Chapter 4 A kind of spiritual science? -1

JEAN FRANCOIS – We've touched on what one might call Buddhist psychology, the phenomenon of mind control.This happens to be one feature of Buddhism that has particularly interested some Westerners in recent years.In the nineteenth century it was the Buddhist wisdom, that of finding a way of tranquility in the oblivion of the self, that particularly attracted certain philosophers, such as Schopenhauer.More recently, it was the art of thought control that attracted them.For example, in 1991, a symposium with many researchers was held at Harvard.This is interesting because it is some Western researchers who are proficient in what people in the West call psychologie scientifique, comparing their views with the Buddhist views.Some of these researchers had traveled to the East to learn about such practices up close.That's it, Danielle Gorman, who is also one of The New York Times' scientific collaborators, read a report on Tibetan and Western models of mental health during the symposium.So what can we say about this Buddhist psychology?

Mathieu—One of the characteristics of this "spiritual science" of Buddhism is that it is not enough to recognize and confirm a conscious emotion (emotion consciente) or an underlying tendency that people may manifest on the surface, but You must know how to "emancipate" your mind.To emancipate the mind is to keep the mind from leaving any traces in our spirit, so that the mind will not lead the spirit to fallacies.Otherwise, thoughts are prone to a chain reaction: an unpleasant thought, for example, turns into aversion, then hatred, and finally invades our hearts until we express it in words or deeds.We make mistakes with others, and our peace of mind is destroyed.The same goes for lust, arrogance, jealousy, fear, etc.We can indulge our desire to destroy, to possess, or to dominate, but the satisfaction we get from indulgence is very short-lived, never a deep, stable pleasure that one can make permanent.

Jean-François - But all moral suffering does not come from hatred or lust alone. Mathieu—The key to working on the mind is not only to identify thoughts, but to resolve them so that they disappear in the space of the mind.A considerable amount of art is used for this purpose.The chief skill is to focus not on the states of the emotions, on the causes and circumstances that set them in motion, but on going back to the source of the thoughts themselves.Two kinds of meditators are distinguished, the dog-like and the lion-like.The dog chases the stones that people throw at it one after another, and in fact, people touch thoughts like a dog.This is the general condition of a human being, that a thought arises, and he lets himself be drawn; this first thought begets a second, a third, and then an endless thread of thoughts that maintain the confusion of the mind. chain.Perhaps at this time, a man will react like a lion, to which one can only throw a stone, because it will turn to the thrower and fall on him.This second example applies to the meditator who "turns" to the source of the thought and examines the original mechanism by which the thought emerged in his mind.

Jean-François - Beyond these metaphors, what is this mechanism? Mathieu - One must try to interrupt the flow of thought at moments.Neither sustaining past thoughts nor inviting future ones, people are at this moment, apparently only briefly, in a state of awakening freed from all sorts of inferential thoughts.But gradually, people become able to prolong and maintain this awareness.As long as waves churned in the lake, the water remained cloudy.As soon as the waves calm down, the sludge is decanted and the lake regains its clarity.In the same way, when the reasoning thought is at peace, the mind becomes more "clear" and thus it is easier to discover its essence.

It is then necessary to examine the nature of all kinds of inferential thought.In order to do this, we even deliberately arouse a very strong emotion, such as thinking of someone who has hurt us, or conversely, of a desired object.We allow the emotion to arise in the field of our awareness, and then we focus our inner attention on the thought analytically and contemplatively in turn.At first, this thought dominates us and haunts us.It keeps recurring.But if we look at it well, where does it get its apparent strength?It doesn't have the inherent ability to injure people like a flesh and bone being.Where was it before it appeared?Does it have any kind of character when it manifests in our minds?Is there an exact place, a form, a color?Where does it go after it leaves the field of our consciousness?The more we analyze it, the more this thought, which seems so powerful at first, escapes us; we can neither "catch" it nor "point" it with our fingers.So, we have reached a state of "no gain", and we stay in this state for some time in a contemplative way.This is what people technically call "recognizing the vacuum of thought."It is a state of inner simplicity without any conception, a state of clear and awake presence.When it is understood that thoughts are but an expression of this waking consciousness, they lose the binding solidity they possess.Once this process of emancipation becomes natural after some strenuous practice, when thoughts reappear, they dissolve themselves as they arise, no longer disturbing and enslaving our minds.Like a picture drawn with a finger on water that disappears as one paints it, so thoughts form and disappear.

