except that Buddhism isn’t just any other religion.

What Buddhism is

Yes, Buddhism has the characteristics of religion, but it offers much more than that.

It’s an epistemological philosophy and an intrapersonal approach to perception, self-awareness and self-regulation. It’s an aesthetic. It’s a non-anthropocentric ethical viewpoint that places an emphasis on meaningful, compassionate and genuine relationships. It's a type of Humanism. It encourages meditation and a mindful approach to living. It’s a worldview and methodology that promotes skepticism, rationality, empiricism and even non-conformity. It is the practical acknowledgment of the unavoidable perceptual subjectivity that is part of the human condition. It is the recognition that the mind matters and that conscious awareness can and should be optimized.

Buddhists believe that by paying close attention to moment-to-moment conscious experience it is possible to move beyond the sense of “self” in favour of a new state of personal well-being. And if this can be incorporated within the framework of formal scientific investigation, then all the better.

And all this without the usual baggage and expectations of most religions, namely belief in God, the soul, judgment and the afterlife. It does not promote any fixed dogma, nor does the practice result in feelings of guilt or shame. There are no 'sins' to be committed in Buddhism, nor are there highly polarized notions of right and wrong; practitioners simply do the best they can to mete out as little suffering to the world as possible.

But like all Big Ideas, Buddhism can be prone to abuse and misunderstanding -- and as Hitchens has correctly noted, even tribalistic tendencies.

Institutionalized Buddhism

Indeed, a big part of Hitchens’s grief with Buddhism is its questionable history and how it has become highly ritualized and filled with other-worldly beliefs. As he has said, “Buddhism can be as hysterical and sanguinary as any other system that relies on faith and tribe.” Hitchens has railed against the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Buddhists. He condemns the Burmese dictatorship as a Buddhist one (which seems a suspicious claim to make these days seeing as thousands of monks have recently stood up against this regime). Hitchens dips deep into history and blames Buddhism for a number of misguided practices and atrocities.

While I agree that Buddhism has been used in this way and that blood has been shed in its name, I can’t agree that Buddhism is the cause of these things. What Hitchens is describing is the failure of human nature, the perils of insular groupthink, and politics itself. It is the same phenomenon that has led to the bastardization of the teachings of Jesus and the rise of such monolithic institutions as the Catholic Church (along with its sordid history of conquest and persecution). Consequently, Hitchens’s ire should be directed at the phenomenon of tribalism and not religion itself.

Buddhist faith?

Hitchens also makes the claim that Buddhists rely on faith. Undoubtedly, beliefs in reincarnation, karma and transcendence run deep within various Buddhist strains. This is currently a point of great contention among Buddhist scholars, some of whom, like the secular Buddhist Stephen Batchelor, contend that these precepts are unnecessary and that when it comes to metaphysics Buddhists should actually be agnostic. More traditional Buddhists, on the other hand, argue that belief in rebirth is absolutely necessary to the practice.

Interestingly, the Dalai Lama himself – a believer in reincarnation – maintains that science should take precedence over these sorts of notions. He once said, “My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

Easier said than done, of course. Deeply embedded and ritualized religions have an incredibly hard time adapting to change -- including Buddhism.

As for the accusation that all Buddhists rely on faith, that's clearly a generalization. Most Buddhists, I would say, likely take nothing on mere faith alone.

Alternative perception

Hitchens also critiques the aims of Buddhist practice itself. He makes a number of suspicious claims -- that Buddhists despise the mind and the free individual, that Buddhism teaches submission and resignation, and that practitioners regard life as a fleeting thing full of suffering. He contends that Buddhists require a surrendering of the mind.

This is mostly nonsense. These claims have been countered elsewhere, so I won’t replicate them here, but there are a pair of issues I wish to address.

First, Hitchens appears to be confused. He seems to be conflating transcendental meditation (or something like it) with the more traditional practice of Vipasanna meditation and its focus on mindful awareness. There is nothing escapist or transcendent about this practice; rather, it's very much about focusing on the here-and-now and correcting the processes of a conditioned mind.

Second, Hitchens complains that Buddhists favour subjectivity over objectivity. “[Y]ou're supposed to be the subjective judge of what you're experiencing, are you not?,” he asks. Hitchens, being the uber-materialist that he is, is concerned that Buddhists don’t believe that anything can be accepted at objective face-value, that Buddhists merely see existence as some sort of grandiose illusion.

Hitchens's special claim into the true nature of reality aside, he is a bit off course here and his concern is exaggerated. Buddhists do not deny the presence of the material world or the value of objectivity – far from. What they assert is that the Universe will always be perceived through the lens of an observer and that our comprehension of reality must always take this into account. The only way the world can be observed is subjectively; there can be no such thing as a truly objective observer. We can and should strive towards an objective frame, but the world will always be perceived by an observer, which is by definition a subject.

It’s okay to be spiritual, really it is

What irks me most about Hitchens’s critique of Buddhism is the sense I get that what he is really complaining about are personal quests for spirituality. In fact, some of his arguments are so pithy (like making fun of Buddhist koans and Steven Seagal) that I'm inclined to think he is slamming into Buddhism just for the sake of it -- because it's just another "religion" on his hate list.

But Hitchens hasn't done his homework and it shows. Moreover, his limited acceptance as to what kind of worldview and perceptual lens is acceptable is extremely limited and narrow-minded.

