"Living as a River" is a great non-religious Buddhist book

A few days ago I was drawn to look over the Buddhism section of my bookcase to see if a title appealed to me as something to re-read.

One did. Bodhipaksa's Living as a River: Finding Fearlessness in the Face of Change. (The author was born as Graeme Stephen in Scotland before he took on a Buddhist name.)

After buying the book in 2011, I've written several blog posts about it.

Live as a river -- fluid, dynamic, interconnected
We have a conventional self, but not a soul-self

And I mentioned the book in Overcoming the fear of non-existence, where I tried to answer a question from a commenter, Chris, about how I've been doing in this regard.

Chris, if you haven't done this already, I encourage you to delve into what I look upon as "neuroscientific Buddhism." Or, "Buddhist neuroscience."

Namely, writers and researchers who are trying to make sense of the apparently solid fact that the self (or soul) doesn't exist as a separate, distinct, independent entity. Currently I'm reading, and enjoying, "Living as a River" -- a book I've blogged about recently.

I think the approach Bodhipaksa, the author, takes is right on for dealing with a fear of non-existence. HIs subtitle is fearlessness in the face of change. Well, what's a bigger change than death?

Fear, of anything, usually doesn't disappear suddenly.

The Six Element Practice described in "Living as a River" is traditional Buddhism, yet pleasingly updated with modern scientific insights and stripped of unnecessary religious dogma (such as rebirth).

Again, it seems to be that the best way to deal with a fear of not-existing is to undertand -- really understand, intutively, emotionally, in your gut -- that you have never existed as the self that is afraid of non-existence.

The Introduction is available to read at no charge. When I re-read the Introduction yesterday, I was much impressed by how clearly Bodhipaksa writes, with a pleasing focus on melding science and Buddhist philosophy.

His take on consciousness makes a lot of sense. 

Mentally, we are each "networked" to other minds through the action of mirror neurons, which allow us to share other people's experiences. You could not in fact have a conscious self, in the sense that you have one now, without having encountered other conscious selves.

Consciousness is something "caught." In fact, there's no such "thing" as consciousness. Consciousness is not an entity that sits within us, awaiting contact with the outside world; rather it's a series of activities that arise in dependence upon contact with the world.

The ultimate act of letting go is to abandon the delusion that consciousness and the world are separate things. The more we reflect, the more we can recognize that there is nothing permanent or separate in the body or mind that can constitute the very limited and limiting kind of self we commonly assume we have.

I also like how Bodhipaksa views the Buddha.

The Buddha wasn't a god, or a prophet, but an introspective philosopher who attempted to live a life of ethics and intellectual integrity, based as much as possible on truths discoverable by the unaided (although not untrained) mind.

Because the title "Buddha," which means "awakened one," can be a bit offputting for some people, for the purposes of this chapter I won't refer to him as "the Buddha," but by his family name, Gautama. Perhaps this may bring him down to earth and make him seem less of a "religious" figure.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

" ... You could not in fact have a conscious self, in the sense that you have one now, without having encountered other conscious selves.

Consciousness is something "caught." ... "

..........That is a very interesting observation! That if you brought up a child in the middle of nowhere, tended to by robots, or maybe by human beings who deliberately left off any positive or negative nudges as far as the child's self-hood, then the child wouldn't "grow" a sense of self at all. Very, very intriguing.

Is it true, though?

That Buddhism has got one thing right --- Anatta, non-self, I mean to say --- does not necessarily mean it would get all things right, or that people who are into Buddhism and generally ruminating away will necessarily get it all right. Getting it right just the once might simply be a matter of happenstance. After all even a broken clock gives you the right time twice a day (or maybe once, if it's digital). With the hundreds, maybe thousands, of things that different traditions speak of, often with uncanny authority and certitude, is it any wonder that one or two of those might hit home? It is simply a question of happenstance!

So, does science bear out this out, the quoted portion I mean to say? That our sense of self is chimerical has already been established, I believe. But that this chimerical self-hood hasn't been evolved directly as programming into our brains, but is wholly and entirely a learned trait, a socially learned trait, at the level of every single individual human being, is that also something that is borne to by bona fide science? *That* is what is the million dollar question.

Don't remember having seen this specific question discussed. Haven't nosed around looking, so far; but I'd love to know the answer to this question.