Jean-François - What amazes me most in this method of reasoning is that everything is described as if external reality, behavior, other human beings, the importance of the situation do not exist at all!But anyway there are situations in which a real danger threatens us!To be afraid of this danger, or to want to get rid of it, to adopt an active hostility to this threat, for example, even at the cost of life, cannot be solved by a labor of thought alone. .All this is resolved by an act that happens to be external. Mathieu – In a given situation, we can react in many ways depending on our inner state.Action is born of thought.Without the control of thoughts, one cannot control one's actions, so one must "learn" to free one's emotions. …

Jean-François - Yes, but these are very minor cases... Mathieu - "learned" to release the emotion in order to use this control later in the climax of the behavior.In everyday language people praise someone for saying that he is "still in control of himself," or that he has "lost it completely."What is important here is to make this control more complete and more stable through the understanding of the nature of the spirit.Not when a murderer is about to kill our family members, waving his arms indifferently and indifferently, but doing the minimum to incapacitate the other person, neither allowing hatred to invade our hearts nor out of revenge heart and kill the intruder.Mind control is therefore fundamental.

Jean-François - But human existence is not just thought.Human existence is action. Mathieu - Are not the body and speech the servants of the mind?The body does only what the mind tells it to do, and words do not come in an involuntary or reflexive way. Jean-François - I think it is optimistic to say that "the body only does what the mind tells it to do". Mathieu - optimism?I am not speaking of bodily functions (fonctions organiques), but of behaviour.If we could control our words and actions, this would resolve the vast majority of conflicts among human beings.But that's impossible without controlling our spirits.Again, it is our spirit that colors our actions, since two apparently identical actions can have some opposite effect, either positive or negative, according to our motives.For example, we can pay someone to help or corrupt him.Let us return to the usefulness of mind control in specific situations. True patience is not a sign of weakness but of strength.This is not about passively letting others do everything.Patience gives us the strength to act in a just manner, instead of driving us insane with hatred and revenge, which rob us of all judgment.Tolerance does not mean: "Come on, hurt me!" It is neither yielding nor giving up, but it is accompanied by a courage, a strength of soul, and an understanding that spares us from useless mental suffering And keep us from falling into malice.

True patience, true nonviolence consists in choosing the most altruistic solution.Sweet words uttered with deceitful intent, which may seem benign, are violence.Conversely, when a mother scolds or hits him lightly for the benefit of the child and out of love for him, it may look like violence but is actually non-violence.What counts are the motives which inspire our actions and the final results of those actions.The choice of method of conduct comes from the exercise of our wisdom.So, in theory, we can license the use of violence for some good purpose.But in practice, using violence successfully is very difficult.Violence begets violence, often with disastrous results.It is therefore necessary to avoid conflict, or, if unavoidable, to disable the person who is ready to commit violence, but not to add emotion beyond the minimum necessary.

Jean-François – there is something very true in all that you say, but I think it fits first of all with that which I would call useless, superfluous emotions, excessive Uncomfortable, arrogant rather than grounded ambition.Or is it suited to some excess and indulgence, like unfolding a vengeful and vengeful spirit far beyond what is necessary to neutralize the real danger.However, this criticism of superfluous sentiments, of excesses, is rather banal.I don't want to say it's easy to do, but it's not a great discovery.It's just that a huge part of the emotions we feel, the desires we have, and the ambitions we have happen to be connected with an attitude of acting or reacting according to reality.This presupposes a matrix of feelings, desires, ambitions, doubts, prudence, which are not all superfluous, nor are they negligible or useless because they fit some realistic situation.If I want to build a house, or create certain types of work or do scientific research, etc., people say, I have an ambition.This ambition can be perfectly legitimate, it is not born of hatred or greed, and it does no harm to anyone.But if unexpected obstacles arise, or if someone pre-empts and sabotages my plans, then this ambition can cause me some negative feelings of disappointment.These are not emotions that we can drive away, because they don't just come from our hearts, they are motivated by reality and are part of an action on reality.

