It is my mother's birthday today. I remember a lovely trip to Shimla we took to celebrate it last year -it was one of many new things I did around this time last year, including running my first 10-KM, attending a 10-day Vipassana meditation course, quitting my job, and adopting a dog. Vipassana was quite an eye-opening experience and I believe it significantly influenced the decisions that came after viz. the resignation and the dog (I'm no longer sure which came first). Once I had quit my job, I had about two months of 'garden leave', or a period when I was asked not to 'refrain from visiting the office premises' while I continued to be on employee rolls. This is a common practice among client-facing teams in banking and some other sectors. It is presumably called garden leave because of some grim joke about being an un-gainfully employed individual who has little else to do but potter about in a garden. My main activities during this period were taking care of and training the puppy, reading, writing, vegetating, excessively indulging in a variety of unproductive pursuits, and exploring job opportunities. I also enrolled for a few interesting Coursera / Edx courses to keep my brain occupied - one of which was a course on Buddhism and Modern Psychology (instructed by Robert Wright, Princeton University). Here, I am jotting down my (very rambling) thoughts from the assignments I had written for the course on the subject of 'Dukkha' - a key concept in Buddhist philosophy that loosely translates to 'suffering', and on how it ties into psychology and our daily lives. While the title of this post indicates that it is about 'Dukkha' itself, it really is about the ecosystem of 'Dukkha' - its origins, its implications and impact, how we can strive to transcend (or in immediate reality, to side-step) it, and how doing so leads us to appreciate the transience of all that is good and all that is sublime, such as happy times spent with loved ones in the beautiful foothills of the Himalayas.
****
‘Suffering’ as described in the context of the Noble truths is as much a diagnosis as a suggestion - to examine oneself for tendencies towards craving (for pleasantness) or aversion (to unpleasantness), or in other words, a clinging to any sort of mental formations, and thereby to come to the realization that from even a lay logical perspective, one would be more contented had that clinging not existed. It is a self-diagnosis which leads one to the prescription – the Eight-Fold Path.
It also ties in perfectly with another key concept in Buddhism - impermanence. Suffering is not permanent – we are not born to suffer, it is just an inescapable truth of life which can be attributed to the deep-seated ways of human nature, which may well be thanks to evolution. Accepting that this is how we are built, and further that there is a state of no ‘dukkha’ (or at least less ‘dukkha’) is half the journey to liberation. It is intuitively rational idea – while there may be times in life when one feels that the suffering is so intense that it will never get better, beneath many layers of emotional fog, one always does know, at least theoretically, that at some point it will begin to diminish. While this knowledge may not give us any succor at all at the time, the Buddhist way gives us an opportunity to work at leveraging that understanding in order to come closer to peace.
The concept of suffering as such a core idea to Buddhist thinking results in it often being considered a highly pessimistic school of thought. This, I believe is quite removed from the truth. The deterministic rationale around the concept of ‘pratityasamutpada’ or dependent origination (which encompasses the concepts of ‘avidya’, ‘sankhara’, ‘tanha’ and ‘dukkha’ among others) was an incredibly astute way for the Buddha to really reach his audience. India in the 6th C. BC was going through a moral and religious ferment – the idyllic pastoral (and dysfunctional) Vedic way of life was giving way to a more urban society craving reform in various walks of life. Numerous religions arose and even within classical Hinduism, various radical sects began becoming hugely popular which rejected the supremacy of the Vedas. It was a time of intense debate, rebellion against discrimination and unprecedented intellectual and cultural bustle – an environment primed for a leader like Gautama Buddha who could show people a way to take control of their own spiritual lives, and rise above the ‘prescriptive’ way in which the prevalent religions were being preached and practiced at the time.
