{"id":140143,"date":"2025-01-27T08:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-01-27T12:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=140143"},"modified":"2025-01-27T14:37:23","modified_gmt":"2025-01-27T18:37:23","slug":"why-buddhism-is-true-robert-wright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/why-buddhism-is-true-robert-wright\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Buddhism Is True by Robin Wright: Book Overview"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What’s the book Why Buddhism Is True <\/em>about? Do science and Buddhism share similar worldviews?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Why Buddhism Is True<\/em>, Robert Wright draws on his experience as both a science journalist and meditator to show that modern evolutionary science supports Buddhism’s core insights about the human condition. Wright explains how evolution shaped us to be chronically dissatisfied<\/a>, how this leads us to misperceive reality, and how mindfulness meditation<\/a> offers a solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read more in our brief overview of Why Buddhism Is True<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Overview of Why Buddhism Is True<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In Why Buddhism Is True<\/em><\/a>, Robert Wright argues that modern evolutionary science supports Buddhism’s core insights into the human condition. And in addition to having a valid theory, Buddhism provides an effective practice\u2014mindfulness meditation\u2014that can help us become happier, wiser, and more moral if we make it a small daily habit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking beyond these benefits for individuals, Wright also contends that Buddhist-inspired mindfulness could help bring about a widespread transformation in human awareness. Such a shift, he holds, must happen if we\u2019re to overcome major global issues, like war, and avoid squandering billions of years of life\u2019s evolutionary progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wright, an award-winning journalist who\u2019s lectured at Princeton and Penn State, bases his arguments on multiple sources. These include interviews with expert meditators, Buddhist scriptures, and his experience meditating daily and attending intensive meditation retreats. He also references his prior research and writing about evolutionary science and morality (The Moral Animal<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Nonzero<\/em><\/a>). His writing focuses on Buddhist philosophy and psychology rather than its mythical elements, like belief in reincarnation or gods and demons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Problem: Our Basic Nature<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

To begin, we\u2019ll lay out Wright\u2019s assertion that the Buddhist concepts of dukkha<\/em> (suffering) and tanha<\/em> (craving) offer an accurate view of the human condition. Next, we\u2019ll tell how, according to Wright, modern science supports these ideas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buddhism\u2019s Claim: Life Is Unsatisfying<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Wright explains that the first of Buddhism\u2019s \u201cFour Noble Truths\u201d is <\/strong>dukkha<\/em><\/strong>: the idea that life is chronically unsatisfying<\/strong>. Though it often gets translated as \u201csuffering,\u201d Wright says that dukkha refers not only to obvious, significant suffering like profound grief but also to the subtle state of dissatisfaction we all tend to live in. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key to understanding this subtler degree of dukkha lies in a second Buddhist idea, tanha<\/em>. Roughly put, tanha means craving. We’re constantly craving something\u2014whether it\u2019s the simple pleasure of a good meal, the achievement of a long-held dream, or simply a shift away from some unpleasant state or experience. This repetitive cycle of desire<\/a> and temporary fulfillment keeps us perpetually unsatisfied, always reaching for the next thing we believe will make us happy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Scientific Support: We Evolved to Crave Things<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

To argue in support of these ideas, Wright turns to evolutionary science. He says that early on, simple organisms<\/a> evolved to use feelings to distinguish between what was good or bad for their survival and reproduction.<\/strong> If something felt good, they moved toward it. If something felt bad, they moved away from it. Organisms that navigated in this way survived and passed on their genes\u2014an example of the process called natural selection<\/a><\/em>. So, over generations, life evolved to use pleasure and pain as signals for what to do and not do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, all living creatures rely on this basic distinction between positive and negative feelings to navigate their environments. Like any other species, humans have inherited billions of years\u2019 worth of learned judgments, which we experience as feelings. These feelings tell us what\u2019s good or bad for us according to natural selection. For instance, we each know instinctively not to mess around with large snakes or drink too much salt water, both of which could kill us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So these basic drives\u2014to pursue pleasure or escape pain\u2014helped us survive, reproduce, and evolve. But how do they explain why dukkha and tanha are true? Wright puts it like this: While we evolved to navigate based on feeling, we also evolved for those feelings to end.<\/strong> For instance, if the pleasure you felt after eating a good meal never ended, you\u2019d never crave food again, so you\u2019d starve.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means that we\u2019re always on the lookout for the next reward or threat. Modern studies support this, suggesting that our brains release more dopamine\u2014a chemical associated with pleasure and reward\u2014in anticipation<\/em> of a reward compared to when we actually receive<\/em> it. This neurological response keeps us perpetually chasing the next hit of pleasure, going in a loop that psychologists call the hedonic treadmill<\/a><\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Buddhist terms, this perpetual chase could be called tanha (craving). As Wright puts it, the scientific and Buddhist perspectives complement each other: Buddhism points out that<\/em> we\u2019re driven by craving, and evolutionary science explains why<\/em>. Take them together and the picture becomes clear\u2014living means craving, and craving means dissatisfaction<\/strong>. Thus, Wright asserts, Buddhism\u2019s description of the human condition is true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question then becomes: If craving and dissatisfaction form our basic nature, is there anything we can do about it? In the next two sections, we\u2019ll explain how, according to Wright, both Buddhist theory and practice offer a way out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Explanation: Our Clouded View<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Now that we\u2019ve described how Buddhism and evolutionary science agree about the human condition, we\u2019ll next explain how Buddhist theory resolves this problem. Specifically, we\u2019ll detail Wright\u2019s explanations of no-self (anatta<\/a><\/em>) and emptiness (sunyata<\/em>), and we\u2019ll tell how they dovetail with evolutionary science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buddhism\u2019s Claim: We Don\u2019t See Clearly<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