Mathieu – they are indeed activated by external reality, but they are not inherent in reality.The same person can be desirable to one and odious to another.A politician strives to wield power, a monk strives to get rid of it.Thus, the nature of our emotions is determined by the way we experience reality.I repeat, by no means to be free from all human emotion, but to attain a wide, serene mind that is no longer fooled by emotions, shocked by adversity or intoxicated by success.If a handful of salt were dropped into a glass of water, the water would become undrinkable; but if the handful of salt were dropped into a large lake, the taste of the water would hardly change.And most people, because of the narrowness of their hearts, always suffer uselessly for not getting what they want and facing what they don't love.Another cause of our suffering is egocentrism.If we are completely centered in ourselves, the difficulties we encounter and the distress they cause us are directly opposed to our happiness.We frustrate ourselves and don't accept the problems.If, on the other hand, we are concerned first and foremost with the good of others, we accept with joy the personal difficulties which the realization of this happiness may entail, knowing that the happiness of others is more important than our own. Jean-Francois - But in many cases people are dissatisfied because they don't get what they want, not because of some artificial reason, because they can't control their inner thoughts, or because people want what they want Not legally or simply due to pride; but due to some valid reason in an objective, even altruistic reality.There is an admirable feeling and emotion about a doctor who wishes to cure his sick.If he fails, he has an equally honorable disappointment; he is dissatisfied, but for some very good reasons. Mathieu - Yes, this kind of ambition is not only legal, it is necessary. Jean-François—is it therefore time to make a distinction between respectable and unrespectable ambitions? Mathieu - Exactly.Unwelcome emotions are those that bend or paralyze our judgment, not the ones that encourage us to accomplish great things.The desire to alleviate the suffering of others—which can inspire a whole new life—is an admirable ambition.A distinction should be made between negative emotions, such as lust, hatred, and arrogance, which reinforce our egocentric notions, and positive emotions, such as altruistic love, compassion, and honesty, which enable us to Liberate yourself gradually from these negative self-centered tendencies.This latter category of emotion doesn't disturb our spirit, it keeps it strong and stable. Jean-François - Are we seeing again the Epicurean distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires? Mathieu - Positive ambition, such as seeking the happiness of others by all possible means, a strong desire to transform oneself, belongs to the basic morality of Buddhism.Indeed, Buddhism nourishes an infinite ambition, the ambition to alleviate the suffering of all beings in the world!To lack such ambition is to succumb to inertia, to lack strength of mind.Therefore, a distinction must be made between the positive and negative aspects of ambition, the altruistic and self-interested aspects.An ambition is said to be positive if its purpose is to bring happiness to others.This is the simplest definition.Conversely, if an ambition must be realized by harming others, and an emotion destroys our inner peace and that of others, then this ambition and this emotion are negative. Jean-François—you exclude positive ambitions from all those ambitions aimed at improving our own lot? Mathieu - Absolutely not, our own happiness should be sought, but never at the expense of others.And, oddly enough, the best way to improve our own lot is to be concerned first with the lot of others, as Shantideva, an eighth-century Buddhist master, said: all happiness in the world, From the heart of altruism, all the misfortunes in the world, From love for yourself. What's the use of talking so much? A fool thinks only of his own interests, The Buddha cared about the interests of others: See the difference for yourself! To sum up our previous discussion, perhaps, it is old-fashioned to say that power and money