One Nagging Thing You Still Don't Understand About Yourself

[camerata]

This is a kind of survey by the British Psychological Society's Research Digest. A couple of the answers relate directly to Buddhism. Others are the kind of things that Buddhist practice should help with. I found it interesting because in my case practice helped me find the answer or at least to stop caring about the problem. Here's one of them:

Susan Blackmore: My own consciousness

I believe (although I’ve never seen it for myself) that inside my skull is a brain containing billions of neurons connected to each other in trillions of ways, with signals zooming about, setting off other signals, and generally creating massively complicated loops, coalitions, sustained patterns, and multiple parallel organised streams of information that combined together control the behaviour of this – my body. And that’s it. So how come I feel as though there is a conscious “me” as well? The oh-so-tempting idea that I am something else – a soul, a spirit, a mystical entity – is rubbish, although I once believed in it. This question nags at me so much that I have devoted most of my life to it – through research, writing, and thirty years of daily meditation. But I still don’t understand. And the more I look, the less substantial my own self seems to be. What is consciousness? And who is conscious? I really don’t know.

After 30 years as a Buddhist, hasn't the Buddhist take on consciousness helped? Why would she care who is conscious?

Here's another:

Paul Ekman: Death and forgiveness

In my recent conversations with the Dalai Lama (which eventuated into a book – Emotional Awareness) we disagreed about two matters. One was fear of death, which I claim not to feel and he claims everyone has. The evidence is in his favor since all religions promise life of some kind after death, and they would not do so if people didn’t need it. I fear a painful death, but not death itself. Can’t comprehend why people do; which doesn’t mean I don’t wish to continue living, but as time progresses and body parts and the mind wears out I expect death will be welcome. Our other disagreement was about forgiveness. I believe there are unforgivable actions – child abuse, rape, holocausts, torture are examples. The Dalai Lama says he forgives but does not forget. In my view, since he believes such people will be reincarnated in an undesirable form, he doesn’t need to forgive them.

I think any serious Buddhist would desire to (understand and) forgive, regardless of any karmic consequences for the perpetrators in future lives (in the sense of "to cease to feel resentment against" but probably not in the sense of "to grant pardon for or remission of") simply because it's a part of mental cultivation and non-aversion.

[Xangsamhua]

To forgive, you'd have to be able to understand, wouldn't you? Thich Nhat Hanh talks about the pirates who committed acts of gross cruelty against the Vietnamese refugees in the 70s, but he could understand in a way what made them like that, and that made it possible to forgive.

However, I can't understand what, apart from some fundamental option for evil, made the functionaries of Pol Pot's or Hitler's regimes commit such gratuitous, unprovoked and brutal acts of cruelty. Germany, before the rise of Hitler, had been a well educated and reflective society. Cambodia had no history of indiscriminate violence to my knowledge. I simply can't understand why such cruelty occurred; hence it would be most unjust to those who suffered if I forgave their killers.

[fabianfred]

I think in all cases like Hitler's SS and pol Pot's khmer rouge etc. ...it is not possible for normal people to understand. To understand the mind of a mad person we have to be mad too. All of these actions against fellow humans start by seeing them as less than human, as a race or group which is discriminated against by the ruling group. Also belief that one will not be called to account for one's actions because they are the prevalent ones. and lastly because of ignorance of the truth....the law of karma.

How can we ever understand how it is possible for someone to pick up a child by its leg and swing it to bash its head against a nail in a tree...... unimaginable for sane people.

[phetaroi]

To forgive, you'd have to be able to understand, wouldn't you? Thich Nhat Hanh talks about the pirates who committed acts of gross cruelty against the Vietnamese refugees in the 70s, but he could understand in a way what made them like that, and that made it possible to forgive.

However, I can't understand what, apart from some fundamental option for evil, made the functionaries of Pol Pot's or Hitler's regimes commit such gratuitous, unprovoked and brutal acts of cruelty. Germany, before the rise of Hitler, had been a well educated and reflective society. Cambodia had no history of indiscriminate violence to my knowledge. I simply can't understand why such cruelty occurred; hence it would be most unjust to those who suffered if I forgave their killers.

The general concept of forgiveness is one which I have struggled with for years. I thought about it more once I began exploring Buddhism. I still don't find the answers I need.

Some things should be forgiven AND forgotten. I think of the husband and wife who get in an argument and bring some foolish little trifle from years ago. Geesh, get over it.

Then I think of some things that someone has done to me. Not "evil" things, but mean or hurtful things. Not life-changing, but unpleasant. Given a little time, and particularly if -- ultimately -- things have turned out "okay", I can forgive, but probably not forget.