Of course, as it was, Hinduism kept growing more intellectually rigorous with each century and Indian philosophy was admirably in front of most key metaphysical and philosophical questions of all time, probably more so than many of its contemporaries. However, the application of these ideas in lay society was deeply flawed – if the thinkers and philosophers could have been thought of collectively as the founder-CEOs of the philosophy, then one could say that as a religion for the lay people, Hinduism had only administrators, and no managers. Gautama Buddha, refreshingly, seems to have been both CEO and manager - a leader who stepped up when a simple and unifying philosophy was desperately needed – one which could be practiced with dignity and intellectual integrity by everyone. One of the cornerstones to that unification was the concept of ‘suffering’. Everyone feels it. There isn’t a human being in the world who can claim that he has never felt pain, or jealousy, or worry, or a hundred other unpleasant emotions. Everyone at that time must for sure have heard about this Hindu monk or that one having achieved yogic bliss, but few would have come across acquaintances or friends who were perfectly, unconditionally contented with their lives.
Therein lay the Buddha’s genius – he chose a universal concept encompassing all the possible issues ailing society at large and the individual in particular, and he phrased in a way that everyone could relate. From a psychological point of view, one could view his discourses as a set of brilliantly and carefully crafted sessions wherein he nudged people to become accountable for their spiritual and emotional health and happiness. From an evolutionary perspective, it is not easy to train one’s brain and psyche to go against the most deep-seated human impulses and reactions which are very much rooted in our neuro-biological evolution as beings. Hence the needs for a strong conceptual framework backed by a simple and yet firm actionable prescription to be able to practice a philosophy based on reason. The four Noble truths along with the Eight-Fold Path provide both of these. Other concepts, many which can be found in other religions as well, such as impermanence, causality and liberation from the cycle of interdependence (or of lives, if that is a trail of interest) tie in seamlessly with this framework.
Putting all this theory into practice is easier said than done. I had been to a 10-day meditation retreat and I had tried to apply some of these concepts to my life during the time there – suffice to say that I got myself into a mental muddle more than once during that period thanks to overthinking things. Even in an environment extremely ideal for this kind of self-diagnosis, it was not easy. At one point, when I was beginning to get particularly good at the meditation, I wondered – where is the suffering? I’m here by choice, I’m accepting of the fact that I’m missing my family, I’m comfortable with the way my mind and body are functioning right now, and I’m learning well. Oh well, I thought, and put a pin in it. After a day of excellent meditation, I went to bed and realized that I simply wasn’t able to sleep. I had been meditating so intensely and had been enjoying it so much that I had thoroughly wound up my mind and body. My brain and heart just wouldn’t relax – both kept thumping away to glory, making me wonder if I was going to have either a heart attack or a brain aneurysm. Extreme thoughts to have, but after a few days of utter silence, everything is intensified, including fear. After laying awake for hours trying to calm my system down and trying to convince myself that I wasn’t going to die, I realized – this is a form of suffering. This fear of dying that I was feeling, ridiculously overblown as it was, was a form of aversion. And its cause could easily be linked back to the unnecessary intensity with which I had been meditating – I had learnt the technique, so there had been no need for me to push my system and pursue that blissful state that I had experienced. All I needed to do was practice. Clarity brought instant relief, and I told myself - this too shall pass. I’ve said this to myself many times in life before, but this time I really believed it. Perhaps faith takes the place of this kind of thing for some people, I wouldn’t know. The fantastic thing about the Buddhist diagnosis is that it needs nothing besides reason to be able to understand it, commit to it and benefit from it. Paradoxically, while I think that this makes it rather incompatible with evolutionary theory, it could be argued that it is in a way a ladder to a higher evolutionary level – one that human beings may be moving toward in order to sustain the race in the long term.