do not produce happiness, that envy, pride destroy the joy of our lives, etc.But the fact that these words are trite does nothing to prevent the vast majority of people from continuing to fall into the trap of worldly worries.Gain and loss, joy and pain, criticism and praise, glory and disgrace, seem completely disarmed before these things.It's not every day that someone tries to stick a knife in our back, but every day, we are tormented by our own negativity.How many unfortunates have seen their lives spoiled by envy!If they had learned to recognize the immaterialite of this jealousy, and thus allowed it to dissolve in their minds like a cloud in the sky, although jealousy would remain at peace, it would certainly not Developed until it drives them to crime.As the saying goes, a small cloud cannot bring rain.A thought should be noticed when it arises, not when the emotion has become uncontrollable.Mars must be controlled, otherwise, what can be done when the whole forest is in flames? Jean-François——Here is an insight that is consistent in all philosophies, a common content of practical wisdom, Western or Eastern, that there is a relationship between our entire psychological condition and reality. Treat them with caution in order to avoid all the arts of extremes which in the end make people unhappy and create dissatisfaction.Now, what people call psychology, the science of the mind, is not just this practical approach aimed at showing as little vulnerability as possible, both to external circumstances, to the contingencies of life, and to their own emotions. Manual, like the Epictetian Manual in the Stoics.What is called psychology, before its conception as a practical application, as a method of attaining inner peace, was merely the study of phenomena of cognition (phenomenes cognitifs).And at the Harvard seminar I just mentioned, many American participants said that they found a spiritual science in Buddhism, which they believed to be particularly rich in content. Mathieu - But don't overlook that there are hardly many researchers interested in this kind of dialogue with Buddhism. Jean-François - So what does this science of the mind consist of? Mathieu – Buddhist psychology has many facets.It analyzes, for example, the way in which various psychological factors arise when the mind is attached to a living sense of an "I" and sees this self as a truly existing, autonomous entity.Out of this attachment to the "I" springs a whole host of psychic events in succession. Jean-François - I interrupt you!You said "I" was born? Mathieu - I mean we are all born with an idea of ​​a self (je), we answer when we are called, we think "I feel hot" when it is hot, we are aware of our existence ,etc.Buddhism is all about seeing this as an innate sense of self.Then, grafted onto this feeling is the insight that this "I" is a separate entity that constitutes our individual "being."This notion is the making of the mind, a simple name for the mind, as I have mentioned.When one is looking for the 'oh' somewhere in the stream of consciousness or in the physical body, or at the junction of the two, whether through analysis or through mindfulness, one cannot Isolate any entity that corresponds to the individual's "I". Jean-François – yes, but the sense of me, personality and self that people have may not It is completely innate as it varies according to civilization, culture and individual.It is especially admired in some cultures and in some individuals.The abnormal development of the ego is a cultural and individual factor.A sense of personal identity is at least as innate as it is innate, established by society and our own history. Mathieu - that's exactly what I was going to say.The basic sense of self is innate, and all that is added to it is manufactured by the individual under the influence of society and his own individuality.This basic sense of my being is common to all beings.The difference comes from the degree to which this sense of "I" is accentuated, from the degree of our belief in this "I" as an entity that exists in itself. Jean-François - What is pernicious and illusory?Is that ego, or is it an exaggeration of extreme egoism? Mathieu - not ego in itself.Even a man freed from all attachments to himself