(I guess a related question might be: Do animals have a sense of self, and consciousness as well, in the sense that we humans have it? I'm not cent per cent sure on this, but if I were asked to take a stab at answering, then I'd guess Yes, they do, the higher animals at any rate. So that one might actually experiment and see for oneself, isn't it? Experimenting on humans is obviously out of the question; and experimenting on rats is something we do all the time; I imagine it would not raise insurmountable ethical concerns to carry out experiments of this kind with chimpanzees, or bonobos, or maybe dogs. So, has something like this ever been done, I wonder?)

[Ron E.]

Brian, the response you sent to commenter 'Chris' in 2011 seems pretty much spot on: -
“Again, it seems to be that the best way to deal with a fear of not-existing is to understand -- really understand, intuitively, emotionally, in your gut -- that you have never existed as the self that is afraid of non-existence.”

I would add to your list of understanding “ . the self that is afraid of non-existence”, understanding experientially. It may sound strange but there is always a moment when something appears to consciousness (be it a thought or object) when there is no experiencer, no self. A dramatic example could be on hearing a loud bang, initially there is only the experience, a moment latter the self with all its accumulated knowledge appears and instantly analyses the occurrence.

Understanding the self issue I feel is key to understanding ourselves and the world around us. No need of authorities of any kind – although suggestions from science or someone who has seen the phenomenon of self, could provide a wake-up call to enquire this for ourselves.

I also appreciate Bodhipaksa's statement on consciousness: - “Consciousness is something "caught." In fact, there's no such "thing" as consciousness. Consciousness is not an entity that sits within us, awaiting contact with the outside world; rather it's a series of activities that arise in dependence upon contact with the world.” This again can be experienced and is continually verified by researchers – e.g. even emotions are concepts, are learned (Fieldman Barrett – How Emotions are Made).

The whole confusing mess of searching for some sort of meaning or specialness that is related to an egocentric self – a self that creates all sorts of authorities – collapses when 'self' is understood. (Although years of enquiry' perhaps a lifetime may precede such understanding as naturally there is a lot of accumulated mind stuff to get through).

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. [ t may sound strange but there is always a moment when something appears to consciousness (be it a thought or object) when there is no experiencer, no self. A dramatic example could be on hearing a loud bang, initially there is only the experience, a moment latter the self with all its accumulated knowledge appears and instantly analyses the occurrence. ]

IMO, the mystics would say it's the mind's --rather than the self's-- analysis.
'Monkey Mind' jumps to the fore and begins chattering about the noise.
At times, the mind is rational too as when it issues a prim reminder not to
leave a heavy object precariously stationed where it might come crashing
down. It's the same mind which sells the idea of a false self to then take
the blame. Very much like the story of the monkey who devours the pies
on an open window sill and then un-tethers the goat in the yard to get a
beating from the owner.

[Appreciative Reader]

I also appreciate Bodhipaksa's statement on consciousness: - “Consciousness is something "caught."

..........But why do you appreciate that, Ron? Have you come across any research that bears that out?

What I'm driving at is, and what I was talking about in my earlier comment is, take something like altruism, or aggression, or any of those "softer" traits. While obviously a great deal of that sort of thing is directly learned behavior, social conditioning directly absorbed at the level of the individual, but apparently a ...tendency to such things is apparently hardwired into our genetic code. At least that is my (obviously somewhat vague, and not immediately referenced) understanding. Well, how do we know our sense of self is not something like that? How do we know that, while without doubt subject to a great deal of social conditioning at the individual level, but still some core sense of self isn't similarly hardwired into our genetic code, and that a child growing up in the wild (and somehow managing to survive on his or her own) will nevertheless emerge with consciousness and sentience and a sense of self?

In other words, how do we know that Bodhipaksha isn't simply blowing hot air through his posterior orifice when he makes that pronouncement? (That particular part of it, I mean to say, not all of the rest of it.) After all, simply taking on a Buddhist name does not an authority make. And nor does being seen as an authority a font of truth make. Regardless of whether that piece of wisdom comes from Bodhipaksha, or whether he's drawn that from other earlier Buddhist scholars, or whether he draws that from the Buddha himself: but is there any evidence anywhere, any science, that consciousness is "caught"?

P.S. There well might be. In which case I'm happy to abide by it, the evidence I mean to say. But is there? Do we actually know that? That is, does B. really know what he's talking about, as far as this?

[Appreciative Reader]

Haha, just re-read my comment above, and, just to clarify, the "B." in that last sentence there is short for Bodhipaksa!

[Ron E.]

A.R. The term appreciate is to grasp the implications of something or recognize its significance which is how I view Bodhipaksa's statement on consciousness. It is not necessarily to believe something.

