¶1Yeah. Hi, Miles. >> How are you? >> Good. Nice to see you.
¶2>> It's great to see you. Let me just get the sound correct. The volume here. Yeah. Do I sound clear?
¶3Is everything Everything working? >> Yeah, I can hear everything great. >> Excellent. How are you? How are things?
¶4It's been a while. >> It's been a while. Yeah. I was actually just trying to think how long it's been. >> When were you?
¶5>> I graduated in uh 2021. >> So, I think I took Buddhist philosophy from you a year prior to that. So 2020. >> Okay. Oh, were you in the pandemic group?
¶6>> So I actually I No, it was right before that. So 2019 then I took uh ethical theory from you and then I took Buddhist philosophy. So I think it was my second year of undergrad. >> Okay. Okay.
¶7Yeah. Nice to see you again. Yeah, things are things are pretty good. >> That's excellent. >> Yeah, >> I know.
¶8I know. What are you researching these days? Well, um I've actually got quite a few irons in the fire right now. Um so one project which is kind of straightforward and I'll just say that one first is um an intro to Buddhist philosophy that I'm working on um for this Rutledge contemporary introduction to philosophy series. Um, so that's kind of like aimed kind of like the course you took like aimed at a intermediate undergraduate.
¶9Um then I um I'm also working for well probably since the time that you were in my class or a little bit after that um I started a book project on ignorance um particularly moral ignorance and um in Indotibetan philosophy and also kind of a comparative project with some of the concerns around um framings basically of moral ignorance in in um European Angle European philosophy. Um so that's been kind of slowly chugging along. Um then uh I guess it was a couple of years ago I was diagnosed with long COVID and I'm sorry to thank you. Yeah, it was um it was not a not a fun time. I mostly recovered um thank goodness.
¶10Um but that changed some of my research interest. So I start so I'm now working on like kind of another project um that's about um the self-concept and what happens when you know an illness and injury when our self-concept is um broken or challenged deeply. Um and that that also draws on some Buddhist sources but also some western ones as well. So there's a kind of a few things going on um research-wise for me right now. >> What is the philosophical problem of ignorance?
¶11Like what what broader set of issues does that fall under? Well, so there's kind of different frames of looking uh at that in the western tradition, you know, largely coming out of Aristotle and but definitely up to this day in in contemporary analytic philosophy, ignorance and ethics anyway is largely discussed um within the context of whether to uh assign praise or blame basically for actions. And so, you know, Aristotle famously argued that um certain kinds of ignorance makes uh basically excuses us from from blame even if we do a wrong action. Um so, ignorance of the particulars of a situation, you know, I didn't know the the catapult was loaded is one of his examples. I thought I was just testing it [laughter] and now oops.
¶12Um that kind of thing. um that we could actually be kind of like morally excused um uh from that um as long as we also regret it. If we do something in ignorance and don't regret it, then um we're we're not excused. And and I think that that focus on on ignorance and excuse um excusing our actions is um a really prominent theme around ignorance and ethics in the western tradition. Um and in fact when I was doing research kind of preliminary research on this topic um a few years ago um I was kind of hardressed to even find one article in contemporary analytic philosophy that was about moral ignorance that wasn't about how to assign blame.
¶13Um so that's the really the very dominant framework for understanding ignorance um in um in the west and I think that um there's some problems with that framework um some limitations of that on the Buddhist side. However, they are also very interested in ignorance and what we might even call moral ignorance. So um the way I t kind of think about that is ignorance about things that matter. So, ignorance about right and wrong, but also more broadly than that, ignorance about values, ignorance about kind of how the world is structured um in such a way that um if we're confused about it, it's going to cause problems. Um the Buddhist um thinkers that I've I've been um working with on this project um reading are um really interested in understanding the psychology of ignorance.
¶14How how is it that we um are often misunderstanding kind of basic facts about ourselves, basic facts about the world? For instance, um in Buddhist philosophy, the um the things that we're ignorant of are like the nature of suffering and happiness. Um we're we're ignorant of the nature of our self and identity. We're ignorant about like causation and dep interdependence and relationality. like we we kind of consistently mess these things up and it causes pain and suffering and stress for ourselves and others.
¶15Um so they have a kind of different frame for thinking about ignorance. um which is not really primarily about blame or excuse but is more about what is the kind of psychology of uh moral ignorance and then um how you know what do we do if we can understand how it works can we kind of intervene and and change it >> so what uh originally for you was the draw to Buddhist philosophy was it because an attraction to the Buddhist religion and then you're also just philosophically inclined and so you combined them or did you see maybe like an area for fruitful dialogue between analytic philosophy and Buddhist thinkers? I'm curious. >> Yeah. Um well, yeah.
¶16So, when I was introduced to Buddhist philosophy was um in college and I had a professor. I didn't even know what philosophy was. I was very philosophy naive. I I took a course um with this professor on feminist philosophy because I was interested in feminism and I liked her. I like the way she taught.
¶17Um she actually recently passed away. Her name is uh Linda Patrick. She's a great great um was a great professor and and mentor for me. Um but she taught Buddhist philosophy. So I I took a class with her and um and I think the thing that initially resonated with me was actually um not so much the metaphysics um which is especially at that time the the focus of um Buddhist philosophy I think um in the contemporary philosophical literature it was really actually the ethics um I was really impressed with the focus on compassion the really indepth um like investigation into moral emotions and how we cultivate them and um that was very new for me and I think um you know something I hadn't seen really in in analytic or European philosophies that I had studied.
¶18Um so that caught my interest and I thought oh I might uh I might want to pursue this. I did take a gap year and I went um to to China and Tibet to study Tibetan language. Um because the Buddhism that I was introduced to at that time was Tibetan. Um and I think while I was there I got kind of more interested in Buddhist ethics and the implications of this kind of ethics of love and compassion. Um, so then when I applied to graduate programs at this time there weren't really very many programs at all where you could study Buddhist philosophy in a philosophy department.
¶19Um, I didn't want to do religious studies. So I found a department um at a university that a philosophy department that had no Buddhist philosophy at all or or non-western philosophy of any kind. But there was a um language and cultures of Asia department that was really strong and had Tibetan language. So that's what I did in graduate school. I kind of straddled these two different departments.
