Chapter 3 ghost in the black box

Jean-François - By examining Buddhist psychology and its relation to Western psychology, especially as it developed after the nineteenth century, we are led to examine the relationship between consciousness and the body.This is the age-old question: Is man a compose, the famous "compose humain" that Descartes spoke of, that is, is he composed of a The spiritual composition of ?Or is this psychological phenomenon separate from its physical shell, as all materialist philosophers and parts of modern neurophysiology have asserted, really an illusion? Mathieu – Between the twenties and the sixties, psychology was largely dominated by the idea that in order to study the functions of the mind it was necessary to observe external manifestations and especially to pay no attention to the mind itself.It is said that the mind cannot know itself objectively.This obviously rules out all mindfulness approaches.Only the external manifestations of psychic events are studied, and this attitude initially excludes all psychic events that do not cause behavior.Moreover, the vast majority of experiments are carried out on animals.This approach is gradually replaced by various sciences cognitives (neuroscience, cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial knowledge, etc.).Both in relation to the ways in which cognitive activities receive information about the external world (perception, communication, movement) and in relation to the ways in which cognitive activities are autonomous (dreams, memories, mental images, language development, etc.), cognitive science Both give more importance to the psychological state.But even today, introspection, that is, the mind's gaze at itself, does not seem to be regarded as an effective research method.Because, for a while, people cannot transform the results of introspection into phenomena that can be perceived physically.

However, most neurobiologists have come to the conclusion that man is quite capable of getting rid of the "ghost in the black box," the very concept of consciousness, or of the mind itself, which is regarded as a factor separate from the brain system.According to them, the structure and function of the network of nerve cells, and the chemical reactions and electrical phenomena arising therein, are sufficient to explain what we call thought.The very concept of the mind, and even the concept of immaterial consciousness itself, has thus become completely obsolete.The best example is the complex network of neurons scattered across different regions of the brain.Perhaps we could call this attitude "reductionist" because it restores consciousness to some chemical reactions and a biological structure.

Jean-François – Actually, this debate is much older in the West.If we think back to the end of the nineteenth century, a school of behavior had gained the upper hand, the ecole behavioriste, or what was called psycho-physique in those days, and held that consciousness was nothing but An epiphenomene, that school of thought that is a glimmer of light added to the neuro-brain system.In this conception, human beings are actually complexes of many physical-chemical and biological reactions.Consciousness is a reflection of these processes without actually having any effect on them.The brilliant philosopher Henry Pagson opposed the very school that dominated psychology during the last third of the nineteenth century.In all his writings, especially in his first book, his doctoral dissertation "On the Direct Materials of Consciousness," published in 1889, and later in 1900, his In Matter and Memory, the most important and substantial book ever written on the subject, Bergson sought to demonstrate that consciousness is simply a reflection of a set of neurophysiological processes, and that it is wrong.Consciousness has a reality that cannot be reduced to these processes.

This debate has existed since the eighteenth century.Some authors, such as La Maitri, author of the book entitled Man Is a Machine, have developed this thesis, according to which man is nothing but a set of functions.Other materialists of the eighteenth century, such as Helvetius (in his "On the Spirit"), Holbach or Diderot, tried to prove this thesis.And in a Western context, this is again a fairly old debate that stems from Cartesianism.Descartes believed that the human body, as a biological human body, does not exist.This is characterized by extension (etendue) and is subject to the determinism of the external world, while the soul is something completely separate from the body but capable of acting on it.Descartes even housed the soul in a gland in the brain called the pineal gland.All the great post-Cartesians, whether Spinoza, Malebranche, or Leibniz, laughed at this thesis.They agree that the soul is independent of the body, but not that it can act on matter.And each has devised some very elaborate and complex theories to account for the spontaneous nature of the will, but each of them is more unreliable than the other.I meant to stretch my arms, and I did; but not because my soul acts on my body, but because there are two parallel determinisms.This, we say, is the thesis of Malebranche.And all are trying to find an answer that explains the apparent simultaneity of our volitions and our actions.I mention these authors very briefly to remind that this is not a new problem.In fact, then, the development of modern science and neurophysiology has, with greater certainty, finally arrived at the view that the neuronal man is composed of a group of neurophysiological functions, and that psychological phenomena are just an addition to this totality. , but does not affect its reflection.

① French philosopher and theologian.Born in 1638 and died in 1715.His works mainly include "On the Pursuit of Truth", "On Nature and God's Favor", "On Morals", "Talks on Metaphysics and Religion", etc.Its doctrine developed the Cartesian doctrine in a religious sense. Mathieu - The West thinks it has solved the problem of "body and spirit"? Jean-François - The development of science today, more precisely, has affirmed the antispiritualiste thesis and denied the idea that in the human body - and in nature only in man In vivo - the idea that it is possible to co-dwell a principle spiritual and a principle material.The spiritualist or dualist thesis holds that the universe itself is composed of a spiritual substance (subtance spirituelle) and a material substance (substance matierielle), which is a metaphysical postulate.This is the old thesis of Plato, of Plotinus, of Christianity, of any school.They hold that in living beings this miraculous meeting, this union, of the spiritual and the material principle takes place only in man.On the one hand, trying to explain the relationship between the soul and the body, that is, soma and psyche in Greek; on the other hand, trying to prove that the soul lives a happier life elsewhere after the death of the body.

① Greek neo-Platonist philosopher.Born in Lycopolis around 205 AD, died in Campania, Italy around 270 AD.Followed Emperor Gordianus in his war against the Persians to learn about Persian and Indian philosophy.After settling in Rome to teach philosophy, Emperor Gallienus often visited his school.His works were compiled and published by his disciple Pololios after his death.In his writings Plotinus deals with all the great themes of Neoplatonism.He attempted to preserve the rational claims of Greek philosophy by reconciling with the mystical aspirations. The opposite school is monism and materialism, which think it is not the case. (Monism wants to say that in the universe, instead of two principles, there is only one, namely matter. One can also insist on spirit. But precisely, for three centuries, it has been more materialistic Monism has always reigned.) Man, like every other being, is a material being, a biological being.The real distinction is that between matter and living things.Besides, do living things come from matter?When the aggregate of neuro-brain factors evolves to the stage of language, consciousness is born from this aggregate.In essence, language is the mold of consciousness—both the consciousness of things and the consciousness of oneself—and the tool of thought.And the idea that this is only a reality separate from the body is an illusion.To an untrained observer, advances in modern neurophysiology have affirmed the second thesis, what you call the reductionist thesis.Compared with this mainstream, what is the situation of Buddhism?