Yes, a child growing up in the wild would have a sense of self, but a self that reflects its environment and experiences. It would not have the self of a child brought up in a normal society. The reason is that the self is a product of the mind, mind being the accumulation of information gained through life's experiences.

The theory of consciousness arrived at through years of research is that it emanates via the brain – 'how' the brain does this is still not clear. The 'wild' child – like all creatures – would be conscious, would be aware of itself and its environment.

The answer I would say regarding much of the confusion lies in understanding the mind, the mind as being the information function of the brain. It would be from this mass of information that the sense of a self arises.

I was recently reading Anil Seth's 'Being You' where he stated that consciousness is to be conscious of something. Consciousness is its contents and as Bodhipaksa states: - “Consciousness is not an entity that sits within us, awaiting contact with the outside world; rather it's a series of activities that arise in dependence upon contact with the world.”

There is a lot of research done on consciousness, self and mind. Psychology Today (Oct 1, 2020) had an interesting series of articles on the evolutionary origins of consciousness. There are many such findings to sift through. I guess it all comes down to what one is drawn to believe or consider. For me, it is the science of the brain/mind/self – and some aspects of Zen – along with observations of nature.

And D'ness: - “IMO, the mystics would say it's the mind's --rather than the self's-- analysis”.

Self, mind, no difference – except that the self (or ego) is derived from the information that is mind.

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. [ And D'ness: - “IMO, the mystics would say it's the mind's --rather than the self's-- analysis”.
Self, mind, no difference – except that the self (or ego) is derived from the information that is mind. ]

IMO mystics would disagree. The power of analysis is a derivative of the mind
not the ego-self which is also a product of the mind. It conflates monkey/mind
with an ego/goat leaving it to get a beating.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, Ron.

All of what you say here sounds entirely reasonable. Agreed with all of that, absolutely.

Thing is, I have a bit of an issue with "experts" sometimes slipping in their own idiosyncratic views of what's what, and passing it off as truth. This would seem to be an example of that. "Bodhipaksa" says here that consciousness is "caught", the most straightforward interpretation of which is that consciousness is wholly a function of socialization. Should the evidence bear that out I'm prepared to accept it, obviously, but as it is I doubt very much that is the case.

It's like this. "Running" isn't some supernatural something we come with. It is simply a function of our legs. And sure, to an extent our running is a function of our socialization, in the sense that when we run, how we run, how much we run, all of that is part of the socialization process. Nevertheless, should a child grow up in the wild, she will likely be able to run untaught, that is to say, "running" is something she doesn't need to "catch" from elsewhere, it is hardwired into her, at any rate the core of it if not all of the details of it.

Likewise with consciousness and sentience and a sense of self, all of that, or so I would imagine. Sure, it's simply a function of the mind, and the mind a function of the brain plus neural network. That said, and unless the evidence points at that being so, I doubt, very much, that consciousness is something that we "catch", from the outside as it were, that consciousness is wholly a socialized thing. I'd imagine that much like we've evolved to run, likewise we've evolved to be conscious and sentient (although naturally the details of how we do both has to do with socialization and what we "catch", sure, but not the essence of it, not the core of it, not the thing itself).

-----

Of course, that's just a small portion of what Bodhipaksa says. His larger message is perfectly reasonable. And it is possible, I suppose, that this was merely a loosely worded sentence, and that he did not mean to actually convey what those words literally say. Still, it kind of caught of my eye, and that's the part I thought to touch on here (although the rest of what he says I fully agree with, absolutely).

Agreed, excellent work is being done on consciousness. It is a wonderful time to be alive in, really! Both in terms of how much of work is done in such diverse areas of science as neurobiology, and cosmology, and quantum mechanics, that so fundamentally changes how man has traditionally looked on at the world; and also in terms of how marvelously accessible much of that information has become to us. We really don't have any excuse, in this day and age, other than our own intellectual laziness, to continue to wallow in ignorance and superstitions, when clarity is so easily approachable.

[Satnam]

Can you prove that you've meditated at all , ever ?

[Brian Hines]

Satnam, can you prove that you're not an automated Russian internet bot that trolls blogs, asking absurd questions? In normal everyday life, which is the life all of us lead when we're not having ridiculous conversations like this in cyberspace, we accept the truth of what people say unless there is evidence to the contrary.

How would you suggest that I prove I've meditated every day since 1970? I've written lots of times about my meditation. Guess you'll just have to believe me. Why are you concerned about my meditation? That's a more interesting question.