¶20Um and I think in terms of your question about um you know a fruitful dialogue. I think that that that aspect of it did start to dawn on me when I was in graduate school and I was thinking about my dissertation like what what could I kind of bring to this conversation. Um and I ended up writing my dissertation on um love and equin love and equinimity in um Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and in in western philosophy. um which I think I thought at the time and I guess I still do think was um was introducing um a kind of um new approach to moral psychology um from the Buddhist lens into the you know contemporary analytic context. Would you be able to point to any like family resemblance contrast between analytic philosophy on the one hand and what we might just call broadly Buddhist philosophy on the other.
¶21I mean at the highest level people talk about western philosophy versus eastern philosophy but those families are so so broad it's not clear what >> commonalities would even hold between all of eastern philosophy. So just looking at like analytic philosophy, my tradition. >> Yeah. >> What what are the some distinguishing features between what goes under the name of Buddhist philosophy and analytic philosophy? >> Well, I mean, first of all, they do share quite a bit.
¶22I mean, I think that that's something that that um you know, is is important to note at the outset. A lot of the methodologies um are are very similar. I think an analytic trained philosopher could read texts and Buddhist many texts in Buddhist philosophy and clearly see the philosophy in them without u much training even if they didn't really know the context or the terminology. So there is a lot of methodological um similarities. A lot of the questions and concerns um are overlapping.
¶23You know, interest of course in like um basic metaphysical um questions and epistemological questions. Um there's there's a lot that's shared. I think that um in my sub field of ethics, one of the big kind of differences that I saw um especially in my training in analytic philosophy um because that was my training as a graduate student um and what I was trying to do with Buddhist philosophy was um that Buddhist ethics um is much more interested I think in the cultivation of ourselves as moral agents as moral beings over time. Um and um that involves a lot of kind of sophisticated and refined emotional training. Um they put a lot of of emphasis on practices.
¶24So you see in Buddhist ethics um really kind of like philosophically significant practices that are designed to um kind of initiate a a moral transformation. Um so there's a lot of kind of differences there. There's a difference in in scope and orientation, but there's also kind of a difference in like what counts as philosophical. you see texts, Buddhist ethical texts, um that are more like advice or that are more like stories um that I think and and others in Buddhist ethics um have also argued this um uh that those kinds of texts are kind of philosophically really important. Um whereas in analytic philosophy we don't see a lot of advice manuals or storytelling as part of the ethical the ethical philosophy.
¶25>> So within the contemporary scene of normative ethical theories in analytic philosophy which of them most closely resembles like a distinctly Buddhist approach to ethics from what you just said about character formation and so on. that immediately made me think, well, maybe it would most closely resemble like virtue ethics, the focus on becoming a good person, >> right? Yeah. I mean, this is a tricky one, and it's actually one that um a fair amount of of ink has been spilled uh on this question, especially um in the 90s and early 2000s, we see a lot of um of analytic trained ethicists and philosophers who are trying to categorize Buddhist philosophy, >> right? Um and >> as a good analytic philosopher does, how do we fit [laughter] this all together?
¶26How does it relate? >> Exactly. And yeah, right. What what is the subcategories? How do we how do we um understand this in the taxonomy of ethical theories that we have at our disposal?
¶27And we see like a lot of um debate in that in that time period about like I mean mainly between virtue ethics from for the reasons that you said um but also consequentialist ethics. Um Charles Goodman for instance um wrote a book the consequences of compassion that argue that um that Buddhist ethics is mainly a kind of consequentialism because of its focus on mitigating uh suffering and um promoting happiness I guess you could say. Um I think these efforts have have mainly been abandoned. Um we see there was um some effort to make Buddhism kind of like a particularist ethics perhaps or um Jay Garfield kind of um famously argued for a certain kind of moral phenomenology as a way of describing Buddhist ethics which I think is is helpful. Um, but the I think where where Buddhist ethics kind of has landed is just that um we're not really going to fit this into the categories available in analytic ethics.
¶28And in some ways it's not that surprising because um those categories in analytic ethics came out of the history of you know Greek and European and Anglo-American philosophy. And so um so when we talk about virtue ethics for instance I think what most people have in mind is something pretty arisatilian um and um but you know Buddhist texts are not exactly arisatilian. Um or when we talk about consequentialism we have Bentham and Mill in mind or maybe um Epicurus and not surprisingly um Buddhist you know coming from a completely different historical context it doesn't match up well. So, um I think now people have kind of um abandoned that project to to some degree. Um or or use maybe parts of like virtue ethics in so far as it helps understand this, you know, part of Buddhist ethics or um I mentioned this concept of moral phenomenology.
¶29Um some people use that to explain kind of this aspect of Buddhist ethics. Um but I I would not say that there's any consensus um that Buddhist ethics kind of falls squarely in any of these categories. >> Now is that because Buddhist ethics does not even intend to give you kind of one systematic normative ethical theory, one like generalizable principle or framework from which you can derive correct moral judgments. They're just not maybe intending to do that. >> Or are they?
¶30But it's just their answer doesn't fall into the usual three- tier distinction in analytic philosophy. I think more the first that there's something about the the assumption of kind of a an overarching principle ethical principle um that is I mean how well that explains like Aristotle is also debatable I guess but um I think that yeah Buddhist Buddhist ethicists tend not to be so interested in providing that um I mean you do see kind of ethical rules and ethical norms Um but um but I think there's much more of an emphasis. There's there's a concept in Buddhism upa um it's translated the translation is is doesn't really help but it's translated as skill and means or skillful means. Um but it's this idea that a lot of what ethical life is is actually being skillful and flexible. um to so that we we don't necessarily that sometimes rigid adherence to a principle um can can get us in the in the wrong place.
¶31Um and there's a lot of stories about that in um in Buddhist ethical literature. um particularly the historical Buddha was said to have this kind of skill of being able to um to be really kind of flexible in what he did and and what he said um to kind of get the um whatever in that context was important. Um so so you see a focus in Buddhist ethics I think more on those kind of skills of of flexibility and um development over time um and less of a focus on like maybe an overarching principle. >> So what are some of the claims of Buddhist ethics? Is it is it wrong to say that like the core commitment of a Buddhist ethic would be like the eight-fold path or at least that the eight-fold path is a is a central aspect of the ethical outlook for the Buddhist philosopher.
¶32>> Yeah. Right. So um the fourth noble truth um is um is the what's known as the eight-fold path and that has ethical um virtues I guess you could say or values um that are part of that path. It also has some things about maybe more cognitive or mental um kinds of activities about meditation and whatnot. Um but we see um yeah we see in that path a uh commitment to um to having kind of a right ethical intention to having the right kind of livelihood uh the right um speech and um this is something that all ethical uh Buddhist ethical uh thinkers are going to share.
