Defending the Law [Part 2]
Enlightenment Without Law is Dumb
This post continues the series begun here. One can criticize Law from many points of view. In today’s post I’ll focus on certain elements in the Buddhist critique of Law as “external motivation.”
The average Western Buddhist agrees that it’s not enough to become Enlightened. As the Jack Kornfield quotation goes, “After Enlghtenment, the Laundry.”
Thich Nhat Hanh—whose work I find profound and meaningful—describes the importance of being “engaged” and not only detached, despite the fact that one of the basic tenets of Buddhism goes “attachment is the root of all suffering.” I suppose one can arguably be both engaged and non-attached, but at some level this is just semantics. Substantively, the pursuit of an Enlightened state requires a commitment to quietism. If it turns out that being non attached can also make the world a better place that’s a bonus.
In any case, once you accept that Enlightenment itself is not enough, or that there is work to do after Enlightenment (just as in Plato, the philosopher must return to the cave), the question becomes what to do. Is it enough just to be guided by a profound experience, a shift in attitude? I wrote about this question here. One candidate for the answer to “what to do” is follow the Law. What Enlightenment adds is simply a new attitude to the Law, not a replacement to it. There is no reason why Enlightenment must inherently lead to antinomianism.
SKILLFUL MEANS
A common phrase used by Buddhists to describe the ethical translation of insight into the world is “skillful means.”
But how does one cultivate skillful means—is it just by sitting in meditation? Or should one read books, study, debate, etc.? In my view, children are more enlightened than adults in the technical sense that they are more present. But we would do worse to be ruled by children simply on that basis. Why? Because they lack—through no fault of their own—skillful means. Ideally, our leaders would be both enlightened and skilled in their means. But it’s also possible that in everyday life we face a trade off between the pursuit of means and the pursuit of ends. Wisdom is not the same as know-how. I wouldn’t let a sage fly my airplane unless s/he knew how to fly planes. Similarly, if the pilot is a jerk, but has a good track record of flying planes safely I don’t mind making use of his skillful means.
Technological innovation and prosperity are certainly not the only or even primary driver of happiness or human flourishing, but it’s worth remembering that the pursuit of scientific method, not the pursuit of enlightenment, got us those things that by Western standards-contribute to quality of life.
Why do I mention this? Because the Law is arguably a bridge—or can be— a bridge between the interior world of Eastern meditation and the external world of Western science. Law concerns behavior and not just intent; thus, Law can ask what it takes to get the airplane to fly and whether and to what extent the character of the pilot matters.
A lot of secular Western Buddhists I meet ascribe to some lukewarm Marxist ideas. That is, they jump from the idea that one should love all beings and be compassionate to all to a concrete policy sense that wealth inequality is bad. I will hold off on evaluating the substance of the Marxist claim and only focus for now on the strangeness of the fact that the average Eastern Buddhist who lives in poverty does not ascribe to this position in the least. On the contrary, Eastern Buddhist monks make vows of poverty and see the pursuit of wealth as a distraction. Compassion itself should be politically nimble.
Why mention this? Because whatever you think of Marxism it arguably comes from a Jewish root. Marx’s grandfather was a rabbi; even though Marx himself had a complex to negative view of religion and espoused views that are antisemitic, his commitment to changing the social world rests on a foundation drawn from Exodus and Deuteronomy. The Greek notion of justice has nothing critical to say about class while the Eastern caste system enshrines caste as immovable. It is the Biblical universe that seeks to realize the concept of a social safety net for Israelites and God-fearers, if not universal humanity. When the Buddhist says compassion means concern for raising people out of poverty, he draws on the Jewish tradition.
This is not to reduce Judaism to social justice or to conflate the law with ethics or to say that Judaism is Marxist. One can read the Torah and come to anti-Marxist conclusions. The point is that the debate about how to realize the concept of equality, social betterment, is a question of Law, not a question of Enlightenment. The basic Enlightened theory of change is that people will be better off if they all practice non-attachment.
The study and practice of the law are a potentially profound way to realize skillful means. Are they enough to cultivate enlightenment? That, for another post.
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a paying subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.
Love this discussion especially as I am one of those who cultivate satori yet find observance of the law (Judaism) a necessary bulwark.
"The study and practice of the law are a potentially profound way to realize skillful means. Are they enough to cultivate enlightenment? That, for another post."
Not sure if you've gotten around to that other post yet. But, I suggest, the answer is Yes! The way I see it, enlightenment is one manifestation of the law that characterizes the human form. You previously mentioned Kant's principle of autonomy. It is not immediately clear how autonomy is connected to enlightenment; autonomy is manifested in right activity of the will, and enlightenment is manifested in right inactivity of the will. But they share this: by hook or by crook, they consist in the coherence of the human intentional system. I've been told that this is implied by Kant's principles of rationality, but so far I get the sense that if this *is* a dimension of his principles, it's somewhere in the margins.
I suggest that this is the law that constitutes the human form: coherence must seek itself. Discord must yield to harmony. Competition must yield to cooperation. Contradiction must yield to consistency. Communion inheres in our flesh and our blood -- no wonder Jesus kept badgering the poor pharisees to cannibalize him.
If you find it suspicious to treat 'coherence', 'consistency', 'coordination', and 'cooperation', as roughly synonymous, I don't blame you! My sense that there is unity among these principles is derived in part from introspection, and God knows mental formations can be bent into any form you project onto them. However, my research into cognitive science suggests that, at the level of computation, our mapping activities and our navigational activities are at least interdependent, and are very likely two sides of the same coin. Hence my view that epistemic coherence and practical coherence are two dimensions of the same principle. In my own practice, I pick this principle out with 'communion' -- it's a turn to the poetic that works for me.