Cover image for Why Buddhism is true : the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment
Why Buddhism is true : the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment
First Simon & Schuster hardcover edition.
Publication Information:
New York : Simon & Schuster, 2017.

Physical Description:
xii, 321 pages ; 24 cm
General Note:
"Simon & Schuster nonfiction original hardcover."
Taking the red pill -- Paradoxes of meditation -- When are feelings illusions? -- Bliss, ecstasy, and other reasons to meditate -- The alleged nonexistence of your self -- The confirmed nonexistence of your self -- The mental modules that run your life -- How thoughts think themselves -- "Self" control -- Encounters with the formless -- The upside of emptiness -- A weedless world -- Like, wow, everything is one (at most) -- Is enlightenment enlightenment? -- So remind me why I should meditate?
In Why Buddhism is True, Wright leads readers on a journey through psychology, philosophy, and a great many silent retreats to show how and why meditation can serve as the foundation for a spiritual life in a secular age. At once excitingly ambitious and wittily accessible, this is the first book to combine evolutionary psychology with cutting-edge neuroscience to defend the radical claims at the heart of Buddhist philosophy. With bracing honesty and fierce wisdom, it will persuade you not just that Buddhism is true?which is to say, a way out of our delusion?but that it can ultimately save us from ourselves, as individuals and as a species.


Material Type
Shelf Number
Item Note
Book 294.342 WRIGHT 1
Book 294.342 WRI 1 .SOURCE. 09/17 B&T
Book 294.3 WRIGHT 1
Book 294.342 WRI 1
Book 294.342 WRI 1 .SOURCE. BAKER & TAYLOR
Book 294.342 WRIGHT 1 .SOURCE. BT 8-25-17
Book 294.342 WRIGHT 1 .SOURCE. BT 9-14-17
Book 294.342 WRIGHT 1
Book BQ4050.W75 2017 1
Book BQ4050.W75 2017 1

On Order

Prescott Public Library1Received on 8/7/17
Cottonwood Public Library1Received on 9/7/17
Prescott Valley Public Library1Received on 9/11/17
Black Canyon City Community Library1Received on 9/11/17
Dewey-Humboldt Town Library1Received on 10/9/17



New York Times Bestseller
From one of America's greatest minds, a journey through psychology, philosophy, and lots of meditation to show how Buddhism holds the key to moral clarity and enduring happiness.

Robert Wright famously explained in The Moral Animal how evolution shaped the human brain. The mind is designed to often delude us, he argued, about ourselves and about the world. And it is designed to make happiness hard to sustain.

But if we know our minds are rigged for anxiety, depression, anger, and greed, what do we do? Wright locates the answer in Buddhism, which figured out thousands of years ago what scientists are only discovering now. Buddhism holds that human suffering is a result of not seeing the world clearly--and proposes that seeing the world more clearly, through meditation, will make us better, happier people.

In Why Buddhism is True , Wright leads readers on a journey through psychology, philosophy, and a great many silent retreats to show how and why meditation can serve as the foundation for a spiritual life in a secular age. At once excitingly ambitious and wittily accessible, this is the first book to combine evolutionary psychology with cutting-edge neuroscience to defend the radical claims at the heart of Buddhist philosophy. With bracing honesty and fierce wisdom, it will persuade you not just that Buddhism is true--which is to say, a way out of our delusion--but that it can ultimately save us from ourselves, as individuals and as a species.

Reviews 5

Publisher's Weekly Review

Wright (The Moral Animal) fascinates readers with this journey through evolutionary psychology in search of answers to the question of whether Buddhism's diagnosis of the human condition is true. Rather than conceiving of the self-or the mind, for that matter-as an autocrat, Wright opts for the modular model of mind, in which behavior is shaped by the interplay of networks dedicated to different tasks and situations with conflicting goals. Because there are ultimately many versions of the self (or "no-self") in the modular model, Wright argues that emotions are far more integral than reason in constructing perceptions and interpretations of the world. He recommends meditation as a process of dispelling the illusions that natural selection has created (which have since gone haywire outside of natural pressures), suggesting that it can be used to interrogate, contemplate, and disengage from the foundation of feelings that color experience. Through mindfulness, Wright says, one can achieve clarity of vision, breaking out of tribalistic notions of thinking to begin helping others and the world. But this is not easy to accomplish, and Wright's stories about his meditation experiences include his failures, anxieties, and faults. Wright's joyful and insightful book is both entertaining and informative, equally accessible to general audiences and more experienced practitioners. (Aug.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