still has to say yes when someone calls him.Harmful, of course, is the exaggeration of the ego, but there are also benevolent shapes of ego attachment, which, though less visible, are equally the cause of most of our suffering.On this question, we see in Buddhism a whole classification of the various psychological factors that come from attachment and detachment from self.Fifty-eight of them were first described, followed by many more.From positive factors such as impartiality, self-respect, respect for others, trust, non-attachment, vigilance, etc., to negative factors such as arrogance, numbness, restlessness, hypocrisy, assertiveness, indifference, etc. Jean-François - But what does Buddhist introspection consist of? Mathieu - One might think in particular about questions of this kind: "What is consciousness? What initiates a perception? Can the mind know itself?" The answer to this last question, for example, is: in relative terms , we are definitely conscious of our spirit and able to observe the movement and nature of our thoughts.If we are not aware of our thoughts, we cannot function in our bodies.In the end, though, thought cannot think and know itself at the same time, any more than a knife can cut itself, nor eyes see itself.Here, and in most cases of this kind, one therefore distinguishes two kinds of reasoning or logic: one is based on relative truths, that is, falls within the sphere of common sense; the other is based on absolute truths.In this latter case, the final analysis reveals that if consciousness exists as an autonomous entity, it cannot both exist and know itself.In Buddhism, one finds a variety of philosophical schools belonging to different levels: some say that in this case consciousness has an ultimate, autonomous Consciousness, like the flame of a lamp that illuminates itself without the need for an external source of light.Other schools answer that the flame need not "light itself," because it contains no darkness, and if light can light itself, darkness can also darken itself. Jean-François - I don't want to deny the originality of Buddhist thought in this field, and from what you just said, I recognize a kind of probabilistic judgment that is classic in Western philosophy.For example: Can thought know itself?This is the question of what has been called the possibility of introspection or reflection (Pensee reglexive): are we, in perceiving or knowing, conscious at the same time of the object perceived or known and of ourselves as conscious agents? own thoughts?Some psychologists believe that introspection is possible, others that we cannot do justice to ourselves and that observations of inner life by themselves are not reliable; to the source. Mathieu - This last view certainly shuts out all the science of mindfulness which is the very essence of Buddhism... Jean-François - what analysis do you make of perception? Mathieu – In terms of relative truth, each moment of consciousness is born of a contact with an object that initiates a certain sensation.One can thus say that at every moment of perception, for every object, there is a subject, and that perceptual and inferential thoughts are born and die every moment, notwithstanding the apparent continuity.But ultimately, even in the present moment, consciousness does not exist as an autonomous and separate entity.It is just a flow, a continuite of ephemeral moments that have no individual existence.Only the non-dual presence eveillee, which transcends discursive thought, is eternal because it is timeless. Jean-François - The study of perception, sensation, beginning first with the idee, is an old problem that goes back to Greek philosophy and continues to develop until Kant and beyond. It is traditionally called Questions concerning the theory of cognition, the formation of images, concepts, sensations, the formulation of thought, reasoning... In a more normative sense, this is also logic, which is one of the most important branches of Western philosophy. Mathieu - also one of the most important branches of Eastern philosophy, because there are whole volumes of treatises on logic, and they are very complex... Jean-Francois——The so-called logic refers not only to how our thoughts are generated, but also how our