Dehumanising Tech-Based Expressions

 

“And, yes, words matter. They may reflect reality, but they also have the power to change reality - the power to uplift and to abase.” These are the wise words of William Raspberry, the late African American Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Washington Post to remind us of the influence that words exert on human thinking and behavior, and thus to choose them with great intention and care. As humanity strides deeper into the digital age, allowing itself to be increasingly governed by the technocratic structure of life, our use of language continues to evolve to reflect this new milieu. Human beings are increasingly describing or referring to ourselves using words that reflect a dehumanising tendency while uplifting things that were meant to be subservient to human beings and possessed nothing more than instrumental value.

In our relationships with people and things around us, there is a natural desire to extol what we treasure and gives us happiness. A man may say to his partner “You are my queen” even though her royal highness has to prepare his dinner everyday before he comes home from work. People give human names to their pet dogs, cats, hamsters, and parakeets, and refer to them using gender pronouns of “he” and “she” which are meant for human beings. When pets die either of old age or some unfortunate accident, some people even organize funerals or some special ceremonies in their memory. In a few extraordinary cases, some people whose pets outlive them bequeath their possessions to their furry friends.

And while leaving all your property to an animal might just be too outrageous for some people, we can probably empathize with someone who had found only in his or her pet comfort, solace, happiness, and loyalty but not in fellow human beings, not even his/her own family. So, we understand why animals and people are placed at a higher level by those who find value in them based on their subjective experience no matter if others might agree or not.

To me what is cause for anxiety is another phenomenon in human society that potentially leads to a much more dangerous human future than we might even imagine – the uplifting of technological entities while simultaneously debasing humanity itself. The increasing importance that we give to technological things are clearly seen in our lives. Our work, leisure time, relationships, shopping habits, and even worshipping activities are increasingly being facilitated and directed by digital gadgets. As Artificial Intelligence technology advances, we can expect to witness greater prevalence of AI personal assistants, robots as waiters at restaurants and as workers at hospitals and factories, robots in our homes as housekeepers and as pets. We can also expect to see more virtual reality characters created to serve as actors, actresses, fashion models, and yes, even someone’s lover, husband, or wife.

Simultaneous to the ever greater importance and value that is bestowed upon technological entities is the debasing of the human being as a unique creature in a class of its own. In the past, the fear was that excessive anthropocentrism would lead to human beings placing themselves at the zenith of the created order, thus giving us justification to dominate and manipulate everything – both biotic and abiotic – to satisfy our whimsical needs. While this fear is legitimate and continues to be a tremendous threat to ecological wellbeing and flourishing at the present time, in the future, this problem might give way to another equally worrisome dilemma – human beings might debase ourselves to such an extent that we no longer see ourselves as anything more than a machine that is substantially the same as one of the technological entities that we own (not to mention the nightmare that our machines may eventually own us).

There are plenty of evidence that indicates this is oncoming if not already the case. Human beings are already designing our work habit and workload in accordance with the requirements of technology. We might think that various technological gadgets have been developed to make our work easier and faster. But in reality, we are not working any less. Rather we are now doing more work than ever before because thanks to technology, work follows us everywhere we go – in bed, in the bathroom, in the car, on the airplane, even at the dinner table. There is a Vietnamese saying, “Even Heaven has to avoid mealtime when making a strike.” This is meant to express the absolute significance and sacredness of eating a meal. But as is often the case in contemporary society, many things have become even more powerful and influential than Heaven or God, among which is work. One of the virtues of robots is that they can work long hours and do not need bathroom breaks. Humans have to take bathroom breaks. Yes! But we can also write a short email while sitting on the toilet or quickly reply to a WhatsApp message while at the urinal.

As human beings become more immersed in digital technology and our lives become more intertwined with the gadgets we own, we have begun to identify and describe ourselves using terms that usually are applied to machines. We talk about “resetting” and “rewiring” our brains as if the human brain is no more than a complex network of wires that can be fixed when something goes wrong. There are so called expert instructions on how to “reprogram your subconscious mind” as if human consciousness (which no one has truly understand what it is) is something comparable to a computer that can be upgraded with the latest version of a software. And we talk about “recharging our batteries” and “rebooting our immune system” as if our bodies are merely mechanical entities that can be plugged and unplugged.

If words have the power to debase as Willian Raspberry claims, then the words above clearly represent self-debasement – whether intentionally or not. Every human religion and culture for thousands of years have tried to exalt the human person in various ways. The Abrahamic religions affirm that human beings are created in the image of God and thus reflect the divine in our very being. Jews and Christians are expected to be stewards of God’s creation by caring for Our Common Home. Islam holds that human beings are called to be viceregents of God and charged with the responsibility to improve the conditions on Earth. In the Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism, the Lord Vishnu is believed to have at various times incarnated as human beings in order to solve specific crises and issues plaguing humanity and restore order and regularity of the worlds. The Buddha taught that being born as a human person was essential to emancipation from the cycle of rebirth. While there are higher realms of existence filled with tens of thousands of years of bliss, only the human person through the process of self-cultivation can achieve enlightenment and eternal liberation from suffering. Vietnamese folklore asserts that the Vietnamese people are the offspring of a union between a fairy and a Dragon Lord. Thus, the Vietnamese identity is far from something ordinary and mundane but rather quite singularly supernatural. And Confucianism holds that human beings possess a particularly special position because humanity constitutes the third element in a triad relationship with Heaven and Earth.

