Speculative Grace: Akrasia & Sankhara

This week, some additional thoughts in this series of posts on an experimental, non-theistic conception of grace. In particular, I'd like to expand on last week's post dealing with Spinoza's take on the relation between grace (or blessedness) and affect - this time via a reflection on some aspects of Buddhism.

Excuse the schematic approach. Hopefully, the additional concretion and practicality will be worth the tradeoff.

Akrasia & Sankhara

1. What is the nature of sin? It's essence is slavery. That which we would not do, we do. That which we would do, we do not. (Cf. Romans 7). 

2. What is the nature of slavery? We find ourselves passive, affected, available (without our control) for suffering, for impingement by whatever happens our way.

3. As argued in the previous post, this slavery/passivity applies as equally to what is pleasant/desirable as it does to what is unpleasant/undesirable. The misery of sin/slavery, then, is orthogonal to what is pleasant/painful.

4. We might say, then, that the essence of sin is akrasia: wanting to do one thing, but doing another.

5. How is this possible? How does it happen? The (short, simplified version) of the Buddha's account looks like this: in order to understand the nature of this slavery, we must understand the nature of our availability for affection (affection = "being affected").

6. Crudely put, the nature of affection is the following: there is a given capacity for sensation (e.g., a body's ability to see or hear or feel) and it comes into contact with the correlative sense object (e.g., a sight, a sound, a tactile object). At this point of contact, a sensation arises. This "raw" sensation (I know, I know: I used quotation marks) is the root of affection and the site of our availability.

7. This sensation gives rise without conscious awareness to a initial judgment about that sensation: it is pleasing, or it is unpleasant, or it is indifferent.

8. This initial judgment of pleasing/unpleasant/indifferent gives rise to a systemic orientation of the body and we find ourselves filling up with craving, aversion, or boredom. 

To the extent that this systemic orientation of craving/aversion/boredom is repeated, it becomes embedded as a durable "reaction-formation" or "pre-formatted pattern of response" (in psychonalytic terms: a "symptom").

The Buddha refers to these formations with the technical term: sankharas. 

The specific shape of these sankharas depends on individual body chemistries, the contingencies of personal history, what you overheard your father say when you were six, etc. 

Further, these sankharas, once up and running, are self-reinforcing by means of a vicious feedback loop. The sankharas do themselves amplify and perpetuate the original sensations and, thus, themselves. 

9. In general, we are not consciously aware of sensation at the initial point of contact. It gets screened out. However, even if we were aware of them, it would remain true that we cannot control these affections. They just are whatever they are.

10. In general, we are also not consciously aware of the initial judgment of pleasant/unpleasant/indifferent. And, similarly, even if we were, we could not consciously control these initial judgments. 

11. Further, we are generally not consciously aware of the way that these initial judgments give rise to a systemic orientation of our bodies in terms of craving and aversion.

12. What are we aware of? Generally, we're only aware of the intentional dimension of the experience. That is, we're only aware of the object that provoked the sensation (and its attendant chain of judgments and sankharas). As a result, we project onto the intentional object itself whatever qualities it has provoked in us.

For example, someone says something. I hear it. I judge it as unpleasant news. This kick starts a sankhara of aversion in the form of anger. This anger percolates via a feedback loop that amplifies and perpetuates the initial sensation. I keep thinking about it, the steam builds and builds . . . But I'm unaware of all this and, instead, think that clearly this other person (this stimulus) has made me angry. The stronger the sankhara, the less I'm conscious of myself and the more I'm fixated on the other person. I can't stop thinking about them and I get more and more angry.

We could easily give a precisely parallel account of something like lust. I see a beautiful person. I judge it as pleasant. A sankhara of craving kicks in. This amplifies itself. I become obsessed with the object that initiated the chain of events. I become more and more lustful, etc. And I think that clearly this other person has made me lustful. My awareness centers entirely on the (externally oriented) intentional dimension of the experience.

13. We find ourselves powerless (i.e., slaves) in such situations because we think that the external object is responsible for the misery of our craving or aversion. Fixated by our sankharas on the external object, we're powerless to address the heart of the problem, the sankharas themselves.

14. Then we have a moment of enlightenment: "The problem is not with the world, the problem is with me! I must have a mighty change of heart! These deeply embedded, pre-programmed patterns of action are destroying my life and the people I care about!" 

And so we (rightly!) want to change. And we address ourselves to the problem.

15. So the next time I begin to feel angry or lustful I think: "No, no! I don't want to feel angry or lustful!" But the pull of the "object" is very strong. It is all I can see. And by the time the pattern of craving or aversion has gotten up and running with its self-amplifying feedback loop intact, it's too late. I do that which I would not. And that which I would, I do not.

16. This brings us to the Buddha's core insight (which is closely related to Spinoza's core insight in Part V of the Ethics): once the pattern of action is up and running, once it's pattern of self-amplification is set in motion, it is too late. All that is left for us is damage control and repentance. The process must be short-circuited at a deeper level than the sankhara itself. The process must be short-circuited at the original level of initial sensation.