¶33This is coming directly from like the Buddha's first teaching um in the early sutas. So that's like a kind of core uh feature of Buddhist ethics. Um you also see um as a as a core principle of Buddhist ethics um compassion and love. Um these are part of what are known as the the four boundless qualities. Um compassion, love, sympathetic joy, um which is taking joy in the success of others and then equinimity.
¶34Um so these are also I think pretty central to Buddhist ethics across traditions and time periods. Um I mean sometimes less so sometimes more so. Um so a lot of Buddhist ethics becomes um about how do we become the type of person who can respond compassionately um or can interact in a loving way or remain um in equinimity even as life is all these challenges at us. >> Right? So zooming out a bit to look at Buddhism generally, you often hear from the lay person >> that Buddhism it's not a religion, it's a philosophy.
¶35[snorts] Now to what extent is that correct? >> Well, um I would say that Buddhism is definitely a religion and and a it's a religion that has a philosophy, a very distinct and robust philosophy. Um you might say it's a philosophical religion or something like this. Um, I'm I'm hesitant to to say something like Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. Um, because there's all sorts of ritual practices.
¶36Um, there's all sorts of, you know, what we would call like clearly religious devotional practices that are associated with with Buddhism. In fact, um, maybe that's the most important thing for most people who are Buddhists. um rather than these you know intellectual scholastic debates that philosophers tend to focus on. Um I think one reason uh that people say that though um just to give um that side a little um a little airing is um that if you're used to the Abrahamic religions there are some things um that you know Buddhism does very differently that may may seem oh like like they don't have a creator god uh more you know there's arguments against God as a creator or something like that. Um you if you're expecting certain kinds of um I don't know features like that then maybe you'd say oh that you know it's not a religion or something.
¶37Um so I can kind of see sometimes why that might strike a person Buddhism might strike a person that way. Um, also of course like the role of the Daly Lama who's a major spokesperson of Buddhism and his interest in science and he's kind of famously said that like if science disproves something about Buddhism then we have to go with the science. Um, that strikes people as as a not very religious attitude, [laughter] right? So they might say, "Oh, so Buddhism isn't a religion." But I but just to be clear, I I do think it is in fact a religion. >> Yeah.
¶38>> Yeah. Definitely. I think my suspicion is it it is probably for the reason uh that you said that Buddhism doesn't have like a theistic underpinning. There's no personal god you usually behind it. And so if you really tie that as an essential feature to what qualifies as religion, well then you're not going to you're not going to see it as such.
¶39But I in any other way, I feel like the way Buddhism is practiced on the ground as opposed to academically, it's going to have all of the earmarks of religious life to it, just like you would here, >> right? Definitely. I think that's absolutely true. Yeah. Um Yeah.
¶40You you would have to be really myopically focused on, you know, textual debate or something to to Yeah. to really think that it's not a religion. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay.
¶41Okay. So at the highest level of generality and you you don't have to get get too detailed here because this is a massive question but what are the main schools of Buddhist thought? My rough and ready understanding is you have Terravada Buddhism, you have Mahayana Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism. But what are the main lines of distinction to get us oriented? >> Yeah.
¶42So um you have the early schools of Buddhism that are mainly focused in India and Sri Lanka what we call Terravada uh Buddhism now although that was kind of just one of the schools that was um around um and um I mean I think the um the distinguishing feature of the Terravada school from the Mahayana perspective, which I'll get to in a minute, is that um it doesn't really focus on this figure of the bodhicattva um this kind of altruistic hero that is like kind of morally compelled to help all sentient beings and then it's more focused on personal liberation that I think from many terrain scholars point of view is is um not really a fair description. Um and it is true I think even in these early Buddhist texts you do have a lot of discussion of compassion and and um bodhi even the bodhic sattva. Um but um in the Mahayana tradition which starting around like the first century or so um you see this turn um towards um well um a focus really kind of maybe two main things. you see a focus on on emptiness um as a um a metaphysical commitment I guess um through the works of someone like Nagarjuna and um you also see a rise in this real interest in the bodhicattva and um the bodhicattva is a um becomes kind of just like this moral exemplar that um defines Buddhist ethics I think in a lot of ways in the Mahayana tradition. So in these kind of little bit later Buddhist texts you see like what are the virtues of the of the bodhicappa?
¶43How do you become a bodhicappa? What types of bodhicattas are there? What is the developmental program of like going towards bodhicatta? Um and there's religious elements of this too like you can you can take a bodhic safa vow. Um um and so in you know from a philosophical perspective especially in Buddhist ethics which is what where I work in uh the Mahayana tradition is really focusing on on this.
¶44Um so in that tradition we see a lot of debates about um you know um arguments for radical altruism basically against egoism or against a less radical altruism or something like that. Um you also have like a like a a tantric um aspect of of Buddhism in Tibetan Buddhism. You have what's called like Vajriana Buddhism and there's a focus there on on practices that kind of use what are traditionally called um or traditionally categorized as as um like bad or problematic emotions like you know um desire or something like that and kind of use it um kind of transmute it and use it for your um your spiritual development. Um so we see practices and and philosophy around that in the tantric tradition. Um when Buddhism went to China um it interacted with Confucianism and Dowoism and you got um what's called Chan Buddhism um which has maybe some Dowist elements you might say.
¶45Um there's a focus there on a concept called Buddha nature that we're all like our original nature is um of a of a Buddha and we just have to kind of let it out. Um this went to Japan and Korea and we have Zen Buddhism um in Japan. So um you know Buddhism you know just geographically is geographically is is you know pretty extensive and also the time periods we're talking about are you know it's been 2,00 500 years. So we see a lot of different Buddhist schools and and now of course like that Buddhism has gone to you know the west so to speak. we see western Buddhism coming coming up as a distinct kind of Buddhism.
¶46Um but that's you know gen very broad strokes I would say that's kind of the lay of the land. >> So from what you said one of the distinguishing features of Mahayana Buddhism versus Terraata Buddhism is the doctrine of emptiness. >> Yeah. >> And and that's that's affirmed by the Mahayana tradition. What is emptiness?
¶47Well, um so the context is really that um when Buddhists, early Buddhists were interested in um discussing the nature of the self um and arguing against um Vdic views that there is like a soul or a self. Um they basically had these arguments that um that the um you you can't really find a existing uh intrinsically existing soul or self in any of your experience because our all of our experiences that make up our self. So our body and our feelings and our thoughts and our desires, our consciousness are all impermanent and dynamic and changing. And so none of these could be a self. Um they also argue that um um not you know all of these together isn't the self either because if you put a bunch of permanent things together you still don't get anything permanent.