I’ve also asked myself this question when I was trying to reduce my alcohol intake which I thought had been needlessly increasing under the pretext of an overactive social life. It was easy enough to see the innate ‘suffering’ within this situation – the association of alcohol with a social life, the need to appear convivial and upbeat during social gatherings, the craving for instant gratification, the momentary high, not to mention the feeling of stupidity the morning after. In this case, the awareness of the reasons why this cycle played out the way it did was not enough unless one understood the teaching in totality i.e. the dependencies between our mental formations, our actions and the results thereof. I realized that while the reason for ‘dukkha’ was craving or ‘tanha’, it could be traced further back to its origin viz. ‘avidya’ or ignorance. In order to eliminate the ‘dukkha’, I had to eliminate ‘tanha’, and in order to this, at a deeper level, I had to eliminate ‘avidya’. So once again, I went back to concept of impermanence – when I drink, I do feel momentary pleasure but it will not last. More importantly, that situation which I believe is begging me to drink also will not last. The ability to see the true nature of things, or the ‘Right View’, helped me see these situations for what they were – isolated and wholly avoidable instances of a lack of wisdom. I started becoming more aware of the times that I reached for that one unnecessary drink, and noticed that it happened most often when I was looking for defenses – against boredom, annoyance, anger, disappointment, hurt pride, insecurity et al – none of which were admirable emotions in the first place. These were ‘sankharas’ – fabrications that give form to sensory stimuli and cause reactions of various kinds. Recognizing these moments go some way in replacing these emotional reactions with a little bit of equanimity, which is usually enough to dispel the ‘tanha’, and remind me that to react to temporary situations by clinging to them in various ways is to be quite foolish.
The other area that got my interest was how the concept of ‘dukkha’ applies to children – do the principles remain the same? I believe that many of the same impulses and emotions we feel as adults, we have felt in some preliminary form as our younger selves. From a Kantian (and Jungian) evolutionary perspective, a lot of it may be a priori – built into us. As children we’ve been sad, proud, envious, angry – and while our intellectual framework may still have been in its early formative stages, we were rational enough to know that we do not like the way those things make us feel. How do we think about children suffering? Do we try and teach them these metaphysical concepts in the hope that they somehow benefit from them, or do we leave things be, assuming that this is part of the cycle of rebirth and dukkha, and hence is a necessary evil? Or both, so that there is some amount of rectification of this vicious cycle for them in this life?
The same question may apply to people with differently formed brains. It is a question that intrigues me from a psychological perspective as well. Does developmental psychology looking through an evolutionary keyhole say that the young are not equipped to grapple with metaphysical questions until they have experienced enough, because if their brains are able to resolve these issues too early in life, there will not be enough motivation for them to keep at it until the time they are able to procreate and pass on their genes to the next generation? That is, is it psychologically ideal that the development of that part of the brain which can grasp complex or abstract ideas about metaphysics and spirituality must generally peak only AFTER human being become capable of procreation? And until then, are children and young people just doomed to keep accumulating experience after experience which will just validate this philosophy of suffering? Maybe it’s time evolution sped things up a bit. :-)
****
‘Suffering’ as described in the context of the Noble truths is as much a diagnosis as a suggestion - to examine oneself for tendencies towards craving (for pleasantness) or aversion (to unpleasantness), or in other words, a clinging to any sort of mental formations, and thereby to come to the realization that from even a lay logical perspective, one would be more contented had that clinging not existed. It is a self-diagnosis which leads one to the prescription – the Eight-Fold Path.
It also ties in perfectly with another key concept in Buddhism - impermanence. Suffering is not permanent – we are not born to suffer, it is just an inescapable truth of life which can be attributed to the deep-seated ways of human nature, which may well be thanks to evolution. Accepting that this is how we are built, and further that there is a state of no ‘dukkha’ (or at least less ‘dukkha’) is half the journey to liberation. It is intuitively rational idea – while there may be times in life when one feels that the suffering is so intense that it will never get better, beneath many layers of emotional fog, one always does know, at least theoretically, that at some point it will begin to diminish. While this knowledge may not give us any succor at all at the time, the Buddhist way gives us an opportunity to work at leveraging that understanding in order to come closer to peace.