Then I think of some things that were a bit beyond mean and hurtful. An attempt at blackmail, for example. Ultimately, they turned out "okay". I will neither forgive or forget, but that does not mean that (in the Christian sense) I want them to go to hel_l or (in the Buddhist sense) be born the next time into a lower realm. I do want them to learn something...somehow.

And then there are the evil things. Murder with forethought and malice. Sorry, no reason for me to forgive...it's beyond me. And, as you have posted the evil extremes of Hitler/Germany, Pol Pot, perhaps Japan/Hirohito, perhaps China over Tibet (etc.), and so forth. Mass murder, true human suffering. I don't forgive and forget, nor do I want "them" to be forgiven or the issues forgotten. Nothing wrong with a little hel_l for those truly deserving...after all, that's a Christian ethic and a Buddhist ethic...at least as far as I can see.

[camerata]

However, I can't understand what, apart from some fundamental option for evil, made the functionaries of Pol Pot's or Hitler's regimes commit such gratuitous, unprovoked and brutal acts of cruelty. Germany, before the rise of Hitler, had been a well educated and reflective society. Cambodia had no history of indiscriminate violence to my knowledge. I simply can't understand why such cruelty occurred; hence it would be most unjust to those who suffered if I forgave their killers.

I don't think it's that difficult, really, given our evolutionary tendency for cruelty to tribes/groups outside our own. At the top of the Khmer Rouge you had ideological fanatics like Pol Pot with egos bloated by power, thinking only they had the solution and paranoid of any counter-movement. So the logical thing to do is kill off any potential threat from those outside the group, for the greater good of the noble cause. Beneath them you have people who do heartless things out of personal fear or because it had become the norm and because we are comfortable doing things which those around us do (i.e. crowd psychology) - "if everyone does it, it must be OK." Then we have the kids raised in communes with little contact with parents, minds twisted by ideology since birth.

If we can't accept that the human mind is capable of incredible cruelty (usually relating to power and control to satisfy a rampant ego), particularly if there isn't a balanced and loving upbringing, then we have to blame this behaviour on some imaginary external force like Evil or the Devil. Which is much easier to accept, of course.

One of the few quotations from the Bible that impressed me was when Christ said, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." IMO, this is the case for everyone of us until we understand that we are controlled by subconscious desires that we know little about. And Dhamma is the best way to find out how they work and how to root them out.

[camerata]

Nothing wrong with a little hel_l for those truly deserving...after all, that's a Christian ethic and a Buddhist ethic...at least as far as I can see.

But who is truly deserving? If a child was abused since birth and grew up to be an abuser without any conscience (a very common phenomenon), is it to blame? Will it "learn" if it is tortured in hel_l by demons with pitchforks? Or is just this our own aversion and desire for revenge (aka "justice")? It seems to me that the only solution is for that person to be born again in a situation where it understands why the abuse happened and yet retains the memories of how it felt while being the abuser. For the abuser to be tortured in hel_l for something he had no control over, then aeons later arrive in the human realm as a decent person with no memory of the past (as per Buddhist belief) doesn't seem an ideal solution to me.

[Xangsamhua]

If we can't accept that the human mind is capable of incredible cruelty (usually relating to power and control to satisfy a rampant ego), particularly if there isn't a balanced and loving upbringing, then we have to blame this behaviour on some imaginary external force like Evil or the Devil. Which is much easier to accept, of course.

We've got plenty of evidence of people's capacity to be cruel when they think it's legitimate. The Stamford Prison Experiment in 1971 showed how quite ordinary people will become cruel given the opportunity and conditions (http://www.countercurrents.org/riggins011107.htm), though one can't compare vindictiveness, sleep deprivation and bullying with the barbarism of the Holocaust and the Killing Fields. We don't need to ascribe these things to some satanic force, though we may well do so figuratively and in exasperation.

However, to forgive implies that we have a right to forgive. Having not suffered in the Holocaust or the Killing Fields I may be right to try and understand the causes, but would not have the right to forgive the perpetrators. (It's interesting that in the plea from the cross, Jesus called on God to forgive the Roman and Jewish authorities. He didn't forgive them himself, even though he was their victim.)

[phetaroi]

Nothing wrong with a little hel_l for those truly deserving...after all, that's a Christian ethic and a Buddhist ethic...at least as far as I can see.

