At that time "the world was so recent that many things still lacked names, and in order to mention them it was necessary to point". With this imaginative metaphor Gabriel Garcia Marquez describes the immemorial remoteness of his One Hundred Years of Solitude’s early days. In the same way, the fingers of modern scholars are now pointing to the Buddha’s agnosticism and pragmatism, twenty four centuries before such words entered languages after being coined by English biologist Thomas H. Huxley and North American philosopher Charles S. Peirce respectively.
Two paragraphs, appearing in many Buddha’s discourses, corroborate this assertion. The first one, a summary of his Teachings in itself, is Siddhattha Gotama’s recurrent repetition of his four noble truths: “I only explain the reality of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering". The second one are the Buddha’s answers to a disciple who was requesting clarity on a number of uncertain questions related to the nature of the cosmos, the immanence of the soul and the existence of the buddhas after their death. Says Siddhattha Gotama: “In the discussion of any hypothesis about supernatural matters—be them the eternity or finitude of the universe, the existence or nonexistence of the soul, its immortality or its disappearance, rebirth or reincarnation—the affirmation or negation of any position about such issues is only a bunch of opinions, a desert of opinions, a manipulation of opinions that in no way leads to the cessation of suffering.” In other words, the only notions of importance for the Buddha are those few things that lead to the end of suffering; any action or discussion that does not help in that respect is merely a complete waste of time.
Before associating them with Buddhism, we need to describe the two terms that we are talking about. Agnostic is one who recognizes the human inability to reach definitive conclusions on certain matters, particularly those of a theological or metaphysical nature, the complexity of which exceeds the capacity of human reason. Instead of exhausting wits to support a point of view in one or another direction, the agnostic neither denies nor asserts; he simply does not expend brain power on issues which are logically or physically impossible to refute or verify. Since the ultimate reality is incomprehensible, the agnostic merely says: “I do not know." Over the last fifty years, a century after Huxley’s time, dozens of thinkers, generously supported by modern research, are beginning to share the "cautious ignorance" of the English biologist.
Looking inside, into our inner world, many of today’s neurologists and anthropologists consider that the brain, as it has evolved through ages until reaching the prodigy of the Homo sapiens’ mind, has developed capacities which are exclusively for the survival of its owner and not for the understanding of the laws of the cosmos. Looking outside, both to distant galaxies and neighboring subatomic particles, modern physicists like 1979-Nobel-Prize winner Steven Weinberg, think that the reality of matter and energy is exceedingly mysterious, even for the brightest and most experienced scientists, a heavy weight statement coming from such a top name.
The assembly of the universe did not happen with the intention of being understood by the human mind, so natural sciences, which almost always lean toward the materialist interpretation, end up hitting against a wall that eventually takes the academic world to a prudent agnostic standpoint. The reasoning behind such skeptic position is quite simple: There exists an extremely wide disparity between the problem presented by physics and the tool provided by neurology. You cannot paint a red circle with a blue marker. If the problem is the interpretation of the cosmos (painting a red circle) and the brain (the blue marker) is the only tool available, the problem will remain unsolved. The Buddha, according to Scottish author Stephen Batchelor, a former Buddhist monk, is agnostic; Siddhattha Gotama, when confronted with complex unsolvable issues, either remains silent or abstains from formulating hypothesis. (Needless to say, the Buddha never speaks of physics or sciences and this paragraph does not imply that scientific research is to be stopped.) Other Buddhist scholars disagree with Batchelor’s statement—indeed the Buddha never says “I do not know”. But Siddhattha Gotama does advise his rational audiences to be agnostic.
Pragmatic, the other term under consideration, is the person who uses a practical approach to problems and matters of everyday life; for such person, the truth is whatever works and produces results. Rules and behaviors must go together and have beneficial consequences; therefore, theory and practice should not belong to different domains. (Pragmatic comes from Greek pragmatikos meaning “versed in matters of business"). The Teachings of Buddha are pragmatic, says Anglo-German Buddhist scholar Edward Conze, because they avoid speculation and aim only to the habits and practices that lead to the cessation of suffering. The four noble truths are the only “absolute” truths, the only necessary truths. The end of suffering results from knowing them, recognizing their imperative need and actually experiencing them. Knowledge needs to be lived if it is to become wisdom. Those familiar with the Buddha’s Teachings, even at elementary level, well know the intimate unity of the noble truths (the theory) and the eightfold path (the practice): The fourth noble truth is the path and the first practice of the path is the intimate understanding of the four truths.
Who might have interest in this dichotomy? The agnostic Buddha (or his agnostic recommendation) interests the rational minds, those individuals ruled by logic and analysis, who feel uncomfortable with both the faith of the blind believers and the limitations of the human mind. The pragmatic Buddha, on the other hand, is for a much larger audience, the Henry D. Thoreau’s “mass of men who live lives of quiet desperation” willing to put an end to their anguish by some practical approach that excludes abstract concepts and unexplainable dogmas. When an approach works for someone, it will definitely be true for him or her.
In terms of “length” or coverage, the Teachings of the Buddha are more pragmatic than agnostic. The full eightfold path is pragmatic (should produce useful results) while agnosticism is displayed only in the first noble practice, the “right view”, which Vietnamese Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hahn precisely and agnostically defines as “the absence of views”.
Given the above considerations, agnostic and pragmatic are both adequate qualifiers for Siddhattha Gotama’s thought; they are not a one-or-the-other dilemma. In spite of being myself agnostic, what I personally likes best about the Teachings is their pragmatism. But evidently the Buddha would probably disagree with any attempt, like this one, which seeks to catalogue his message within any dictionary of philosophy. "Please, friends”, I guess he would say, “this discussion in no way contributes to the elimination of suffering."
No comments:
Post a Comment