Despite religious and cultural wisdom over the course of human history repeatedly affirming the uniqueness and value of human identity, we are casting these age-old insights aside by identifying ourselves with the gadgets that we create. We are rejecting the most extraordinary and noblest aspects of ourselves in exchange for solidarity with digital entities comprised of hardwares and softwares. This new consciousness is reflected in the present directions of technological development which is aiming towards the point in which human beings and machines become one – a state which is called transhumanism. If and when transhumanism becomes a reality, humans may live longer, may process information faster and become more intelligent, may see and hear better, but like it or not, we will no longer be human in the truest sense of the word. However one sees this human-machine union, it cannot be denied that transhumanism is literally dehumanising. Intentionally or otherwise, we are giving implicit consent to this human future by the way we nonchalantly depict ourselves today.

 

 

Working paper: Religious Environmental Humanism as Means to Promote Environmental Sustainability: Buddhist and Confucian Approaches (5)

Confucian Environmental Humanism

 

The Chinese tradition of Confucianism serves as an important spiritual, cultural, and social foundation for a significant segment of people in and from Asia. Although the modern-day discipline of religious studies in the West usually classifies Confucianism and the other famous Chinese tradition of Taoism as religions, people from these cultures often do not. According to Randall L. Nadeau, people in China, home to Confucianism and Taoism, are very likely to deny that they are Confucianist or Taoist and that these are religions at all (2014, p.21). For East Asians, the concept of religion is a relatively new phenomenon, having been imported from the West during the period of colonialism. The word ‘religion’ itself was first translated into Japanese (shukyo) only in the nineteenth century, then later adopted by Chinese scholars in the form of the Mandarin word zongjiao. East Asians often identify themselves as non-religious because they understand religion in the manner transmitted to them to literally mean ‘institutional teaching’ or ‘school of instruction.’ These words conjure up images of something sectarian and organizational (p.21). Nadeau writes, “Since Confucianism is pervasive and diffused—it is the air that Chinese and Japanese breathe, as opposed to a ‘church’ that one joins—Chinese and Japanese do not see Confucianism as a religious entity” (p.21). The other well-known tradition from China, Taoism, is also considered by Chinese throughout history to be complementary to Confucianism. They interpenetrate each other so much that these two religious and philosophical systems may be considered two aspects of a single religious tradition (p.60). The fact that there are two separate traditions called Confucianism and Taoism more reflect the Western classification than something inherently present in the Chinese religious and cultural milieu and sensibility. Moreover, while Chinese may not readily identify themselves as belonging to a religion called Confucianism or Taoism or to admit that these are religions at all, it does not mean that these traditions are not important in their lives. Most Chinese carry out family-oriented rituals rooted in Confucianism and Taoism such as making regular offerings to ancestors even if they do not explicitly regard themselves as Confucian or Taoist (p.4).

Asian as well as Western scholars of religion have included Confucianism into the list of world religions because it shares an essential purpose with other religious systems, which is the “aims toward the ultimate transformation of self and society and provides the means for achieving perfection” (p.22). For the past three to four thousand years, Confucianism has shaped the spiritual and ethical ideals, values, and behaviors of the Chinese people and beyond through its teachings on the veneration of ancestors, its educational program in history and culture, its principles for cultivating harmonious family and social relations, and the “grounding of moral teachings and ethical principles in a religious or cosmic reality” (p.23). In the past as well as in the present, personal, social and political warfare and strife motivated by greed and thirst for power have caused disharmony and moral decline in every level of human society. In the present age, these problems are compounded by the escalating ecological crisis. The Confucian response to this human condition is to devise a comprehensive and integrated method for human beings to transform themselves from the inner core, starting with the individual undertaking a self-effort realizing that what one is doing is for the sake of one’s own perfection.

According to Tu Weiming, the foremost contemporary Confucian thinker, Confucian self-transformation is first and foremost for one’s own sake so that one can become authentically human. Tu’s thesis of Confucian learning for the sake of the self, however, must not be interpreted as “mere acquisition of knowledge or the internalization of skills,” “a quest for individual happiness or inner spirituality” (Tu, nd, p.78). Confucian learning takes the individual as the starting point of departure, an independent and autonomous entity “predicated on the dignity of the person as an internal value rather than a socially constructed reality” (p.78). Nevertheless, the self as the center in the Confucian project is not an isolated individual, but as the center of an interconnected and ever expanding network of human relations—the community comprised of family, village, country, world, and cosmos. According to Tu, “Self-realization as a communal act presupposes a personal commitment for harmonizing the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world. The full realization of personhood entails the real possibility of transcending selfishness, nepotism, parochialism, nationalism, and anthropocentrism” (p.79).

Therefore, the Confucian comprehensive and integrated program for self-cultivation must include not just self development but also give due attention to the four interconnected relationships in human life – self, community, nature, and Heaven. Self-transformation aimed at development in these essential spheres resists the anthropocentric outlook of secular humanism found in the Western Enlightenment mentality which denies the transcendent and looks to dominate and subjugate nature (Tu, 2013). Rather, Confucian humanism reflects a form of spiritual humanism that “seeks an integration of body and mind, a fruitful interaction of self and community, a sustainable and harmonious relationship between the human species and nature, and a mutuality between the human heart and the Way of Heaven” (Ibid.)