But who is truly deserving? If a child was abused since birth and grew up to be an abuser without any conscience (a very common phenomenon), is it to blame? Will it "learn" if it is tortured in hel_l by demons with pitchforks? Or is just this our own aversion and desire for revenge (aka "justice")? It seems to me that the only solution is for that person to be born again in a situation where it understands why the abuse happened and yet retains the memories of how it felt while being the abuser. For the abuser to be tortured in hel_l for something he had no control over, then aeons later arrive in the human realm as a decent person with no memory of the past (as per Buddhist belief) doesn't seem an ideal solution to me.

So are you saying you don't believe in Buddhist hel_l and the various realms? Or even karma?

And by the way, when you ask who is truly deserving. Although I think some situations are obvious, that's why I said, "It's beyond me."

[phetaroi]

(It's interesting that in the plea from the cross, Jesus called on God to forgive the Roman and Jewish authorities. He didn't forgive them himself, even though he was their victim.)

In all these years I had not thought of that particular angle. Interesting.

[camerata]

However, to forgive implies that we have a right to forgive.

Not in the Buddhist sense, which is that if someone wrongs you or someone you care about, you should work to have no aversion towards them. This is simply a matter of adjusting your mental attitude for your own benefit. If a serial killer murdered my mother I would try and feel no aversion, but I would still support putting him behind bars for life. That's just a matter of practicality. I suppose you could say there is internal (Buddhist) forgiveness and external (public) forgiveness.

[camerata]

So are you saying you don't believe in Buddhist hel_l and the various realms? Or even karma?

As I've said before, I'm agnostic about the supranatural aspects of Buddhism until I experience the proof. Karma is a different matter, as we can see some of its effect in this life. I think it was Aj Thanissaro who called karma "the moral efficacy of action."

[Xangsamhua]

However, to forgive implies that we have a right to forgive.

Not in the Buddhist sense, which is that if someone wrongs you or someone you care about, you should work to have no aversion towards them. This is simply a matter of adjusting your mental attitude for your own benefit. If a serial killer murdered my mother I would try and feel no aversion, but I would still support putting him behind bars for life. That's just a matter of practicality. I suppose you could say there is internal (Buddhist) forgiveness and external (public) forgiveness.

Yes, that's a good clarification.

[OxfordWill]

Susan Blackmore: My own consciousness

I believe (although I’ve never seen it for myself) that inside my skull is a brain containing billions of neurons connected to each other in trillions of ways, with signals zooming about, setting off other signals, and generally creating massively complicated loops, coalitions, sustained patterns, and multiple parallel organised streams of information that combined together control the behaviour of this – my body. And that’s it. So how come I feel as though there is a conscious “me” as well?

I would advise her to read http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Fodor_00.html

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Doesnt-Work-Tha...y/dp/0262062127

Also great reading for Buddhists who are bothered by the question.

[fabianfred]

<br>For the abuser to be tortured in hel_l for something he had no control over, then aeons later arrive in the human realm as a decent person with no memory of the past (as per Buddhist belief) doesn't seem an ideal solution to me.<br>

Karma comes with interest.... so when someone who kills other beings (cuts their life short) has served their time in hel_l and eventually returns to the human realm, their own life will be cut short, for several lives.

An abuser would suffer something similar when returned to the human realm..

[Xangsamhua]

Susan Blackmore: My own consciousness

I believe (although I’ve never seen it for myself) that inside my skull is a brain containing billions of neurons connected to each other in trillions of ways, with signals zooming about, setting off other signals, and generally creating massively complicated loops, coalitions, sustained patterns, and multiple parallel organised streams of information that combined together control the behaviour of this – my body. And that’s it. So how come I feel as though there is a conscious “me” as well?

I would advise her to read http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Fodor_00.html

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Doesnt-Work-Tha...y/dp/0262062127

Also great reading for Buddhists who are bothered by the question.

Interesting reading. Thank you for posting it.

Not sure how much I understood, but it seems that Fodor's view is that the Computational Theory of Mind (CTM) maintains that cognitive processing is syntactic, and he broadly agrees with this while acknowledging that it may be part, but only part, of the whole truth about how the mind works. It seems that, in respect of what cognitive science knows about how the mind works, it is still "light years from being satisfactory". He then goes on to support Chomsky's (syntactic?) nativism from that of Pinker and Plotkin (computational nativism), but doesn't explain how they differ, other than to suggest that Chomsky is talking about theory of knowledge and the others about mental processes. He winds up by saying that computational nativism is untenable and Chomskyan nativism incomplete.