Mathieu - it distinguishes between different levels or aspects of consciousness.What one can call the "coarse" side seems to correspond to the neuronal system, a more subtle side is perhaps what you call the "twilight" which is considered an epiphenomenon of the neuronal system, and finally, the most essential The aspect of consciousness is the non-physical aspect of consciousness.This last aspect constitutes the continuation of consciousness, which continues from one life to another.This continuation has neither beginning nor end, for a conscious cannot be born from nothing or inanimate: every moment of consciousness is born of a moment of consciousness that precedes it, and begets a moment of consciousness that follows it. a moment.Just as one talks about the law of conservation of energy in physics—matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only transformed—we might be able to talk here about a law of conservation of consciousness.Therefore, with every being there is a continuation, a stream of consciousness, and just as the water in a river can be polluted or purified, this stream can be transformed.It is through this transition that one can pass from the chaotic state of an ordinary being to the awakened state of a Buddha.

Jean-François - But what does Buddhism answer to some neurophysiologists who think that everything can be explained without resorting to the concept of a mind separate from the body? Mathieu – Speaking of approaching reductionism, I would like to use the example of what "crack" - a drug - does to the mind. Jean-François-Clark is a derivative of which drug? Mathieu - cocaine's... clark is a single molecule that, by stimulating the production of dopamine, is capable of inducing a state of euphoria that leads to The individual ignores all other activities.People taking the drug stop eating, working and sleeping.He dwells in this artificial euphoria.Again, the drug induces an adaptation that lasts a lifetime.The only hope of getting rid of this adaptation is to stop taking it altogether and avoid recidivism, but the drug's fascination remains.According to neurobiologists, two conclusions have been drawn.The first conclusion is that a simple molecule can have a huge effect on the mind, but it is unclear how it can interfere with an immaterial consciousness.The second conclusion is that consciousness is perhaps at best a reader of everything that passes through the mind, and that it cannot really participate in the decisions.David Potter, a researcher at Harvard University in the United States, concluded: "These decisions and emotions-their functions are separated from consciousness, and consciousness has no control over them-is the power of this decision only by nerve cells? Calculated? Is consciousness just a kind of witness that registers the results of these calculations or of these electrical and chemical reactions, but does not actively participate in the functioning of the brain, or have the power to decide?" This is the extreme point we have reached.This view is supported by the majority, but it does not therefore form a consensus in the scientific community.

Jean-François—what do you say against him? Mathieu - I believe that the difference of opinion reflects a metaphysical choice rather than scientific proof: science rejects the idea of ​​an immaterial consciousness that is, by definition, imperceptible on physical scales.The fact that some anomalies of the mind, either natural or drug-induced, greatly weaken the control of the self neither denies nor proves the existence of a non-physical consciousness.It is safe to say that Clark did not affect the non-physical consciousness, but interfered with the action of consciousness on the mind, that is, on the "physical registration" of consciousness, just like a pilot who controls a malfunctioning airplane is unable to keep the course.Clark's behavior is more like a distraction, a malaise than an inducement of a "normal" experience.This, it seems to me, is clearly shown by the fact that the euphoria it evokes is only a poor imitation of real happiness, say that of the philosopher.The euphoria Clark elicits is pain disguised: it induces insanity, insatiability, and ends in anxiety, in an irrepressible sense of "lack."It evokes the psychological destruction of the individual, which in turn invites the physical destruction.On the contrary, the tranquility and happiness of the philosopher do not need to be activated by an external factor at all. In addition, it is not harmed by the various environments in which it lives.Far from being short-lived, it grows and becomes firm over time.It does not guide individuals to cover themselves with "artificial heaven"—in fact, it should be said that it is an artificial "hell"—but to make them more open to others.This tranquility can be communicated, transmitted.

Jean-François - I don't think these arguments are enough to answer the neurophysiologists. Mathieu - Another point, the homme neuronal typology seems to deprive consciousness of all decision-making power.If we accept this paradigm, everything that resembles a decision is in fact determined by a complex collection of neurons interacting with each other, and in such a diagram, free will (libre arbitre) No status. Jean-François – The two issues should not be confused.One is to know whether there is in man a spiritual principle different from the material one in the metaphysical sense—that is, to know whether man is a union of two substances heterogenes; On the one hand, there are questions of human behavior and human freedom.Personally, I believe that people enjoy a certain freedom.But I don't believe in the existence of the soul, nor in its immortality.These are two different questions.