What does Confucian authentic personhood look like? Traditional Confucian concepts of ‘Ren’, ‘Li’ and ‘Junzi’ are essential concepts when speaking about the fully realized person:

Ren (Jen): The virtue of ‘ren’ has been translated variously as ‘benevolence’, ‘humaneness’, ‘love’, and ‘kindness’. Nadeau translates ‘ren’ as ‘co-humanity’ because etymologically, the Chinese character for ‘ren’ shows two parts. The left part refers to something ‘human’ and the right side is the character for number 2. Together, ‘ren’ suggests a quality of being in co-human relationship, as stated by Mengzi, “To be human means being co-human” (The Book of Mencius, 1970, ch.22). The late famous American scholar of religious studies Huston Cummings Smith translates the term as ‘human-heartedness’ (Smith, 2009, p.172). Although ‘ren’ is innate, it must be naturally developed under guidance, not coercion. According to Smith, Confucius viewed ‘ren’ as the virtue of virtues, so sublime and transcendental. While everyone can develop this virtue, Confucius himself said that he had never seen it fully incarnated in anyone (Ibid.). Smith describes ‘ren’ in this manner:

 

Ren involves simultaneously a feeling of humanity toward others and respect for oneself, an indivisible sense of the dignity of human life wherever it appears. Subsidiary attitudes follow automatically: magnanimity, good faith, and charity. In the direction of ren lies the perfection of everything that would make one supremely human. In public life it prompts untiring diligence. In private life it is expressed in courtesy, unselfishness, and empathy, the capacity to “measure the feelings of others by one’s own.” Stated negatively, this empathy leads to what has been called the Silver Rule—“Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you.” According to the Confucius, “The person of jen, desiring self-affirmation, seeks to affirm as well.” Such largeness of heart knows no national boundaries for those who are ren-endowed know that “within the four seas all men are brothers and sisters” (p. 173).

 

Li: ‘Li’ proceeds directly from and is integrally connected with ‘ren’. While ‘ren’ represents an interior disposition, li represents the external performance in daily acts (Nadeau, p.31). Li is translated as ‘ritual’ or ‘ceremonial living’. Other scholars have translated the term ‘propriety’ or ‘decorum’. Examining the teachings of Confucius, li can be understood as the proper patterns of behavior that each person must demonstrate in one’s social environment (Nadeau, p.30). This means that li acts as a governing principle not only in religious settings but also in non-religious situations. As in religious ceremonies where actions must be carried out with the utmost precision and intention, the same must be adhered to in other contexts. Confucius taught, “Do not look at what is contrary to li, do not listen to what is contrary to li, do not speak what is contrary to li, and do not make any movement that is contrary to li” (Analects, 12.1). No matter what setting one finds onself in, one’s gestures, demeanor and speech must be in accordance with li. According to Confucius, li could be mastered by anyone because the inclination to live harmoniously with everyone exists naturally within every individual (ren). Li then is the externalization of the ren in a specific context, in the experience of living out the various relationships in the community: (1) cultivating personal life; (2) regulating familial relations, (3) ordering social affairs, and (4) bringing peace to the world. While ren is an internal virtue, it could be manifested in concrete ways through the exercise of li, which gives concrete expression to one’s inner spirit. On the other hand, the exercise of li without the motivating virtue of ren results in unnatural and coerced actions.

 

Junzi: ‘Junzi’ is the paradigmatic model of Confucian personality that embodies the highest standard of social and moral excellence. This term in traditional Confucian culture is generally applied to men and is translated as ‘gentleman’ or ‘superior person’. Feminist thinkers have translated the term as ‘exemplary person’. Tu Weiming emphasizes the inner dimension of the individual by translating the term as ‘profound person’. In any of these renderings, we can see that a ‘junzi’ is a well-cultivated person not having any of the characteristics of pettiness, mean spiritedness, boastfulness, coarseness, vulgarity, and narrow mindedness. Rather, among other things the ‘junzi’ is poised, gracious, competent and courageous. The two inseparable defining qualities of a ‘junzi’ is being well educated in the arts and literature, history and the rites, and possessing admirable character traits, especially ren. The great Confucian thinker of the Ming Dynasty, Yang Yangming, described this as “the unity of knowledge and action” where how one behaves reflects the kind of education one received.  One of the greatest things a ‘junzi’ is able to do is engage in continuous critical self-examination which allows the ‘junzi’ to penetrate his inner self and is able to realize the true nature of human-relatedness.

 

The three Confucian concepts of ‘ren’, ‘li’ and ‘junzi’aim to depict of state of highest human authenticity, integrity, and realization. When a person imbued with ‘ren’ consistently demonstrates this inner virtue in ‘li’, the individual is rightfully considered a ‘junzi’ – one that is truly human. Authentic humanity in the Confucian understanding is never egotistical, narcissistic, or anthropocentric in the objectionable sense. Rather, a well cultivated person always is conscious of the four essential dimensions of the shared human experience—self, community, Earth (nature) and Heaven. According to Tu Weiming, Confucian humanism contrasts with secular humanism found in the Enlightenment mentality which focuses on the self and community but neglects Earth and Heaven. Confucian humanism, on the other hand, calls for the integration of the body, heart, mind, soul and spirit of the self. This integration results in actions and interactions that build harmony at all levels from the home to the world and beyond. A highly cultivated person while deeply rooted in his/her immediate context, is nevertheless able enter into relationship with others who are of different socio-economic-cultural status. And in fact, that person is able to do the same with the natural world beyond the human situation. An essential element of Confucian humanism is the commitment to relationship of mutuality with the Way of Heaven. The Heavenly Way and the Human Way are distinct, the former being superior to the latter; thus, human beings must open their heart and mind to the ways of heaven, lest they become misguided in their actions.