If we\u2019re always craving something and therefore always unsatisfied, why can’t we just snap out of it? Wright says that Buddhism offers the answer: We’re stuck in this cycle because we don’t see clearly; our understanding of ourselves and the world is clouded by subtle illusions.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Clouded View Within<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Let’s start with how we view ourselves. Here, Buddhism presents the idea of anatta<\/em>, translated as “no-self.” As Wright explains, this is the claim that what you conventionally think of as your \u201cself\u201d doesn\u2019t have inherent existence<\/strong>. In other words, your self\u2014the seemingly distinct person you identify as\u2014is less concrete and permanent than you think. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anatta doesn’t mean you don’t exist at all, though. To clarify, Wright references two Buddhist discourses (the Buddha\u2019s ancient oral teachings).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the first, the Buddha<\/a> asks his followers to look for their selves in each of the five aggregates<\/em> (form, sensation, perception, mental activity, and consciousness), which in Buddhism constitute all of experience. He says that the self must be something permanent but that each of these aspects of experience is transient. Therefore, none of them are the self. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the other discourse, Wright says, the Buddha uses the analogy of a king and his kingdom. Saying that the self must be something in your control, he points out that you don\u2019t control your experience the way a king controls his kingdom: You can\u2019t pick and choose your feelings, sensations, or the activities of any <\/em>of the five aggregates. Therefore, your self can\u2019t be found in them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wright affirms this reasoning, saying that from a common sense<\/a> point of view, it makes sense that the self should be something permanent and in control. The takeaway is that in the Buddhist view, your \u201cself\u201d can\u2019t be found in any aspect of your experience.<\/strong> And in believing that we are such selves, we see unclearly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Clouded View Without<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Next, let\u2019s look at how we view the world. According to Wright, Buddhists say that reality lacks inherent existence\u2014that it doesn\u2019t exist as we conventionally think it does<\/strong>. This is the idea of sunyata<\/em>, or emptiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To clarify what emptiness means, Wright refers to the idea of interdependent arising<\/em>, another Buddhist concept that boils down to the idea that everything is inextricably interconnected.<\/em> Think of a tree\u2014it seems like a distinct, independent thing. But it wouldn\u2019t exist without soil, water, and sunlight, or without the complex web of microorganisms in its roots and the forest around it. In other words, the tree exists only in relation to everything around it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buddhists, Wright says, take this interconnectedness to mean that any seemingly distinct form (a tree, a house, a self) is “empty” of inherent existence<\/strong>. Since nothing can stand on its own, no \u201cthing\u201d is really there. So in thinking that the world around us is made up of distinct things, we see unclearly. The world of \u201cthings\u201d isn\u2019t really there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Scientific Support: The Self and the World Aren\u2019t as They Seem<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

According to Wright, there\u2019s ample scientific support for these ancient, counterintuitive claims. Work from psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy help explain how they\u2019re true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our Selves Aren\u2019t as They Seem<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