Booklist Review

Using a framework of evolutionary psychology and philosophy, Wright (The Evolution of God, 2009) leads his readers on a scientific search for the truth of Buddhism. In doing so, he proves to be an often witty, occasionally self-deprecating guide who eschews what he calls the supernatural or more exotically metaphysical parts of Buddhism and focuses instead on its naturalistic aspects. Some of those parts, it should be acknowledged, are dauntingly esoteric and abstruse, such as anatta or not-self, the idea that the self doesn't exist. Happily, Wright has a talent for bringing clarity to this and what could otherwise be his subject's murkier aspects. His examination includes familiar elements of Buddhism: Nirvana, Enlightenment (with both capital and lower-case E's), dharma, mindfulness, and, importantly, meditation, to which he devotes the final chapter. It should be acknowledged that this is not a book for the casual reader; it requires extremely close reading and intense concentration. But the patient reader will find much here that is worth contemplating and that is, well, enlightening.--Cart, Michael Copyright 2017 Booklist

New York Review of Books Review

MRS. FLETCHER, by Tom Perrotta. (Scribner, $26.) Perrotta's skillful seventh novel succeeds in ways that will be pleasingly familiar to his admirers. It is the sweetest and most charming novel about pornography addiction and the harrowing issues of sexual consent that you will ever read. BROKEN RIVER, by J. Robert Lennon. (Graywolf, paper, $16.) This crafty, seductive novel, Lennon's eighth, is not quite a ghost story, but it does involve a mysterious entity called the Observer. Abudding novelist's research into the murder that took place in the house where her family has moved attracts the attention of the killers. SOUTH POLE STATION, by Ashley Shelby. (Picador, $26.) A painter spends a year at the South Pole as part of a National Science Foundation program in Shelby's ramblingly entertaining first novel. The back stories of the ensemble cast provide a vivid notion of what it's like to live in the dark, frigid landscape. THE ART OF DEATH: Writing the Final Story, by Edwidge Danticat. (Graywolf, paper, $14.) This slim, absorbing volume is part of Graywolf's "Art Of" series. Danticat examines the guises death has assumed in works by Tolstoy, Camus, Morrison and others, and movingly recalls the death of her mother. DEVILS BARGAIN: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency, by Joshua Green. (Penguin Press, $27.) Green's deeply reported and compulsively readable account of this fateful political partnership shows how the pair grasped that much of what was supposed to matter in politics no longer did. WHY BUDDHISM IS TRUE: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment, by Robert Wright. (Simon & Schuster, $27.) This provocative and informative book uses evolutionary psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience to examine the practice of mindful meditation at the heart of Western Buddhism. NEW COLLECTED POEMS, by Marianne Moore. Edited by Heather Cass White. (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, $35.) In this elegant, big volume, containing the original versions of Moore's poems arranged in the order of her books, we watch her develop her complex style. Moore is a poet apart, and this is a good excuse to discover her. MOVING KINGS, by Joshua Cohen. (Random House, $26.) Two Israeli soldiers come to New York to work for a moving company that evicts delinquent tenants in a novel that touches on religious and political issues. SPOONBENDERS, by Daryl Gregory. (Knopf, $26.95.) A family of psychics fallen on hard times is the subject of Gregory's seventh novel. Funny and charming, with a rollicking and quick-paced plot, it explores what it means to harbor such gifts. The full reviews of these and other recent books are on the web:

Kirkus Review

A bestselling author sets out to improve the world by encouraging mindful meditation.By his bold title, Pulitzer finalist Wright (The Evolution of God, 2009, etc.) means to assert that "the core of Buddhism's assessment of the human conditionits conception of certain basic aspects of how the mind works and of how we can change how the mind works...warrants enough confidence to get the label that the title of this book gives it." The author finds this corroboration in recent developments in psychology and evolutionary biology, contending that current theories suggesting a modular structure for the mind in place of a single executive support the Buddhist doctrine of "not-self." Furthermore, demonstrable distortions of our perceptions of the world, also anticipated by ancient Buddhist thought, originally served valuable evolutionary purposes but are now obsolete and contribute to personal and social dysfunction. Wright puts forth the mindfulness meditation offered by many Buddhist traditions as a means of overcoming our evolutionary-determined and intuitive habits of thinking and of perceiving the physical world and the human condition with greater clarity and compassion. The author aims to make some fundamentally bizarre-sounding doctrines of Buddhism accessible to skeptical and secular readers by offering scientific support for its assertions in simple language and an engaging style. He keeps explicitly religious references and exotic Asian-language terminology to a minimum; no prior familiarity with Buddhist teachings is required. Wright lightens the trek through some challenging philosophical concepts with well-chosen anecdotes and a self-deprecating humor as he discusses the pinnacles and setbacks of his own meditative experiences. While critical readers may take issue with the logic underlying some of his contentions, the author presents a well-organized, freshly conceived introduction to core concepts of Buddhist thought. A cogent and approachable argument for a personal meditation practice based on secular Buddhist principles. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Library Journal Review

Given the book's title, you may be surprised to learn that Wright (The Evolution of God) is not a Buddhist. Rather, he is a journalist and author of several best-selling books about science and religion, as well as a practitioner of mindfulness meditation. Here, he shares his journey with mindfulness and links the outcomes of his practice with evolutionary psychology. Wright argues that natural selection conditions humans to experience suffering, one of the foundational tenets of Buddhism. Strong emotions, such as fear, anxiety, and anger, helped our ancestors to survive, and so these survival mechanisms are still genetically part of us and the way we are wired. Reactions based on these emotions cause us to suffer, but meditation can help to control these reactions as one begins to see that these emotions are devoid of any inherent essence. Wright's treatment of key Buddhist concepts, such as nonself or emptiness, may initially seem glib. However, as he develops his argument, it becomes clear that Wright is trying to help readers to deconstruct and then reconstruct these fundamental concepts. VERDICT An important read for anyone interested in practicing meditation but not necessarily interested in becoming an expert in Buddhist philosophy.-Amanda Folk, Ohio State Univ. Libs. © Copyright 2017. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.