¶48Um so um then what what kind of accounts then for this thing that we call the self? What what's the Buddhist account of this? And some of the early Buddhists like Vasandu for instance a 4th century Buddhist has you know um arguments that the self is just these kind of moments of um um what are called the um the aggregates which are just these kind of experiences of our of our body and our sensations and our thoughts and desires etc. They're just these moments and they're causally connected and we call this causal like lineage or whatever. Um me, you know, we call it Emily.
¶49Um we don't have to, but we do because it's kind of helpful um in a conventional way to be able to mark it out that way. And um but really all that exists are these kind of moments um of um causally connected kind of selves or experiences or something. But there's no intrinsically permanent self >> or there's nothing there's no one thing that identifiably endures from moment to moment. There's just the causal connection between distinct moments and we just kind of lump it all together and we say this is one thing. >> That's right.
¶50Yeah. And so um later Buddhists like you know someone like Nagarja who I I should just say you know is definitely not my area of specialization um Negarina's uh metaphysics and you'd probably get a better discussion of this with somebody else but you know someone like Nagarina comes along and basically criticizes these earlier Buddhists for saying why do you think any of these things exist? Why do you think that the the relation of causation for instance um is is some sort of um intrinsically existing thing? It's not. And so he goes through kind of systematically and shows um against all these theories of causation and kind of um argues against them all.
¶51And so he has this very famous book called the fundamental um um the fundamental versus of the middle way uh where he goes through some of these core um really like a lot of Buddhist concepts and um shows how these aren't intrinsically existing either. And um this leaves us with this um sense that uh although Negarina is kind of infamous for never stating anything in a positive way, it's always via negativa. Um but it leaves us with a sense that we don't have uh that that there's there's um nothing exists in an intrinsically um like nothing intr exists intrinsically. it all it everything that exists exists due to conditions that that arise. Um and so one way of understanding I guess emptiness is understanding that everything exists exists conventionally um rather than ultimately.
¶52Um so that yeah so that was a kind of like turn in in Mahayana um philosophy that you know is is extremely influential. Um and um and I think you know you see that not just in in um Indian and Tibetan Buddhism but in in Zen and other traditions as well. this focus on on emptiness. >> So, but Terravada Buddhism wouldn't affirm that. They they might have a more robust metaphysics or allow for a more expansive metaphysics.
¶53>> Yeah. I mean, there's definitely schools in early Buddhism that would. I mean, contemporary Terravada scholars um I'm not sure. I guess you would have to ask them how they think about emptiness. Emptiness is something that does you do see in in the the Tiraatada text.
¶54I think Buddha talks about emptiness. Um but they might have a a different way of explaining it than than Negarina. Um yeah. Um I think that like some early uh or sorry some contemporary Buddhist um um like who who identify with the terravada tradition often um don't place as much maybe emphasis on those questions and they think no the point of the Buddha's no self um analysis was to stop our craving. It wasn't to like understand the nature of reality in this um in this kind of abstract divorced way.
¶55It was to understand the um that we're we're causing all this suffering because we're we're clinging at something and when we the self and then when we look for it doesn't exist and we the the the main focus of the Buddhist teaching is to address that problem the practical problem and and there is some like textual significance to that. There's um these um uh there's a sutra where the Buddha does say refuse to answer certain metaphysical questions. Um and it's kind of interesting people students always have like interesting responses to that because some people are like yeah like these are questions are irrelevant and some people are like that's a total copout. He didn't answer the question. Um and so it it is a kind of uh controversial maybe moment but but um it is true that um there are moments where the Buddha says no these aren't the right questions.
¶56Um and so I can imagine I mean I'm speculating a little bit here but um I have seen some terravada scholars kind of redirect the question and and be like no that the point of no self is is a practical >> yes >> problem. It's not really Yeah. I seem to remember a passage in that same category where the the Buddha's followers ask him, you know, where are you going to go when you die? Like you specifically and he doesn't answer the question. And I was in the second group >> going what?
¶57[laughter] >> Excuse me. >> And I thought why would you not answer that question? I mean the only thing I can come up with is that it's not that there is no answer but giving the answer would have the wrong practical implications. It would get you would attach connotations to it and have certain inferences from it and respond in the wrong sort of way. Is that is that right?
¶58>> Yes. I mean this this is um the interpretation I think that many people give to these passages that the Buddha is it's not that I mean especially from the context of Buddhist tradition they're not going to say he doesn't know the answer or that there is no even that there is no answer it's that it's not the right question because as soon as any answer you give to that question is going to start somebody off on a um a path that's not going to be towards their liberation. it's just going to be more conceptual proliferation and more you know getting um attached to views and and that's not that's not the the way of liberation and in fact there is one passage where um the Buddha is with his um his attendant Ananda and someone asks him about the nature I think they say uh something like is there a self and the Buddha doesn't answer and then they say well then there's no self and the Buddha doesn't answer that and um which is very s I mean even maybe more surprising than where do you go after you die because this is like a core Buddhist you know position um and it's kind of surprising that the Buddha doesn't answer and but then he does say to Ananda after or I think Ananda asks like why didn't you you answer that and he does say something like, well, if I told him there was a self, then he would have these wrong um kind of uh views or like um commitments or attachments. But if I said that there's no self, then he's going to have these this other set of problems um like you know, nihilism and he's going to make all sorts of um uh implications to this like oh nothing matters because there's no cells or something. So he's it's better just to not say anything because the point isn't to have an unassalable philosophical position that we debate.
¶59The point is liberation. So >> yes, so maybe I mean that makes me think that circling back to this line that Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. That's probably not the right way to characterize this. But there's a sense in which it's not a religion because we tend to associate religion with a set of doctrines especially in the west especially because of Christianity and its emphasis on creeds and correct orthodoxy blah blah blah. Whereas that that that characterization of what the Buddha is getting at makes me think the emphasis is far more on right practice, living the right sort of way and doing the right sort of things, not necessarily in having the right beliefs, in having the right concepts to carve up the world correctly.
¶60It's far more practically oriented than it is doxastically oriented towards certain having certain beliefs. Is that broadly right? >> Yeah, I think that that's that's broadly right. I mean and it's important to recognize too that the Buddha's first teaching the four noble truths was about the nature of suffering and the whole motivation of the Buddhist path is to liberate ourselves and and others to the extent that we can from habitual cyclical suffering. So that's always a bit of a corrective I think for the Buddhist tradition.