First, Wright argues that the principle of no-self dovetails neatly with <\/strong>the modular theory of mind<\/a><\/em><\/strong>,<\/strong> an idea in cognitive science that\u2019s become influential in recent decades. It holds that our thoughts and behaviors arise from the activity of various mental \u201cmodules,\u201d or interconnected groups of brain areas that work together. Each module has its own agenda, such as courting mates or finding food, and they constantly compete for control of our actions. In this view, our thoughts arise spontaneously, driven by feeling\u2014we don\u2019t consciously choose them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think about the last time you tried to resist a temptation, like a basket of french fries. It can feel like there are two “yous” in conflict\u2014one wants the fries, and the other wants to avoid unhealthy food. This internal tug-of-war makes more sense if you think of yourself not as a single cohesive \u201cself,\u201d but rather as a collection of competing impulses and desires. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Wright, modular mind theorists also say that we\u2019re mistaken in thinking that we\u2019re consciously in charge of our thinking, feeling, and acting. In the modular view, your conscious self is less of a chief and more of a mediator. It \u201chears\u201d the arguments from different parts of you, but it doesn\u2019t make the decision in the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So why have consciousness at all, then? Wright says the leading hypothesis is that consciousness functions as a sort of spokesperson for your multiple inner modules<\/strong>. Evolutionarily, it would\u2019ve been useful to present a coherent self to the world\u2014if you seemed consistent and reliable, you\u2019d have been more socially accepted. You therefore would\u2019ve had better chances of surviving and reproducing. Consciousness helps you do this by rationalizing your decisions, regardless of what module wins, and making it feel<\/em> like you\u2019re one coherent self. Believing that, you can then present a consistent character to the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Wright, these scientific theories validate the principle of no-self. Like Buddhism, they say that our selves are far less concrete, permanent, or under control than we think. And where Buddhism doesn\u2019t provide rigorous, empirical evidence, science does. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The World Isn\u2019t as it Seems<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Next, Wright explains that the idea of emptiness squares well with modern understandings of perception. He writes that today, scientists say that perception isn\u2019t passive but active\u2014that our brains construct the world we experience at least as much as we receive it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put another way, we all project our preconceived thoughts and feelings\u2014the stories we tell ourselves about how things are\u2014onto the world<\/strong>. Here\u2019s how this works in the brain: When you come across something, like a dog, one brain region<\/a> (the thalamus) receives sensory data (like the dog\u2019s appearance and the sound of its bark). Another brain region (the medial orbitofrontal cortex or mOFC) combines those data with your preconceived stories about that thing. Together, they form your perception of the dog, but your preconceptions take priority. For instance, if you love dogs, you\u2019ll be inclined to enjoy their presence. Meanwhile, your friend who was attacked by one would find their presence threatening. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of our tendency to project our preconceived notions and feelings onto the world, everybody experiences things slightly differently. And it\u2019s not just strong thoughts and feelings<\/a> that shape our perception. According to Wright, we all have tons of subtle preconceptions and project them throughout our lives. Dogs, pens, cars, potholes, snow\u2014each is paired with subtle thoughts and feelings that shape how we experience and relate to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The takeaway is that like Buddhism, science says that none of us see the world as it really is. <\/strong>Because our projection happens beneath the level of our awareness, we believe our perceptions represent the world as it  really is. But the world as we see it isn\u2019t really there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Solution: Mindfulness Meditation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Up to this point, we’ve seen how Buddhism and modern science agree on some fundamental truths about human nature: We’re caught in a cycle of dissatisfaction, and it\u2019s largely because we don’t see reality. Wright says that although science validates this belief, it doesn\u2019t offer a solution. In contrast, Buddhism does: mindfulness meditation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mindfulness Can Improve Individual Live<\/strong>s<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Wright explains that mindfulness meditation, a practice from the Vipassana<\/a> tradition of Theravada Buddhism, involves observing your inner experience with greater objectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While you can practice observing thoughts, feelings, and much more, Wright argues that it\u2019s at the level of feeling that we most need to become mindful<\/strong>. This is because, as discussed above, feelings propel our thoughts and actions\u2014not the other way around. Science supports the idea that we should become mindful of our feelings: For instance, research suggests that paying mindful attention to the feeling<\/em> of the craving to smoke can be a more effective addiction treatment than medication or nicotine patches. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each time you mindfully observe a feeling that would typically drive you to action, you create space between that impulse and your response to it<\/strong>. Over time, you learn to step back from your feelings\u2014to watch them pass by from a newfound vantage point alongside your stream of consciousness. Having stepped out of that stream, you\u2019re less likely to get swept away by its contents. For example, you\u2019ll be less likely to give in to a compulsion to scroll through social media instead of staying focused, or a craving to binge another show rather than getting a good night\u2019s sleep. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this way, practicing mindfulness teaches you to respond, rather than react, to whatever comes along. And as Wright says, this has many benefits: It can help you change your habits, help you see your life more clearly, promote your happiness, and make you more moral. We\u2019ll detail each of these benefits below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mindfulness for Habit Change<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

According to Wright, mindfulness is an effective way to change your habits. <\/strong>He says that mental modules are like muscles\u2014they strengthen in response to repetition or weaken in response to disuse. So, to change your habits, reinforce or deplete modules by simply applying the above practice (step back from, observe, and let pass the feelings that drive an urge). If you want to reinforce a habit, mindfully choose to do so. Likewise, you can mindfully choose not to reinforce unconstructive modules. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, say you mindfully observe and let pass an urge to get angry at someone who insults you. By doing so, you\u2019ll weaken your \u201canger module\u201d by teaching it that anger isn\u2019t rewarding. At the same time, you\u2019ll strengthen your \u201cself-improvement\u201d module by practicing mindfulness and gaining the reward of releasing an unproductive impulse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wright says this approach works better than relying on willpower because resisting impulses doesn\u2019t allow them to pass. And if you\u2019re constantly straining against all sorts of habitual urges, you\u2019ll tire and break before long. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mindfulness for Clarity, Happiness, and Morality<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Wright also contends that mindfulness practice<\/a> has three key benefits\u2014clarity, happiness, and morality\u2014that reinforce one another<\/strong>. He suggests they interact like this: <\/p>\n\n\n\n