If there is one matter upon which we the people can currently agree, it is that our society is deeply divided. Culturally, politically, and even spiritually, we are as polarized as we’ve ever been. Those who would remedy this situation, such as the Stanford Polarization and Social Change Lab (PASCL), have proposed interpersonal communication as the primary path to reconciliation. By talking honestly with each other, rather than retreating into our ideological bunkers, so the theory goes, we can correct our misperceptions and unwarranted assumptions and restore our common ground.
Perhaps so. But from the standpoint of Zen Buddhist teachings, the first step toward cultural healing may well be intra- rather than interpersonal in nature. In the Buddhist tradition, fixed ideas and strongly held opinions are known collectively as “views.” And “attachment to views,” as it is called, is seen as one of the root causes of suffering. By clinging fiercely to our views, we inflict suffering upon ourselves and everyone around us. Conversely, by loosening our attachment to our views, chiefly through meditative practice, we can relieve our personal suffering and do our part to heal our afflicted culture. In Judeo-Christian terms, we can learn once again to love our neighbors.
As a practical means of accomplishing this purpose, contemporary Zen teachers sometimes invoke an ancient method known as the tetralemma, or the Fourfold Understanding. A creation of the second-century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, this method consists of four opposing “positions,” or propositions, each of them offering a distinct perspective on a common issue. Entertained in sequence, these four positions effectively cancel each other out, even as they release the practitioner from attachment to any one perspective.
By way of illustration, consider the proposition, “I am a kind person.” If you wish to apply this description to yourself, feel free to substitute your adjective of choice. (“I am a generous person”; “I am an awful person”). Having stated this opening proposition, take a few minutes to develop it as you might any other general assertion, summoning concrete examples from your experience. Include, if you so desire, others’ perceptions of your character and actions.
Now proceed to the second, opposing position, namely, “I am not a kind person.” Once again, summon concrete evidence from your experience, this time selecting incidents, situations, and actions that exemplify your fundamental lack of kindness, whether toward yourself or other people. Here again you might include the perceptions of longtime friends and acquaintances who have perceived you as less than kind.
Now move on to the third position: “I am both a kind person and not a kind person.” To support this seemingly self-contradictory proposition, recall two contrasting episodes from different times in your life, or perhaps from a single day, which together demonstrate that sometimes you have been kind and sometimes you have not. You might also include episodes in which kind, well-intended actions resulted in harmful outcomes. For example, you might have shown leniency in disciplining a son or daughter, only to discover that you have supported anti-social and even violent behavior.
Now move on to the fourth position: “I am neither a kind person nor an unkind person.” Just as you made the case for regarding yourself as kind or not kind, or both, now make the case for rejecting those categories altogether. View them as constructs, useful when mounting arguments perhaps but inadequate and inaccurate as descriptions of reality. At the same time, note whether the impulses you are feeling in the present moment are kind or unkind, or both—or something else entirely. And feel, if you can, the sense of release from abstract conceptual thinking.
The practice of the Fourfold Understanding, as illustrated by the foregoing example, can be applied to any proposition or set of assumptions, whether the context be moral, political, or spiritual. For those entrusted with making important decisions, this four-part method has sometimes proved helpful, insofar as it has enabled the decision-maker to weigh multiple points of view before arriving at a conclusion. For my own part, I have found the tetralemma liberating as well as illuminating, both as a meditative practice and as a way of thinking through complex problems. And, rather than weaken my long-standing moral, aesthetic, and political convictions, as once I feared it might do, I have found its effect quite the opposite. Over time, the practice has allowed me to see those convictions in a clearer and more nuanced light, even as it has revealed their provisional nature. Whether the Fourfold Understanding, if widely practiced, might also contribute to the curing of our social ills or the reunification of our divided culture remains an open question. But in the true spirit of the tetralemma, I offer that assertion here as an opening proposition.
For contemporary discussions of the tetralemma, see Christian Dillo’s The Path of Aliveness (Shambhala, 2022), pp. 190-194, and Tim Burkett’s Enlightenment is an Accident (Shambhala, 2023), pp. 142-146.
Leave a comment