The First Link: Ignorance

 In the introduction to Dalai Lama's book, The Wheel of Life: Buddhist Perspectives on Cause and Effect, Jeffrey Hopkins remarks how ignorance is a "misapprehension of the status of phenomena", meaning that "we superimpose onto phenomena an over-concretized status that they do not actually have" (p.3), which is later phrased as "the conception or assumption that phenomena exist in a far more concrete way than they actually do" (p.4). 

This is actually a very succinct and workable definition of ignorance, which entails many things. Firstly, it suggests that ignorance arises from an overinvestment in an idea of a substrate--something that makes things seem more separate, more distinct, and far more enduring than they actually are. In Falling from Grace, Adyashanti describes this as a tendency for the ego to depend on a sense of separateness to derive its existence. Even self-deprecation can serve this function. For example, by solidifying the view that I am 'incapable' of doing something and therefore not trying to do it, not only may I avoid responsibilities that seem difficult for me, but I am also reifying my refusal into a concrete self.

What then does ignorance mean in daily life? It means thinking things are unconditioned, when in fact everything is conditioned and is in fact, a series of complex, interlocking factors. A person might mistakenly think they are different or somehow above this, but if we honestly face ourselves, we find that we are just as vulnerable to time, change and contingency. A good day might be followed by a bad, or a promotion might later turn into a lay-off. The more we try to grasp favorable conditions, the more likely we will face the pain of loss at a later time. Under this view, my suffering comes from the assumption that I can grasp certain things and keep them a certain way forever, for my benefit. In fact, even this "I" is a problematic concept. It too is subject to cause and conditions.

Language often encourages ignorance as a tendency, even though there is no such thing as "ignorant people". We often hear people reify others actions into distinct selves--as when we say, "so and so is stupid', or ignorant etc.. In fact, these concepts inadvertently fuel the very thing that they criticize by serving to limit the self-image of another person. It is a form of wanting to hurt someone else by saying "this person is only this, and can be nothing more", which justifies throwing the person in the proverbial garbage. In addition to serving as forms of cruelty and aggression, verbal attacks can serve to solidify the view that self is some kind of a thing or an object. And we are also aware that people under the spell of anger will tend to objectify others, since it makes it easier for them to hate the other. 

Can we revolutionize language in a way that does not turn people into abstract things? Alfred Korzybski, the founder of General Semantics, certainly tried to do this through the imposition of a null-A (non-Aristotelian) language that tried to remove the categorization of things into static qualities. While I doubt that our language will radically change (since we still use language in the service of a general ignorance), it seems that he may have been right to suggest that we take categorical language with a grain of salt.

Dalai Lama (2015) The Wheel of Life: Buddhist Perspectives on Cause and Effect. Wisdom Publications

Adyashanti (2011). Falling into Grace: Insights on the End of Suffering. Sounds True