[Buddha statue (Bangkok). Foto di Marzia Poerio]
Ever since the Western Enlightenment religion and spirituality have generally been treated with disdain within European academic circles. Ever since Voltaire exhorted "Remember the cruelties", referring to the millions killed and tortured by the Church, a strong memory has indeed been deeply embedded in Western intellectual culture. For over two centuries religion has been discredited as little more than a relic of a dark and distant past hanging on to the present because of un-inquiring minds content to accept what they are told. The Humanities dismiss it as nothing more than an oppressive force of social manipulation. And within the Sciences religion and spirituality have undergone a massacre, being seen as a collection of illogical, unfounded mythologies. For any inquiring, intelligent mind it seems as if the arguments were won long ago. There seem to be so many legitimate reasons for regarding religion and its practices with scepticism. When one looks at the turmoil created throughout the world by religious fanaticism of all kinds it is indeed hard to reconcile religion with its claims to be a force of good.
Yet could there still be a case for spirituality? In order to progress as human societies do we need to dismantle the entire edifice of religion? Is it nothing more than a collection of fairy tales for grown ups or are there individuals on this planet who really have uncovered spiritual truths? In rejecting that which is truly dogmatic or unjust in religion, have western intellectuals unwittingly made the mistake of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater?'
The argument that I would like to put forward is that there are spiritual traditions which are living receptacles of real and authentic spiritual experience. A great deal of different Eastern and Western religions exist. It can be said that each of them carry a core of truth which has been codified into a structure according to the times, cultures and social conditions that gave birth to them. I would like to address the case that it is possible to approach spirituality in a manner which is both logical and verifiable. A manner which is grounded in investigation and personal inquiry. Without denigrating or denying the validity of other religions I will address these questions by looking at a tradition which exemplifies a particular analytical and logical approach to spirituality - that of Buddhism.
Two thousand five hundred years ago the society of India was a rich crucible of debate concerning the ultimate questions of human existence. Where do we come from? Why do we suffer and how do we find liberation from this suffering? A great number of philosophical schools flourished expounding various metaphysical systems and practices. Whereas the followers of today's religious (and indeed philosophical) schools of thought often adopt intransigent positions, the climate of scholarly debate during these times was one of an open minded quest for truth. Adherents of any system, which was seen to have been logically defeated by another deeper and more precise philosophical schema, immediately took up and became followers of the winning position. Such was the degree of scholarly openness. However questions of ultimate concern were not uniquely reserved to scholarly approaches but were also largely investigated through yogic and meditative techniques. By pursuing these techniques adepts looked into the nature of reality and consciousness in a direct and phenomenological manner. In Northern India, into this climate of spiritual investigation, came a young prince named Siddhartha from the Shakya clan of the Indian - Nepali borders. Disenchanted with the worldly luxury of his palace and moved by the realisation of his own and others mortality, he sensed that human existence was repository to a greater and deeper reality. Therefore he left his palace and retreated to isolated places in order to look deeply into the nature of his very own human condition.
Sitting under a Pippala tree at the place of Bodhgaya in what is now the modern state of Bihar, the Prince reached the conclusion of his search for truth. Simply sitting there, doing nothing in particular except looking into the nature of his own conscious mind he came to a profound realisation concerning the nature of all things. In doing so he discovered the causes and the solution for the perennial problem inherent to life: that of suffering. After attaining what came to be known as his 'enlightenment' or realisation, he then proceeded to set forth a doctrine or a path which others would be able to follow in order to come to the same experience of awakening that he was perceiving. His teaching was nothing to do with appeasing or living by laws laid down by a supreme entity. Conversely, he taught a way of life by which individuals would be brought to experiencing an ultimate plenitude through contemplation and meditation.
Nowadays we usually mistrust the all too dogmatic prescriptions of religious doctrine and this can be understandable. Tales of metaphysical quests for enlightenment or nirvana may easily be dismissed by serious thinkers. But for the sake of giving those who claim to find truth or authenticity in spiritual practice a proper hearing, let us investigate more closely what the ultimate reality that religious traditions are pointing out might actually be.