¶61If we are if our orthodoxy is um not liberating us from suffering or other people from suffering um for the for the from the point of view of the Buddhist project that's a real criticism. Um that's a real like reason to to put the brakes on because the whole point of the project is to understand how cycles of suff suffering are working um and to intervene in them um and not to create more or different ones or whatever. Um, and so I think even though in the history of of Buddhism, of course, you see orthodoxy and you see sec uh sectarian differences and and arguments about all sorts of things. Um, so I don't want to deny any of that, but I do think that um we can't ignore the fact that the fundamental project of Buddhism does seem to be about the liberation from from duca or from suffering. So what are the four noble truths in that case?
¶62>> Yeah. So the four noble truths were a um a teaching that the kind of the first teaching that the Buddha gave after um it's reported that he was uh liberated. And uh the first noble truth they're very very simple um deceivingly simple but the first noble truth is that there is what's called dooka which is stress or suffering um pain disease dissatisfaction. So that's the first noble truth, just the fact that that exists. Um, these aren't exactly points of doctrine, just to get back to your, you know, original question.
¶63Yeah. And and that's important to keep in mind, too, because they're, I think they're really often given as kind of experiential. These aren't things that you agree to to make you a Buddhist. These are just things that are supposed to describe the human condition um or the sentient condition. So one thing that describes the sentient condition is that there's there's pain and suffering.
¶64Um the second noble truth is that there is an origin a cause um to say to pain and suffering to duka um it's not like randomly tossed out into the universe. There are causes and conditions that um create suffering. Um then of course there's a lot of discussion about what those causes are which we can get into if you want to. Um the third noble truth is that it's possible for that suffering to end. The sessation of of suffering is possible.
¶65Um that's really related to the second noble truth that there's causes. Um because if there's causes of something then um that gives some credence to I guess the the otherwise kind of um a little unbelievable claim that that suffering can cease entirely. But the idea is well you can stop suffering from from occurring by stopping the causes. Um and then the fourth noble truth is the one that you uh referred to earlier of the eight-fold noble past. So this is um I mean technically speaking the truth is is simply that the path to the sessation of suffering is that there is a path um and that's also important because it could be theoretically possible to stop suffering by stopping its causes but nobody knows how um and so the fourth noble truth is kind of uh iter is saying that it's it's it's both possible and it's you can practice it um because there is a path for it and That's where we get the eight-fold noble path um that the you know from the early early Buddhists.
¶66So it's a very kind of simple um I don't know kind of like here's the problem the diagnosis you know here's the um prognosis I guess here's the prescription kind of model. I remember in class when you described the first noble truth of there there is suffering in life and it's just kind of an inherent essential feature of the human condition just being alive and you said even just sit there close your eyes and think about the state of your body and there's going to be a degree of agitation of discomfort uh of of something that is unpleasant about that fact and I very much feel that especially sitting here all squeezed into my chair chair with all of my equipment around me, not really enough space to move freely. Even even if I really try to perfectly relax and control everything, every itch, every discomfort, I can't do it. There's going to be in a however minor a facet of my experience which I can zero in on as something that is unpleasant. It's not suffering in the sense of torture, but there's going to be an unpleasant feature to just the way that I am right here.
¶67And I found that quite disturbing. >> [laughter] >> Yes. I mean, yes, that's exactly right. I mean, so the concept of dooka, and this is why sometimes it's left untrated is because when we call it suffering, it seems more like it has to be really extreme um and really painful. Um but um the in the way that it's used in in Buddhism is really not not so.
¶68And um it it definitely includes those extremes, but it also talks about those kinds of agitations that you talk about. And in fact, um, you know, the the distinctions, uh, there's there's kind of like three distinctions and types of dooka. Um, one of them is is some sort of, you know, physical or emotional pain that we normally, you know, mild to severe that we would normally call um, dooka. But another is is even in these moments of happiness when we think, oh, my life is going great. There's also dooka present in that.
¶69Even um the Buddhists are say that you know there's a kind of famous and and and kind of gross um uh metaphor of of uh like licking honey off a razor. So a lot of a lot of the the moments of of mundane, you know, everyday kind of happiness are actually um like licking honey off a razor in the sense that you don't get the sweet without the cut. And so, and not not to say that you should avoid those things or happiness is bad or something. It's just it's more of a a neutral description of even in those moments, it's underscored by a certain amount of stress, anxiety, um uh fear, um you know, for instance, when something really good happens to us, we um are afraid that we're going to lose it. um the these you know kind of pointing out that uh it's not like we have these suffering experiences over here and we have these happiness experiences over here.
¶70It's all kind of caught up in this cycle and where we where we have stress and anxiety kind of underlying everything >> or that I think you once said that the sheer awareness that this good experience is going to end >> is a source of suffering. I I think about that often when I'm >> having a great time with my friends, hanging out, and just having the best day with them. It's it's this when this is temporary. This is going to end, however great it is. And >> I can't always drive that fact from my mind in the moment.
¶71And so in the moment, it it detracts >> because you can't rest in it. You can't rest fully because you know that it's not permanent. It's not it can't support that. >> Yes, that's right. There's a really um fun passage from this uh poet Ashvagosa.
¶72I think he's about fourth century um Indian poet. He wrote a long poem about the Buddha's life which I may have assigned to you all in that in that class. I don't remember. But there's this um long discussion between the Buddha before he became in uh enlightened. He was in his 20s, probably late teens, 20s, and he's he's at a party with friends, and um he's he's depressed um because he's like, "What are we all doing here?
¶73It's, you know, it's it's fleeting. It's like, you know, youth will be stolen from us before we even know it." You know, this um and his friend is like, "You're being kind of a downer, man." You know, like like just enjoy it. Um and and it's um I don't know I always thought that was kind of an interesting moment in the story of of um Sedar Gatma's life that he has yeah he has this kind of dissatisfaction with um resting in happiness. >> Maybe I will become the next Buddha. That's what that's telling me.
¶74>> Maybe [clears throat and laughter] I mean the good thing about Buddhas is that there there's not just one you know >> that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. that might be my destiny. Okay. So the the first truth is there is dooka.
¶75There is suffering and the second is there are identifiable causes of it. Now my one sentence summary takeaway was that the causes of suffering is desire or are desires of various kinds. Is that broadly correct? >> Yeah, that's broadly correct. Um there's different levels of explanation about the causes of suffering.