The concept of suffering as such a core idea to Buddhist thinking results in it often being considered a highly pessimistic school of thought. This, I believe is quite removed from the truth. The deterministic rationale around the concept of ‘pratityasamutpada’ or dependent origination (which encompasses the concepts of ‘avidya’, ‘sankhara’, ‘tanha’ and ‘dukkha’ among others) was an incredibly astute way for the Buddha to really reach his audience. India in the 6th C. BC was going through a moral and religious ferment – the idyllic pastoral (and dysfunctional) Vedic way of life was giving way to a more urban society craving reform in various walks of life. Numerous religions arose and even within classical Hinduism, various radical sects began becoming hugely popular which rejected the supremacy of the Vedas. It was a time of intense debate, rebellion against discrimination and unprecedented intellectual and cultural bustle – an environment primed for a leader like Gautama Buddha who could show people a way to take control of their own spiritual lives, and rise above the ‘prescriptive’ way in which the prevalent religions were being preached and practiced at the time.
Of course, as it was, Hinduism kept growing more intellectually rigorous with each century and Indian philosophy was admirably in front of most key metaphysical and philosophical questions of all time, probably more so than many of its contemporaries. However, the application of these ideas in lay society was deeply flawed – if the thinkers and philosophers could have been thought of collectively as the founder-CEOs of the philosophy, then one could say that as a religion for the lay people, Hinduism had only administrators, and no managers. Gautama Buddha, refreshingly, seems to have been both CEO and manager - a leader who stepped up when a simple and unifying philosophy was desperately needed – one which could be practiced with dignity and intellectual integrity by everyone. One of the cornerstones to that unification was the concept of ‘suffering’. Everyone feels it. There isn’t a human being in the world who can claim that he has never felt pain, or jealousy, or worry, or a hundred other unpleasant emotions. Everyone at that time must for sure have heard about this Hindu monk or that one having achieved yogic bliss, but few would have come across acquaintances or friends who were perfectly, unconditionally contented with their lives.
Therein lay the Buddha’s genius – he chose a universal concept encompassing all the possible issues ailing society at large and the individual in particular, and he phrased in a way that everyone could relate. From a psychological point of view, one could view his discourses as a set of brilliantly and carefully crafted sessions wherein he nudged people to become accountable for their spiritual and emotional health and happiness. From an evolutionary perspective, it is not easy to train one’s brain and psyche to go against the most deep-seated human impulses and reactions which are very much rooted in our neuro-biological evolution as beings. Hence the needs for a strong conceptual framework backed by a simple and yet firm actionable prescription to be able to practice a philosophy based on reason. The four Noble truths along with the Eight-Fold Path provide both of these. Other concepts, many which can be found in other religions as well, such as impermanence, causality and liberation from the cycle of interdependence (or of lives, if that is a trail of interest) tie in seamlessly with this framework.
Putting all this theory into practice is easier said than done. I had been to a 10-day meditation retreat and I had tried to apply some of these concepts to my life during the time there – suffice to say that I got myself into a mental muddle more than once during that period thanks to overthinking things. Even in an environment extremely ideal for this kind of self-diagnosis, it was not easy. At one point, when I was beginning to get particularly good at the meditation, I wondered – where is the suffering? I’m here by choice, I’m accepting of the fact that I’m missing my family, I’m comfortable with the way my mind and body are functioning right now, and I’m learning well. Oh well, I thought, and put a pin in it. After a day of excellent meditation, I went to bed and realized that I simply wasn’t able to sleep. I had been meditating so intensely and had been enjoying it so much that I had thoroughly wound up my mind and body. My brain and heart just wouldn’t relax – both kept thumping away to glory, making me wonder if I was going to have either a heart attack or a brain aneurysm. Extreme thoughts to have, but after a few days of utter silence, everything is intensified, including fear. After laying awake for hours trying to calm my system down and trying to convince myself that I wasn’t going to die, I realized – this is a form of suffering. This fear of dying that I was feeling, ridiculously overblown as it was, was a form of aversion. And its cause could easily be linked back to the unnecessary intensity with which I had been meditating – I had learnt the technique, so there had been no need for me to push my system and pursue that blissful state that I had experienced. All I needed to do was practice. Clarity brought instant relief, and I told myself - this too shall pass. I’ve said this to myself many times in life before, but this time I really believed it. Perhaps faith takes the place of this kind of thing for some people, I wouldn’t know. The fantastic thing about the Buddhist diagnosis is that it needs nothing besides reason to be able to understand it, commit to it and benefit from it. Paradoxically, while I think that this makes it rather incompatible with evolutionary theory, it could be argued that it is in a way a ladder to a higher evolutionary level – one that human beings may be moving toward in order to sustain the race in the long term.