Various names have been given to an ultimate source - God, Atman, Tao, Spirit. As for the Prince Siddhartha he was said to have fully realised Buddha nature. Exotic names, but what relevance do they have to our reality?
If we look at the doctrine set forth by this man who was named "The Buddha" we will find a vast array of teachings and schools which arose as a result of his own and subsequent practitioners direct experiences of their own consciousness. They contain explanations of every kind of state of mind and the kind of actions which are conducive to states of well-being and those which lead to suffering. However the very basis of the doctrine reposes on the unique exposition of what is known in Buddhist terminology as selflessness or emptiness. This is a perspective of fundamental importance, especially for sceptics because one can approach it via logical arguments. Through intellectual analysis one can approach what can be termed as a spiritual reality. This is a key which enables one to go beyond surface appearances to penetrate a deeper reality at the heart of phenomena.
Within the Buddhist schools of philosophy the Madhyamaka tradition founded by Nagarjuna in the second century CE is seen to be the highest presentation of ultimate truth. Rather than a doctrine, Madhyamaka is primarily a system of philosophical criticism. Its procedure is to take a dogmatic assertion (for instance the existence of an inherently existing self or of a divine creator) and gradually refute it by exposing the theory's own inner incoherence. The assertion is systematically reduced to an illogical absurdity which stands out as being incoherent with the original claim. The end result is to bring all theories or intellectual constructions to a point in which they fall apart. The intellect is thus stilled. The aim is to use conceptual reasoning to come to a point in which the intellect itself drops away so that the mind can have an experience beyond concepts. This prepares the mind for the experience of selflessness. This Madhyamaka position therefore resembles Kantian critique in modern Western philosophy. However in this case it goes far beyond a mere critique in that the process yields a wisdom that provides the ground for a spiritual path.
An example of this kind of analytical contemplation on the selflessness of phenomena can be seen in the following meditation:
Firstly we establish an object that we are going to investigate. In this case we will look at the reality of the "I." The reason why this "I" is chosen as a subject of investigation is because this is seen to be the basis for all suffering. The Buddhist tradition is a radical approach which aims to uproot the fundamental cause of absolutely all problems and difficulties. Shantideva, a great Buddhist scholar of the 9th century states:
"If such a thing as 'I' exists indeed,
Then terrors, granted, will torment it.
But since no self or 'I' exists at all,
What is there left for fears to terrify?"
One particular contemplation proceeds to ascertain whether this notion of "I" does indeed exist as we believe it to. Firstly one tries to obtain a clear image of the object to be investigated. This "I" is something that habitually appears to consciousness throughout our waking and sleeping life. The "I" is the centrifugal point for all feelings: "I" feel happy, "I" feel depressed etc. It is what we are always striving to protect and gratify. So we attempt to have a clear feeling of what it is that is cherished so dearly.
Once we feel we have a notion of this "I" we proceed in examining it. Is this "I" the body? If it were the body there would be no sense in calling it "my body" since the owner and the owned would be the same thing. Is it a particular part of the body? We can examine each part and see that the "I" is not the head, nor the trunk, nor the arms, nor the legs etc. Nothing of the body can be said to be the "I."
If it is not the body then is it the mind that is referred to as "I"? Yet here once again we say "my mind" suggesting there is something other than the mind which owns it.
If the "I" is not the body or the mind, then perhaps it is the conglomerate of body and mind? Yet as we have seen the body and the mind are collections of things which are not the "I." So how does the combination of things which are not "I" suddenly become a truly existing "I". For example if a pile of apples contains no oranges, how can the pile itself said to be oranges?
So if this "I" which we cherish throughout our lives is not the body, nor the mind, nor the conglomerate of body and mind, then the only other possible solution is that it is something outside of the body and mind. But if we are to imagine our body and mind disappearing and dissolving into space what then can be found that could possibly be called an "I."
If this notion of an inherently existing self is put under thorough scrutiny in this way one comes to a rather strange and profound understanding. Namely despite the way in which we have a continual self-cherishing attitude, there is in fact no concrete self which can be found to cherish. With all of the four above possibilities for finding this self exhausted, all that can be found is the lack of a truly existing "I."
[To be continued in the next issue of "Carte allineate"]