Mathieu—[If so,] where does this freedom come from? Jean-François - I believe that there is something called a psychological phenomenon, which is the joint force of the neurophysiological evolution of the brain and the emergence of language, for example, we experience everyday and consciously in the The choice between multiple possibilities is not completely determined by the environment, appetite, desire, aversion, etc. like animals.This is a realite existentielle, and I use the adjective "existential" deliberately in order to pay homage to the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whom I hardly agree with in general.But this choice among possibilities should not be affirmed in the abstract.This choice is variable.As Sartre said, it is within a "situation" of which you are not the master.The volume of choice is either narrow or spacious.There are situations where the circumstances, the background, give you very few possibilities.When you're in a war, when an enemy army has invaded the country, when you have nothing, the options are pretty limited, aren't they? ...you have only one choice, run or die, and sometimes, you don't even have the choice to run.And in other situations -- which is why I love peace and democracy specifically -- you have a broader context where you live in a society that recognizes multiple modes of existence and moral modes, Here, the state guarantees your safety in principle.At this time, you have more possibilities to choose.You, you chose to become a monk instead of continuing to be a researcher at the Pasteur Institute.If this had happened during World War II, you wouldn't have that choice, would you?Therefore, only the analysis of concrete situations enables one to think that, in the best case, human behavior is the result of harmony.In this way, we may well maintain that within certain boundaries there is a human freedom, an assent to some values ​​and a rejection of others, and actions that result from them.The possibilities for acting on the background environment are not unlimited, but it permits one to choose this or that practical solution, to choose this or that activity and avoid some other activity.But this does not mean that we therefore have an immortal spiritual origin in ourselves. Mathieu – Buddhism does not consider an immortal entity, but a continuation, a continuation that is constantly changing, an interdependence.On the other hand, I'm not talking about free will in the sense you understand it to choose the orientation of one's being, but only in terms of the right to decide in the present moment. Jean-François - I don't like the word free will because it's an old word that presupposes the thesis that there is a soul with the possibility of unlimited decisions. Mathieu——In the context of Neuron Man, where does the power to decide come from? Jean-François - I think we don't know enough about the human organism, the human being, the functioning of the brain to know this question.We have moved on.But from the articles and books I've been able to read, or the conversations I've had with their authors, we're barely beginning to understand how the brain works.We don't really know them.I don't see why people can't accept the idea that the ability to choose arose after an evolution of the nervous system that caused the human brain to appear at the same time as the Neanderthals or later, perhaps with the Cloma The rather recent state of the Nyonians at the same time.We say that the ability to choose arose with homo sapiens, with language.We identify this ability as a certain developmental extension of the neuro-brain system.We also affirm that this stage leads to, contains and permits the possibility of a choice, which is naturally within a certain determinism, natural determinism.Even as mere creatures, we are subject to nature in historical and sociological determinism.I believe that an analysis of every human destiny and of social history allows us to say that there has always been—again, except in very limited exceptional cases—the choice at any moment between numerous modes of action. possibility.Thought is for this.Reasoning serves this purpose.Such an option rather than another involves a suspension of action, the possibility of considering multiple hypotheses, multiple conjectures, and, like a chess player