I’ve also asked myself this question when I was trying to reduce my alcohol intake which I thought had been needlessly increasing under the pretext of an overactive social life. It was easy enough to see the innate ‘suffering’ within this situation – the association of alcohol with a social life, the need to appear convivial and upbeat during social gatherings, the craving for instant gratification, the momentary high, not to mention the feeling of stupidity the morning after. In this case, the awareness of the reasons why this cycle played out the way it did was not enough unless one understood the teaching in totality i.e. the dependencies between our mental formations, our actions and the results thereof. I realized that while the reason for ‘dukkha’ was craving or ‘tanha’, it could be traced further back to its origin viz. ‘avidya’ or ignorance. In order to eliminate the ‘dukkha’, I had to eliminate ‘tanha’, and in order to this, at a deeper level, I had to eliminate ‘avidya’. So once again, I went back to concept of impermanence – when I drink, I do feel momentary pleasure but it will not last. More importantly, that situation which I believe is begging me to drink also will not last. The ability to see the true nature of things, or the ‘Right View’, helped me see these situations for what they were – isolated and wholly avoidable instances of a lack of wisdom. I started becoming more aware of the times that I reached for that one unnecessary drink, and noticed that it happened most often when I was looking for defenses – against boredom, annoyance, anger, disappointment, hurt pride, insecurity et al – none of which were admirable emotions in the first place. These were ‘sankharas’ – fabrications that give form to sensory stimuli and cause reactions of various kinds. Recognizing these moments go some way in replacing these emotional reactions with a little bit of equanimity, which is usually enough to dispel the ‘tanha’, and remind me that to react to temporary situations by clinging to them in various ways is to be quite foolish.
The other area that got my interest was how the concept of ‘dukkha’ applies to children – do the principles remain the same? I believe that many of the same impulses and emotions we feel as adults, we have felt in some preliminary form as our younger selves. From a Kantian (and Jungian) evolutionary perspective, a lot of it may be a priori – built into us. As children we’ve been sad, proud, envious, angry – and while our intellectual framework may still have been in its early formative stages, we were rational enough to know that we do not like the way those things make us feel. How do we think about children suffering? Do we try and teach them these metaphysical concepts in the hope that they somehow benefit from them, or do we leave things be, assuming that this is part of the cycle of rebirth and dukkha, and hence is a necessary evil? Or both, so that there is some amount of rectification of this vicious cycle for them in this life?
The same question may apply to people with differently formed brains. It is a question that intrigues me from a psychological perspective as well. Does developmental psychology looking through an evolutionary keyhole say that the young are not equipped to grapple with metaphysical questions until they have experienced enough, because if their brains are able to resolve these issues too early in life, there will not be enough motivation for them to keep at it until the time they are able to procreate and pass on their genes to the next generation? That is, is it psychologically ideal that the development of that part of the brain which can grasp complex or abstract ideas about metaphysics and spirituality must generally peak only AFTER human being become capable of procreation? And until then, are children and young people just doomed to keep accumulating experience after experience which will just validate this philosophy of suffering? Maybe it’s time evolution sped things up a bit. :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment