Agency, Ethics, and Buddhism

“Recovering a credible sense of the self – this agency, as he points out: without a sense of agency, any practical ethics or the possibility of any practical ethics is impossible.”

– Ron Perrin (45:55 of this discussion of David Sherman’s project with his book on Sartre and Adorno)

Ron Perrin and David Sherman have been influential philosophy professors of mine for nearly a decade now. When I studied Sartre under Sherman I was happily astonished by the potential similarities in structure between the Sartrian “Nothingness” (the “us” of this very moment, which both negates our past and opens us to the future) and Buddhist “Anatman” – the denial of a “something” which is us at all times.

Beyond that, and some other perhaps incidental similarities, Buddhism and Sartre are quite far apart.

My question for this post, however, is: What sort of agency do we find in Buddhism? (with focus on early Buddhism)

According to Sherman, Sartre’s Nothingness is too extreme – it lends itself well to the existential freedom (there are no excuses) which Sartre sought to make good, but it seems to allow for too radical a freedom. It seems to allow a sort of total freedom from our past, our conditioning, our society.

To remedy this, Sherman introduces T.W. Adorno of the (Neo-Marxist) Frankfurt School. Adorno heavily emphasises the role and power of social institutions in shaping individuals. To him it is structures of power and ideology that must be addressed, not the simple individual. However, he too is extreme. The two must be mediated, or brought together.

So where do we turn in Buddhism for a sense or source of agency?

For one, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (the Turning of the Wheel of the Dhamma) addresses directly the existential situation of the individual human being. It is in no way a social or cultural critique (those come later), but rather a pointed discussion of dukkha, the condition of ‘unsatisfactoriness’ (it’s cause, and the path to its ending) that is the heart of his teaching.

Moving more to the social realm is the often-cited Sigalovada Sutta (Discorse to Sigala). This discourse is directed to a layperson and points out six sets of proper relations – toward one’s parents, teachers, husband/wife, friends & associates, servants & employees, and toward ascetics and brahmins.

Here it is important to note that the Buddha tailored his teachings to the individual(s) recieving them, and often they were meant to answer a particular question or problem. So we should be careful about how much attention we pay to who the teaching is for and show caution in trying to make a general rule of anything in the suttas. Yet, as philosophers, we are drawn to seeing the Buddha’s teachings as a whole, such that we may both apply them in our own lives and also teach them usefully to others.

As Mark Siderits aptly states in the video below, (5:22) “The Buddhist Enlightenment project is aimed at helping us overcome existential suffering, by dissolving the false assumption that there is an “I” whose life can have meaning and significance.”

If indeed we can boil Buddhism down to this one sentence (and I believe we can, though it remains disputed), then from this we may be able to ‘order’ various teachings according to their effect. Some teachings are like a a jack-hammer, meant to dissolve larger (grosser as opposed to more subtle) “I”-assumptions. Perhaps basic teachings on respect and generosity fit in this category. Then come more subtle teachings, the hammer and chisel of Buddhist meditation and simple living. Finally is the fine dissolving elixir of specific contemplations such as the search for the “I-am” behind experience (which we will not find).

If (again if) we can conceive of such a metta-narrative to Buddhism as a whole, then we can place all of the Buddha’s teachings within it, according to their results.

Returning, then, to the question of agency, we find that the place of the ‘agent’ shifts as one progresses through the levels of teaching. At first, the agent is front and center: you have the big fat problem of dukkha and you need to follow the path to overcome it. However it is not long before more nuanced understanding is needed: you are a product of your family, friends, clan, and so on and thus have reciprocal duties therein. Finally, you realize all this you is itself a mistake, that all there is is the flow of perceptual moments (and not even that according to Madhyamaka).

This problem of agency – perhaps central to humanity (if Siderits’ claim about Buddhism is to be taken as seriously as I think it should) resurfaces again and again. It should thus be no wonder that when I gave a talk not long ago on Buddhism and psychology, the point that students jumped all over was anatman, “what do you mean there is no self?” I was unprepared for such a reaction, as I take it so much for granted that this is true not only by meditative experience but now by science. Yet, as Ron Perrin’s quote at the beginning of this post points out – agency, getting a grip on the self is a very central project amongst contemporary philosophers. This, I think, is something we Buddhists should take heed of – as we have the solution (or at least a solution), if only we can communicate it effectively to others.