trying to foresee the outcome of a multi-move move ahead, possibility of action. Mathieu - So, in the context of the Neuroman, there really is only a flesh computer.That being the case, what do you mean by "this is what the mind is for"? Jean-François - The possibility of choosing is only an act of experience. Mathieu - a subjective experience, to be precise. Jean-François--Besides, if this is not true, if, as some, such as the Marxists, claim, the coherence of events is only subject to the determinism of historical materialism, we will not see government at all , international organizations, and political science facilities.If people say that what has happened should have happened, if people insist that it is futile to think about what they might have done, if people do not study history with some "if"s, no court should give any justice. should not even be sentenced for crimes against humanity. Mathieu—indeed, if all these people who decide to kill their neighbors at any time—as happened in Bosnia—are only suffering from some bad neuronal connection, the only thing to do for these people is to pay a Pension for life!Punishing them is tantamount to eugenics.It is our motivation, which is a pattern of our stream of consciousness, that determines whether an action is negative or positive. Jean-François – So, coming back to the central point of the discussion, I think we can do without denying the existence of individual freedom (liberte individualle), more generally human freedom (liberte humaine), but not for Therefore, in terms of metaphysics, it is recognized that there are two principles in man, namely, a spiritual principle and a material principle. Mathieu – yes indeed, but let's come back to the beginning moment of a kind of decision.We can assume that the neuronal system is then in some equilibrium state, which itself carries a certain number of parameters from recall, conditioning, etc.This balance can be upset in one direction or the other.What else but will, thought, determines the direction the system will take? Jean-François - yes... when the system can take directions. Mathieu – for example, people can consciously suppress their breath within certain limits, people can decide to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of others, decide to become monks, decide to give up lust, although they are normal creatures academic orientation, etc. Jean-François - Yes, but let's not stop at the abstraction.Will is never absolute; it is linked with a certain number of constraints.Wisdom is the realization of all this, the realization that consciousness is never total, and neither is slavery. The expression "absolute will" contains the idea of ​​the complete freedom of human existence, as if the human being were a supreme god who could impose his will on reality.But that's not the case at all. Mathieu - no, not in Buddhism.According to Buddhism, there is an interaction between the immaterial consciousness and the physical body to which it is temporarily united.The stream of consciousness continues after death independently of the physical body.It is the experience of different states of being between each birth and death.Traces or "mental physical registers"—to use Francisco Valera's term—are the relationships that exist between brain systems and thoughts.We may also call this register the rough side of consciousness because it is united with the corps physique.The power of decision is explained by the ability of the subtle consciousness to interact with the gross body.Buddhism describes this interplay in terms of its own: the physical body is made up of tiny channels through which energies circulate.The transformation and activity of these energies, induced by perception and external conditions, give rise to thought.This is in terms of the influence of the physical body on non-physical consciousness.In turn, non-physical consciousness can have an influence on these energies.This influence is mainly manifested in the power of decision. Jean-Francois - this is the metaphor ghost in the machine, the ghost in the body.This is also Bergson's argument: consciousness overflows (deborde) the brain. Mathieu - There is indeed a ghost in the organism: this is our stream of consciousness.If it must be said repeatedly, this flow does not imply the existence of a permanent