Comments
Vipassana and Effective Altruism: How meditation empowered me as an activist
9 min read ·
Thanks for writing this! Well written :)
I recently attended my third course and I echo the idea that Vipassana has made me a better activist (as well partner, friend, son, colleague, etc).
I like your recommendation to implement this at an organizational level. While it might not be practical for all orgs, I think it's a neat idea to incentivize attendance (with the understanding that Vipassana might not be for everyone — though neither is a Project Management online course).
I also think the EA community is overrepresented on having attended at least one Vipassana course, compared to the general population; but that's just a guess/speculation.
After practicing Vipassana for six years, I’ve found it to be transformative in several key areas of my life and activism. It has helped me mitigate bias by allowing me to observe my sensations without reacting blindly to them, leading to better decision-making. It has improved my relationships with fellow activists and given me a clearer, more truthful perspective on the world, which I now see as consisting of subjective experiences. Although I address some criticisms near the end of this post, I highly recommend trying Vipassana as a tool to improve one's effective activism and happiness.
I am far from deeply understanding the Vipassana tradition and the Buddhist Noble Truths. It could be that I am underrating or overrating the effect that Vipassana could have on the animal rights community.
I have been practicing Vipassana meditation for 6 years now, and it has had a significant influence on my activism. I tried different methods of meditation over the years but never really spent much time and effort on it until I went to a Vipassana course, as taught by S.N. Goenka, in 2018. Since then, I have completed 6 courses and practice approximately 4 hours a week (most of the time, with some breaks).
Vipassana meditation, as taught by Goenka, is a widespread meditation tradition practiced in centers all over the world. Its entry point and main yearly routine is a 10-day silent retreat, with meditation for ~10 hours a day, in a very strict regime where the focus is on learning the technique. This meditation emphasizes body sensations, claiming that our feelings and actions all derive from our reactions, with craving and aversion, to those pleasant or unpleasant physical sensations we have. The whole technique is based on becoming more sensitive to these sensations and not reacting to them but just observing, like a scientist watching an experiment. Quite uncommonly, this technique has been developed and taught (in recent generations) by laypeople, not monks. Its origins are in Theravada Buddhism, claiming its teachings come from Gautama Buddha.
The core principle of Effective Altruism is trying to logically and objectively look at the world and understand what interventions would cause the most good. Mitigating bias is a crucial part of this outlook, and we are all very much biased; by the information we've encountered in our lives, our misunderstanding of statistics, logical fallacies, and more. But perhaps the most fundamental bias stems from our likes and dislikes, cravings and aversions, as manifested in pleasant or unpleasant body sensations.
Let's assume I need to prioritize between two projects: one full of bureaucracy which I really hate, and another that sounds like fun 🙂. The EA way of mitigating this bias might involve techniques such as a Weighted Factor Model, usually an Excel sheet with lots of numbers. This is good, but we know it can only take you so far. You and I can trick ourselves into choosing what feels pleasant, whether by adjusting the weights of the factors, the numbers we assign, or in some other way, and my assumption is that we do this much more than we're willing to admit or are aware of. Moreover, we don't have time to do a weighted factor model for every decision, and sometimes the accumulation of many small tactical decisions turns out to be no less important than the big strategic ones (path vs. execution).
So how else can we mitigate this bias? This is where Vipassana comes in. I learned how to observe my physical sensations without reacting to them (or not as strongly as I did before), thereby decreasing their power and effect on me. Additionally, I became more aware of these sensations, which helps me rationally take them into account. I see Vipassana as a complementary way to mitigate bias, right alongside the numbers and formulas. I feel I need both.
A small example: Your co-worker said something really hurtful, making you feel they don't appreciate your current effort on the project. You feel your stomach ache, and you lash out, telling them it's none of their business to assess your work. That was probably not an effective way to handle the situation, and you were biased by your hurt, your unpleasant stomach sensations. If you were to observe them, maybe their power over you would decrease, and you would be more aware that they are causing your reaction, not some logical, cold cost-effective analysis of the situation. From cause prioritization to responding to a day-to-day email, it seems to me that awareness of body sensations can be a tremendous tool in mitigating bias.
