My name, Jayarava (जयरव, 勝喊 Shèng-hǎn), means: "Cry, shout, or roar of victory". It was given to me in 2005 when I was ordained into the Triratna Buddhist Order.
I was educated mainly in the sciences and have a B.Sc in chemistry and a Post Graduate Diploma in Librarianship. I was born and lived in New Zealand until 2002, when I moved to Cambridge, UK. I taught myself Pāli, have audited classes in Sanskrit at Cambridge University, and muddle through in Buddhist Middle Chinese. I've also dabbled in various art forms, including music, painting, photography, and calligraphy.
Since 2005, I've written over 600 essays for this website. My scholarly writing has appeared in
- Asian Literature and Translation
- Buddhist Studies Review
- Contemporary Buddhism
- International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture
- Journal of Buddhist Ethics
- Journal of Chinese Buddhism
- Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
- Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies
- Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies
I've written books on the Kālāma Sutta, mantra calligraphy, and Sanskrit names. (See Publications for details). My book about Karma & Rebirth is now on sale. I am writing another on the Heart Sutra.
If you want to contact me, email me at [my name]@gmail.com. Comments on these essays are off for the foreseeable future. Almost no one actually reads the essays carefully enough and most questions are best addressed by reading the texts in the bibliography or under the general Bibliography tab.
Websites: jayarava.org | visiblemantra.org | visiblemantra blog | heart sutra primary resources
Social Media: Instagram | Facebook | SoundCloud |
Scholarly Media: Academia.edu | ORCID | ResearchGate
Contributions to Digital Dictionary of Buddhism.
Notes.
- I no longer post on Twitter since it was taken over by a fascist.
- The facebook link is to my Heart Sutra group, I only "friend" people I know IRL.
This blog started life as a series of long emails to my friend Ann/Pema in Cleveland, Ohio. She was a new Buddhist and I was explaining my thoughts on some Buddhist themes. Having got started, I realised that I had a lot of things to say and enjoyed writing them down.
The emphasis of the blog changes depending on my interests at the time. The main themes are etymology and the history of language; textual interpretation and criticism, especially the Pāli suttas; the history of ancient India, and particularly the history of ideas with respect to Buddhism; and the integration of Buddhism with contemporary Western Culture, with an emphasis on science. More recently I have found a way into Western Philosophy that works and have been exploring this.
The first posts were casual, off the cuff comments, limited to 1000 words, but as time has gone on I have aimed for more rigour, dropped the word limit, and introduced the use of footnotes and references. Most of my essays now are long reads in the order of 5000 words. These days I'm wrestling with major intellectual issues and I don't think anyone is served by yet more superficial analysis, so I write for clarity but also depth.
Interviews
2012: Interview with Ted Meissner of The Secular Buddhist. We talked about lots of stuff but especially karma, rebirth, and my brand of pragmatic Buddhism.
2015: Interview with Matthew O'Connell of Imperfect Buddha Podcast, again talking about karma and rebirth, my work on these subjects has moved on considerably in the last two years as work on my book progresses. I wrote a companion essay for this interview: In Conversation about Karma and Rebirth.
2019. Interview with Michael Taft of Deconstructing Yourself Podcast. The Pāli Suttas, Buddhist History, Karma, pluralism, and of course the Heart Sutra.
"If you don't like these ideas, I have others."
—Marshall McLuhan
Views
I'm frequently called Materialist, but this is inaccurate. I am certainly a Rationalist and an Antiromantic. I'm convinced by claims for a substance monist ontology, but I would describe my view as substance-reductionist and structure-antireductionist. So along with substance monism I accept structure pluralism and emphasise the emergent properties and interactions of complex objects. Emergent properties are properties that complex objects have because of their structure (as opposed to their substance). I reject any kind of supernatural entity or force on evidential grounds, and I'm thus some kind of Naturalist. Hegel's philosophy involved the idea of the synthesis of a thesis and it's antithesis, the process of which he called a dialectic. Since I'm interested in the dialectic between substance and structure, my view might be described as dialectical naturalism. My views are similar to those of Hasok Chang's philosophy of pragmatic realism, and to a lesser extent to Sean Carroll's poetic naturalism (Carroll apparently accepts reductionism as the ultimate paradigm)
Epistemologically, I would say that Transcendental Idealism describes the situation of the individual who cannot compare notes: there is a mind-independent reality, but we have no direct access to it and generalising from experience in isolation is seldom valid. However, I argue that empiricism implies a commitment to comparing notes and this enables us to make inferences about the real nature of mind-independent objects and structures up to the limits of accuracy and precision inherent in our measurements. Let's call this position Collective Empirical Realism (not to be confused with the collective delusion known ironically as consensus reality).