Why Buddhism is True 1 Taking the Red Pill At the risk of overdramatizing the human condition: Have you ever seen the movie The Matrix? It's about a guy named Neo (played by Keanu Reeves), who discovers that he's been inhabiting a dream world. The life he thought he was living is actually an elaborate hallucination. He's having that hallucination while, unbeknownst to him, his actual physical body is inside a gooey, coffin-size pod--one among many pods, rows and rows of pods, each pod containing a human being absorbed in a dream. These people have been put in their pods by robot overlords and given dream lives as pacifiers. The choice faced by Neo--to keep living a delusion or wake up to reality--is famously captured in the movie's "red pill" scene. Neo has been contacted by rebels who have entered his dream (or, strictly speaking, whose avatars have entered his dream). Their leader, Morpheus (played by Laurence Fishburne), explains the situation to Neo: "You are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch--a prison for your mind." The prison is called the Matrix, but there's no way to explain to Neo what the Matrix ultimately is. The only way to get the whole picture, says Morpheus, is "to see it for yourself." He offers Neo two pills, a red one and a blue one. Neo can take the blue pill and return to his dream world, or take the red pill and break through the shroud of delusion. Neo chooses the red pill. That's a pretty stark choice: a life of delusion and bondage or a life of insight and freedom. In fact, it's a choice so dramatic that you'd think a Hollywood movie is exactly where it belongs--that the choices we really get to make about how to live our lives are less momentous than this, more pedestrian. Yet when that movie came out, a number of people saw it as mirroring a choice they had actually made. The people I'm thinking about are what you might call Western Buddhists, people in the United States and other Western countries who, for the most part, didn't grow up Buddhist but at some point adopted Buddhism. At least they adopted a version of Buddhism, a version that had been stripped of some supernatural elements typically found in Asian Buddhism, such as belief in reincarnation and in various deities. This Western Buddhism centers on a part of Buddhist practice that in Asia is more common among monks than among laypeople: meditation, along with immersion in Buddhist philosophy. (Two of the most common Western conceptions of Buddhism--that it's atheistic and that it revolves around meditation--are wrong; most Asian Buddhists do believe in gods, though not an omnipotent creator God, and don't meditate.) These Western Buddhists, long before they watched The Matrix, had become convinced that the world as they had once seen it was a kind of illusion--not an out-and-out hallucination but a seriously warped picture of reality that in turn warped their approach to life, with bad consequences for them and the people around them. Now they felt that, thanks to meditation and Buddhist philosophy, they were seeing things more clearly. Among these people, The Matrix seemed an apt allegory of the transition they'd undergone, and so became known as a "dharma movie." The word dharma has several meanings, including the Buddha's teachings and the path that Buddhists should tread in response to those teachings. In the wake of The Matrix, a new shorthand for "I follow the dharma" came into currency: "I took the red pill." I saw The Matrix in 1999, right after it came out, and some months later I learned that I had a kind of connection to it. The movie's directors, the Wachowski siblings, had given Keanu Reeves three books to read in preparation for playing Neo. One of them was a book I had written a few years earlier, The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life. I'm not sure what kind of link the directors saw between my book and The Matrix. But I know what kind of link I see. Evolutionary psychology can be described in various ways, and here's one way I had described it in my book: It is the study of how the human brain was designed--by natural selection--to mislead us, even enslave us. Don't get me wrong: natural selection has its virtues, and I'd rather be created by it than not be created at all--which, so far as I can tell, are the two options this universe offers. Being a product of evolution is by no means entirely a story of enslavement and delusion. Our evolved brains empower us in many ways, and they often bless us with a basically accurate view of reality. Still, ultimately, natural selection cares about only one thing (or, I should say, "cares"--in quotes--about only one thing, since natural selection is just a blind process, not a conscious designer). And that one thing is getting genes into the next generation. Genetically based traits that in the past contributed to genetic proliferation have flourished, while traits that didn't have fallen by the wayside. And the traits that have survived this test include mental traits--structures and algorithms that are built into the brain and shape our everyday experience. So if you ask the question "What kinds of perceptions and thoughts and feelings guide us through life each day?" the answer, at the most basic level, isn't "The kinds of thoughts and feelings and perceptions that give us an accurate picture of reality." No, at the most basic level the answer is "The kinds of thoughts and feelings and perceptions that helped our ancestors get genes into the next generation." Whether those thoughts and feelings and perceptions give us a true view of reality is, strictly speaking, beside the point. As a result, they sometimes don't. Our brains are designed to, among other things, delude us. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Some of my happiest moments have come from delusion--believing, for example, that the Tooth Fairy would pay me a visit after I lost a tooth. But delusion can also produce bad moments. And I don't just mean moments that, in retrospect, are obviously delusional, like horrible nightmares. I also mean moments that you might not think of as delusional, such as lying awake at night with anxiety. Or feeling hopeless, even depressed, for days on end. Or feeling bursts of hatred toward people, bursts that may actually feel good for a moment but slowly corrode your character. Or feeling bursts of hatred toward yourself. Or feeling greedy, feeling a compulsion to buy things or eat things or drink things well beyond the point where your well-being is served. Though these feelings--anxiety, despair, hatred, greed--aren't delusional the way a nightmare is delusional, if you examine them closely, you'll see that they have elements of delusion, elements you'd be better off without. And if you think you would be better off, imagine how the whole world would be. After all, feelings like despair and hatred and greed can foster wars and atrocities. So if what I'm saying is true--if these basic sources of human suffering and human cruelty are indeed in large part the product of delusion--there is value in exposing this delusion to the light. Sounds logical, right? But here's a problem that I started to appreciate shortly after I wrote my book about evolutionary psychology: the exact value of exposing a delusion to the light depends on what kind of light you're talking about. Sometimes understanding the ultimate source of your suffering doesn't, by itself, help very much. An Everyday Delusion Let's take a simple but fundamental example: eating some junk food, feeling briefly satisfied, and then, only minutes later, feeling a kind of crash and maybe a hunger for more junk food. This is a good example to start with for two reasons. First, it illustrates how subtle our delusions can be. There's no point in the course of eating a six-pack of small powdered-sugar doughnuts when you're believing that you're the messiah or that foreign agents are conspiring to assassinate you. And that's true of many sources of delusion that I'll discuss in this book: they're more about illusion--about things not being quite what they seem--than about delusion in the more dramatic sense of that word. Still, by the end of the book, I'll have argued that all of these illusions do add up to a very large-scale warping of reality, a disorientation that is as significant and consequential as out-and-out delusion. The second reason junk food is a good example to start with is that it's fundamental to the Buddha's teachings. Okay, it can't be literally fundamental to the Buddha's teachings, because 2,500 years ago, when the Buddha taught, junk food as we know it didn't exist. What's fundamental to the Buddha's teachings is the general dynamic of being powerfully drawn to sensory pleasure that winds up being fleeting at best. One of the Buddha's main messages was that the pleasures we seek evaporate quickly and leave us thirsting for more. We spend our time looking for the next gratifying thing--the next powdered-sugar doughnut, the next sexual encounter, the next status-enhancing promotion, the next online purchase. But the thrill always fades, and it always leaves us wanting more. The old Rolling Stones lyric "I can't get no satisfaction" is, according to Buddhism, the human condition. Indeed, though the Buddha is famous for asserting that life is pervaded by suffering, some scholars say that's an incomplete rendering of his message and that the word translated as "suffering," dukkha, could, for some purposes, be translated as "unsatisfactoriness." So what exactly is the illusory part of pursuing doughnuts or sex or consumer goods or a promotion? There are different illusions associated with different pursuits, but for now we can focus on one illusion that's common to these things: the overestimation of how much happiness they'll bring. Again, by itself this is delusional only in a subtle sense. If I asked you whether you thought that getting that next promotion, or getting an A on that next exam, or eating that next powdered-sugar doughnut would bring you eternal bliss, you'd say no, obviously not. On the other hand, we do often pursue such things with, at the very least, an unbalanced view of the future. We spend more time envisioning the perks that a promotion will bring than envisioning the headaches it will bring. And there may be an unspoken sense that once we've achieved this long-sought goal, once we've reached the summit, we'll be able to relax, or at least things will be enduringly better. Similarly, when we see that doughnut sitting there, we immediately imagine how good it tastes, not how intensely we'll want another doughnut only moments after eating it, or how we'll feel a bit tired or agitated later, when the sugar rush subsides. Why Pleasure Fades It doesn't take a rocket scientist to explain why this sort of distortion would be built into human anticipation. It just takes an evolutionary biologist--or, for that matter, anyone willing to spend a little time thinking about how evolution works. Here's