 

Ecological Implications of Confucian Humanism

 

The ecological implications in Confucian environmental humanism are profound. Confucian environmental humanism presents a corrective to secular humanism which contributed to the ecological crisis by giving rise to the human “obsession with power and mastery over the environment—to the exclusion of the spiritual and the natural realms” (Tu, 2001, p.254). The moral education called for by Confucianism helps each person to become truly human, the understanding of which is not of a person focused singularly on his/her own happiness but a person seeing him/herself as center of ever expanding concentric circles of relationships, beginning with the family but reaching to the entire cosmos. According to Tu Weiming, if nepotism is detrimental to the harmony in the family, and chauvinistic nationalism is contrary to patriotism, then anthropocentrism is also detrimental to achieving human flourishing. The vision of harmony at the local and cosmic levels demands that human beings see themselves as being both socialistic and naturalistic, that human beings cannot be just anthropological or anthropocentric, but ‘anthropocosmic’, that is seeing themselves beyond mere socialistic or materialistic qualities. Tu writes:

 

Strictly speaking, the Way of the Great Learning is anthropocosmic rather than anthropological, not to mention anthropocentric. As clearly stated, the purpose of this kind of learning is “to illuminate the illuminating virtue.” The illuminating virtue is the virtue that emanates from the Heavenly-endowed human nature. To use an expedient Christian analogy, the divinity in the human as endowed by God entails selfillumination. Yet, contrary to Christian theology, in Confucian philosophy this self-illuminating virtue, although endowed by God, is distinctively human to the extent that its further illumination to enable the inner divinity to be a sustained presence in the lifeworld cannot depend on God’s continuous grace. It must be maintained by persistent human effort. (Tu, nd., p.79-80).

 

 While self-cultivation is a process of deepening subjectivity and broadening sociality, to achieve authentic human flourishing, this process must include a transcendent vision that does not limit the individual to the mundane world but to aim for unity with Heaven and embracing the universe as a whole (p.80).  The human person is comprised genetically of vital energy (qi), life (sheng), and consciousness (zhi), and the human nature is endowed by Heaven. Thus, self-cultivation can help human beings to emulate Heaven and become active participants and co-creators in the transformative process of Heaven and Earth. By taking part part in this creative process, human beings enter into communion with Heaven and Earth in a tripartite relationship.  (Ibid.).

Wingtsit Chan, in Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, writes: “If one word could characterize the entire history of Chinese philosophy, that would be humanism—not the humanism that denies or slights a Supreme Power, but one that professes the unity of man and Heaven. In this sense, humanism has dominated Chinese thought from the dawn of its history” (1969, p.3). The recognition of the religious and naturalistic dimensions of Confucian humanism helps us to understand that human beings are part of this great transformation along with the rest of the entities in nature. Major Neo-Confucianist thinker Chang Tsai’s (1020-77) Western Inscriptions contains these opening lines:

 

Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother, and even such a small creature as I find an intimate place in their midst.

 

Therefore, that which fills the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I consider as my nature.

 

All people are my brothers and sisters, and all things are my companions. (p. 497-498)

 

Indeed, Chang recognized that all entities in the universe shared the same life force of qi, which refers to yin and yang, and the five phases of wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. This common life source establishes consanguinity between human beings with the rest of nature. By the Chou Dynasty (1122 BCE-256 BCE), this world view was already shared by all Chinese religions. This holistic worldview espouses that all living and nonliving beings in the universe are constituted of the same life force and are all engaged in a dynamic and continuous process of transformation. Because human beings share the same life force as nature, human beings could communicate with nature and observe happenings in nature to discern their own fate. Rulers could observe natural phenomena to decipher whether their Mandate of Heaven is being blessed due to virtuous leadership or about to be taken away due to moral depravity. Although the idea of Mandate of Heaven was originally envisioned in a political context to explain and justify political fates, Confucian thinkers broadened the concept to include moral destiny, moral nature, and moral order (Yu, 1999, p.164). While human beings are born from their biological parents, their human nature is conferred by the Heaven. Therefore, the Way of Heaven is accessible through self-knowledge, which is acquired through a procecess of self-transformation that involves both theoretical learning and consistent practice. A successful effort results in a profound or perfect person with complete self-knowledge that reveals to the individual one’s deepest nature (Chienchih, 2005, p.267). This self-cultivation process plays out differently for each person depending on one’s situation.  However, it is a process that all human beings are mandated by Heaven to carry out so that they can part-take in the tremendous task of cosmic transformation as co-creators. This unique role as co-creator places human beings in a favorable position to feel a special bond to both the natural sphere and the transcendent. The Neo-Confucianist philosopher Wang Yangming (1472–1529) says that a great man naturally feels united with Heaven, Earth and the myriad things as an inner reality of his own experience.

The great man regards Heaven and Earth and the myriad things as one body. He regards the world as one family and the country as one person. As to those who make a cleavage between objects and distinguish between self and others, they are small men. That the great man can regard Heaven, Earth and the myriad things as one body is not because he deliberately wants to do so, but because it is natural to the humane nature of his mind that he does so.

Therefore, empathy and compassion are extended not only to one’s kin or fellow human beings, but various entities in nature as well. This moreover is a defining trait of every human person. This is consistent with the Mencian thinking that human hearts are naturally inclined to be sensitive to the suffering of others. Wang illustrates his idea with the following examples:

When we see a child about to fall into the well, we cannot help a feeling of alarm and commiseration. This shows that our humanity (ren) forms one body with the child. It may be objected that the child belongs to the same species. Again, when we observe the pitiful cries and frightened appearances of birds and animals about to be slaughtered, we cannot help feeling an “inability to bear” their suffering. This shows that our humanity forms one body with birds and animal. It may be objected that birds and animals are sentient beings as we are. But when we see plants broken and destroyed, we cannot help a feeling of pity. This shows that our humanity forms one body with plants. It may be said that plants are living things as we are. Yet even when we see tiles and stones shattered and crushed, we cannot help a feeling of regret. This shows our humanity forms one body with tiles and stones. (Quoted in Chan, p.259-60)

 

Confucian humanism in its ecological dimension emphasizes that each person strives for self-transformation in such a way that he/she is able to recognize the natural world and the entire cosmos as home. The corollary of this realization is that all entities in it can be seen as part of one’s kinship network. And one is able to apply the rule of reciprocity to all of his/her dealings with others: “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Ultimately, what each person aims to do is to be in perfect harmony with both Heaven and Earth as stated in the Doctrine of the Means:

Only those who are the most sincere [authentic, true and real] can fully realize their own nature. If they can fully realize their own nature; they can fully realize human nature. If they can fully realize human nature, they can fully realize the nature of things. If they can fully realize the nature of things, they can take part in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth. If they can take part in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth, they can form a trinity with Heaven and Earth.