Ultimately, there’s nothing wrong with spirituality. Or, if you hate that word, a sense of existential awareness. In fact, I wish more people would consider the philosophic implications of existence and look deeper within themselves. There is far too much daydreaming going on today with people living way outside their heads.

On the issue of spirituality I’ll give Sam Harris the last word:

"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life...[I]t must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith."

Sources:
"An Interview with Christopher Hitchens," C. P. Farley.
"Christopher Hitchens reduces Buddhism to a phrase," True Ancestor.
"His material highness," Christopher Hitchens.
"Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything," Jon Wiener
"Hitchens - Zen is not Great?," Flapping Mouths.
Wikipedia and Wikiquote.

Buddha Break 2007.04.05

The World Health Organization defines health as, "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."

"The suffering itself is not so bad, it's the resentment against suffering that is the real pain." -Alan Ginsberg

"Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind." - Buddha; Guilt, shame and the Buddhist practice.

Gifted students who feel the pressure of their ability could be using Heavy Metal music to get rid of negative emotions.

"A Tibetan scholar once complained to me of Zen’s severe reductionism. The scholar was right. Zen is so reductive by nature that it actually self-destructs. The longer I practice Zen the less I have of anything, including Zen itself." -- Lin Jensen; More.

Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) can help you literally think yourself out of depression.

People who bought this book also bought: Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves by Sharon Begley; The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind by B. Alan Wallace; The Dalai Lama at MIT by Anne Harrington; Genuine Happiness: Meditation as the Path to Fulfillment by B. Alan Wallace; The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science by Norman Doidge.

Scientific studies of meditation and other forms of contemplative experience have only recently become a subject of scientific interest.

Saletan on brain damage, evolution, and the future of morality.

The concept of Nirvana from a psychological point of view.

Paul Broks reviews Nicholas Humphrey's take on consciousness: "One day I'll be dead. It's an oddly exhilarating thought. Something unimaginable—nothingness—awaits us all. I have a hunch that getting an imaginative purchase on mental nothingness would help us also grasp the "somethingness" of sentience. What else was conscious in that summer's evening scene? The tree? No. The bugs? I doubt it. The cat? Who knows? I had an intuition that it felt like something to be the cat, that the animal had some awareness of the cacophony of the cicadas' mating calls, an awareness to which I would ascribe the sensory quality sound. As it stretched and rolled, I imagined it experienced a bodily sensation, which might be labelled pleasure. And I am pretty sure that if I had walked over and stamped on its tail, then it would have experienced pain. But it was just an intuition. An intuition, yes, but one I could surely back up with neurology."

"The biggest obstacle [today for contemplative practitioners] is that Western 21st century culture provides very little support for spiritual practice and in fact its major thrust (consumerism) runs counter to spiritual growth." More.

Being human: Nussbaum and capabilities.

The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that 91 percent of American adults surveyed believe in God—and nearly half reject the theory of evolution. Maybe it's because humans hard-wired for faith.

Computer-based therapy for such things as depression should be available to all patients in England from April, says the government.

"The reason we experience disgust today is that the response protected our ancestors," said Dan Fessler, associate professor of anthropology and director of UCLA's Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture. "The emotion allowed our ancestors to survive long enough to produce offspring, who in turn passed the same sensitivities on to us."

Would you kill one person to save five others? Your intuition is probably wrong, says Peter Singer.

Slate on The Hostile New Age Takeover of Yoga. Read with a grain of salt.

Click to see larger version.

The rise of 'biocentrism'

There's a provocative article over at Astroroach: "A Biocentric and Holographic Universe." The general idea behind biocentrism is that our cosmology and metaphysics cannot ignore the important interplay between conscious observers and quantum effects. As Robert Lanza notes,

"The trees and snow evaporate when we’re sleeping. The kitchen disappears when we’re in the bathroom. When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roasting—the kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bits dissolve into nothingness—or into waves of probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence."

This fits in very nicely with not just the revealing sciences, but with the foundations of consciousness-centric Buddhist metaphysics as well.

Managing your 50,000 daily thoughts

A number of years ago the NSF estimated that our brains produce as many as 12,000 to 50,000 thoughts per day depending on how 'deep' a thinker you are (other estimates run as high as 60,000/day).

For those of you who meditate this is unlikely to be a surprise. Meditators are familiar with the 'monkey mind' phenomenon in which the mind is observed as an out-of-control thought generator. As part of my meditation practice I try to remind myself to harness and slow down the 'meme machine' inside my head.

As for regular life, what's disturbing about these 50,000 thoughts per day is that the vast majority of them are pure nonsense. We often dwell in the past or the future, obsessing about mistakes we might have made, battling guilt, planning ahead or worrying. We are constantly drifting into fantasy, fiction and negativity.

Consequently, an absolute minuscule number of our thoughts are actually focused on what is truly important and real: the present moment. The moment is all that is, every was and will be. Everything else is elusive and illusory, particularly as our subjective awareness and feelings are concerned.

Some people have estimated that upwards of 70-80% of our daily thoughts are negative. That's very sad if true. The human mind, it would seem, is wired for neuroticism. A healthy first step to alleviate this problem, therefore, would be to increase one's awareness of these negative and bogus thoughts. This is what's referred to as mindfulness. It's a type of self-reflexivity and enhanced self-awareness that helps Buddhists root themselves in the moment. Once individuals have awareness of these thoughts they can sweep them away from their thoughts like fallen leaves.

You'd be surprised how much control you can have over your thought processes and your ability to control your emotional responses. Even if they number 50,000 a day.