external manifestations are formulated, organized, and connected with each other to achieve some judgments, some inferences, etc. Wait.And this is what all sciences concerned with the coherence of ideas (encha i nement de concepts) need in order to avoid fallacies in reasoning and in judgment.From Plato's Teetetus, through Descartes' Discourse, to Kant's, this is a central theme.So, again, I still find it interesting that Buddhism, which until very recently had virtually no contact with the West, formulated a probabilistic judgment very similar to that of Western philosophy. Mathieu - Buddhism does not claim to have discovered a new truth. The concept of "new" is naturally alien to all knowledge that comes from a spiritual realization, because what this knowledge entails is the knowledge of the essence of things, which has no reason to be different in the East than in the West.But what distinguishes it from a purely intellectual theoretical analysis is that what is involved here is a direct contemplative knowledge of the nature of the mind gained through experience, not just through analytical thinking.Here, the theory is not thrown away, like a doctor's prescription, which is left on the bedside table and its cure is not used at all.Theory is used to remove from our spiritual flow everything that dims that flow. Jean-François - This distinction between connaissance discursive and connalssance contemplative is also central in Plato's doctrine.For him, vision directe, theoria in Greek, is the final stage of philosophical mysteries. Mathieu - Let's talk about perception again.The perception of whether an object is liked or disliked does not reside in the object itself, but in the way people perceive it.In a beautiful object there is no inherent quality which is beneficial to the mind, nor in an ugly object which can injure the mind.If human beings disappear, the phenomenal world does not disappear, but the world perceived by human beings no longer has a reason for existence.And the "world" perceived by other beings will continue to exist.The classic example is a glass of water, perceived by a fish as a perch, by a man as a drink, by a god as a wine of immortality, by a worldly man whose spirit is tormented by greed For blood and pus, felt as liquid copper by a man who sees the world as hell.A Shan poem also says: "To a lover, a beautiful woman is an object of delight; to a monk, a distraction; to a wolf, a meal. Good food.” Our feelings, although object-initiated, are ultimately mental elaborations.When people see a mountain, the first image that comes to our mind is a pure feeling that has not been made.But the next moment someone will say to themselves: "Oh! This mountain looks dangerous and unfriendly." Others will say to themselves: "This is just a good place to build a monastery." And then , many thoughts followed.If objects define themselves and possess inherent qualities independent of the subject who observes them, all should perceive them in the same way. Jean-François - These analyzes are very correct, but I repeat what I said, they are also classics for a philosopher.But, shall we say, how are they connected with a kind of wisdom that can be applied to everyday life? Mathieu – If we analyze our feelings contemplatively and analytically, we will eventually lose our attachment to the solidity of those feelings.People understand the ephemeral relativity of concepts such as "friend" and "enemy"—someone we perceive as an enemy today is an object of great love to others, and we may be in a few years Best friends in the world months later.We should somehow, by mental exercise, melt the firmness of our judgments and feelings about people and things, as we melt a block of ice in water.Ice and water are the same element.But the former is hard, on which people can break their own bones; the latter is soft and fluid.One can thus perceive the whole world as a potential enemy, dividing it into the "desirable" and the "undesirable";One can even recognize an infinite purity that is synonymous with emptiness in many phenomena.This of course creates a huge difference. Jean-François – There are here two opposing attitudes towards reality, towards humanity in general.The first attitude is shared by