 

                This human endeavor is not meant to be an abstract and lofty ideal meant for the select few but an enjoinder to all to undertake as part of the basic human practice. Only when each person is willing to undergo self-cultivation in order to enter into mutual relationship with Heaven and Earth, will he/she be able to turn away from selfishness, the temptation to ignore the Mandate of Heaven, and the desire to dominate and subjugate nature.

Confucian environmental humanism demonstrates that a viable environmental ethic may be derived from an anthropocentric epistemology. When imbued with the proper value and standards, a human-centered epistemology does not have to descend into egocentrism and exploitation. This is the same way as one’s personal world view does not automatically lead to selfishness and egotism. Confucianism is concerned with self-cultivation in order to become a fully realized person imbued with a sense of empathy for others. However, in order to develop the fullest extent of this character, the person aspiring to be a ‘junzi’ must continually expand his boundary of concern until it encompasses all of humanity (Smith, p.182). As Huston Smith remarks, “In shifting the center of one’s empathic concern from oneself to one’s family one transcends selfishness. The move from family to community transcends nepotism. The move from community to nation overcomes parochialism, and the move to all humanity counters chauvinistic nationalism” (p.182). We may also add that the conscious move to the transcendent overcomes egotistical anthropocentrism. As Tu Weiming asserts, the concentric circles that make up Confucianism’s vision of human flourishing do not begin with the self and expand to just the world but to the entire cosmos. He writes, “We are inspired by human flourishing, but we must endeavor not to be confined by anthropocentrism, for the full meaning of humanity is anthropocosmic rather than anthropocentric” (Weiming, 1998, p.17). This anthropocosmic spirit is characterized by “communication between self and community, harmony between human species and nature, and mutuality between humanity and Heaven” (Ibid.).

Working paper: Religious Environmental Humanism as Means to Promote Environmental Sustainability: Buddhist and Confucian Approaches (4)

 

Buddhist Environmental Humanism

 

            Integral Human Development

 

           Buddhism, especially the Theravada tradition, has often been described as “humanistic” in its outlook, partly because it does not have a belief in a deity and self-liberation from the cycle of rebirth and suffering wholly depends on the personal effort to achieve self-transformation. The secular humanist Paul Chiariello (2014), for example, remarked, “Buddhism and Humanism are two geographical sides of the same philosophical coin. They’re twins with the same DNA, separated at birth, and brought up by different parents…. Buddhism is Eastern Humanism and Humanism is Western Buddhism.”[1] Buddhism’s status as a religion has also been disputed by many who argue that it is more of a philosophy or a way of life rather than a religious system. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into this dispute, and any discussion would not contribute anything new to what has already been presented by much more capable scholars in the field of religion. In this paper, however, I would argue that Buddhism is humanistic – not because it is atheistic, not because it is not a religious tradition (which I believe that it is) – but because it aims to achieve exactly what I have stated above – that human beings achieve the best possible version of themselves while living their earthly life. If successful in this effort, they will be rewarded with being reborn with a better human status in their next life, or being reborn in one of various heavenly realms, or even entering nibbāna, escaping completely from samsara – the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

            The Buddhist teleology of escaping the cycle of rebirth and the suffering associated with mundane existence, which can only be achieved over countless lifetimes, and can only be achieved in the form of human, means that humans must strive to eliminate the spiritual poisons that cause them to experience suffering and become trapped in samsara. These are the poisons of greed (rāga), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha), which are present in each person in various expressions and degrees of seriousness from mild to extreme. Greed is the mental state in which one is unceasingly plagued by a feeling of need and want along with a constant feeling of lack in his life. This condition, however, can never be fully or permanently satisfied because the appetite is so insatiable that even when the desired object is obtained, the feeling of satisfaction is only temporary. Hatred comprises a whole range of negative emotions such as disappointment, despair, anxiety and dejection, and feelings of dissatisfaction towards oneself and others. The third poison is delusion, which is integrally tied to ignorance (avijjā). A person suffering from delusion faces confusion and lack of directions in life, and can fall victim to false views that result in ideological dogmatism and fanaticism.

            To overcome these poisons and gain liberation, the Buddha proposed practicing the Noble Eightfold Path which combines moral virtues (sīla) with development of concentration (samādhi) and wisdom or insight (pañña). In the Nidāna Sutta of the Saṃyutta, the Noble Eightfold Path is declared by the Buddha as the “ancient road travelled by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past” which leads to cessation of aging, death, and volitional formations (S.II.12). The eight factors are often listed as follows:

 

1. Right view (Sammā diṭṭhi)

2. Right thought (Sammā sankappa)

3. Right speech (Sammā vācā)

4. Right action (Sammā kammanta)

5. Right living (Sammā ājīva)

6. Right effort (Sammā vāyāma)

7. Right mindfulness (Sammā sati)

8. Right concentration (Sammā samādhi)

 

The Sīla group consists of right speech, right action, and right living. The Samadhi group includes right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. The Pañña group consists of right view and right thought. The diligent training and practice of these three stages results in higher moral discipline, higher consciousness, and higher wisdom, which is the condition that directly opposes the ignorance that give rise human suffering. To achieve the ultimate goal of wisdom, one must go through the training of the moral discipline, which serves as the foundation for training of concentration, which in turn serves as the foundation for training of higher wisdom. One might notice in the sequence listed above that the two factors in the wisdom group (right view and right thought) are listed first, not last. This is not an error on the part of the canonical editors. The wisdom factors appear first on the list because, while they represent the goal to be achieved, a level of right view and right thought is needed for one to even commence the process. As the cultivation process goes on, these wisdom factors will be further developed and refined in proportion to the degree of higher moral discipline and higher consciousness achieved. Therefore, the process of self-cultivation is not linear like a ladder; rather the three aspects of training are always present along the path, with each continuing to reinforce the other and in turn becomes further developed until perfection is achieved (Bodhi 1998, p.13). Thus, this path of transformation, noted Damien Keown (2001, p.102), “is only linear in the metaphorical sense: it does not list stages which are to be passed through and left behind so much as describe the dimensions of human good and the technique for their cultivation.” The ultimate result of this process of cultivation of moral and intellectual virtue is the attainment of nibbāna, where perfection has been achieved and the process of rebirth has permanently ceased. Keown emphasizes that nibbāna is the summit of this very gradual painstaking process and “not an ontological shift or soteriological quantum leap.”