the basic logic. We were "designed" by natural selection to do certain things that helped our ancestors get their genes into the next generation--things like eating, having sex, earning the esteem of other people, and outdoing rivals. I put "designed" in quotation marks because, again, natural selection isn't a conscious, intelligent designer but an unconscious process. Still, natural selection does create organisms that look as if they're the product of a conscious designer, a designer who kept fiddling with them to make them effective gene propagators. So, as a kind of thought experiment, it's legitimate to think of natural selection as a "designer" and put yourself in its shoes and ask: If you were designing organisms to be good at spreading their genes, how would you get them to pursue the goals that further this cause? In other words, granted that eating, having sex, impressing peers, and besting rivals helped our ancestors spread their genes, how exactly would you design their brains to get them to pursue these goals? I submit that at least three basic principles of design would make sense: 1. Achieving these goals should bring pleasure, since animals, including humans, tend to pursue things that bring pleasure. 2. The pleasure shouldn't last forever. After all, if the pleasure didn't subside, we'd never seek it again; our first meal would be our last, because hunger would never return. So too with sex: a single act of intercourse, and then a lifetime of lying there basking in the afterglow. That's no way to get lots of genes into the next generation! 3. The animal's brain should focus more on (1), the fact that pleasure will accompany the reaching of a goal, than on (2), the fact that the pleasure will dissipate shortly thereafter. After all, if you focus on (1), you'll pursue things like food and sex and social status with unalloyed gusto, whereas if you focus on (2), you could start feeling ambivalence. You might, for example, start asking what the point is of so fiercely pursuing pleasure if the pleasure will wear off shortly after you get it and leave you hungering for more. Before you know it, you'll be full of ennui and wishing you'd majored in philosophy. If you put these three principles of design together, you get a pretty plausible explanation of the human predicament as diagnosed by the Buddha. Yes, as he said, pleasure is fleeting, and, yes, this leaves us recurrently dissatisfied. And the reason is that pleasure is designed by natural selection to evaporate so that the ensuing dissatisfaction will get us to pursue more pleasure. Natural selection doesn't "want" us to be happy, after all; it just "wants" us to be productive, in its narrow sense of productive. And the way to make us productive is to make the anticipation of pleasure very strong but the pleasure itself not very long-lasting. Scientists can watch this logic play out at the biochemical level by observing dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is correlated with pleasure and the anticipation of pleasure. In one seminal study, they took monkeys and monitored dopamine-generating neurons as drops of sweet juice fell onto the monkeys' tongues. Predictably, dopamine was released right after the juice touched the tongue. But then the monkeys were trained to expect drops of juice after a light turned on. As the trials proceeded, more and more of the dopamine came when the light turned on, and less and less came after the juice hit the tongue. We have no way of knowing for sure what it felt like to be one of those monkeys, but it would seem that, as time passed, there was more in the way of anticipating the pleasure that would come from the sweetness, yet less in the way of pleasure actually coming from the sweetness. I, + To translate this conjecture into everyday human terms: If you encounter a new kind of pleasure--if, say, you've somehow gone your whole life without eating a powdered-sugar doughnut, and somebody hands you one and suggests you try it--you'll get a big blast of dopamine after the taste of the doughnut sinks in. But later, once you're a confirmed powdered-sugar-doughnut eater, the lion's share of the dopamine spike comes before you actually bite into the doughnut, as you're staring longingly at it; the amount that comes after the bite is much less than the amount you got after that first, blissful bite into a powdered-sugar doughnut. The pre-bite dopamine blast you're now getting is the promise of more bliss, and the post-bite drop in dopamine is, in a way, the breaking of the promise--or, at least, it's a kind of biochemical acknowledgment that there was some overpromising. To the extent that you bought the promise--anticipated greater pleasure than would be delivered by the consumption itself--you have been, if not deluded in the strong sense of that term, at least misled. Kind of cruel, in a way--but what do you expect from natural selection? Its job is to build machines that spread genes, and if that means programming some measure of illusion into the machines, then illusion there will be. Unhelpful Insights So this is one kind of light science can shed on an illusion. Call it "Darwinian light." By looking at things from the point of view of natural selection, we see why the illusion would be built into us, and we have more reason than ever to see that it is an illusion. But--and this is the main point of this little digression--this kind of light is of limited value if your goal is to actually liberate yourself from the