What occurred to me from the discussion of perceived mind-body/material-spiritual duality was that, if these polarities are in fact illusory - that mind and body, matter and consciousness are not dualities, but really are one with each other - then there are no essences, only cause and effect. That led me to the principle of sufficient reason, which, as I understand it from Schopenhauer, doesn't really allow for free will. Further reading leads me to understand that Buddhism (perhaps Mahayana), neither accepts nor rejects free will in the moral sense, but allows for the possibility of choosing right action, while reminding us that there is in fact no agent as such, no self, the "choices" being a product of karma and "condition" (Nagarjuna) rather than a freely choosing "self". At this point it's getting over my head.

[camerata]

Further reading leads me to understand that Buddhism (perhaps Mahayana), neither accepts nor rejects free will in the moral sense, but allows for the possibility of choosing right action, while reminding us that there is in fact no agent as such, no self, the "choices" being a product of karma and "condition" (Nagarjuna) rather than a freely choosing "self". At this point it's getting over my head.

I'd forget about Nargarjuna and Mahayana, if I were you. They tend to intellectualize everything. What does "freely choosing" or "free" mean? Free of what? Outside influence? Internal influence? Influence on what? I think "free" in the original Buddhist sense means freedom from delusion (a direct product of ego and its associated defilements), which in turn results in freedom from karma (upon attaining arahantship "without remainder"). So in Buddhist terms we know that normally there are some restrictions on what we can achieve in the current life because of past karma, and there are restrictions on what we can do because of delusion. I am free to be unselfish. I have made the decision to be unselfish. And yet I am often still selfish. It seems I have the freedom to choose but the freedom to do what I choose is another matter.

This is different from talking in absolute and non-Buddhist terms. In this sense, your tendency to make any particular decision is governed by your genetic programming and life experience, which means you don't really have free will. But then who is "you" anyway? And your subjective experience, which IMO is all that matters, is that you do have free will in making decisions.

The intriguing thing about Buddhism is that for whatever reason at some point you decide that its goals are in your best interest. From that point on, the mental cultivation changes your mind so that you have more control over your decisions and keeping them in line with your overall objective. So you gradually gain control as your ego (subconscious desires) loses control. When arahantship is attained, it's said that you are motivated solely by compassion (presumably since there is no self-interested "you" anymore). I suppose one could argue that if you are motivated only by compassion, you no longer have free will - but on the other hand this is what "you" freely chose.

[OxfordWill]

After 30 years as a Buddhist, hasn't the Buddhist take on consciousness helped? Why would she care who is conscious?

It depends what you mean by helped. If you mean, given her platitudes to calm her concerns on the issue so that she can live a happy life without such questions bothering her, then I can definitely agree with that possibility. If you mean "helped her understand the true nature of reality and how it affects this question" then I very much doubt it since Buddhism, if we take the best of what all Buddhist belief systems (as of course there are many) teach or "believe" about the subject, and compare it to the timeline of unbiased thinking on the same, we can say that Buddhism is stuck somewhere around the 12th Century AD and that's probably being generous to Buddhism.

Paul Ekman: Death and forgiveness

I fear a painful death, but not death itself. Can’t comprehend why people do.

Lucretius pretty much closed the file on this topic in his arguments about the rationality of fearing death (again a very long time ago). Thomas Nagles shone a light on them again as have many others in recent times and the summary of the current best theory is: its entirely rational to fear Death and the reason is the associated losses one incurs as a result (not pain, loss).

Interesting reading. Thank you for posting it.

Not sure how much I understood, but

Yes and I dont mean to derail your thread (might be too late if anyone bothers to read this). However, one point to be taken from it is that any serious discussion (by which I mean where the participants care absolutely about what is true and what is actually the case) involving the way the mind works which does not involve at least one reference to words like "nativism" is at best a waste of time and at worse idiotic. That the best examples of Buddhist reflection on the matter are so far behind the times, is to me quite sad. Surely, they are way ahead of most other systems of belief, but like any system of belief they are restricted by their own interests.

Things like this:

while reminding us that there is in fact no agent as such, no self, the "choices" being a product of karma and "condition" (Nagarjuna) rather than a freely choosing "self"

Is a hugely sweeping and very heavy statement to make. Even the language is dishonest: "reminds us". As if its true, somehow innately? I dont know what they mean. But people and groups make these kind of statements/teachings/call it what you will, all the time and usually with the utmost confidence when from within the spheres of a particular set of beliefs about the world. You'll have noticed how the sum of thousands of years of unbiased thinking into the issue (re: fodor summary/intro link) has led the modern intellectual giants of the subject to basically say "we dont have a bloody clue". Or more fairly, "we've got a few clues but dam_n, it beats me."