Intellectual as well as moral progress as prescribed by the Noble Eightfold Path is compulsory for the attainment of enlightenment or emancipation from the cycle of rebirth. In the Pali scriptures, the Buddha harshly condemns teachings that suggest other methods not containing the Eightfold Path. The Buddha felt strongly that any method which lacked either the moral or intellectual component would be detrimental to the quality of perfection achieved (D.II.151). When one has undergone the path in a correct manner, one is infused with the aspects of moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom – all three always present and active in the individual’s life.

 

 

Implications for Human-Nature Relationship

 

How does the Buddhist effort at personal transformation relate to the issue of environmental flourishing and sustainability? As Buddhist self-cultivation aims to help the individual to improve his or her interior qualities through the progress in wisdom and virtue, this improvement will be manifested in one’s relationships with other people as well as non-human sentient beings, and the natural environment. Consequently, the goal of achieving a harmonious human-nature relationship becomes integrally connected to the process of self-cultivation. In other words, a healthy human-nature relationship is the happy result of the effort of comprehensive and conscientious training aimed at personal liberation. Self-transformation, which is an interior phenomenon, must be observable in one’s exterior relational life and ethical dealings with others. One’s actions towards nature, therefore, serve as evidence of this interior change. The environmental crisis, in the Buddhist assessment, represents first and foremost a human ethical and spiritual problem in which humans are plagued by the poisons of hatred, ignorance and greed. These unwholesome tendencies turn humans into egotistical creatures bent on fulfilling their selfish desires while disregarding the well-being of others, especially of nature. Human-human and human-nature relationships motivated by the three poisons are characterized by violence and exploitation and in the case of the natural environment, wanton destruction. Unfortunately, under the influence of delusion, humans do not realize that the loss of environmental vitality and equilibrium ultimately proves detrimental to the exploiters themselves. Therefore, the process of addressing the environmental crisis requires human beings to improve their relationship with nature not by fixing external or superficial abnormalities but by undergoing the process of self-cultivation to root out poisons that are deleterious to self and others. Fundamental Buddhist teachings along with the practices prescribed by the Noble Eightfold Path not only serve to help the individual attain spiritual progress but can also help to build human-nature relationship that are wholesome and mutually beneficial.

First, self-cultivation helps humans to feel a sense of solidarity with nature in a world inflicted with unceasing suffering. In the Buddhist cosmogony, since beginningless time, human beings and nature have coexisted on a cosmological continuum linked by the common experience of dukkha (suffering). In this reality of life-after-life called saṃsāra, none of the states of life exists in complete isolation from one another. All sentient beings share with each other the experience of suffering, albeit in different degrees. To be born as a human, despite having to endure various levels of suffering depending on one’s social status, is relatively more fortunate than to be born as an animal whose life is constantly under threat of attack by bigger predators. Thus, suffering is not simply a product of subjective human psychology, but an objective phenomenon experienced by all sentient beings. Reflecting on this reality, human beings can realize their connection with nature and develop a sense of solidarity with the suffering nature. John J. Holder (2007, p.123) writes, “In early Buddhism, dukkha is the vital link that connects human values to a concern for the natural world. A genuine concern for the natural world derives from the fact that the remedy for dukkha in human experience is precisely a radical shift to a concern for the well-being of all other sentient beings.” Thus, the mitigation of suffering of other sentient beings become intimately tied to the goal of eliminating human suffering because, as the late monk Bhuddhadasa remarked, human beings and other natural entities are “mutual friends inextricably bound together in the same process of birth, old age, suffering, and death” (quoted in Swearer 1997, p.28). According to Buddhadasa, this awareness calls for a way of caring (anurak) that expresses a sense of deep empathy to protect, shelter and care for the environment (Swearer, 1997, p. 26). It must be emphasized that the sense of solidarity in suffering begins strictly within the circle of sentient beings because only sentient beings can experience suffering. However, such kind of care demands that the non-sentient entities, e.g., the physical environment (forests, mountains, bodies of water, the air, etc..) which serves to support sentient life must also be cared for accordingly.

 