¶76The one um maybe the simplest explanation and you see this especially like in the dhamapata and and certain places is that it's um like thirst um desire um craving you might say um is really what's causing the problem. And so like the fact that we can't totally relax in the happiness of our friends um is because we're craving it for it to last forever. And it it it can't it doesn't. And so that that's really the craving. It's not our friends or our feelings of pleasure exactly.
¶77It's the craving that um is really getting that cycle of suffering going. Um so that's one level of explanation. That's totally true. Um but you also see um at a slightly maybe more um refined level of explanation uh that the cause of of suffering is this thirst and craving um but also aversion and ignorance. Um and these are called the three poisons.
¶78Um you see this um in a lot of different places in Buddhist art. They're depicted as animals. Um but they're um the idea is it's kind of like this trio working together. So it's craving, it's also aversion. I don't want that.
¶79I do want this. I don't want that. And then ignorance of the way things are that really keeps this cycle going. So in the in the case of um being uh not not enjoying friendships like a moment with friends because it will um end that clearly has a craving element but it also has an ignorance element because wanting a pleasurable moment to never end is um not the way the world is. And so it's reflective of some kind of ignorance.
¶80Um, and so ignorance is kind of playing playing a big part there, too. And then there's other even more complicated layers of analysis that we can get to if you want to. Um, but um but yeah, it's it's desire plus aversion and ignorance typically. Yeah. >> Right.
¶81And so that's the second truth. And then the third truth is it is possible to end suffering. So what what is that truth in distinction from the fourth one? As you said, it's possible to know that there is a way to end suffering but then not know what that way is. But like what's the content of this third truth in distinction from the proposed solution?
¶82The the um the content of the third truth is um the fact that sessation of suffering is possible introduces this concept of nirvana or nibbana that um is a important concept um in opposition to or I guess juxtaposed to the concept of samsara which is that cycle of suffering and so there's something kind of outside that cycle of suffering is really the content of the third truth. Um, in terms of like the more specific content, it starts to get difficult quickly because it's very [snorts] hard to describe uh, nirvana like these issues come up like what do we say about it? What kind of a thing is it? Um and though and that gets tricky. But the third noble truth um is I think just to point out that um that actually complete liberation from this is possible because I think without the third noble truth if you just had the fourth you might think you were just kind of managing suffering like um you know suffering gets really bad when we start to crave and then we can do you know right um intention or we can do practice right mindfulness and that decreases the crave.
¶83breathing and we can kind of decrease the suffering and it's kind of managing or decreasing the um the dooka um and and from I think most of us that is exactly kind of what it is about is managing or decreasing the dooka but from the project of Buddhism more largely or broadly that third noble truth is important because it says actually complete liberation is possible um not just the decrease but you you're out of it um out of the cycle. Um yeah, but yeah, go ahead. >> So, okay. Well, let let me ask you the difficult question which I'm sure I asked you during the class as well because this is just thinking as a as an analytic philosopher. I want to know exactly what's being said here.
¶84So, what ontologically is Nirvana? It would be easy to think of it as like a heavenly blissful state. At least I can wrap my head around what that would mean. Like the goal of of the eight-fold path and of life is to escape the process of reincarnation and suffering and to achieve eternal bliss. All right, I get it.
¶85Maybe it's false, maybe it's true, but I at least understand it. But that's not correct. And so what what is Nirvana, >> right? I mean, typically that's that is uh yeah, not correct. And a lot of Buddhist philosophers will say, you know, it's not like heaven, it's not like this.
¶86Um it's sometimes um I mean sometimes it is talked about in something like that like you do have some um passages where Nirvana is is described as bliss um for instance which um is interesting um but um I think that okay so there's a couple things to say I mean there's there's a sense in which the things that are said about Nirvana Ana are negative like it's unconditioned. Um it's the cessation of of samsara. So it's kind of defined by what it's not. Um there's less said that about what it is. So you just I guess have that in the background.
¶87And I think there's some reasons for that. um that it's if you're if you're in the business of trying to um upend your attachments, the less you say about what the thing is, maybe the better because you can get kind of attached to to the thing. Um and so they're worried about that problem. Um in later Buddhism you do you do see like a um a phrase that like samsara nirva samsara's nirvana or samsara nirvana are um are not um distinct >> doesn't neg say that >> yeah yeah negarjynous says that and and so people kind of interpret that as like well one interpretation of that is that it's it's how we're engaging with the world and that's the difference between a samsaric engagement and a nebonic or something uh engagement that >> samsara is the process of suffering and rebirth that we're all stuck in >> right and I mean this has some um so so basically the idea is like how how are we engaging with the world it's the same world we don't we don't leave the world um if we become liberated if we reach nirvana um it's not and and it's not about death even uh the the Buddha apparently um reached Nirvana and then you know taught for like 50 years um and then died and that's called par parvana um but um it's not like something that that happens um a in the afterlife necessarily and you know of course there's a reincarnation background here um but the idea is it's kind of um we can engage the world through craving aversion and ignorance or we can be in the world without them and that's that's the point of view I guess of somebody who nirvana is like a a point of view a way of of being in the world that is not um bound or burdened by um by duka um and so that's that's um that's a typical I guess way describing Nirvana, but I think in in general um it's Buddhists are a little maybe hesitant to ascribe a lot of positive qualities to it. >> Yeah.
¶88So it's my understanding that the process of reincarnation is driven by the the fact that we are attached and we are continually desiring. And so in some sense that's what keeps us going in this cycle of suffering on and on and on. And so for that reason once you extinguish desire you're no longer trapped in the ever repeating cycle of rebirths. >> So then this will relate to a claim made by a youth pastor of mine from way back in the day about what Buddhism teaches. And so once you once you reach nirvana, you escape that cycle and then you reach per nirvana as he called it, you die.
¶89>> What happens to you then? Because here's what here's what that youth pastor said. He said really I'm going to tell you the quiet part out loud. The the Buddhists what they're saying what they want ultimately is annihilation, non-existence. He said on the on the Buddhist scheme, the goal of your existence is to stop existing.
¶90That's what it means to escape suffering. You do that ultimately by escaping the cycle of rebirth. So when you die, that's it. And he said, "Do you really want that?" And we all went, "No." So what what to to me, I think, at least initially to most people hearing that, if that's true, they're going to go, "I don't I don't want that. I don't want to cease to be.
¶91>> Yeah. Right. So there's a couple things going on in in the background here. One is the context of reincarnation in the Indian tradition, which is um this the cycles of rebirth are not something that are seen as as positive. Um and so that's I don't know.