It's not that empiricism gives us special access to reality; we are merely in a position to make more accurate and precise inferences. I don't believe in epistemic privilege with respect to metaphysics. I don't believe those who say that have direct access to reality, or direct knowledge of reality. I'm sure that some people make such claims in all sincerity, and that they are often based on experiences far outside the normal range of our waking state. However, there really is no special faculty for experiencing or gaining knowledge of reality. We all have the same apparatus. My realisation that nirvāṇa is the state that follows from the cessation of sensory experience only reinforced this attitude.
The view that there is no afterlife is frequently mislabelled Nihilism. I am not a nihilist. I find meaning everywhere. Just as I find the values of justice and fairness compelling despite not accepting the Just-World Fallacy. The opposite of nihilism is existentialism, so I'm some kind of existentialist. The traditional term for the view that there is no afterlife is ucchedavāda, meaning "the doctrine of being cut off (at death)". I'll put my hand up to being an ucchedavādin, which is technically a mithyādṛṣṭi. However, it is now beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no afterlife (sorry) and that the world is not inherently just. In other words there is no karma or rebirth, so the ucchedavādin position is the only viable one and we just have to live with it. I find this makes human life more precious and more meaningful, not less. Also it seems to create a greater need for voluntary ethical behaviour without external compulsion. It really is all up to us. Our choices determine the kind of world we live in. I suppose we can call this a species of Humanism.
So am I a materialist? No, I'm a substance/structure dialectical naturalist—collective empirical realist—existentialist—humanist.
Politically, I emphatically reject all forms of utopian fantasy. We will never live in perfect societies and there will always be room for improvement and change as our circumstances change. There is no one right way to organise a society, even if there are some shared principles that limit what constitutes a healthy society.
I follow the website Political Compass in separating attitudes to economic and governance issues in describing the political landscape, but I think we need a third axis to fully describe mainstream political views, i.e. social issues.
Economics: left/right or socialism/liberalism
Governance: authoritarianism/libertarianism or statism/individualism
Social attitudes: progress/conservative.
I am, roughly speaking, a socialist, libertarian, progressive.
Economically, I am on the left since I believe that it is incoherent and detrimental to allow public goods to be privately owned. Owning such things as land, minerals, and water makes no contribution to society. Rather it just creates artificial scarcity and unhelpful competition. Hoarding is a mental illness. Owning a billion of anything is a sign of mental illness. And billionaires are a symptom of a social pathology, even without considering their co-existence with poverty.
A "capitalist" is someone who owns things for a living. They derive income primarily from owning assets. Capitalists use their wealth to exert leverage over society so that, for example, laws favour them and their business activities over people who work for a living. As an economic system capitalism is fundamentally exploitative and exclusive.
"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." —Bertrand Russell.
In general, capitalists seem to behave like sociopaths: they are happy to destroy lives and the ecosystem to enrich themselves and this means that they have to be regulated and policed, in the same way that people are. I see billionaires living alongside people in relative poverty (let alone real poverty) as a sign of a deep malaise in society. It's fundamentally unfair.
I used to think that capitalism was inevitable, because I found it hard to imagine a world without commerce. Having read The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber & David Wengrow, I no longer believe this. For example, they describe societies in which the richest members are required by convention to compete in ostentatiously giving away their wealth (known as potlatch ceremonies) Those with the most wealth, are expected to be the most generous. This seems eminently sensible to me. They also describe societies in which wealth is unrelated to social status; in which men compete for possession of ceremonial objects that have no intrinsic value, and everyone has enough to eat. One can have commerce and trade without the need for a class of people who own things that don't need owning.
Nowadays, I'm more comfortable with the label "anti-capitalist", though I don't actively use it. Nor do I call my self an atheist. I try not to define myself in terms of what I am not. The term "atheism" still acknowledge the definitive role of theism. As noted, I believe that the natural world is the only world. Since gods are not part of the natural world, views that assert the existence of gods are opposed to naturalism. I've half seriously suggested that in my framework, theism would be better characterised along with all supernatural beliefs as form of unnaturalism.
My social attitudes lean towards the rights and duties of the individual. I see much less role for government in regulating the behaviour of individuals, except where that behaviour impacts on other people. As adults we should be able to make our own decisions and live with the consequences. And we should be preparing our children to take responsibility for their actions as adults. Such attitudes are usually associated with libertarianism.
For example, if our laws on prohibiting recreational drugs were rational, alcohol would be banned. It is by far the most damaging recreational drug, both in individual and societal terms. A libertarian approach would be to leave it up to adults to make their own decisions, but provide information accurate information on safe use and, as we now do with alcohol, standardise the strength and purity of the products so people can make informed choices.