illusion. Don't believe me? Try this simple experiment: (1) Reflect on the fact that our lust for doughnuts and other sweet things is a kind of illusion--that the lust implicitly promises more enduring pleasure than will result from succumbing to it, while blinding us to the letdown that may ensue. (2) As you're reflecting on this fact, hold a powdered-sugar doughnut six inches from your face. Do you feel the lust for it magically weakening? Not if you're like me, no. This is what I discovered after immersing myself in evolutionary psychology: knowing the truth about your situation, at least in the form that evolutionary psychology provides it, doesn't necessarily make your life any better. In fact, it can actually make it worse. You're still stuck in the natural human cycle of ultimately futile pleasure-seeking--what psychologists sometimes call "the hedonic treadmill"--but now you have new reason to see the absurdity of it. In other words, now you see that it's a treadmill, a treadmill specifically designed to keep you running, often without really getting anywhere--yet you keep running! And powdered-sugar doughnuts are just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, the truth is, it's not all that uncomfortable to be aware of the Darwinian logic behind your lack of dietary self-discipline. In fact, you may find in this logic a comforting excuse: it's hard to fight Mother Nature, right? But evolutionary psychology also made me more aware of how illusion shapes other kinds of behavior, such as the way I treat other people and the way I, in various senses, treat myself. In these realms, Darwinian self-consciousness was sometimes very uncomfortable. Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, a meditation teacher in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, has said, "Ultimately, happiness comes down to choosing between the discomfort of becoming aware of your mental afflictions and the discomfort of being ruled by them." What he meant is that if you want to liberate yourself from the parts of the mind that keep you from realizing true happiness, you have to first become aware of them, which can be unpleasant. Okay, fine; that's a form of painful self-consciousness that would be worthwhile--the kind that leads ultimately to deep happiness. But the kind I got from evolutionary psychology was the worst of both worlds: the painful self-consciousness without the deep happiness. I had both the discomfort of being aware of my mental afflictions and the discomfort of being ruled by them. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life." Well, with evolutionary psychology I felt I had found the truth. But, manifestly, I had not found the way. Which was enough to make me wonder about another thing Jesus said: that the truth will set you free. I felt I had seen the basic truth about human nature, and I saw more clearly than ever how various illusions imprisoned me, but this truth wasn't amounting to a Get Out of Jail Free card. So is there another version of the truth out there that would set me free? No, I don't think so. At least, I don't think there's an alternative to the truth presented by science; natural selection, like it or not, is the process that created us. But some years after writing The Moral Animal, I did start to wonder if there was a way to operationalize the truth--a way to put the actual, scientific truth about human nature and the human condition into a form that would not just identify and explain the illusions we labor under but would also help us liberate ourselves from them. I started wondering if this Western Buddhism I was hearing about might be that way. Maybe many of the Buddha's teachings were saying essentially the same thing modern psychological science says. And maybe meditation was in large part a different way of appreciating these truths--and, in addition, a way of actually doing something about them. So in August 2003 I headed to rural Massachusetts for my first silent meditation retreat--a whole week devoted to meditation and devoid of such distractions as email, news from the outside world, and speaking to other human beings. The Truth about Mindfulness You could be excused for doubting that a retreat like this would yield anything very dramatic or profound. The retreat was, broadly speaking, in the tradition of "mindfulness meditation," the kind of meditation that was starting to catch on in the West and that in the years since has gone mainstream. As commonly described, mindfulness--the thing mindfulness meditation aims to cultivate--isn't very deep or exotic. To live mindfully is to pay attention to, to be "mindful of" what's happening in the here and now and to experience it in a clear, direct way, unclouded by various mental obfuscations. Stop and smell the roses. This is an accurate description of mindfulness as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far. "Mindfulness," as popularly conceived, is just the beginning of mindfulness. And it's in some ways a misleading beginning. If you delve into ancient Buddhist writings, you won't find a lot of exhortations to stop and smell the roses--and that's true even if you focus on those writings that feature the word sati, the word that's translated as "mindfulness." Indeed, sometimes these writings seem to carry a very different message. The ancient Buddhist text known as The Four Foundations of Mindfulness--the closest thing there is to a Bible of Mindfulness--reminds us that our bodies are "full of various kinds of