This can also work the other way around! Vipassana meditators tend to be more alert about their sensations and may decide beforehand not to put themselves in situations that will trigger unpleasant sensations, such as the high-bureaucracy project. They tend to take better care of themselves, which can be a positive thing and decrease burnout, but can also lower their flexibility and make them work more for themselves than for the cause. Personally, I feel like I became more flexible; my array of legitimate possibilities, think about this as the Overton window of action, regulated by yourself, got wider. Yet, I think that it can also get narrower, depending on the person and how they try to use this Vipassana tool. This is a very profound question, but my guess is that generally, it's not always the case that Vipassana tends to shift the balance between taking care of yourself and taking care of others into the sweet spot where you both gain. Nevertheless, I personally feel I am a better activist with Vipassana, and I think this may be true for most people doing it.
What I learned from Vipassana made me look at Buddha as a statistician. He is practically telling me this: "Look, Ronen, you have ups and downs, shit happens, but your problem is your lack of internalization of one of the most basic principles of statistics: correlation is not necessarily causation. Get it? I know you wouldn't. Here's the thing: stuff you don't like happens to you, that person said something mean, this project was not successful, a friend died, and you feel bad, and you internalize that this is causation. Because all this stuff happens, you feel so, but actually, you are missing the mediator variable, which is the body sensations. Your reaction to them is the cause of your suffering”.
“So the project failed (this is the outside change) → unpleasant body sensations arise → you react to those sensations → you suffer. Your reactions and thoughts to the sensations only make them stronger, and you are caught in a loop. The misery comes from your reaction to the physical sensations, not the outside reality. If you internalize this understanding, you will be much better off”.
"OK, fine," I say, "but you do realize that throughout my whole life, 41 years, I have seen this correlation between external things and how they affect my internal state. It’s hard to imagine this is not actually causation. I’m feeling this right now while talking to you—I suffer because of this conversation and because I don’t really understand you".
"No, you suffer from your reaction to the sensations that arise in your body after I tell you something you don't want to hear", Buddha says in responce. "It is not because of my words; it is because of your reaction to the agitation in your body. If you realize this, your life could change for the better".
The word Vipassana means "to see things as they really are”. Practicing for years has made me look at the world much more as subjective experiences as opposed to objective realities, and I think it made me more compassionate and less discriminatory. It also made me think about what I see as a very destructive and poisonous feature of human language - describing subjective experiences as objective realities. I strive to be a lucidian, meaning someone who internalizes that there are only experiences. I am far from that, obviously, but Vipassana has brought me closer.
The most obvious and perhaps fastest impact of Vipassana on me was the improvement of my relationships with advocates in the community and people I work with. Observing the sensations makes me respond in a much more thoughtful way. I come from Israel, where about a decade ago we experienced very harsh infighting within the community, and I think if more people in the community were practicing Vipassana, the infighting would have been mitigated to some extent.
The Buddha and his followers speak of the liberation from suffering for all sentient beings, but this remains—at least in my limited understanding—an abstract thought, not a vision toward which a clear path is being carved. I think this is an important indicator of a problem or a missing piece. As it stands today, Buddhism is an elite religion that is only relevant to a tiny fraction of the sentient beings on Earth. As far as I can tell, and I might be wrong about this, Buddhism does not claim to have a real solution to the enormous suffering experienced by non-humans (particularly in the wild, i.e., wild animal suffering), and most of its followers are not actively pursuing a solution to this either.
"May all beings be happy" is chanted very frequently by Vipassana meditators, but what is the practical solution? Visionaries like the British philosopher David Pearce draw parallels between the Buddhist goal of ending suffering and his own "Hedonistic Imperative", which advocates for the use of biotechnology to eliminate suffering in all sentient beings. Compassion alone is insufficient to achieve this goal. Instead, he is promoting high-tech solutions, such as genetic engineering, neurotechnology, and other advanced scientific methods, as necessary to truly eradicate biological substrates of suffering.