entity which can be transported from one life to another.But it has kept the hallmarks of its own history.This consciousness enables the will to affect the body within the physical limits allowed by the body. Jean-François - How are consciousness and brain connected? Mathieu - It is not denied that thought - though immaterial - is realized in the brain by some chemical reaction, that it manifests itself as physiological processes acting on the body and which in turn have an effect on consciousness an influence.This mutual influence exists as long as consciousness is united with the physical body.But we also say that it is non-physical consciousness that directs the functions and decisions of the brain.To deny this is a metaphysical choice on the part of scientists, just as it is a metaphysical choice on the part of Buddhism to affirm this.The choice of Buddhism is based on the experience of contemplating life.Science may not seek out this consciousness—since it is immaterial, it essentially escapes the research methods of the sciences Physiques—but failing to find out something is not evidence of its non-existence .So, in the end, the only way to settle the debate is to see if there are some indirect signs of an immaterial consciousness separate from the physical body.Subtle or immaterial consciousness, according to Buddhist terminology, is "formless," but not "non-existent" or "unexpressed," because it fulfills a function.This consciousness itself has the capacity (capacite) to interact with the physical body.Now, can a non-physical force act on a physical body?When Kepler said that the tides were caused by the attraction of the moon, Galileo retorted that this was a "mystical fantasy" and said that it was not unreasonable to think that man could be influenced at a distance without relying on a material connection (lien materiel). It's totally against the laws of nature... Jean-François - Kepler said so, before Newton? Mathieu – yes, and Galileo had Kepler as a maniac type.Similarly, if we tell a blind man that people can see, that is to say, people can perceive something at a distance, he will also think that there must be a supernatural or psychic ability. Jean-François - So, wait... I'm inserting a question prejudicielle here.As a professional philosopher, I have never believed in methods that use certain developments in science to aid metaphysics in order to justify some metaphysical theses.I don't think science was created for this.Let me give an example of Heisenberg's Principe dindetermination.Indetermination in micro-physique was a huge scientific phenomenon in the era when I was taking philosophy classes, at the beginning of World War II.All spiritualist philosophers use the concept of indeterminacy in order to say, "Ah! Look! Absolute will is perfectly possible, since matter is not determinate at all..." I don't really appreciate this kind of reasoning .Besides, this example is a bit out of fashion today.We do not know how indeterminism in microphysics makes human actions more capable of determining natural phenomena.Then came other ways of making use of what I call the "supporting disciplines" (dsciplines dappui).Michel Foucault used linguistics very loosely for his book Words and Things.This metaphysical parasitism of science is cyclical, and has been since the eighteenth century.I don't think it was ever very strict. ① German physicist, born in 1901 and died in 1976.In 1927, he proposed the uncertainty relation, which is a basic principle of quantum mechanics. Mathieu - I agree that these comparisons are somewhat unnatural.Buddhist philosophy is firm enough that it doesn't need this.Yet such contrasts sometimes enable one to build a bridge, or at least a small one, between the expressions of Buddhism and those of Western philosophy, and contribute to a greater spiritual openness. Jean-François—this suggestion—according to which there is a spiritual principle that hangs on the brain but overflows from it—is what Bergson said in Matter and memory" book.This book was written at the end of an era when neurophysiology was particularly devoted to the study of aphasia.Neurophysiology, by demonstrating that aphasia—that is, the complete or partial loss of language, is associated with some very localized brain lesions—proves that if you destroy these parts of the