Hide table of contents

In July of 2019 I made a series of posts in the Buddhists in EA Facebook group connecting Buddhist teachings on the paramitas (perfections) to EA. I decided to collect them together and post them here for a wider audience to give you a taste of the kind of alignment I think can exist between EA and Buddhism.

These were relatively low-effort posts I made to help get the group started, so please excuse their lack of polish and the awkward turns-of-phrase I didn't edit away. A certain amount of interpretation is involved here, so understand that this reflects my understanding of Buddhists teachings as they have been conveyed to me and there may be other reasonable interpretations by Buddhists practicing in other lineages. Further, in the interest of getting this shared ever rather than never, I've only lightly edited the posts together and left them mostly as-is, so non-Buddhists may find it necessary to do some searching to make sense of some of this, although I've tried to add a few links to add helpful context.

Introduction

This is a series of brief posts on how the paramitas intersect with EA.

I'm thinking about this because I'm reading my former teacher's new book, Deep Hope, about the (Mahayana) paramitas. So as I finish each chapter I'll reflect a little here on how each paramita relates to EA.

Dana

The first paramita the book explores is dana. This seems like maybe the easiest to relate to EA, since dana is often translated as "charity". Dana asks us to be open to give and receive, to consider all living beings, to have the courage to give all that we can, and to hold nothing back out of selfishness or ill-will. This paramita asks us to act on our compassion, and to accept the compassion of others in turn.

And this brings up an interesting point. EA focuses a lot on giving, but not as much on receiving. There has been some thinking about this in terms of sustaining our ability to give, but it's often apologetic that we must care for ourselves to give more and focused on the ends of giving rather than the practice of it. I think dana has a lot to teach us in EA about what giving and receiving is deeply about, and how we can engage with it as part of a complete practice of caring for all.

Shila

The second paramita explored in Deep Hope is shila. There's no direct translation of shila into English, just like there's not an exact translation of dana, but I think both "skillful action" and "virtue" capture it best, or if we want to go out on a limb, maybe we could translate it as "effectiveness".

The "effective" in "effective altruism", initially conceived within a consequentialist framework, is originally about driving towards actions that actually do what you intend. But as Buddhists I think we can understand "effective" in a broader context where we often don't know exactly what the consequences of our actions will be, and so we can instead turn to the virtues we may take as vows in the precepts and our development of skillfulness at navigating karma (cause and effect) as we accumulate experience with the world.

We often speak of "skillful means", the careful actions we take to effect change in the world without unintended consequences, recognizing that even at our most skillful we can still cause harm because even at our most awake we are finite beings. And this seems to me a healthy way to approach effectiveness with our altruism. The powerful optimizing tendency within the EA community can sometimes leave out what is important, and an important way we can extend our practice into EA spaces is to bring careful consideration of whether or not our attempts to make things better might accidentally make things worse.

So the next time you think about how to do the most good, consider how you might accidentally do so much good you make other things worse. In this we can honor the wisdom of shila.

Kshanti

Today we look at the paramita of kshanti.

Once again we get a paramita with a hard to translate name, "kshanti". We could render this as patience, forbearance, tolerance, or even endurance or fortitude. None of those words quite get at it, though, because they are all either too passive or too active. Kshanti lies somewhere in the middle, resting just enough in quiet forbearance that we don't react unskillfully, but not so quiet that we let suffering come into the world through our inaction.

I think we encounter kshanti mostly strongly in EA in its dedication to research and willingness to remain skeptical. It's tempting to jump to action when there is suffering or waste or risk that we can do something about right now, but that something might not skillfully move us in the right direction. We need to have the patience to put in the work to think, reason, and discuss before taking action, but to also not think, reason, and discuss so long that we unnecessarily delay ourselves. It's a careful balance between too much haste and not enough, and kshanti invites us to find it.

Virya

The next paramita we'll consider is virya, or effort.

We should understand virya not to be about trying or working hard, but instead about giving things your all. Whole-hearted effort is a good way to describe virya. It's a simple getting on with things because they are what is to be done.

The obvious relationship to EA is the simply getting on with the work of EA and not getting distracted by other things. Doing the most good often means working hard, especially for those people on-the-ground doing direct work.

The less obvious relationship is in how we approach our EA work. Within EA there can be folks who get obsessed with personal efficiency, scrupulosity, or otherwise become hyper-concerned with always doing the most good and never leaving room for themselves. Virya invites us to consider whether or not that is helpful effort, or if that is a self-centered attachment to doing more than we really can. Effort applied that is not mindful of the conditions in which it is being applied and that tries to ignore reality as it is leads to more suffering even as it may yield good things.

Right effort demands we harmonize what we think needs to be done with what is really "needed". When we give up our preconceptions of what we or others "need", we may find ways forward that allow us to simply get on with doing good in a way that honors others and ourselves.

Dhyana

We now come to what seems one of the hardest paramitas to connect to EA, dhyana, or meditation.

As a Westerner who grew up in a secular Protestant household, meditation seemed to be the essence of Buddhist practice, and I think it continues to look that way in the West. Before I learned to meditate, it seemed like some weird, mystical, special thing that people did, and I wasn't "spiritual" enough to be part of that. But eventually I first trusted and then discovered for myself that it was nothing other than getting back to the fundamental way of being we are all born into and forget how to notice we are always already in. Through many different skillful means, we can come to have knowledge of our Buddha nature via dhyana.

So what could that possibly have to do with EA? I admit, it seems a stretch, but I think there is something about meditation that really pulls all of paramitas together and we can extend that aspect of it to EA. As EAs we may or may not practice meditation, but as EAs we are all somehow involved in altruistic works, and through performing those works we manifest our altruism, skill, patience, effort, and wisdom (we'll talk about prajna next time) into the world, just as meditation allows us to manifest the other paramitas all at once together for the benefit of ourselves and others. Whether that work is direct action, research, community building, learning, or simply caring, it's a chance for us to express all that we are for the betterment of others.

So treat your work altruistic work as meditation, and see how it affects your effectiveness. I think you'll be satisfied with the results.

Prajna

At last we come to the sixth and final paramita, prajna, translated as "wisdom" or "seeing clearly".

A lot can and has been said about prajna because, while it's simple, it's very hard to grasp because our minds have, through the conditioning of our lives, become distanced from it. Simply put, prajna asks us to see the world as it is, to see that it is just this. Talk of form, emptiness, non-duality, and the rest are ways to point at and talk around, though, something that can only be directly experienced. Prajna is ultimately something you feel down to the depth of your being.

I think there is a clear link here to the "effective" aspect of effective altruism. In seeking to be effective, we need to see clearly enough to both know that we are being effective and to know what would work. This cannot be done if we are deluded by our opinions, judgements, and conceptions. Even, ultimately, thinking we know something can be a threat to effectiveness. Remaining epistemically humble, being open to new ideas, and always questioning if we're really doing the most good given our resources are expressions of the deep wisdom of seeing the world as it is and knowing that any attempt to interact with it using our finite being will always leave something out. We must ever try to see more clearly, a horizon to approach that we can never reach, if we wish to be as effective as we can.

That concludes this series of posts, as I both finished the book (Deep Hope) and we're out of paramitas.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Community
20
John Salter
· · 2m read