moralobjectivity.net: copyright Robert M. Ellis 2008

I keep repeating myself

Buddhism is full of repetitions. Mantras are repeated many times. The same rituals are done in exactly the same form over and over and over again. The scriptures, particularly from the Pali Canon, repeat themselves due to their oral origins. Insight meditations involve constantly going over the same idea and “turning it over in one’s mind”. Study leaders also often think it appropriate to repeat study of the same basic points.

People, are, of course, forgetful. Any teacher knows that repeating a point, especially a bit later, can make it much more likely to stick some time later. The psychology of study also suggests that repetition of an idea at intervals is the best way to remember it. Yet often, Buddhist repetition is not just designed to enable better remembrance. The idea is rather that if we keep repeating something we will gain a deeper understanding of it. It is this assumption that seems to me often mistaken.

Human beings crave constant stimulus and variety, so that when events start to turn too predictable, they may switch off through boredom, or start to vote with their feet. To some extent, more subtle levels of interest which defer boredom are a good thing, and mindfulness provides that subtle level of interest in even the simplest things, such as the breath or the surface of a puddle. However, one teaches mindfulness through meditation and aesthetic appreciation, not by boring people. Whilst the repetition of a walk past the same tree every day may be a source of unending delight, the repetition of the same concepts or words, only provokes yawns.

Of course, concepts need not be boring at all. Philosophers play with concepts by analysing them, comparing different interpretations, and arguing about their implications and relations to other concepts. The relationship of concepts to examples is also fascinating. Yet, a Buddhist reflection on impermanence, say, does not call for analysis or argument, and though examples are used they do not seem to be the main point. One is somehow supposed to make impermanence part of one’s understanding by repeating the concept, mentally or actually, over and over again. In my experience, certainly, this never works, nor have I yet heard a convincing account of how it really works for anyone else.

I have a suspicion that this assumption that the mere repetition of concepts helps one to become wiser is linked to the metaphysical assumptions commonly found in Buddhism. Metaphysics, after all, is a kind of word worship. If you think that the universe is somehow built in relation to a set of words, that describe how things really are, then you can almost magically evoke the universe by using those words. By repeating “impermanence” for example, one magically calls up the impermanence in the universe. However, as I have already argued in chapter one, impermanence is not a metaphysical truth about the universe any more than permanence is. There are no short cuts in the recognition of specific ways in which our assumption of permanence (or our assumption of impermanence) may be contributing to our delusion, and no magic words we can use to suddenly summon reality. We need to consider our experiences one by one.

Return to 'Trouble with Buddhism' index page

Return to moralobjectivity.net home page