unclean things" and instructs us to meditate on such bodily ingredients as "feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine." It also calls for us to imagine our bodies "one day, two days, three days dead--bloated, livid, and festering." I'm not aware of any bestselling books on mindfulness meditation called Stop and Smell the Feces. And I've never heard a meditation teacher recommend that I meditate on my bile, phlegm, and pus or on the rotting corpse that I will someday be. What is presented today as an ancient meditative tradition is actually a selective rendering of an ancient meditative tradition, in some cases carefully manicured. There's no scandal here. There's nothing wrong with modern interpreters of Buddhism being selective--even, sometimes, creative--in what they present as Buddhism. All spiritual traditions evolve, adapting to time and place, and the Buddhist teachings that find an audience today in the United States and Europe are a product of such evolution. The main thing, for our purposes, is that this evolution--the evolution that has produced a distinctively Western, twenty-first-century version of Buddhism--hasn't severed the connection between current practice and ancient thought. Modern mindfulness meditation isn't exactly the same as ancient mindfulness meditation, but the two share a common philosophical foundation. If you follow the underlying logic of either of them far enough, you will find a dramatic claim: that we are, metaphorically speaking, living in the Matrix. However mundane mindfulness meditation may sometimes sound, it is a practice that, if pursued rigorously, can let you see what Morpheus says the red pill will let you see. Namely, "how deep the rabbit hole goes." On that first meditation retreat, I had some pretty powerful experiences--powerful enough to make me want to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So I read more about Buddhist philosophy, and talked to experts on Buddhism, and eventually went on more meditation retreats, and established a daily meditation practice. All of this made it clearer to me why The Matrix had come to be known as a "dharma movie." Though evolutionary psychology had already convinced me that people are by nature pretty deluded, Buddhism, it turned out, painted an even more dramatic picture. In the Buddhist view, the delusion touches everyday perceptions and thoughts in ways subtler and more pervasive than I had imagined. And in ways that made sense to me. In other words, this kind of delusion, it seemed to me, could be explained as the natural product of a brain that had been engineered by natural selection. The more I looked into Buddhism, the more radical it seemed, but the more I examined it in the light of modern psychology, the more plausible it seemed. The real-life Matrix, the one in which we're actually embedded, came to seem more like the one in the movie--not quite as mind-bending, maybe, but profoundly deceiving and ultimately oppressive, and something that humanity urgently needs to escape. The good news is the other thing I came to believe: if you want to escape from the Matrix, Buddhist practice and philosophy offer powerful hope. Buddhism isn't alone in this promise. There are other spiritual traditions that address the human predicament with insight and wisdom. But Buddhist meditation, along with its underlying philosophy, addresses that predicament in a strikingly direct and comprehensive way. Buddhism offers an explicit diagnosis of the problem and a cure. And the cure, when it works, brings not just happiness but clarity of vision: the actual truth about things, or at least something way, way closer to that than our everyday view of them. Some people who have taken up meditation in recent years have done so for essentially therapeutic reasons. They practice mindfulness-based stress reduction or focus on some specific personal problem. They may have no idea that the kind of meditation they're practicing can be a deeply spiritual endeavor and can transform their view of the world. They are, without knowing it, near the threshold of a basic choice, a choice that only they can make. As Morpheus says to Neo, "I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it." This book is an attempt to show people the door, give them some idea of what lies beyond it, and explain, from a scientific standpoint, why what lies beyond it has a stronger claim to being real than the world they're familiar with. I . This and all subsequent daggers refer to elaborative notes that can be found in the Notes section at the end of the book. Excerpted from Why Buddhism Is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment by Robert Wright All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

Table of Contents

A Note to Readersp. xi
1 Taking the Red Pillp. 1
2 Paradoxes of Meditationp. 15
3 When Are Feelings Illusions?p. 27
4 Bliss, Ecstasy, and More Important Reasons to Meditatep. 44
5 The Alleged Nonexistence of Your Selfp. 58
6 Your CEO Is MIAp. 75
7 The Mental Modules That Run Your Lifep. 91
8 How Thoughts Think Themselvesp. 105
9 "Self" Controlp. 121
10 Encounters with the Formlessp. 142
11 The Upside of Emptinessp. 153
12 A Weedless Worldp. 172
13 Like, Wow, Everything Is One (at Most)p. 193
14 Nirvana in a Nutshellp. 215
15 Is Enlightenment Enlightening?p. 225
16 Meditation and the Unseen Orderp. 246
Appendix: A List of Buddhist Truthsp. 269
A Note on Terminologyp. 277
Acknowledgmentsp. 279
Notesp. 283
Bibliographyp. 303
Indexp. 313