17. A minor problem with this tactic of short-circuiting the craving/aversion feedback loop: we are generally not consciously aware of the initial sensations or our initial judgments. All of our attention is oriented toward the external objects.

18. Additional problem: these sensations and these initial judgments are not in our control and cannot come under our control.

19. The Buddha's cure for our misery is threefold: (1) cultivate a capacity for keen and sustained concentration, (2) systematically and increasingly apply this awareness to the whole field of sensation for as long a sustainable period of time as is possible, and (3) practice equanimity (or non-reaction) at the level of the "raw" sensations themselves. By developing an awareness of sensation itself, the process that sets the self-amplifying sankhara in motion can be short-circuited.

For example, a beautiful person passes by. I see them. I judge this sensation to be pleasant. But, rather than turning my head and following the object itself, I turn my attention to the affect itself. I don't try to stop the affect. I don't try to judge the affect. I don't try to accept or reject the affect. I just try to see it. Of what does it actually consist? My heart rate is up, my breathing slightly irregular, by palms slightly sweaty, my face slightly flushed, my muscles slightly tense, butterflies in my stomach, etc. This is the actual content of the affect. If the affect itself (rather than the external object) becomes the center of attention then the whole process of craving and aversion is short-circuited - not because I repressed it or rejected it, not because I struggled with mighty will power against it, but because I simply saw both the sensation (and, thus, the other person) for what they actually are. 

Equanimity in the face of the initial sensation dissolves sin at its root. Here, I've received the immanent grace of whatever is given for the grace that it is.

The next time you feel anger, lust, fear, etc., examine what the experience actually consists of. What do you actually feel? What are the details of it? And then see: are you still angry? Are you still lustful? Did you "defeat" these cravings/aversions? Or did they go (as if by grace) away on their own?

This attunement to the field of affect is where the Spirit of God is manifest. The Spirit of God is felt. This attunement to what is actually manifest in our feelings (all day long, every day) is what brings about that mighty change of heart that (miraculously!) frees us from the slavery of sin as if without effort, as if by grace. This strong attunement to the whole of the field of affect fills our flesh with the light and life that Jesus promises.

We don't need to struggle against craving or aversion and conquer it. We need to persistently examine what gives rise to craving and, so, effortlessly dissolve that craving before it arises.

The former war-like approach is a "works" based approach and it does not work. The latter approach dissolves the bondage of sin as a "grace" without our having directly attempted to do so.

20. Notice, finally, what this cure does not do. It does not blame the external stimulus. It does not control or constrict or police the kinds of sensations that it is aware of. It does not control or constrict or police the initial judgments that we automatically make about the sensations. 

It just practices: (1) awareness of sensation, and (2) non-reaction to the sensations. 

Ironically, only non-reaction to a sensation allows the sensation itself to be felt as what it is. But without non-reaction, without practiced equanimity, the sankhara is set in motion and we lose both the sensation and its stimulus (i.e., the object or the other person) in a general, hazy confusion of the one with the other.

21. As with Spinoza, the key is shifting our experience of the sensation from the passive to the active register without disturbing the fact that sensation is an affect that I cannot actively control. 

This shift is the key to receiving the grace of whatever is given as the grace that it is. 

This shift frees us from the slavery that is sin.

Comments

[willy]

But what IS the 'essence of sin'? As you know, many would not grant your starting point.

WSC 1:14 What is sin? A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Yours is a human-centred defintion; not at all an offence against God.

for what it's worth.

w

[Adam Miller]

Granted. Such is the nature of the experiment.

I don't think, though, that the two are necessarily incompatible. And the "existential" definition I draw from Romans 7 is certainly canonical.

I'm also reminded here of Plato's Euthyphro: is sin outlawed because it enslaves us? or does it enslave us because it is outlawed? I'm generally more sympathetic to the former position.

[Erdman]

Fantastic post.

Excellent.

I think you are right on here, and I say this both from my own study of Scripture, theological reflections, and personal experience.

The only little itty bitty thing I might have added is to emphasize how important it might be to cultivate a consciousness of the grace of God. That is, most of our lives are permeated by grace-less-ness. Hence, we must develop consciousness of how God's grace permeates our lives. So, grace must move beyond a dogma that we "believe" into something that we meditatively contemplate on.

So, in your example of lust. One sees a person, this triggers desire. Developing a conscious awareness of grace might mean that we recognize that we do not need to suppress or repress this desire. Grace becomes the foundation upon which we can accept ourselves as we are, knowing that God accepts us as we are. By consciously connecting with the fact God's grace is all around us, we can then have the freedom to engage the process you outlined above: to attune to the field of affects.

Some of us are so attuned to law or to the wrath of God (or what we perceive as the wrath of God) that we must consciously engage grace in order to move into a spiritual position where we can then psychologically attune to the field of affects.

Does that make sense?

