Essays

It seems that my assertion from the article Philosophy as Practice raised some eyebrows.

…without the ability to analyze and use critical thinking, even the compassion spoken of in Buddhism cannot be fully developed. Therefore the wisdom lineage, as in “method and wisdom”, pervades the method lineage.

I was surprised by the doubt raised by this statement, as it seems to me to be quite clear. However, in order to practice what I advocate, that is, doing philosophy, since last Thursday when the doubt was surreptitiously raised during a discussion after class. I have been investigating whether this statement is in fact true, or simply an unchallenged assumption on my behalf. I consulted the following texts; Tsong Khapa’s Illumination of the Thought a commentary on Candrakiriti’s Supplement to The Middle Way; Tsong Khapa’s Lamrim Chenmo; Geshe Lhundrup Sopa’s commentary on Lamrim Chenmo.

My argument

First of all, let us revisit the original argument and unpack it into its simplest form.

Premise: Great Compassion cannot be developed without first understanding how sentient beings suffer, how suffering is generated and what are its causes.

Conclusion: You must therefore use analysis and reasoning to investigate the nature of conditioned existence and dependent-arising, in order to develop genuine great compassion.

The contention

However, the doubt that compassion requires wisdom in order to be developed was raised as a question with a slightly altered form. Paraphrasing the question; “Is the wisdom realizing emptiness necessary in order to develop compassion”. Although this is not what I argued, I think this statement might also be a true statement but we probably should leave that debate for another day. So to make it clear then, I am not arguing that ordinary compassion cannot be developed without wisdom or that one must first realize emptiness directly before developing compassion. I am, however, stating that without analyzing how suffering is experienced and what are its causes, it is impossible to develop great compassion. Ordinary compassion is a precursor to great compassion. Great compassion is the compassion that all Bodhisattvas possess, and is therefore the type of compassion we to need to generate.

Ordinary Compassion Vs. Great Compassion

So that begs the question. What is the difference between ordinary compassion and great compassion? I don’t know what the definition of ordinary compassion is, but at a guess, it could perhaps be characterized as; the wish for someone to be free from a manifest pain. Great compassion on the other hand is defined as; the wish for all living beings to be free from suffering and the causes of suffering. The difference is not just in how many beings are within the scope of great compassion but, that great compassion also wishes sentient beings to be free from the causes of suffering. Great compassion, therefore, is not only concerned with manifest pain and suffering, but the potential for it, that is, the causes of suffering. This is an important point and one that should not be glossed over lightly. Great compassion has a subjective aspect that wants to eliminate the potential for suffering. But, how can one wish to eliminate the potential for suffering if you do not know what the causes of that potential are?

If we genuinely want to develop great compassion, we need to understand what it means to suffer. We need to understand how suffering is generated, and most importantly, how to permanently remove it. Initially we do this by inferring our own experiences of manifest pain, be it physical or mental pain, onto others. For example, I see someone experiencing the pain of a headache. I remember the last time I had a headache, and I remember my wish to be free from that experience. I can then infer my experience onto them and the wish for them to be free from that pain is naturally generated. I contend this is ordinary compassion not great compassion. Ordinary compassion is an ability to empathize with others. This type of compassion is beneficial. In fact, without the ability to empathize with others we would not be able to generate great compassion. Please do not think I am belittling ordinary compassion, I am not. I am simply saying it is not the compassion spoken of in Buddhism.

Great compassion on the other hand has additional mental factors naturally occurring or concomitant with the subjective aspect of ordinary compassion.
Kamalasila’s Stages of Meditation says:

When you spontaneously feel compassion which has the subjective aspect to completely eliminate (emphasis added) the suffering of all living beings - just like a mother’s wish to remove her dear child’s unhappiness - then your compassion is complete and is therefore called great compassion.

Levels of suffering

So how do sentient beings suffer? Buddhism enumerates suffering in many different ways. One such presentation is the three levels of suffering.

1: The suffering of suffering: This is manifest pain either in the mind or body.

2: The suffering of change: This is subtler than the first. Put simply, it is the fact that pleasurable experiences carry with them the seeds for dissatisfaction. The bliss experienced from eating chocolate, will if you eat enough in one session, turn into an unpleasant experience.

Geshe Lhundup Sopa says¹:

All worldly pleasures are impure because they contain the seed of misery. They are not perfect sources of delight. From the yogi perspective, therefore, because ordinary enjoyment changes it is actually suffering.

3: Pervasive suffering: Is the suffering of conditioned existence. It is the most subtle and the most difficult of the three to understand.

Just as it would be difficult for someone born into a prison cell who has never seen the ocean, to understand the depth of an ocean. It is difficult for ordinary people to comprehend the depth of our suffering. This does not mean however, we can’t enjoy life. Just as a prisoner can enjoy a cup of tea, so can we. But understand that, just as a prisoner is locked in a cell, we to are locked in the cell of ego-grasping. By knowing this, we are motivated to do something about our situation and the suffering of others.

What are the causes of suffering?

