In the Summer of the 12th year of training at the Monastic Academy for the Preservation of Life on Earth, we hosted the third weekend symposium for our friends at the Center for World Religion and Philosophy. The group had worked diligently to prepare the space, and now it was time!
The symposium discussion centered around techno-feudalism and the need for an emergent spiritual tradition that offers a “field of value” to our global culture in this time of existential crisis.
The main speakers were the leaders of The Center, Marc and Zak. Marc is a well-known rabbi in the Kabbalah tradition, Zak is a philosopher of education who lived with us for a year, and both are intellectual powerhouses. Forall sat next to his good friends at a table in the Zendo. He was serving as host, so he mostly listened and amplified their points with his comments. But, when asked to speak, he enthusiastically, and carefully, said what he had to say.
At one point Forall was asked if these techno-feudal lords can achieve their own aims if they are confused about reality. He began his response by pointing out that the motto of this group is: Just build.
“This is the basic theory of their religion. What happens when you say ‘just build’ is that the ability to build is equated with both truth and goodness. They claim that if you can build better than someone else, then you understand reality better than they do. If you can build better than someone else, you are a better person than they are. Stop asking questions, stop wondering. Just build stuff. That's the point that they make.”
He continued on about the danger of this basic premise of their ideology: “Zak mentioned earlier that this group is willing to gamble with all of biological life, but I would take it further. Their dream is that all biological life is eliminated.”
Forall was expanding upon a previous conversation about how this group of techno-feudal lords wish to replace organic life with a better substrate on which to process data, grow intelligence, and upload our consciousness. Their claim is that this technological advancement would lead to blissful and immortal lives.
Then, he looked at everyone and asked, “But what are they missing?”
As his gaze connected with each being in and beyond the room, he said, “If you ask me, I'll answer. But I won't answer before that, because now I'm asking you. What are they missing? If they get it all right, but miss this one thing, they kill all life and end up with nothing. So what are they missing?”
As often happens when Forall brings up this sort of inquiry, it seemed as though people assumed that it was a rhetorical question. After a short pause, the discussion moved on.
Several minutes had gone by, but friend Dechen did not lose her heedfulness. Yes! She was still facing the question and eagerly requested the teaching. She intently asked, “Forall, what are they missing?”
I sighed in relief, realizing that I too had forgotten about the opportunity presented to us.
Forall said, “Good question”, and then turned to Marc and Zak to ensure that it was appropriate for him to take the time to respond. They nodded.
“They're missing practice. They're missing a spiritual practice. And then the question arises, what is that? We have to deal with that question.
“But it's important to know that while we must know with absolute clarity what spiritual practice is, what the spiritual path is, what the right way is, we must know that we must not claim that we define that. We don't need to define it. They live in a world of definitions, and that's the world that got us into this mess. We are free to define and we are free not to. What matters is that we, in fact, practice.”
Rabbi Marc, listening deeply to Forall, picked up the mic and responded, “Let me throw something at you. David (a pseudonym the Center uses in their writing) deliberately answers this question with ‘field of value’, not with ‘spiritual practice’. The reason is: Yuval Harari's practicing every day. Sam Altman’s hanging with Jack Kornfield, practicing all the time. Right? It actually has to be practiced within the field of value, which is what I think you mean. But we’re specific in not saying practice, because we actually have a model of practice today which has literally stepped out of the field of value.”
Forall affirmed, “Yes, exactly.” He then elaborated, “So this is why the question of ‘what is practice?’ matters so much. We bring up this question, ‘what is practice?’, and everybody thinks we're stupid because everyone knows what it is. It means you sit down and follow your breath.
“But we here just don't agree with that. Yes, you may sit down and you may follow your breath, but if that doesn't do the job, it's not practice. So there are lots of people who never sat down and followed their breath, who were practicing all day long. So what is practice then?
“The reason I like the word ‘practice’ is that it requires participation, not just acknowledgement of what we're referring to as the ‘field of value’. You have to actually participate.
“But the main thing, again, isn't which word are you using or how you define it. Beyond that, it's even helpful for different people to say different things because it pulls you out of the sense that language is going to get you there. There's going to be paradox. And that's clarifying, not confusing and certainly not obfuscating.
“So practice! Yes. And then what is that? Does it mean merely that you sit down? No. The Buddha attempts to handle this himself with the Noble Eightfold Path, and he sets that up in such a way that you couldn't conclude that Sam Altman is practicing.
“So we now have to find a different way to clarify in a verifiable and even enforceable way what this thing is that is being missed, which I would call practice. Participation in this purification of mind, purification of spirit. We talk about it in different ways, but we must not get lost in the words.
“What we did this morning with the Buddhist and Kabbalah meditation and prayers: it’s as if we were thirsty and we drank water this morning. And we don't need to have a conversation all day about what is water. We have water, we can drink it. That's the point of the question, not to turn it into an abstraction. So we don't need to be addicted to definitions. We can use definitions, but we must be free to directly participate in the practice in such a way that it meets this great crisis.”
The room filled with students and supporters from both communities were pleased with this clarification.