Second, self-cultivation can promote the human-nature relationship of responsibility and accountability, which is based upon one of Buddhism’s most important doctrines, the Law of Dependent Origination. Although this principle has been interpreted in various ways by different Buddhist traditions and scholars of Buddhism, fundamentally it asserts that all things in the universe arise or cease not on their own but dependent upon a specific set of conditions. In the human situation, the law is observed on a physical-psychological level while in nature, the law plays out on a physical level. Defined in this way, the Principle of Dependent Origination is a natural rather than an ethical law, and it does not make any judgments about the various phenomena that occur in the world. The law merely states in an objective manner the various causes and conditions that cause something to come into existence. However, this does not mean that the Principle of Dependent Origination holds no ethical implications for human behavior or for human-nature relationship. The environmental implications appear when it is recognized in this universal natural law a connection between human actions and the internal and external consequences exerted upon human beings as well as the natural world. The Buddha on numerous occasions highlighted this connection in his sermons. For example, in the Cakkavattasihanada Sutta (D.III.58–77), the Buddha said that when people behaved degenerately, the world would experience social and political conflicts and natural calamities. However, prosperity and peace returned, and natural balance was restored when people reformed and abandoned their evil ways. Understanding of the Principle of Dependent Origination, therefore, facilitates building human-nature relationship characterized by responsibility and accountability, where human beings, by virtue of their unique mental and spiritual ability, can affect the process of giving rise to or extinguishing suffering in the world. The human ability of foresight enables them to see the multiple consequences of their actions. This means that human beings cannot simply pretend to live isolated lives in which the impact of their actions, thoughts, and intentions on nature do not have to be evaluated. The Principle of Dependent Origination that governs the Buddhist cosmogony further affirms the insight that human beings and nature are co-sojourners in saṃsāric life. Displaying responsibility and accountability towards fellow human beings and towards nature demonstrates the ability to see others as fellow travelers on a journey where the destination is the eventual emancipation from suffering for all sentient creatures. When this companionship is understood and felt by human beings, they are less likely to see the fate and well-being of nature as something disconnected from their behavior, as something that they cannot be held accountable for, but always aware that their actions have direct consequences on the condition of the natural environment.

 

Finally, self-cultivation helps promote the human-nature relationship of mutual service and gratitude. The vision of this human-nature relationship is inspired by the central Buddhist teaching that nothing in the world possesses a permanent, intrinsic self – an assertion that holds important implications for how human beings view themselves as well as the natural world. This doctrine of non-self (anattā) states that there is no self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other permanent substance either within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence or outside of them. Reality is comprised of mere continually self-consuming process of arising and passing physical and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process. The life which we experience is merely a composite of various mental and physical components or aggregates (khandha) existing in various configurations, which only last momentarily, and is entirely disconnected from the next configuration. Thus, what we call an automobile is but an aggregate of its various parts existing in certain relationship to one another. However, the car as a static and permanent entity is a mere illusion (Vis.M.XVIII). Because there is no static and permanent substance controlling the aggregates, it is improper to consider these khandhas as “this is mine” or “this is I” or “this is my self” (Varanasi 1999, p.14).

The Buddhist insistence on not-self in mundane entities, human or otherwise, facilitates envisioning a more harmonious human-nature relationship characterized by selfless virtues. A positive expression of this selflessness is mutual service and gratitude. Oftentimes, obsession with the self leads to egotistical tendencies and attempts to demand rights for oneself, to build up oneself, and to protect oneself while justifying why the minimum of rights and privileges ought to be accorded to others. Indeed, much of our social conflicts take place due to disagreements in the distribution of rights and privileges among groups and individuals. The Buddhist claim of non-self, on the contrary, opens up the possibility of building a human-nature relationship characterized by mutual service and gratitude. This vision of human-nature relationship also encourages the display of empathy and gratitude towards others in the act of service, and affirms that the journey of human beings in saṃsāra is far from a solitary sojourn, but one alongside a great number of companions and friends. Finally, it promotes reciprocity and cooperation to help relieve the suffering of one another and help each other to make progress in awareness and state of life. Services rendered by nature on behalf of human beings are many. In addition to providing nourishment and air for human beings to sustain their life, one of the unique services that nature offers is facilitating the human activity of meditation on the Dhamma. David J. Kulupahana (2009, p.5) commented that natural settings are extremely beneficial in the effort of self-cultivation because they not only create fewer distractions when it comes to sense pleasures, but also “provide a natural experiential ground for realizing impermanence and dependent arising, that is, the nature of the world.” Consequently, a human-nature relationship characterized by mutuality, reciprocity and symbiosis naturally requires human beings to respond to nature’s outpouring of service with their own modes of service.

Buddhist Environmental Virtues

 

Buddhist self-cultivation as prescribed by the Noble Eightfold Path enables the individual to possess virtues that promote the human-nature relationships described above. The environmental crisis caused by human exploitation and destruction of nature can be rectified when human virtues are intentionally ordered towards improving the way human beings relate to nature. First, the relationship of solidarity in suffering can be nourished by the virtues of loving kindness (mettā), compassion (karunā), and gentleness (maddava). Loving kindness is the wish that all sentient beings, without exception, be happy while compassion is the genuine desire to alleviate the sufferings of others which one is able to feel. The text that one often encounters when discussing about loving kindness is from the Suttras which states: “I dwell pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to myself, I dwell pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without ill will” (A.I.183). Along with loving kindness, the person who exhibits compassion towards others and has their well-being in mind ultimately makes progress in his own spiritual state. If a person practices compassion, “relishes it, desires it, and finds satisfaction in it. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of streaming radiance” (A.II.129). Compassion is exemplified by the Buddha himself who is said to be the “one person who arises in the world…out of compassion for the world” (A.I.23) and is “practicing simply out of sympathy and compassion for living beings” (A.II.177).  Gentleness can be interpreted as the positive derivative of the non-violence (ahimsā) precept in Buddhism. Buddhism not only urges people to be gentle in their daily dealings with other people and animals, but it also encourages people to avoid means of livelihood that brings about intentional harm to others (A.V.177). Environmental sustainability greatly depends on a human community that knows how to refrain from doing violence to its members and to others. By acting with gentleness towards others, environmentally negative events such as the extinction of animal species due to excessive hunting or the loss of plant species due to destruction of forests can be prevented.

