The book I'm reviewing today is The Monk and The Philosopher by Matthieu Ricard and his father Jean Francois Revel. Matthieu Ricard was a french biologist who fled to the mountains and became a Tibetan Buddhist monk over 40 years ago. The philosopher is his father Jean Francois who has a firm western style philosophy background. The fact that they are father and son just makes is such an interesting contrast worth looking into anyway.
Straight out of the gate in the forward lies an explanation of my interest in such a book in the first place: "for American science and philosophy, Buddhism has generally not been on the agenda." This is certainly true of my experience. I loved my philosophy classes, just about every one of them satiated my quest for intellectual fulfillment. But after having gone through all my courses and getting my degree I felt somewhat robbed because I somehow seemed to have missed the details that had gotten me into philosophy, namely how to live the good life. Toward the end of my schooling I spent a lot of my free time studying buddhism and stoicism in addition to my courses in metaphysics and probability theory. I had finished without really getting any formal exposure to the subject material. Actually, we wrote a paper on the 8 fold path in my intro course back in community college, but nothing else later on. Anyways, this book in so many ways has shown my thought processes throughout the years as I ping ponged my way between western and buddhist philosophy.
One thing that irked me a bit about this book is that Ricard is a Tibetan Buddhist and so constantly speaks in the name of buddhism as a whole about certain aspects that I'm sure are not representative of the other branches of buddhist thought. Lately I have largely confined my study to early buddhist thought as shown through the Pali Canon. My thinking is that I can use the early writing as a litmus test for everything that comes after, determining whether or not such additions to the main canon really fit with the teachings of the buddha. It's not that big of a deal since the basic teachings are essentially the same, but one should understand that Ricard's perspective is filtered through a particular flavor of buddhism. Also I should mention that even early buddhism is still being researched and debated about.
A wise friend once told me that there are as many religions as there are people. I wonder if Ricard has had to make a western translation of the rights and rituals that go on in a lot of buddhist sects. With regard to iconography, art, devas, and superstitious behavior he gives us an interpretation that brings everything back down to earth in the sense that all such expressions/behaviors are actually just buddhist thought in practice. A deva for example is not some deity, but actually can represent a quality of mind which allows one to remember certain aspects of the path. A mandala is a sandy representation of the universe that is wiped away after completion as a way to represent the impermanent nature of things.
With regards to faith, Ricard likens it to confidence in his teachers. Though he himself has not witnessed past lives, examining the character of his teachers over the years lead him to believe such things. This is a kind of blind faith in my opinion and a distortion of the concept of faith/confidence in buddhist thought as I understand it. Having confidence for me has been about believing that it is possible through training to reduce or possibly even eliminate one's suffering. All the other metaphysical ideas are up in the air and we'll just have to wait and see but they are doubtful propositions at my current understanding. I can't know his experiences. I did like, however, the connection to ritual and how it can remind one of certain aspects of the path as a sort of every day mnemonic device. The wheel of life is a fascinating example of this:
It represents the dharma in an easy to remember way, but is not supposed to mean that these realms actually exist (in my opinion.
One of my main criticisms of Buddhist thought on my first pass was that it was a path of passivity where you essentially seek to lobotomize yourself, never feeling pain or joy again. My understanding has improved greatly since then. Jean Francois echoes my criticisms and makes the same mistake in claiming that the path does not lead to action in the real world. Ricard reflects the the notion that the path is about cutting out the roots of suffering: craving, attachment, and negative mental states. This practice naturally allows the wholesome mind states to flourish. Additionally, there are specific practices of compassion and loving kindness to cultivate these states, so it's not as drab as I used to think so many years ago. As far as action is concerned, sorting out your psychology facilitates wholesome actions in the real world. Sure you can help others without your own meditation practice, but perhaps you do so grudgingly or with the expectation of reciprocation, fighting and feeding parts of your ego. The practice encourages action rather than passively bouncing off of the river rapids of sensory phenomena and the reactive mind. The idea is that a person who has freed their minds from greed, hatred, and delusion will naturally want to act in the world without such hindrances.
There were some strange parts about consciousness being separate from the brain but both speakers make metaphysical assumptions about free will that I feel don't hold up. Often the idea that we have the ability to make a choice at any given moment gives the illusion that our will is free in some way but we are clearly conditioned beings, subject to cause and effect. Ricard states that the current science of the mind makes a metaphysical assumption that the brain gives rise to the mind, that it is based on a physical substrate only. As Sam Harris would gleefully retort, even if a disembodied consciousness were really what the mind is, it would still be subject to cause and effect or indeterminism, but certainly could not be considered free. This is actually two different problems mushed together that sill have no satisfying answers. I've found that believing that I can make a choice at any time to arrest anger or hatred before it arises helps me to do just that. It clearly doesn't mean that my will is free, I am just somehow lucky enough to have gotten the idea in my head that I can change certain parts of myself. I'm a self changing machine. Moving on. Ricard and Jean Francois come to a stalemate about this issue of the physical basis of consciousness because buddhist thought makes an experiential claim that may require years of meditative training to test out whereas modern science makes its claim a priori. Again, there are a lot of claims being thrown around on both sides and I won't claim anything until I experience it.
Overall a fascinating read that confirmed my observations that Buddhism has engaged and continues to challenge philosophical ideas in a relevant, practical way.