brain, you also destroy consciousness.Therefore, consciousness is no more than a brain, no more than brain cells.To refute this conclusion, Pagson spent six years studying the literature on aphasia.In his book he tries to show that memory, that is, consciousness, "spills over" the brain.It is hung on the brain, he says, "like a coat on a coat rack," but just as a coat does not reduce itself to a coat rack, and the supernatural to the natural, so does consciousness Don't reduce yourself to a brain. Mathieu – The fact that damage to certain parts of the brain so powerfully affects our thoughts and faculties, in one sense or another, proves nothing conclusively.If there is a non-physical consciousness, we understand that it cannot be expressed normally in a deranged or dysfunctional brain.At the extreme, when death separates the consciousness from the body, the consciousness can no longer give orders to the body.Likewise, we can imagine that drugs bind the interaction between the immaterial consciousness and its physical support. Jean-François – According to a fundamental concept in Buddhist teachings, reincarnation, the existence of a non-physical consciousness, is this an essential concept in Buddhism. Mathieu – Actually, the only thing that conclusively proves the reality of an immaterial consciousness is the existence of reincarnation.But first I would like to say a few words about the transmission of thought, which also presupposes an immaterial consciousness.It is almost a cliché for Tibetans to acknowledge the transmission of ideas, and the examples are numerous, not only of those told in the literature, but also of the everyday encounters with spiritual masters.Thought transmission is seen as a manifestation of the interdependence of phenomena.But since nothing can compare with personal experience, I must turn to my own experience.In the twenty years I have spent with some Tibetan masters, I have repeatedly verified that they know exactly what I or some of my friends have just thought.I will just give one example, the most touching one.While meditating in a monastery adjacent to my first teacher, Kangyuer Rinpochen, I began to think about the animals I had killed when I was young.I used to go fishing until I was fifteen when it dawned on me that I was killing and making a living thing miserable, and I once shot a rabbit with a carbine.Mixed with this introspection was deep regret and disbelief at the idea that I could turn a blind eye to the suffering of other beings and still treat it as banal.So I decided to go to Kangyuer Rinpochen and tell him what I had done, which was to make some kind of confession to him.I went to him.I couldn't speak Tibetan at the time, but his son was there... Jean-François - his son acts as interpreter... Mathieu-Kangyuer Rinpochen looked at me with a smile when he saw me, and before I could say a word about my "confession", he said something to his son, who translated it to me Say, "How many animals have you killed in your lifetime?" Jean-François - this is interesting. Mathieu - at that moment, the incident seemed completely natural to me... I smiled.I didn't feel trapped in a strange and supernatural atmosphere!But at the same time...just once is enough to open up the spirit.People say that to taste a drop of the ocean is enough to know that the ocean is salty. Jean-François - Totally agree... But the fact that certain psychic phenomena can communicate with other psychic phenomena is rarely seen, but some people do see it anyway, you just mentioned is one of them, and such a thing does not fully prove the existence of a purely spiritual principle in man. Mathieu - It doesn't quite confirm it, but it makes people speculate on it powerfully.It should also be said that these Tibetan spiritual masters always had a humble attitude.They may be having this experience all the time, but they rarely let it show, and they don't like to show off their abilities or impress others.This ability was common among the great Tibetan masters, and was always accompanied by a high spiritual realization.I have never perceived or heard of such a thing among ordinary practitioners. Yet it is these masters who, from their experience, speak of a state of consciousness after death.In view of the faculties that people can attest to in them, and all the other perfections they display in everyday life, it seems to me more probable that they are telling the truth and not lying.