[prpaims]

I have read two of Matthieu Ricard's books- The Monk and The Philosopher and The Quantum and The Lotus. For those who do not know, Matthieu is a molecular biologist turned Tibetan Buddhist monk. He has lived in Tibet and studied under the many great masters for over 40 years.

I have a few questions after reading these books. I would love to write to him with these questions but i can't find any address anywhere.

1.) Ricard is extremely adamant about the reader becoming aware of the "illusion of the self." He is adamant to the point of redundancy. He says it over and over and in every possible way. The is no "I", there is no "me", there is no "you", there is no "self". Fair enough...this is a fundamental conviction within Buddhism.

And yet, he is also very adamant there what does exist is a individual/unique stream-of-consciousness that each person has. He seems to imply that this stream of consciousness belongs to something by the very use of his terms. "You have an individual stream-of-consciousness", he states during one of his dialogues.

Wait a minute, what/who has a stream-of-consciousness? In Matthieu's opinion, you do.

Hold on, he has posited ad nauseum that there is no you. How can "you" have something when there is, in fact, no "you"? How can a nonexistent "you" be in possession of anything.

It's clear that the mere mention of a "self" is anathema to Ricard. He spends hundreds of pages trying to refute the notion, sometimes somewhat forcefully, yet always states that each person has an individual stream-of-consciousness. Each person's consciousness, in his words, is a continuity of conscious experience from life to life.

And even if you are the individual stream-of-consciousness itself (being it rather than possessing it), wouldn't we still just be quibbling over superficial labels and concepts. Couldn't one, for the sake of convenience, give a name to each individual and unique stream of consciousness such as "self" and even refer to it as "you", "me", or "I"? Your unique individual stream-of-consciousness is your self, and mine is my self.

Couldn't I refer to your infinite individual stream-of-consciousness as "you" and couldn't I use the term "self" as a term-- not for one's body, personality, or conditioned/temporal identity (ego)-- but for that individual stream-of-consciousness.


2.) In The Quantum and The Lotus, he speaks about the notion of a beginning as being absurd and illogical. He posits nothing, unequivocally nothing, exists that is uncaused. Everything exists due to the laws of cause and effect and interdependence. He states that all phenomena, all universal laws, all processes, all events and indeed EVERYTHING is contingent. Events, conditioned by the laws of cause-and-effect, stretch back for infinity. Once again, he states the NOTHING is uncaused.

My questions is, if everything is the result of a cause and nothing causeless truly exists, then what about the greater "process" itself? The process of the unfolding of events, phenomena, etc? If events have been unfolding for eternity without beginning, then this process of unfolding events is, by definition, uncaused.

Cause-and-effect events are sequential and could be thought of as dominoes, one tipping over into the other, bifurcating, branching out, creating webs, etc. Nonetheless, it is all a sequence, i.e., a continuous and connected series. Sequence inevitably implies movement and process.

This great movement or process of the unfolding of cause-and-effect events/phenomena could indeed by thought of as an event or phenomenon itself. Indeed, it is an event that contains all events and a phenomenon within which all phenomena occur (or the greater unconditioned phenomenon of the appearing and disappearing of conditioned phenomena) and it is itself uncaused.

3.) Ricard is very clear that the ultimate future for all sentient beings (i.e., all individual streams of consciousness) is to become purified and thus enlightened. The clear implication is thus: that the "goal" of each individual and particular steam-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self") is to become enlightened. This is the denouement of an infinite number of lives we have lived, so says Ricard and many schools of Buddhism as a whole.

According to Ricard, and many schools of Bhuddhism, our individual streams-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self")* never had a beginning. The incarnations that this individual stream-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a self) have had are unlimited and infinite.

So, my question is this: How can you have a goal within infinity?

This may not seem like an incompatible scenario, but if you truly analyze this you will see that it is absurd and illogical.

What many Buddhists may not realize, is that when you eliminate a beginning, you eliminate an end. Not just an end in the usual sense of a termination of experience, but also an "end" in the sense of a goal, destination, denouement, climax, etc.

I don't have a problem with a beginningless existence. This is not what I am contesting.

If you never set off on your journey, then you have no ultimate destination. You can have relative goals but never an ultimate goal/event, in a string of events that has no beginning and has no end.

Since enlightenment depends on whether one darkens or purifies their individual stream-of-consciousness (don't you care call it a "self") and that this darkening/purification happens in the context of time-bound incarnations, what you have is tantamount to an ultimate temporal goal/event (temporal= of or related to time) in the midst of timelessness. This is a logical contradiction- a sheer contradiction in terms.

With enlightenment, you have the breaking of the chain of samsara- the cycle of death and birth, according to Buddhism.

Once again, if this process of incarnation via birth and death never began, it CANNOT end. A process can only end if it had a beginning.

Theoretically, Buddhism says that ALL sentient beings will eventually become enlightened and freed from suffering. The term "eventually" is once again a temporal reference. The natural question that might follow such a postulate is: when?

Each individual steam-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self"), supposedly on its journey toward enlightenment, never actually began the journey. Or more precisely, they have ALWAYS been journeying. So far, it's been eternity. Actually the phrase "so far" doesn't even have any meaning in terms of eternity. Neither does the question "when?"

Time, in terms of an infinity of lives or an eternal flow of consciousness, has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Eternity has no reference points.

The concept of sentient beings eventually becoming elightened, not to mention the ultimate goal event or end-state of enlightenment itself, is completely absurd and preposterous.

* Sorry if my "don't you dare call it a "self" notes became redundant. That, actually, was the point. That is how I felt reading many of his passages where he would seem to restate this in a hundred different ways.


4.) Matthieu Ricard said that all non-human sentient beings will eventually become enlightened, but that ultimately enlightenment can only come to fruition during a human incarnation. Aside from the blatant anthropocentrism, this entails a very serious problem and one that I have never seen examined in buddhist literature past or present.

Aside from the nonsensical "time" when that might occur (see question above) this would obviously mean with the enlightenment of ALL sentient beings, there would be no more animals, or any other non-human sentient beings for that matter.

And since all life forms are interconnected and interdependent, as Buddhism rightly observes, then there would no longer be a diversity of lifeforms and thus no biological life as we know it.

Matthieu Ricard says also that the number of individual streams-of-consciousness (don't you dare call them "selves") that exist (i.e. sentient beings) is without end. It too, interesting enough, is infinite.

So, once again how can you have ALL beings enlightened when there is an infinite number of them, all supposedly in varying stages of purification.
"All" or any references to numbers or quantities have equally no meaning in terms of infinity just as references to time have no relevant meaning in terms of eternity.