The root cause of suffering is the fundamental ignorance grasping at an inherently-existent self. If we are to generate a wish for all living beings to be free from suffering and its causes, we must understand how we experience these three levels of suffering. For compassion that is spoken of in Buddhism to be fully developed, one must understand all three levels. We must know just how the conception of an inherently-exist self can be the cause of these sufferings. And we must understand the process involved in completely eliminating suffering.

The great Je Tsong Khapa has said²:

After you have thoroughly distinguished the objects of meditation according to the previously explanations - how compassion is the root, how the developments of the spirit of enlightenment is the entrance to the Mahayana, and so forth - you must then analyze these explanations with discerning wisdom and elicit the experience produced after sustaining them in meditation. You will not achieve anything with the unclear experiences that come when you make a short, concentrated effort without precisely clarifying the topic with your understanding. Know that this is true for other kinds of practices as well.

Summary

To completely eliminate suffering, is different than a wish for a living being to be free from a particular manifest suffering such as a headache.
In order to completely eliminate suffering one must eliminate the causes of suffering, otherwise this elimination will remain incomplete as the potential for future suffering is still present. The fundamental or root cause of suffering is ego-grasping. Therefore, you must understand from within your own experience the suffering related to ego-grasping, in order to infer it on others. To have the wish that all living beings be free from suffering and its causes, means you must know how sentient beings suffer and what the causes of that suffering are. Without that understanding your compassion will remain mere empathy.

Footnotes:

1. Steps On The Path To Enlightenment - P91 [↩]
2. Je Tsong Khapa - The Great Treatise and The Stages Of The Path To Enlightenment P45 [↩]

Do you remember this verse by Dromtonpa (1005-1064) from the article on the tools for meditation?

Some think, “Meditators do not need to study; those who teach need to study”. Actually, learning is more necessary for the meditator; teachers may just incur the fault of explaining something incorrectly.

Have you thought about its meaning? It is pretty simple really. Dromtonpa is saying; it is vital for a meditator to study in order to properly understand what to meditate on. This may sound obvious however, many  people think that studying or doing philosophy gets in the way of real practice. Dromtonpa, however, is saying, it is more important for a meditator to study than a teacher, because all a teacher can do is say something wrong. Whereas a meditator who has not studied, could potentially waste years meditating on an incorrect object or wrong understanding of the nature of reality - Emptiness¹.

In this essay I intend to argue (not in the sense of a quarrel but, rather in the sense of a philosophical argument or essay) that studying philosophy is a form of dharma practice in and of itself. That there are real and tangible benefits in the practice of studying philosophy. Moreover, studying philosophy is vital, if one is seriously engaging the Buddhist path. Without the ability to think deeply and clearly on subjects such as the nature of conditioned existence or Dependant Arising, these subjects cannot be properly understood. Do you really expect to be able to meditate on subjects such as these if you cannot think deeply and clearly on them? In fact, I would argue that without the ability to analyze and use critical thinking, even the compassion spoken of in Buddhism cannot be fully developed. Therefore the wisdom lineage, as in “method and wisdom”, pervades the method lineage.

The late Gelug lama Geshe Jampa Gyatso, who was one of my teachers, a great scholar and meditation master² once said:

The Kadampa Geshes have a saying:
‘Meditating without having listened to teachings
is like someone without hands trying to climb a snow mountain’.

I believe a distinction needs to be made between studying philosophy and doing philosophy, in order to fully appreciate the benefits of philosophical knowledge. Much has been made of the worthiness of Buddhist scholars, that perhaps they are merely academics. Some say their knowledge of the dharma is merely knowledge for it’s own sake. This sentiment has at times, caused me great concern, because I feel it can sometimes used as an excuse to do no study at all. Although there will be times when a practitioner must focus almost exclusively on meditation, this is only after gaining a proper foundation in Buddhist thought. While it is true that some people think that meditation is all that is needed, and that philosophy is for teachers and academics, upon reflection this can be shown to be incorrect. However for those who may not intuitively see the benefits of doing philosophy, I will attempt to explain the difference.

Studying Philosophy vs Doing Philosophy

Studying is generally thought of as the act of analyzing a given subject as a means of understanding that subject. However, more often than not, we engage this process by merely learning definitions and divisions. We then think we know the material. If we are studying computer programming this method of study is fine. We will find suitable work and earn a living. However, this approach doesn’t work when it comes to the study of dharma. Why? Because the purpose of studying dharma is not merely the collection of information. Understanding the dharma is not merely the ability to repeat the definitions and divisions of a text.

Philosophical truths are not things that we look up in books; they are truths we acquire by hearing, reading, thinking, contemplation and meditation. If you merely report what someone else says, then you are not doing the thinking for yourself. Moreover, doing philosophy requires analysis and an ability to think critically. As Buddhist practitioners, we need to unearth the wisdom of an ancient tradition for ourselves. Therefore we need to think for ourselves. We are not reinventing the dharma wheel; we are discovering that wheel for ourselves.