Epicureans, Buddhists, and Stoics.It means that the reality of the world and humanity in itself cannot be improved as a whole.The only thing that can be improved is the human psychology.The solution is ultimately to reach spirituality, to reach personal wisdom.To say what I am most familiar with, an Epicurean or a Stoic philosopher, is a man who says to himself in the depths of his heart: "The less I get involved in all the troubles of this world, the less The follies of crowds happen out of no relation to me, the more I can fit myself in the vehicle to use a crowd's expression, the more I can avoid being in the midst of ordeals that might disturb me.... I especially want to avoid Say to yourself that I can change something in the world. All I can change is my behavior and thoughts about these circumstances. Especially don't defend a party, a thing..." The opposite of this attitude is another attitude, which means to say, "No, we can transform reality. We can improve it, we can do something about it. Therefore, the goal of philosophy is not to control our minds so that they cannot participate in any In the objective situation, it is necessary to transform this objective situation with technology and politics.” Plato tried to combine these two attitudes. Mathieu – I believe that Buddhism also proposes a marriage of these two attitudes, but it is a marriage based on principles that I feel are more important than non-intervention on the one hand, and technology and politics on the other. Use is more essential.First of all, there is no need to transform reality itself, which we may say is the ultimate nature of things, because, according to Buddhism, the perfection of things, that is, the original purity, is neither "degraded" when people do not know it, nor is it in people Knowing it is sometimes "improved".What we can and should change is our false perception of the nature of things.It is within the confines of this transformation that control of the mind and altruistic actions intended to provide others with the means to achieve this transformation come into play.The Buddhist path is ultimately a new perception of the world, a rediscovery of the true nature of the human body and of phenomena.It makes people less vulnerable to the accidents of existence.For one will learn to accept them not only with "philosophy" but with joy, and to use both difficulties and successes as catalysts for rapid progress in one's spiritual practice.It's not about isolating yourself from the world, it's about understanding the world for what it is.Instead of looking away from the pain, people seek healing and move beyond the pain. Jean-François - which treatment? Mathieu—every being has the possibility of becoming a Buddha, that is, achieving complete liberation and understanding.只是一些外来的短暂的幕蒙蔽了这种潜能，阻止它表现出来。人们称这些幕为“无知”或“心灵的昏暗”。精神的道路即是要将自己从各种消极情绪、从无知中解放出来，并通过解放而使这种已经存在于我们心中的完善（Perfection）变为现实。这个目的没有丝毫个人主义的成分。将我们引上精神道路的动机乃是改造我们自己，以便能够帮助他人从痛苦中自我解放。这种利他主义的观点首先使我们意识到我们面对他人痛苦时的无能，接着它产生出我们为救治他人痛苦而进行自我完善的欲望。所以这不是一种对世界的漠不关心。面对外部环境的坚强（invulnerabilite）成为一件甲胄，人们披着它投入与他人的痛苦进行的战斗中。 让-弗朗索瓦——在提交给哈佛讨论会的报告中，拥有心理学博士学位的达尼埃尔·戈尔曼在其报告的开头称：“在哈佛进行了一些心理学的研究之后，我曾认为这是一个决定性的收获，即心理学是一种在欧洲和美洲起源的、于上个世纪在这两个大陆上——也就是在西方——诞生的科学题目。”……这里，我想要提醒人们，在希腊哲学中有一种心理学……说到底！……他是在十九世纪和二十世纪人们所理解的意义上谈科学心理学的……然而他说，当他开始到亚洲旅行时，他发现在那里，尤其是在佛教中，存在着一种非常丰富、非常多样化的、非常发达的心理科学，回想起来，他感到惊愕，因为看到他的西方心理学方面的教授们从来也没有表示过要像讲授西方心理学学派一样地讲授这些心理学学派。这也就意味着在东方存在着一种根据人们在西方所称的科学心理学的标准来定义的心理学——但我从来就不觉得这种心理学充分符合“科学”这个名称，除了在其神经生理学的部分。但有个职业心理学者对我们说，对于心理过程的各种现象所进行的科学的冷淡（detache）观察，并不是严格西方式的。很久以前就有这种研究，特别是在佛教中。 马蒂厄——不妨顺便说说，戈尔曼并不是惟一为这种对东方学说的缺乏兴趣而感震惊的人。全国科学研究中心的研究主任、巴黎综合工科学校应用美学研究中心成员、神经生物学家弗朗西斯科·瓦莱拉也写道：“我们认为，对于亚洲哲学，尤其是对于佛教传统的再发现，乃是西方文化史中的第二次'文艺复兴'（renaissance），其冲击将会与在欧洲文艺复兴时对希腊思想的再发现同等重要。我们哲学的现代历史对于印度思想一无所知，它是不自然的，因为印度和希腊不仅与我们共享着印欧语言遗产，还共享着许多文化的和哲学的忧虑。” 让-弗朗索瓦——那么，佛教的这些应该说是不拘束于一种个人改善和获得安宁的理想、而专心于精神和心理过程的单纯研究的心理学研究，包含了什么？ 马蒂厄——我要举一个与对感知的研究有关的简单例子，因为这种研究是对心理功能所作研究的主要对象之一。当人感知一个对象时，即使是最简单的对象，比方说一个蓝方块，人们可以区分这方块的表面、角、边等等。这众多因素被综合地感知为一个方块。是有一种对于对象及其所有组成部分的瞬间的、总的感知呢？还是由对于客体形成一幅综合图像的每个细节的意识的那些短暂瞬间组成的一种快速连续？恰如当人们伸直手臂快速地转一支火把，人们看到有一个火圈，然而，这其实只是对一个处在连续运动中的光点的众多感知。在佛教文学里，存在着一系列这类分析，一些多达数百页的论文就是针对这些现象的。 让-弗朗索瓦——它们是何时写的？ 马蒂厄——从耶稣基督前六个世纪的佛陀的言语，直到十九世纪，在这个世纪里出现了许多为有关感知的文献作注的伟大的西藏注经者。人们还在继续讨论这些问题，以生动的方式分析它们，同时，几乎每天在我们各个寺院中都举行形而上学的辩论。