¶92I'm I I'll just leave it there, I I mean that that can strike us differently I think in different cultural contexts and different time periods. I mean you might say oh I get another chance. Great. Um but that's not typically how it's understood. It's just getting mired down again and again.
¶93And so there is this kind of sense um this desire for a um for liberation um from from uh the way from yeah from life as as uh we understand it in samsara. I mean that is true. Um it's it's a little unfair, you know, to say it's about annihilation or non-existence. Um because the Buddhists are very um uh adamant um about their their view as being a kind of middle way between absolutism and nihilism. And they're saying we're not nihilists.
¶94Um what we're what we're trying to do is just understand reality. And so it's not annihilation to um to understand um that um that there's no self to be found here and to give up craving and aversion um and ignorance through that understanding because you're not losing anything. There was no self that you ever had that you're losing it. You're you're just understanding it better. You're just th this is just becoming in line.
¶95You're you're trying to get your your emotions and your beliefs and your judgments in line with what is the case. Um and uh so I don't think yeah like a Buddhist wouldn't necessarily see see par nvana as a um an annihilation of something because there's nothing it's a freedom from something is is the way that they're going to see it. That said, um I think that you know there's parts of the Buddhist tradition that are going to be more or less attractive to to people and especially maybe people in contemporary like European or you know quoteunquote western nations or people coming from Christian backgrounds or whatever. Um and and I think it is uh this idea that we're losing something that we're giving something up that we're becoming annihilated. The Buddhists would definitely reject that and say there was nothing that you have only the only thing you're giving up is your delusion.
¶96Um but it still might hit emotionally, you know, in a certain way. And um yeah, so you know, I think that would be the Buddhist response to that. Whether it speaks to the emotionality of it, you know, I guess remains um to be seen. But >> yeah, so that makes me think of purand Buddhism. I think that that school of Buddhist thought is probably going to be more congenial to listeners coming from a western or Christianized background where purand Buddhism looks more like Nirvana is heaven like we if I recall when we die we go to this heavenly state and I can grab onto that and go okay I like that more.
¶97What is purine Buddhism? Well, that's actually a question I I I really am not um very well suited to answer because I I don't study pure land at all. So, I um I don't have, you know, much insight at all into it. Um I mean, your characterization is also what I recall from learning about it um as a graduate student, but um and there's a lot of like devotional practice and pure land Buddhism where you chant the name of the Amitaba Buddha. And um but I I wouldn't want to speculate any further than that because it's really been a while since um I've I've dug into Purland.
¶98Um but you might be right in terms of like the attractiveness of Buddhism to um to people from Christian um backgrounds, I guess. Um yeah, that might be might be more um attractive. I think it depends too on people's um experience, you know. in religion um their child's their their you know childhood years um some people um if you are interested in converting to Buddhism most people probably in the United States for instance were um not brought up as Buddhists um Christianity is still definitely the um the the prominent religion here and um and so you'd have to make a you'd have to have a reason to convert and that's usually because maybe there's something Christianity that you wasn't working for you. Um if you were brought up as Christian, right?
¶99Or maybe you were brought up in some other religion. Um and so sometimes the differences um can be also attractive to people like oh it doesn't have that that thing heaven that heaven never made sense to me. I it always seemed fake. Um so I'm glad it doesn't have that or you know whatever it is sometimes that can actually be attractive too. So, it always seemed to me, and I'm I'm curious what you think of this, that like Christianity and Buddhism take the problem of impermanence of the things around us.
¶100The fact that everything we see and feel and touch and hear can't really serve as the proper foundation for a secure and complete happiness and joy. And they go in two opposite directions. >> For the Buddhist, the problem is desire itself. And so the solution is to extinguish desire because there's just nothing which can really serve as the permanent unshaking source of happiness and joy. >> But then for the Christian anyway and the adherent of most theistic religions, the fact the the the problem isn't desire as such.
¶101It's that all of the objects of our desire generally speaking are not the proper object. And instead what we need to do is orient our desires towards God. And God can serve as the ultimate source and foundation of perfect happiness like nothing else could. >> And so I always found that to be quite intuitive where we have the same core problem but then we go in opposite directions. For the Christian it's not that we should relinquish desire.
¶102It's just that we need to actually find the right thing which is permanent and there's only one thing and that's God. Would you say that's kind of a big picture correct analysis? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean I think yeah the Buddhist circuit is going to be a lot more skeptical about this um like finding the proper object um um in in God um they have their own philosophical kind of you know um concerns but but yeah I mean I think generally that's that's the case there with a with one caveat perhaps from the Buddhist side there is a sense in which um we are often we often see in Buddhist texts a um mandate to direct our desire in a lot of you know I mean sometimes just very directly our desire towards um the Buddha the Buddha's teaching and there's debate about that because it's like wait a second I thought desire was bad and here they we we see some of these teachers saying like you You should like this comes up in in um Shanti Deva for instance an 8th century Indian um philosopher who says something like you know to to direct uh your your mind to bodhicitta this is the mind of the altruism basically um the way that you would direct your your mind to like a lover um and so like as an object of desire and um so we do see like some of that and um but It's a little bit it's a little bit different from what you're saying in the Christian tradition because there is still a sense that any desire that's coming with craving and attachment and ignorance is ultimately going to fail.
¶103So um there might be some desires that are um uh free from those things you know. Yeah. And um in which case yeah like like this kind of sheer motivation like we might be motivated to help others in a way that's really not egocentric. Um and that wouldn't be considered in the Buddhist tradition a problematic desire. Um even though you might say I desire to help someone or you might think of it as a desire it's not it's not desire in the >> the technical sense or the problematic sense >> the problematic sense.
¶104Right. >> Yeah. >> Interesting. Okay. That's an important distinction that I've never heard before that it's not desire per se, but it is these specific kind of desires which generally speaking are most of our desires >> if not all of them.
¶105>> Right. >> Okay. >> That's right. And that's important to to note too because um having non-egoccentric desire is uh is not the norm. and um for many of us and so a lot I think that's why you see a lot of the emphasis in Buddhism on uncovering kind of the egocentric core at at you know at most of our desires but but sometimes you you do see um kind of gestures to certain kinds of non-egoccentric desires like for instance um in the Tibetan tradition especially which is what I'm familiar with there's um there's often um quite a that uh is made from the example of the mother taking care of a child.
¶106Um that there's a kind of non I mean maybe they don't want to go so far as to say non-egoentric, but it's leaning in that direction. Um that that um she's not gaining anything from it, but she still has this very strong desire to take care of this baby. >> Um so you do see some some things like that. Um right. >> Yeah.