Doing philosophy is therefore an investigation into the fundamental ideas and concepts we hold as true. We must challenge our everyday assumptions of personal identity, free-will and even if enlightenment is possible! Doing philosophy, for example, is taking the concept that all phenomena are dependent on causes and conditions, parts and an imputing consciousness, and critically and rigorously investigate these assertions to see if, in fact, this is the case. Being able to merely explain Dependent Arising is therefore not doing philosophy and therefore I suggest it is also not studying philosophy.

However, this rigorous investigation is only part of the process of doing philosophy. Developing responses to these questions is an important component in this process. Traditionally in India and in the monastic traditions of Tibet, doing philosophy was engaged through debate. But this requires the participants be in one place at the same time.

On the other hand, in western philosophy³ this same conversation and rigorous questioning of our unchallenged assumptions takes place via a written essay. The essay is the central communications device, in this tradition. It is a tool used to tease out from our subconscious these assumptions, to investigate them, and to formulate clear and concise thoughts on them. The written essay speaks our ideas, if you like. There is also the tradition in western philosophy of other philosophers responding to our claims via their own essays. Bringing points of difference, counter-arguments and objections to the conversation. A conversation of “call and response” takes place, albeit over a longer period of time.

I would like to see more of this type of conversation take place between western Buddhists. We, as a tradition , can leverage our own traditional cultural heritage in the form of essay writing, and use it to benefit both Buddhism and our own understanding of it. Lets not leave this conversation to only university professors and those from academia that merely engage it because it is interesting. Let us learn how to communicate as they do, and use these tools to forward the project of presenting Buddhism to the west.

There are also other benefits by communicating in this way. The most powerful of which is; writing as a means of learning. When writing in your own words for example, what is meditation, your thoughts on the subject need to be very clear. Writing is therefore a tool for learning and engaging the tradition. The other advantage is that others may also benefit from your efforts. This is something that western university philosophy departments have been acutely aware of for some time. Much emphasis is placed on the ability to think critically and write clearly. Because of the importance of these skills, students of western philosophy in universities are taught how to read and write critically.

Raising Possible Objections

Some people might object to the argument that doing philosophy is a practice in and of itself. They might say that knowledge for knowledge sake is a waste of time. That wisdom will arise through meditation alone. They assume that study is knowledge for knowledge sake. They do this because they fail to see the distinction between doing philosophy and knowing lots of different stuff. As to whether wisdom will naturally arise through meditation. I believe that even the action of meditation comes from learning it from a teacher or a book. So, if one needs to hear and think about how to meditate, how can the ultimate nature of reality dawn without any guidance? Surely if this were the case we would have already finished the job of becoming enlightened.

Others criticize those who debate details of, for example, the view of emptiness or the meaning of cessation. They believe that these things are beyond conceptuality and therefore; speaking, debating (as in the monastic sense) and discussing them will not bear fruit. That one should just meditate, they might say. However, these people fail to understand that discussion is part of the process of hearing, thinking and meditating. While it may be true that the direct cognition of emptiness is beyond words. That does not invalidate the benefits gained by investigating the nature of such things. Moreover, I would assert that in order for the direct non-conceptual cognition of emptiness to arise, it must be proceeded by a conceptual cognition, which is a union of calm-abiding and special insight. This union in turn is proceeded by thinking about the meaning of emptiness. So you can see from this, an understanding of the ultimate truth of all phenomena starts by deeply, clearly and critically contemplating the meaning of reality.

Yet others may think that combining western and Buddhist philosophy will weaken what the Buddha had to say. Besides that fact that this counter-argument commitments the Straw-person fallacy⁴, I would suggest that if something is worth believing, it is worthy of critical analysis. If the basic assertions of Buddhism are true, then these assertions will be validated when placed under critical analysis. I would also suggest that we are not conflating two traditions but, rather leveraging the tools of one tradition for the betterment of the other.

Summary and Call to Action

Given the different locations and time zones of Buddhist scholars, authors and practitioners, using the tool of essay writing to discuss ideas and thoughts on philosophical truths seems like the perfect communication device. I would like to see those in the position to do so, begin to engage each other in this way. I don’t know where or how that would happen. Perhaps one of the Buddhist magazines could help publish and distribute these essays much like university academic philosophical journals do.

In this essay I have tried to posit the benefits of rigorous investigation and critical thinking as a means of gaining insights. That is to say, studying philosophy is not merely knowledge for knowledge sake. That it can in fact be an actual dharma practice. Much of the Buddhist path is made up of insights and perspectives. So if we are to achieve the paths to enlightenment, we need to develop these insights and perspectives. In order to do that, we need to challenge our everyday assumptions on how things exist. Thus we must do philosophy.

Footnotes:

1. Emptiness is a technical Buddhist term that relates to the ultimate nature of reality [↩]
2. At the time of his death, Geshe Jampa Gyatso remained in clear light for seven days [↩]
3. though perhaps this is merely my observation based on limited exposure to this tradition [↩]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man [↩]