My point is not that his specific solutions are right, but that he is trying to solve the biggest problem of suffering. Vipassana (or maybe Buddhism), as a system, as a philosophy, as a technique, as a way of life, is not. Its presumption is a path to free human animals, and although this can also tremendously help animals, I don't think it goes a step further to look at the big picture (as EA does), nor do its followers. One could say that strategically this is for the better that these teachings are staying, in some way, anthropocentric.
Generally speaking, I have the impression that Theravada (The Way of the Elders), which Vipassana is part of, is less activism-oriented, and Mahayana (the Great Vehicle) is more activism-oriented, as can be seen by their interpretation of concepts like bodhisattva - beings on the path towards liberation, who according to the Mahayana tradition may even postpone their own enlightenment in order to help others.
Goenka Vipassana is not for everyone, probably not for most people. It is long, very demanding and strict. Moreover, it is quite exclusive in the sense that, unlike other traditions which see the path to enlightenment as containing a combination of many techniques, Vipassana suggests that you should pick one and focus on that.
Some religious remnants are still left in this technique, which (to my limited understanding) are not based on experience and logic, such as believing in karma (a person's present circumstances arise as a result of their actions in this life and past lives).
My recommendation is to try Vipassana, as taught by Goenka, at least once. Although 10 days is a long time, it will probably be worth it, and even just one course can help (to some extent) mitigate biases, see the world in a more accurate way, and be calmer and happier, which is also not a bad thing in itself!
Another recommendation is at the organizational level. At Sentient, we continue paying workers while they attend a Vipassana course; we consider this an important form of professional training for activists, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier and more. Three of our workers or board members have done a Vipassana course since we initiated this policy. You can implement a similar policy in your organization, whether for Vipassana or any other meditation technique you find valuable for advocates. If we pay workers while they are participating in Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning practices, why not for meditation? Rest assured, it is not a retreat for rest or luxury, nor does it resemble a vacation. In the case of Goenka Vipassana, you are working intensely, waking up as early as 4:00 AM every day.
Vipassana meditation has helped me address three major questions: What is (by transforming how I perceive the world), what is good (at the emotional level), and how to achieve it (by reducing my biases). I believe that if we, as a movement, were to embrace meditation techniques more widely, it could increase our effectiveness.
Well said!
I agree on how vipassana can enhance activism and work capacity, and I can't emphasize the value of serving enough.
In reply to:
Buddhism does not claim to have a real solution to the enormous suffering experienced by non-humans (particularly in the wild, i.e., wild animal suffering), and most of its followers are not actively pursuing a solution to this either
Indeed, the meditation technique is based on the notion that suffering comes from reacting to sensations with desire or aversion. You might have heard in the courses, that Goenka says something like 'you are very fortunate to have a human life'. Humans have an advantage over animals for they can practice and liberate themselves, and no one else can liberate another. As you note when you speak of karma, this implies the idea of rebirth.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that Vipassana as an art of living is focused on an ethical way of living, and liberation of one's own suffering. Doing no harm or not killing is at the base of the technique. The purer the mind, the more aware and capable of non-harming others or acting for the benefit of others -human and non-humans. sila, samadhi and pana- each strengthen each other.
I actually appreciate from Vipassana that it doesn't promote universal solutions or prescribe how to act. I much prefer having a tool to improve each person's judgment and strengthen their minds, than a guide to act to 'save others'.
Thanks Laila! I agree that mediation should not be a guide how to act to 'save others'. But it should, optimally, create the willingness, the wanting, some vision maybe even, to act for others, including, and maybe especially, at the macro effective altruism level, where each one does what he thinks is best to reduce suffering in the world. and this, at the macro level, is missing, in my view.