这就是我所能说的一切。 让-弗朗索瓦——这种准确的推论，以及你刚刚展开的这些思考，我们在柏拉图的很多对话录中找得到。一种高度的精神性，其这样那样的外在表现，在显示出无私、谦逊和高尚的同时，还表现出罕见的性格。而一些达到这种高度精神性的人则似乎天赋地具有对超自然现象的感知。为使那些对这一证据敏感的人能够接受存在着一种精神本原及灵魂不死性的假设，这些因素汇集起来。但是如果不在这里另加上一份虔诚，他们是不能仅仅通过强制性的证明来达到这一结论的。 马蒂厄——如果人们将信仰定义为一种由经验而生的确认，为什么要不执行这样一种虔诚呢？固然，要使某个不曾有过同样经验的人分享这种确信，总是困难的。 让-弗朗索瓦——很显然！然而，惟一的证明又恰恰不依附于这种或那种主观经验。 马蒂厄——为什么说是惟一的？佛教的信仰不是对某些教条的非理性的盲信。安德烈·米戈在其关于佛陀的书中说道：“当信仰偏离理性时，它就成为迷信；当它与理性对立时，更是如此。而当与理性结合时，它使得理性不再是一种简单的智力游戏。”这里说的不仅仅是一种信赖的行为。我甚至相信，从理性的观点来看，这大约就是盖然性，是最近于真实的解释。 让-弗朗索瓦——这正是那个持久的大企图——我说的是企图——那种旨在使非理性物变得合理的努力。另外，基本的参考，就是参考柏拉图或帕斯卡尔。这是试图通过一种柏拉图意义的、而非黑格尔意义的辩证法，通过一种非常紧密、在原始材料上非常合理的论证，最终通过推理而证明某种不依赖于推理的事物。于是乎，人们总是到达一种最后极限，因为总有一步要跨，这一步不再依赖于验证。 马蒂厄——有些步值得跨！这些哲人的行为举止看起来是完全和谐的，没有丝毫的不协凋之处。为什么，当人们终于体验到一种在死亡之后继续进行的非物质意识之流时，所有这些优秀的人，那些仍然活着的和那些在佛教整个历史中出现过的人，会突然开始制造一些假的真理？ 让-弗朗索瓦——不！虔诚决不是欺骗。但这是一个证据（temoignage），就像在历史认识中一样，不是个绝对的证明（preuve absolue）。 马蒂厄——注意，是我们在执行这个虔诚。这与像佛陀那样肯定意识是非物质的，肯定意识之流在死亡之后继续进行，肯定可能在许多别的意识之流中认出某一条意识之流的人无关。对于他们，要的是直接体验，而不是虔诚。 让-弗朗索瓦——但这差不多就是西方传统中神秘主义者们所处的境况。如果你遇到十字架的圣让①、锡耶那的圣卡特琳娜②和其他一些生前在激动中、在出神状态中见到过上帝的人，对于他们而言，他们确实体验到了神圣。但是，基督徒大众不论是根据他们的言语而相信他们，还是由于其他原因而不相信他们，丝毫也不怀疑他们的真诚与谦逊。尽管如此，他们的证据仍然不等同于一个理性的证明。我在这种推理中觉察到的，乃是人们由两条不同的小径在前进。一方面，人们恢复科学的某些表象，以图通过理性化证明的接近，而显示存在着一个精神的不死的本原；另一方面，人们又求助于某个人可能曾经极真诚地有过的超感觉的和超自然的体验，这个人讲述这些体验，同时，由于他是完全可敬的，他可能不想要欺骗我们。但这是不够的！人类的历史充满了自己欺骗了自己的完全真诚的人！ ①即十字架的圣胡安，西班牙文作San Juan de la Cruz。西班牙神秘主义神学家，主要作品有《心灵的暗夜》（Noche oscura del alma）等。 ②意大利神秘主义神学家，属多明我第三会。一三四七年生于锡耶那，一三八○年卒于罗马。她热烈宣扬对上帝的爱，组织了一群弟子，两度前往法国阿维尼翁，终于说服教皇戈里高里九世将教廷迁回罗马。在所著的《关于神圣意旨的对话》中，她讲述了自己的幻觉和出神境界。 马蒂厄——在这一类的体验方面，人们会怎样欺骗自己呢？ 让-弗朗索瓦——人们会有一种体验，人们由这体验猜测这表明了存在着一个在来生中永恒持续的本原，而事实上，这只是一个印象。这个有此体验的个体是不是欺骗了自己？这对于一个没有作过这种体验的人并不构成一种证明。这只能依然处在盖然性或可能性的范畴。 马蒂厄——人们只能通过亲自做这种体验来证明它。 让-弗朗索瓦——就是这个问题！……说到对于上帝的存在或是对灵魂不死性的理性证明的尝试，哲学和神学的图书中充满着这些东西。几个世纪以来，就有成吨……不幸的是，它们从来也不足以理性地证明上帝的存在和灵魂的不死性！这就是为什么康德求助于通过善的概念和通过道德的间接证明，而首先不是通过合理性。 马蒂厄——我在这里援引的对证据的有效性的证明，其实只是一个间接证明。但是我们还必须接触到第二个要点，也就是回忆起自己先前的存在的那些人，因为最终正是这一点能够澄清转世的问题。 让-弗朗索瓦——是的，当然，条件是这些人能使我们相信这是真实的回忆，而不是一篇故事……毕达哥拉斯也声称记得他的所有前生。 马蒂厄——人们对于这类事例进行了很多研究。索加尔仁波钦在他的书中，列举了两件其中最有趣的事例。其中之一是印度旁遮普邦的一个小女孩，她回忆起了许多与她的死亡、她先前的家庭、她的房屋等有关情况的细节。这些事实被一些观察者作了同样描述。我没有这种直接体验，所以谈论这些证据的有效性，对于我们将是毫无用处的。我能够在深知底细的情况下谈论的惟一东西，就是发生在西藏社会中的、有关这些被认为是已故哲人的精神延续的孩童的事。存在着许多事例，这些孩童认出了一些曾经是已故师傅的弟子的人，还认出了曾经属于他们的物品、他们曾经生活过的地方。 让-弗朗索瓦——这都被真正地证明了？ 马蒂厄——人们讲述西藏历史中成百这类事例。我亲自听过一些我不大有理由去怀疑的直接证据。并且我可以举出我毫无理由去怀疑的一件事，因为我就是此事的证人。 让-弗朗索瓦——那么，人们所称的一个三岁儿童认出某个人这件事是怎么回事？……他对这个人微笑？他挥手？ 马蒂厄——有时他喊出已故师傅亲随中的某个人的名字。 让-弗朗索瓦——从没有听人念过这名字？那么，好啊！ 马蒂厄——我要给你举两个例子。第一个例子，我不是其证人，但它是由我信任的某个人讲述给我的。说的是一位死于一九○三年的伟大哲人。他名叫杜琼林巴，生活在西藏东北方的安多。去世前不久，他向他的弟子们宣布说，他们应出发到西藏南部靠近印度边界、离安多有两个月路程的珀莫错地区去。师傅死后，由于相信他的临终言语，大约一百个弟子上路前往珀莫错，深信他们将在那里找到这位哲人的转世灵童。在近五年的时间里，他们徒劳地寻找，后来一批接一批地回去了。只有大约十五个顽强的人继续在寻找。一天他们到了一个村庄的人口，一群儿童正在那里玩耍。在这群儿童中奔跑着一个小男孩，他在这之前曾对他父母说：“今天有些朋友要来，应该为他们准备饭。”这些儿童正以从一堵矮小的石墙上方跳过为乐。 让-弗朗索瓦——一个几岁的孩子？ 马蒂厄——五六岁……就在这些和尚来到近旁时，那个儿童在一块石头上绊了一下，就在要跌倒时，他向那个在他身边的喇嘛伸出手，一边喊他：“耶谢，帮帮我！”这正是这个喇嘛的名字。这使他一惊，但他在当时什么也没有说。然后，这群旅行者被邀请来分享这家人的饭。恰巧这位喇嘛耶谢脖子上挂着一个圣物盒，里面装有一绺头发。一看到这个圣物盒，这个孩子叫道：“噢！这就是我给你的那些头发！”这确实是先前的那位哲人送给他的一绺头发。这个孩子就成了杜琼仁波钦，他死于一九八七年，是我主要的精神师傅之一。 下面是我亲自见证的故事，即赫延采仁波钦的转世灵童的故事，我在赫延采仁波钦师傅身边生活了十五年。 让-弗朗索瓦——是我于一九七三年在大吉岭认识的那位？ 马蒂厄——不……是你于一九八六年在不丹遇到的那位。他被他最亲近的弟子之一确认，这位弟子本人也是一位大师，现在有七十二岁，生活在尼泊尔的山中。就是他有了我们昨天说到的那些使人们能够找出那儿童的梦和幻象。我亲自参加了寻找工作。这个儿童一被发现，人们即决定在尼泊尔东部的一个神圣洞穴中举行一个长命仪式。我们到了这个洞穴里，那位名叫特卢尔什克仁波钦的哲人那时正在这洞穴附近隐居。大约一百名赫延采仁波钦原来的弟子也因为这原因与我们会聚在一起。仪式进行过程中，特卢尔什克仁波钦向这个儿童念了他的名字，向他呈上华丽的衣服并为他举行了一套长命典礼。最后的那天，有一个节庆，在这节庆中，主持仪式的师傅给予参加者一件被祝了圣的物品。人们预计主持仪式的特卢尔什克仁波钦将分发圣物。而那个儿童一看到特卢尔什克仁波钦开始分发圣物，即决定亲自颁给，尽管他当时只有两岁半。他非常平静地让他母亲过来，给她一滴圣物，这场面持续了足足五分钟，然后是赫延采仁波钦的孙子——他认识他——和二十来个人，他只听过一两遍这些人的名字。在喊他们时，他清楚地念出在前一夜才被引见给他的这些人中的许多人的名字。 让-弗朗索瓦——在两岁半时！可是在这个年龄人们才勉强能说话！ 马蒂厄——是勉强，但足够用这些人的名字喊他们了。 让-弗朗索瓦——这意味这个特殊的人身上有一种现象记忆（memoire phenomenale）！ 马蒂厄——例如，在那前夜，当我将这个儿童抱在怀里时，我向他指示了我的朋友吕克——一位法国工程师，也是赫延采仁波钦的弟子，他当时正在建筑我们在印度的一所寺院，我有点开玩笑地说：“看，这是吕克，他在波德加亚建造你的寺院。”次日，他喊了吕克的名字并给了他这个祝福。好，这个儿童特别机灵并天生具有一种惊人的记忆。但最惊人的还不是这个。 在将近一百个出席者中，站着一群刚从自己家中来的不丹人，他们的家离尼泊尔边境有三天路程，其中的一个是已故赫延采仁波钦的老仆人。当这个儿童祝福了所有站在近旁的人之后，一个和尚问他：“好了，现在……完了吗？”他回答说：“不，不。”用手指向那一小群人中的某个人。另一个和尚来回走动着以指点在那儿童所指的方向坐着的那些人，“那男人？这女人？那女人？”一直到他到了那不丹老仆人的身边，那男孩才说：“对！是他！”人们于是使那老人走近，那个儿童站在宝座上，给予他祝福。那老人泪如雨下。 让-弗朗索瓦——这非常动人。可是我还要再说一遍，这类事件只有当人们亲自看见时，才构成证明。即使是我们相信证人们的绝对真诚，也是如此。 马蒂厄——我很理解。我叙述这件事情，正是因为我经历了它。我许可自己举这个事例，因为它带给我一份真实性的重量，这重量比我仅仅是听说的事的重量更加大。