Theou to doron, the "gift of God" (Ephesians 2). We are delivered (I prefer "delivered" to "saved") by grace (karis).

Thanks again for an excellent, excellent post.

[Erdman]

Willy,

I disagree. Transgression of the law is not the essence of sin....unless you are saying like Paul does in Romans 7 that sin "springs to life" when the law is introduced. But it seems like you are suggesting that transgression of the law is sin, by definition.

I don't see this in Scripture. Of course, you are free to make non-Scriptural arguments as well. But I think a biblical approach to sin is to recognize that it is complex and polymorphous. That is, there is no "essence" of sin. "Sin" takes different meanings and nuances depending on which passage it is being discussed.

Paul's vision seems quite clearly to live beyond law. That's how I read Romans and Galatians 5. The law is always an imperfect construct that is meant to steer us to a deeper spiritual life.

[Adam Miller]

Erdman,

This is a nice follow-up. I wholeheartedly agree with your emphasis.

Grace is not something we lack and need to acquire. Grace is something that is relentlessly given and which we perpetually ignore.

Sin is, at root, this (often willful) suppression of grace (cf. Romans 1).

Or, again: Grace is not God's positive response to sin. Sin is our negative response to God's grace.

Grace is primary. Sin is derivative. I don't buy any theology in which sin is primary.

Adam

[James]

Hello Adam: I wandered onto this site today because I was thinking about the excellent book Who's Afraid of Postmodernism, which I read in seminary, and which I think a great many people who paint with broad strokes seriously need to read!

Have you ever written a long reply to a blog post only to find that you missed the whole premise for the series of posts? I wrote the below before I realized you were trying to "port grace" into a nontheistic operating environment. So take this as one Christian response to that idea, and to this example in particular. I'm removing my introductory question and posting the rest...

I found this discussion very interesting and I affirm the keen insights of the Buddhist tradition into human nature detailed here. But I would draw a distinction between the Buddhist solution described early in #19 and the Christian solution alluded to a few paragraphs later. Buddha suggests a technique. And it's a technique that no doubt *works* as long as you can sustain it. It is a technique also espoused by evangelical Christians. In fact I've suggested it myself many times in relation to lust, anger, etc. That is, feel the feeling, acknowledge it for what it is, and then move on with life. Certainly a helpful practice in struggling against temptations to do what we would not. But as you pointed out in 17 and 18, our control over our own minds is limited. We need HELP. *Supernatural* help. And that's what the Holy Spirit brings to us in Christ.

You've drawn a dichotomy here between one kind of struggling against sin that uses our "mighty will power" and another kind that depends on "sustained concentration" and "practice[d] equanimity." But aren't they both, in the end, efforts of our own will? Subtle, elegant effort is still effort. A better technique is still a technique.

God's grace requires more than our wisdom and know-how to operate. Practice may make perfect, but only if we are practicing synergistically with the Holy Spirit of God. We are saved by grace, and I can see a form of grace described here, but it is that something that grace comes *through* which seems to be missing...

In short, where's the *faith* in your alternative account of salvation by grace? Grace involves having a right *relationship* with God, not merely using correct techniques to perceive God. And no, I'm not one of those who love to chant that "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship"; I just couldn't help but notice that relationship is the key element missing here. If Buddha's threefold solution to our misery was sufficient, why did Christ need to come five centuries later? Just to communicate the same wisdom in a new form to the Jews and the Romans?

You've said that one kind of struggle against sin is works-based (the exertion of mental strength) and the other is grace-based (the true perception of the realm of affect), but I'd like to submit that they're both works-based, and see what you have to say about that.

As Lewis once said, "God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man. It is not like teaching a horse to jump better and better but like turning a horse into a winged creature." Something more than wisdom and technique is needed, and that something came in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We appropriate that gift of salvation by faith, and only then do we become no longer slaves, but sons and daughters of the living God.

Thanks for reading this far ;)

[Adam Miller]

James,

I appreciate the comments. A few scattered replies:

1. I'm okay with calling the Buddha's approach a kind of "technique" (or even a kind of "spiritual technology"). We would need to be careful, though, to not, as a result, use this as a way of minimizing the degree to which it, I think, gets at the root of the problem that we as human beings face. And we'd need to be very careful to not use the word "technique" as indicating a category of things that would be opposed to grace.

Also, it's important to be clear that I've certainly not done the depth and breadth of the "technique" justice with the very superficial account that I gave above.

2. It may be the case that something "supernatural" must intervene in order for a robust grace to pick us up and transform us. But I'm hesitant.

3. In several of the earlier posts, I've tried to address how I think a "non-theistic" approach to fundamentally grace clarifies/reorganizes the differences between grace/works. In general, though, it's not my opinion that the Buddha's approach would be subject to the "works-critique" that Paul, for instance, elaborates - though this may be one conceptual danger that arises if we uncritically describe the Buddha's approach as a "technique." I don't have time at the moment to say more, but perhaps in a future post I'll be able to take this up.

My best,
Adam