Second, the relationship of responsibility and accountability will be strengthened by the virtues of moderation and contentment (saṅtuṭṭhī). Moderation and contentment go hand in hand and serve as the antidote for the greed that is detrimental to one’s quest for liberation. Contentment is opposed to non-contentment and craving (tanhā). Craving leads to suffering, or unsatisfactoriness because one is never fulfilled by the thing that one has and continues to look for fulfillment in impermanent things, an endeavor that is ultimately done in vain. While human craving leads us to think that more material possessions and greater material wealth is desirous, Buddhism teaches us that contentment is the “greatest riches” (Dp.204) whereas destruction of all cravings means overcoming all suffering (Dp.21). One can immediately see how moderation and contentment advocated by Buddhism would have profound effect on human-nature relationship and environmental well-being. By setting limits on our lifestyle, focusing on what we truly need rather than what we like or what we want, consumerism, and subsequently commodity production, is reduced. This leads to less strain on natural resources and results in improved ecological equilibrium. Moderation and contentment also mean true appreciation of the thing that one already possesses and intends to use it in the most meaningful way possible. Oftentimes, people discard a perfectly good mobile phone or tablet that they have been using simply because there is a new model out on the market that supposedly will bring about more satisfaction to the consumer.

Finally, the relationship of mutual service and gratitude is supported by the virtue of generosity (cāga) in giving (dāna). Generosity is the antidote for greed and attachment and is considered to be an essential quality of a superior person (sappurisa), alongside other important qualities of faith, morality, learning and wisdom (Bodhi, 1995). According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, generosity as a spiritual quality is important because “the goal of the path is the destruction of greed, hate and delusion, and the cultivation of generosity directly debilitates greed and hate, while facilitating that pliancy of mind that allows for the eradication of delusion” (Bodhi, 1995). True generosity is the underlying impetus for the practice of dāna parami, the perfection of giving that brings about wholesome kamma essential to the path of enlightenment (Jootla, 1995). How does the virtue of generosity which is reflected in the perfection of giving strengthen the human-nature relationship of mutual service and gratitude? There is no question that nature provides human being with many essential services. Without the oxygen produced by plants, human beings would not be able to breathe. The processes taking place in nature is also extremely conducive to the spiritual progress of human beings when they meditate and reflect on them. Exposure to nature is also conducive to people’s general mental balance and physical well-being. The service that nature offers to human beings is constant and unceasing. The relationship of mutual service, by the very phrase, implies a reciprocal relationship and human beings must also put themselves at the service of nature. True service requires giving, and giving not just in a haphazard manner, but giving with a joyous and peaceful heart, giving out of true generosity. The virtue of generosity strengthens the relationship of mutual service because it responds to nature’s generosity towards human beings with our own mode of generosity. Human generosity reflects our appreciation of the Buddhist doctrine of kataññukatavedi in which one is conscious of the favor that one receives and has the mind to reciprocate such favor. This is the teaching of gratitude that we apply not only to other human beings but to any entity that acts on our behalf. The virtue of generosity also reinforces human-nature relationship because it is the opposite of the defilements of selfishness and attachment that are so detrimental not only to our own well-being but also to the flourishing of nature. It would not take much to convince us that much of the environmental devastation taking place is due to human attachment to material possessions and selfishly accumulating them, causing great strains on natural resources and upsetting the ecological equilibrium.

 

---

[1] Paul Chiariello, “Buddhism & Humanism: Two Sides of the same Coin, Part 1” Applied Sentience (May 23, 2014), https://appliedsentience.com/2014/05/23/buddhism-humanism-two-sides-of-the-same-coin-part-1/.

Book Notes: When God Stops Fighting

 

When God Stops Fighting: How Religious Violence Ends by Mark Juergensmeyer. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2022. 196 pp.

In this monograph, Mark Juergensmeyer examines how “violent movements, even those informed by relgious visions of great warfare, terminate, or are transformed into more peaceful elements within the broader society.” The author focuses on movements that are related to religion because the participants in these movements often consider their struggle a holy crusade, in which they are engaged in a metaphysical struggle between good and evil, right and wrong. The author terms these struggles a kind of “cosmic war” to underline the high degree of importance and the deep meaning that the people involved perceive their efforts. Thus, the aim of the study is to understand how conflicts are resolved as well as to decipher when the idea of fighting begins to cease in the mind of the participants.  

In this book, Juergensmeyer studies three particular  cases – the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Mindanao Muslims in the Philippines, and the Khalistan movement by Sikhs in India’s Punjab region. The author travelled extensively to these places in order to interview individuals involved in these struggles in various capacities including former soldiers, leaders, and sympathizers, etc. Undoubtedly, these trips were full of risks to the author’s own life.  

From these three case studies, Juergensmeyer shows that not only the struggles themselves are complex involving multiple reasons – religion, ethnic, political, economic – the reasons that these violent movements come to an end are also complex. The author divides the set of factors into two categories – external and internal. The external factors include outside intervention, i.e., by government military forces that debilitate the movement’s ability to persist. When bases are destroyed and resources are limited, movements begin to lose their steam.

Internally, movements lose their strength due to internal conflicts. Sometimes, members become disenchanted due to poor leadership and discredits and devalues the movement which is meant to be a divine mandate. The internal disagreements lead to a loss of faith in the movement’s vision, fractures in the communal consensus, and the awareness of altenative opportunities that provide new hope. In the last situation, former enemies can begin to see themselves as allies who recognize and respect the needs of one another.

While there is an end in the conflict, there is no guarantee that there is complete cessation of violence. Some level of activities continues to be carried out by those in the movement who are not satisfied with the peace agreement or when agreements are not implemented as initially articulated. For many, the idea of “cosmic war” does not entirely dissipate even if there is apparent peace. The cosmic war could be revived when individuals feel shortchanged in their effort to accommodate themselves to civil society. Therefore, ongoing work is needed to maintain the peace and to manage the potential for reignition of the cosmic war. To this end, close collaboration with former true believers in a movement’s cosmic war would be essential keeping coflict at bay.