但我应当补充的是，我听到过人们讲述数十起类似的事件。 人们称这些转世灵童为特吕尔库，意思是“显现出的肉体”，或者叫央西，意思是“回到了存在的人”。人们也经常让他们经受一些考验。经典的考察之一是在他们面前放十来串念珠，有的很新，并且是用闪亮的珍珠做的，在这些串念珠中，人们放了一串曾经属于已故的人的念珠，通常它不及其他的念珠串好看。那儿童必须一点也不错地选中那串正确的念珠。人们还用一些礼器，比方说钟，以及其他被已故师傅使用过的常用物品这样做。这是些在西藏被执行了数百次的经典考验，但我并没有参加过；这就是为什么我只限于我能够亲自看见的那一切。 让-弗朗索瓦——好……应该说这属于佛教的形而上学信仰。并且我相信形而上学范畴——我不想说是宗教范畴——的确信正是以此为特征的。理性思想的特征是，一切论证都能被传达给、甚至被强加给人，包括这样一种人，他没有亲自观察过这经验的实现，甚至也许自己不能够导致这个实现，但是他又不得不承认这种实现的永远可能的重现。相反，你谈到的这种经验只有有过它的人才是完全有说明力的。这是一个独一的证据，与神秘主义者和所有那些有过一种宗教的或非宗教的特殊体验的人的证据属同一范畴。 马蒂厄——我完全理解理性思想的标准和这样的事实，即理性思想的论证可以被传达或强加给所有的人。对一种论证，比方说数学论证的真实性的确信，是从心中产生的，是不是7如果这真实性有一种物理的应用，人们同样也能通过实验来证实它。静观的思想导致一种确信，它也产生于心中。从静观实践的生活，从在精神师傅身边所过的生活中产生的可靠性的力量，与从一条定理的论证中产生的可靠性力量是同样强大的。至于实验证明，惟一的不同是这些证明最经常地是内在的，但这丝毫无损于它们的可靠性。外在的表象——仁爱、宽容、同情、智慧，只不过是内在实现的一些“标记”而已。 让-弗朗索瓦——我并不怀疑这些内在的实验证明对于那些体验到它们的人所具有的真实性。在我们谈话的进程中，由于要力求明确佛教对于一个西方人的意义，我仅仅限于强调，一种形而上学的、超自然的意义毫无疑问地补充到了实践的、纯粹心理学的智慧的意义之上。 马蒂厄——再回来谈我们刚刚谈到的事例，问题根本不是一种神秘主义经验，而且我给予的证据也没有任何形而上学的因素。所涉及的是我亲眼看见的一些事件，我看见它们，不是在一种狂喜的状态中，而是在最平静的环境，我想说几乎就是尽可能的最“平常”的环境中。既然你提到神秘主义的证据，我想说一些离题的话，人们有时以他们似乎能称为“医学唯物主义”的东西来竭力贬低这类证据，这种“医学唯物主义”说阿维拉的圣泰莱兹①是歇斯底里症患者，说阿西兹的圣弗朗索瓦有遗传的心理疾病，圣保罗在前往大马士革的路上发过一次羊角风，人们还说圣女贞德是精神分裂症患者，等等。但是对于和我师傅的年轻的转世灵童有关的事实，我可以向你保证我那时并不处在一种“神秘主义的状态”中，并且，由于丝毫也不想将我的内心确信强加于人，我无论如何也不能怀疑我的感觉！ ①西班牙加尔默罗会修女。生于一五一五年，卒于一五八二年。于一五三五年进入阿维拉的加尔默罗会后，经历多次神秘体验一决定按严格的教规生活。一五六二年在阿维拉创立圣约瑟夫修道院，以后在十字架的圣胡安的协助下．在西班牙各地建立创道院，从而振兴了加尔默罗会。著有《精神关系》、《完善的道路》、《创建之书》、《内心的城堡》等。其作品堪称西班牙古代文学的杰作。 让-弗朗索瓦——是的，但即使人们不求助于你刚刚提到的那些贬低的甚至是蔑视的解释，人们终究还是能够、甚至是必须以正确的方法论，将可向人类群体传达和强加的一类证明与只对于有过某种经验的人来说是证明的一类证明区分开来。 马蒂厄——这正是一个方法论的问题：如果我们因为一个现象是特殊的和不可复制的，就排除它，那么，假如它恰好就是事实，人们又如何能够认识到它是与实在性相一致的？ 让-弗朗索瓦——我认为，只要它没有发生在我们自己身上，就必须排除它。 马蒂厄——那么，这样一来，能被接受的就只是那些被所有的人在同时看到和见证的事物了？ 让-弗朗索瓦——我认为，你所提到的这些事情属于历史证据（temoignage historique）的范畴，而不是属于科学证明（preuve scientifique）的范畴。而历史证据也就是说：“某人说了这个，我那时在场，我听到了。”——是一个有巨大价值的证据，没有它也就没有历史，但它永远也不是一个决定性证明。任何一个历史学家都可以来反驳另一个历史家说：“我找到了另一个原始资料，它证明这证据是假的或片面的。”正是由于这个原因，历史是一门科学，但不是一门精确科学。在涉及一种不可复制的经验时，它惟独以数量很少的个体的证据为基础。可是比起你说到的那些证据来，历史还是更加科学的，因为，除了人的证据（temoignagespersonnels），它还依赖于非人格的文件和遗迹，尽管这些东西自身也有多种不一致的解释。对于超自然的体验，相对立的是两种精神状态。在这个论题上我们现在不要再前进了……我们应当停留在这个看法上：如果人们没有进入某个信仰的系统——我再说一遍，这是在“信仰”一词的最高尚的意义上来说的——就会总是缺少某种东西，这东西使你不能够论证一个从定义上说是形而上学的概念。然而，一个形而上学的概念永远不能被完全论证。两千五百年来，人们一直在努力使形而上学理性化，使形而上学像数学一样严密。人们从来也没有办到！因为，从本质上说，形而上学不属于这套推理系统！ 马蒂厄——但它属于精神实现，而这是一个不可否定的实在性。形而上学的这一个表象并不一定要先是理性的，然后才可以是真实的；因为它处在另一个层面，即静观体验的层面，对于一个真理的直接观察的层面，这个真理被强加给精神，因为在精神的领域里，它符合事物的本质。但这并不意味着这个层面是“非理性的”，而只是说，它超越了概念的推理。 让-弗朗索瓦——那么，必须在这里作出决定。有两个不同的接近（approches）。重要的是，在这样一种任何人都不否定其重要意义的智慧中，将从属于这种形而上学的东西和不从属于这种形而上学的东西区分开来。一个不赞同佛教的形而上学意义的人能从佛教中获取什么教导以改善他的人生道路呢？我认为，这才是最令人感兴趣的问题。再说，这也是所有宗教和所有哲学的问题，而在佛教中更加令人特别地感兴趣，因为佛教既是哲学又是宗教，同时又既非哲学亦非宗教，是不是这样？ 马蒂厄——我相信你所说的虔诚对于科学和对于精神性同样适用。事实上，说不能被尺度或物理观察所觉察的东西就不存在，这样做并不是一个科学证明，这也同样是一个形而上学的选择。 让-弗朗索瓦——我不是说，不能作为尺度和实验对象的东西就不存在！否则，艺术也就不存在了。我是说，这里涉及一个摆脱了——而且是幸运地摆脱——论证限制的经验。 马蒂厄——你放心，没有一个佛教静观者、没有一个西藏隐修士追求论证的限制。现倒过来谈我们的问题。请暂且假设这样一些异常现象，如对前生的回忆，是真实存在的。如果它们是异常的这一事实本身已使它们变得不可接受，人们又能怎样展示它们呢？ 让-弗朗索瓦——那就必须为此拥有一个不片面的观察者，他因能流利地说西藏语，因能被西藏人社群接受，能够带着怀疑和严厉来观察这些事实。 马蒂厄——如果仅仅是要这样，你谦逊的仆人即是个候选人。就本人而言，我一直努力采取尽可能最客观的态度，因为我知道，不这样，对于那些揭露以盲目轻信为基础的断言的人来说，我就是一个很容易击中的靶子。当我与我的西藏朋友们辩论时，我总是努力作魔鬼的代理人，以便给争论增加刺激性。肯定的是，在我亲自见证了思想传递之前，我还不能这样彻底地相信它。在那儿童使那老人走近他这件事例中，我有幸亲眼看见了，但我在精神道路上的最深刻的确信并不是来自这类异常事件，它来自对某些形而上学真理和静观真理的每时每刻的确认。 让-弗朗索瓦——那么，我的结论——当然这不是最终的，就像任何一个谨慎的历史学家都会说的一样——就是，在我看来，你的证据比一个隐隐约约吸了毒、以一种不真实的方式赞成佛教的斯堪的纳维亚嬉皮土的证据更有分量。就像人们在历史领域行事那样：这样一个证人的证据有很重要的分量，但这只是一个证据。好啦……再说一遍，要将历史科学、精神科学、人类科学，与人们所称的“硬”科学区分开来，后者自身就具有一些证明，人们可以将这些证明强加于人，而不必管面前的人有什么样的见解。证据的积累，构成一种持续地更加可能的推断，但这推断伸向的是一个从来也没有完全到达的绝对可靠性的边界。 马蒂厄——首先我可以向你保证，你没有丝毫强加于人的机会，即使是将所有科学发现的百分之一，强加给新几内亚森林中的一个居民。个体必须具有一些可比较的智力简图。而即使有了这些智力简图，还必须在一些年里以某种方式教他。同样，人们不能够将静观研究的结果强加给那些没有向这些结果敞开心灵的人。这里，一番教育也是必要的。 作为总结我们的讨论，人们可以考虑：根据你所坚持的观点，人们通过什么方法和什么标准，才能够最终承认一种不可能被随意复制的现象的真实性和存在？并且如何才能避免先验地排斥这现象？ 让-弗朗索瓦——我们没有先验地排斥它！永远也不应该先验地排斥任何东西。在有些情况下，我们可以不是先验地、而是后验地排斥某些被实在性极为明显地揭穿了的断言（affirmation），好像存在着一群人，他们坚持大地是平的！毫无必要使他们厌烦。如果他们喜欢聚会在一起，就让他们聚会在一起好了。但最终，人们能够以极可论证的方式认为他们是处在谬误之中。有一种真理，它不是别的，乃是绝大多数严格的历史学者根据证据的积累而相信的一个推测。但这从来也不排斥另一可能性，五十年后，出现另一个历史学者说，“你们完全错了，证明在这里。” 马蒂厄——这种事总是发生在科学领域。 让-弗朗索瓦——在关于不可复制事物的各种科学中，终究存在着某一种知识，它不依赖于证据的对质（confrontation destemoignages），而证据的对质是从来也不会完结的。 马蒂厄——再说关于可复制事物的各种科学，它们的目的既不是要解决形而上学的问题，也不是给予存在一个意义，而是以尽可能精确的方式描述物质世界。认为实在性还原为物质能，意识不过是神经元系统的一份财产，这样做不是科学研究的结果，而是对科学进行活动的环境背景下的一个定义。静观生活也有它自己的规则，从静观生活实践中产生的深刻确信对于精神所具有的力量，与不论什么已实现的经验在物质领域中的力量是一样的。以一种纯静观的方式来观察精神的本质，能够产生一种坚信，它与观察物体在重力影响下的下降运动所产生的坚信同样彻底。