Anyway this is the Buddhist forum, not the philosophy forum, and I apologise if Ive gone OT. I actually dont know much about Buddhism only meta-buddhism. Actually this thread has inspired me to ask you Buddhist experts a question so I will start a new thread.

Edited October 9, 2009 by OxfordWill

[camerata]

It depends what you mean by helped. If you mean, given her platitudes to calm her concerns on the issue so that she can live a happy life without such questions bothering her, then I can definitely agree with that possibility.

Yes, that's more or less what I meant. One isn't going to find peace by asking "Who is it that's conscious?" or "What's beyond the edge of the universe?" etc.

[Xangsamhua]

Yes and I dont mean to derail your thread (might be too late if anyone bothers to read this). However, one point to be taken from it is that any serious discussion (by which I mean where the participants care absolutely about what is true and what is actually the case) involving the way the mind works which does not involve at least one reference to words like "nativism" is at best a waste of time and at worse idiotic. That the best examples of Buddhist reflection on the matter are so far behind the times, is to me quite sad. Surely, they are way ahead of most other systems of belief, but like any system of belief they are restricted by their own interests.

Things like this:

while reminding us that there is in fact no agent as such, no self, the "choices" being a product of karma and "condition" (Nagarjuna) rather than a freely choosing "self"

Is a hugely sweeping and very heavy statement to make. Even the language is dishonest: "reminds us". As if its true, somehow innately? I dont know what they mean. But people and groups make these kind of statements/teachings/call it what you will, all the time and usually with the utmost confidence when from within the spheres of a particular set of beliefs about the world. You'll have noticed how the sum of thousands of years of unbiased thinking into the issue (re: fodor summary/intro link) has led the modern intellectual giants of the subject to basically say "we dont have a bloody clue". Or more fairly, "we've got a few clues but dam_n, it beats me."

Anyway this is the Buddhist forum, not the philosophy forum, and I apologise if Ive gone OT. I actually dont know much about Buddhism only meta-buddhism. Actually this thread has inspired me to ask you Buddhist experts a question so I will start a new thread.

As a student of Buddhism, not a professor of it, I'm trying to learn from what the scholars and those more expert than me have to say, so I'll take my cue from them. When I'm knowledgeable and, hopefully, practised enough, then I can be more critical if I want to.

And, yes, this is a Buddhism forum, so the discussion has to be related to Buddhism. I think your posting of the readings was related, but then I suppose everything can be related in a way. It would be good if there were a forum in which the sort of issues you and camerata have raised could be discussed without obligatory reference to Buddhism, but there isn't. Perhaps there's not enough interest. Perhaps it would open up a can of worms, with militant atheists, Christian fundamentalists and various other barrow-pushers and axe-grinders all turning any attempted discussion into a circus. Still, if well managed, such a forum would be very worthwhile.

Incidentally, I don't know why you picked out the 12th century. That seems a bit arbitrary.

[rockyysdt]

Incidentally, I don't know why you picked out the 12th century. That seems a bit arbitrary.

I was curious as well??

The 12th century was also regarded as the High Middle Ages.

The key historical trend of the High Middle Ages was the rapidly increasing population of Europe, which brought about great social and political change from the preceding era. By 1250 the robust population increase greatly benefited the economy, reaching levels it would not see again in some areas until the 19th century. This trend was checked in the Late Middle Ages by a series of calamities, notably the Black Death but also including numerous wars and economic stagnation.

[camerata]

It depends what you mean by helped. If you mean, given her platitudes to calm her concerns on the issue so that she can live a happy life without such questions bothering her, then I can definitely agree with that possibility.

Yes, that's more or less what I meant. One isn't going to find peace by asking "Who is it that's conscious?" or "What's beyond the edge of the universe?" etc.

Actually, that isn't what I meant at all. Buddhist psychology is very different from the "platitudes" offered by other religions. With Buddhism, you get the happiness before you die, not after.

[OxfordWill]

Platitudes was an unnecessarily negative word for me to use, I was wound up at the time by the issues in my new thread I started (or was about to start and did).

I chose 12th century really meaning 13th century and referring to Aquinas.

[Xangsamhua]

This thread started out as a question about the relationship between "mind", body and consciousness, I think.

After watching this video below from TED09, I don't really know what's left of "mind" to talk about, other than brain circuitry and technology. Something is still driving all the gadgetry, but it's all becoming rather spooky. They talk about it as the "sixth sense".

It's well worth a look, and only takes 8 mins 45 secs.

http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html#