Prosthetic Conscience

Suffering and rebirth, compassion and justice

My philosophical/religious viewpoint, as I’ve written before, is somewhere between Theravada Buddhism and classical Epicureanism. Both philosophies are aimed at the elimination of suffering. However, Epicureanism is a materialist philosophy, in the classical sense that it does not recognize the existence of anything other than matter and space (atoms and the void, classicaly, matter/energy and space/time today). Epicureanism recognizes the existence of a soul, but contends that it is mortal and closely linked to the body, so that it does not survive the death of the body. According to Lucretius, the soul is composed of a system of highly mobile atoms centered in the heart and distributed through the limbs. A modern Epicurean would say that the soul is a name for the activity of the brain and the nervous system. When the body dies, so does the soul, and that which we regard as ourselves ceases to exist. That is why Epicureans say “Death is nothing to us,” because death is not something we, the living, experience. It is also said that “there is a limit to our suffering.” Nothing can cause great suffering for long, without causing death, and when we die, there is nothing left to suffer.

This point of view is unacceptable to Theravada Buddhists, because, they say, if suffering is ended by death, why not just kill yourself? Rebirth (the continuation of a chain of consciousness in a new body, as distinguished somewhat from the transmigration of a soul) is seen as necessary, in order to emphasize that there is no “easy out” of the system, and to solve the problem of suicide.

On this issue I side narrowly with the Epicureans. I do not believe in rebirth, though I agree with some Buddhist ideas that are closely associated with rebirth, especially that the consequences of our actions (karma) extend past our death. However, I believe that the Theravada teachers are right to be concerned with these issues, and that my lack of belief in rebirth disqualifies me from considering myself a Buddhist. In order to maintain my balancing act between Buddhism and Epicureanism, I need to come up with Epicurean answers to two questions.

1. If your suffering ends when you die, why not commit suicide, then?

2. If death is the end (for you), then why should you care about the consequences of your actions that will only occur after your death? For example, why be concerned about the environment? (This issue is hotly debated on an Epicurean mailing list.)

For the first question, we have some classical answers. The main one is that ataraxia, the state of happiness that is the goal of Epicurean practise, is something that is achieved while one is alive. When you are dead, you do not suffer, but you do not experience pleasure either (or anything else, for that matter). A person who is prudent and mindful, and avoids vain pleasures, takes luxuries only as they come rather than seeking after them, and enjoys simple pleasures that are easy to obtain, can always (according to Epicurus) achieve tranquility and a positive balance of pleasure over suffering. It is never too late or early to begin the practise of wisdom.

My answer to the second question is speculative. I see the goal of ending my own suffering as necessary, but also consider the ending of suffering of all sentient beings desirable (though perhaps impossible). And I see the two goals as compatible. The Epicurean ideal of justice is the arrangement of things to mutual benefit. In general, if I act prudently, I make it easier for others to avoid suffering, because I am not competing with them for things that are scarce. These good consequences propagate into the future. Actions that would bring about harm to others after my death that would not also harm my goal of pleasant tranquility are probably relatively rare.

A Buddhist manual on insight meditation I read recently discusses the goal of universal compassion. We wish for our enemies to be healthy, happy, successful (etc.) because if they were all those things, they would no longer have any cause to be our enemies. I believe that this Buddhist idea is consistent with but greater than the Epicurean idea of justice. And so I am trying to increase my compassion along with my mindfulness. If I am compassionate as well as just, I decrease not only my own suffering, but that of others, even after my death, because every action, no matter how small, is entangled in chains of causality that began along with the universe and will not end until it does. I do not think it is a duty of Epicureans to be compassionate, however. If they are simply just, then they will “live unseen” and do little or no harm to the future, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Justice by itself is more than most people achieve.

[ Posted: 18:43] | [ Category: /philosophy] | Permalink | Comments: 1 ]