Thus, according to political compass, I'm a "libertarian socialist". American libertarians, who tend to be on the extreme right economically, often struggle with this nomenclature. But there is no reason a libertarian should not advocate for voluntary collectivism or mutual aid. Humans are social mammals, after all, and voluntary mutual aid might well be called our evolutionary superpower.
In terms of governance, I see a role for government in organising large-scale (i.e. nationwide) amenities and services, and in protecting citizens from exploitation. As such, I think we have the balance entirely wrong at present: government routinely act to preserve the profits of capitalists at the expense of people who work for a living. This is partly because the owning class have long since controlled government. The transition from feudalism to capitalism, was not a fundamental change in the structure of society, it was just a change in management.
I believe that the state should ensure that everyone receives a good education and healthcare. The government should support those who cannot support themselves. In general this means relatively high taxation. You cannot have a good society when people are unwilling to contribute financially to it and put themselves ahead of the collective.
I am generally speaking a progressive. I think society should embrace difference and that equality is as important as liberty. Prejudice is unavoidable in human beings, but discrimination is a choice. I have my prejudices but I don't imagine that these should guide social policy or law making. And I work to rise above my prejudices. However, as I get older I do feel more resistant to change for change's sake, for example, changes driven by consumerism). I do feel that progressives ram through changes without taking the time to win people over and have thus created an atmosphere of division and collision. True progress would seem to require that bring everyone along together. Social change is slow and rightly so, because changing minds is slow. Simply insisting that social attitudes must change, is naive.
In being a cautious progressive, I'm particularly aware of the long essay by Karen Stenner on Authoritarianism in Hope Not Hate. Stenner explains why some people actively support authoritarianism and even fascism, when their need for sameness and oneness are not met.
Amongst all of this I'm also a Buddhist, despite disagreeing with traditional Buddhist articles of faith, because I see value in the practices and attitudes associated with the Buddha. For me, Buddhism is a useful set of methods rather than an ontology or epistemology. I believe it is possible to radically restructure the mind in beneficial ways through Buddhist practices. To me Buddhism is largely about what Buddhists do in the context of a Buddhist community, as a result of their identification with Buddhism. Belief is a feeling about an idea.
I do not deny that many Buddhists still find value in more traditional expressions of Buddhist faith, but I find most of the tradition far too implausible to be viable. The different sects of Buddhism are so complex and contradictory that a coherent definition which includes all of them boils down to something like my definition in any case.
To sum up, these are some of the labels that I would assent to.
Libertarian socialist progressive, Buddhist, substance/structure-dialectical naturalist, collective empirical realist, existentialist, humanist.
QUOTES
“Here am I who have written on all sorts of subjects calculated to excite hostility, moral, political, and religious, and yet I have no enemies—except, indeed, all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the Christians.”
—David Hume.
"Our relation to the world is not that of a thinker to an object of thought"
—Merleau Ponty, Maurice. (1964) The Primacy of Perception and Its Philosophical Consequences, in The Primacy of Perception. (James M. Edie, ed.) Northwestern University Press. (p. 12)
"In science you must not talk before you know. In art you must not talk before you do. In literature you must not talk before you think."
—John Ruskin. The Eagle's Nest. 1872.
—Honoré de Balzac
“We know that people can maintain an unshakable faith in any proposition, however absurd, when they are sustained by a community of like-minded believers.”
—Daniel Kahneman
"The ontological subjectivity of the domain [of consciousness] does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of that domain."
—John Searle.
"Subjectivity is an objective fact"
—Midgley, Mary.
—Wittgenstein. 1967 Philosophical Investigations. 43)
"Nullius in verba - Accept nothing on authority".
—The Royal Society Motto
"Philology is the art of reading slowly"
—Roman Jakobson
"Scholarship is an ongoing dialectical process."
—Michael Witzel
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
—Richard Feynman. "What is Science?"
The Physics Teacher. Vol. 7, issue 6 (1969)
Sapere aude! – Dare to know!
(motto for the Enlightenment)
—Immanuel Kant."Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?" (Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?) 1784.
"Science—knowledge—only adds to the excitement, the mystery, and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."
—Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.
"If happiness consisted in the pleasures of the body, we should call oxen happy whenever they come across bitter vetch to eat."
—Heraclitus. Fragment.
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
—William Shakespeare. Merchant of Venice. Act 1, Scene 3.
"There is now no safer occupation than talking bad science to philosophers, except talking bad philosophy to scientists."
—Midgley, Mary. 1979. 'Gene-juggling'. Philosophy. 54(210): 439-458.
“The system protects itself with indignation against a challenge to deceit in the service of power, and the very idea of subjecting the ideological system to rational inquiry elicits incomprehension or outrage, though it is often masked in other terms.”
—Noam Chomsky
—Daniel Kahneman
"I'd rather have questions that cannot be answered, than answers that cannot be questioned."
—Richard Feynman.
"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."
—Bertrand Russell.