¶107In Buddhist ethics. >> Okay. Well, for the sake of completeness, then we have one more noble truth, the fourth noble truth, which is the eight-fold path. So, what what is this path? Is are these is it fair to say that the eight-fold path is like eight ethical principles that we ought to live by?
¶108>> Um, sort of. Um, so the the eight-fold path is usually divided into kind of like three sections. One of which is e I guess you could say ethics. um what gets translated as ethics um which has to do basically with our behavior towards others. Then there's a section um of the eight-pold path that has to do with mental training and then there's wisdom.
¶109Um, and so I think I can't remember it's like four in one and three in the other and one and I think wisdom just has the one right wisdom or maybe there's two. I can't remember how exactly it's divided up but but um it has all of those three parts. So one part of the path is what we would yeah call like kind of ethical behavior like um um the way that you speak should be um truthful. It should you should avoid slander and you know gossip. Um your actions towards others you know you don't take uh life.
¶110Um um if if you can avoid it you um don't take something unless it's freely given. Uh there's also perhaps more controversially from a modern perspective um you have this idea of right livelihood. So you actually have to engage in ways of making money that aren't violent. Um so these are all kind of um parts of the ethical training of the A-fold path. And then you have um things like right mindfulness um right you know attention this kind of stuff that um is about training your mind.
¶111So that's another part big part of the Buddhist path where you um you have to train your mind to be able to pay attention to what you're doing which is um hard um for for many of us um and to be able to focus your mind on an object a specific object that you choose. Um, so they're very concerned Buddhists I think in general about the effects of distraction and lack of focus on our ethical lives, on our spiritual lives, um on our ability to to um relieve suffering, alle suffering. So there's a whole chunk of the path that's about that basically mind training. And then there's um a part of the of the eight-fold noble tr path that's about um wisdom and having the right views and understanding reality and um and and all of that. So, and that's I think true across the board um in Buddhist path that you see all of those three things working kind of the ethical actionoriented training, the mental training and then the the understanding that you cultivate into wisdom.
¶112>> And the idea is if we follow this path rigorously then eventually we will break out of the cycle of samsara of rebirth and suffering. Yes, that's the hope. And I mean that that's also um you know a big all of these four noble truths are really big claims because um even if the eight-fold path sounds like a good idea to you like there's nothing objectionable in it. It's still uh quite another thing to see well is this really going to break us out of suffering? >> Um and that that's a pretty big claim that that they're making.
¶113Um but but that is the claim. Yeah. >> And I'll end on this question. In contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, there there's a big emphasis on providing like philosophical arguments for God's existence, for example, like like really showing why these beliefs are true. >> Yeah.
¶114>> To the extent that you can. >> Is there any similar emphasis in Buddhist philosophy in defending that final claim, the most significant one of all, that if you follow this eight-fold path, you will attain enlightenment. You will [snorts] break out of this cycle. as someone who isn't already a Buddhist, they're going to ask and they're going to say, "Why should I devote like what reason can you give me for devoting my life to this as opposed to uh becoming a Muslim or a Christian or thinking all of this is false anyway and just being an atheist?" Is there any sort of tradition or body of philosophical reflection that attempts to show that this final claim really is true? >> Yeah, I think so.
¶115I I mean and this is this is something that Buddhist ethics takes up in in a variety of places and I should just note before answering that that um the eight-fold noble path although is the you know the one coming from the early sutas from the historical Buddha um there's there's also other frameworks that become just as if not more important for instance the six perfections um in Mahayana Buddhism that but they're getting at basically the same thing this kind of ethical training and this cognitive training um in order to uh you know liberate from suffering. Um so in that sense they um they I think share a common purpose. Um but we see to answer your question about you philosophical argumentation. I think you see um some of that in both of these literatures about a full noble path about the six perfections and I think you know a lot of it stems from the diagnosis. So if you if you accept the diagnosis of the second noble truth that what what we're up against here is really craving maybe craving and aversion and ignorance um as a kind of triad then um then the project becomes do these ethical trainings and um cognitive trainings um are they effective in addressing those particular causes?
¶116And I think the Buddhists are going to argue, yeah, like ethical training is extremely important in um as a as a not not just for a Buddhist, but just for human in general, that one of the things that we learn when we're children, for instance, when we're learning basic basic ethics is to moderate craving and aversion. Um there are things that I want and there are things that I don't want. Um I want that toy and I don't want to share it. And then we learn a um moral um skill or precept or something about sharing and it um it chips away at that. It it it or at least that's the hope that the idea is that um practicing you know generosity and that kind of thing um that is going to uproot craving and aversion.
¶117It's not going to feel so terrible to give away something that you like and it's not going to feel so unbearable to want something that you don't have. And so the ethical practices are getting at these cravings and aversions. they're also getting at at a fundamental ignorance because I think you know from Buddhist ethical perspective um there's a fundamental ignorance in a lot of our ways of interacting with people which is kind of based on a naive egoism that we think that our own desires and our own sufferings are so much more important and weighty. Um and so ethical training helps you kind of overcome that because it forces you to kind of be fair in a certain way to another person's suffering and their desires. Um in terms of the mental training um like mindfulness for instance um is going to be um really important because um part of the diagnosis of suffering from the Buddhist point of view is uh not only that it's caused by craving and aversion and ignorance but a lot of that happens kind of like below the level of awareness.
¶118So most of the time we just go through our days and I want I don't want blah blah blah. I'm I'm ignoring you. I'm ignoring that. um I'm mad that I have to stand in line behind all these low people and and we ne it doesn't really ever infiltrate our our um level of awareness. And if we train, the idea is if we train something like mindfulness, then um you're able to to to to understand in the moment um oh wow, there's a lot of craving and aversion going on here when I'm standing in line and and also a lot of ignorance because for somehow I'm assuming that it's more important for me to get my needs met than all these people who are in front of me.
¶119um that I really have no basis for to think that that um and um these cognitive practices um can help in those ways and then the wisdom practices also um I think maybe more directly you know from Buddhist point of view speak to the the the problem um so I think that that's what they would say as like a phil philosophical argument um and so it really the second noble truth is becomes really important Um because if you a lot hinges on that if you most people would agree I think with the with the first noble truth that there is suffering. Um the second noble truth the causes or conditions um under which suffering arises a lot hinges on that including the eight-fold noble path. >> Emily McCrae, thank you for coming on the podcast and having this super fascinating conversation with me today. I really appreciate Well, thank you for for asking me and it was really nice to see you again, Miles. [music]