[dadawg911]

The Skinnerian model of human behavior categorizes all environmental phenomena as having a deterministic / statistical effect upon the organism that is one-sided (i.e. all stimuli impose themselves directly upon the organism) — this explains some of Skinner’s works like Walden Two (where he posits an ideal utopian world / society that would be achieved through behavioral engineering).

I understand that if we adopt the Skinnerian view of phenomena, there would ultimately never be an escape (nissaraṇa) from Saṃsāra, as we would then be always totally helpless and at the mercy of every single last thing that would ever contact our sense bases. It would mean that anything attractive/unattractive would totally override any remote sense of possibility of free will on our part.

Perhaps, (well this might be anachronistic but) The Buddha was aware of this problem many centuries earlier, and made an explicit distinction between these two things (which Behaviorism misses):

• External rūpa (physical phenomena)

• Experienced rūpa (phenomenal perception)

In order for the organism or human being to even have the ability or power to break free from the cycle, there must be some step within the loop itself, that allows some space for some agency to “go against the stream” (paṭisotaṃ).

I’m assuming that what happened with 20th/21st century psychology and neurocognitive science, is that they have all experienced these things at their “default rate” so to speak (i.e. very very fast) and have come to the conclusion that the objects themselves must be the things which are “containing” the pleasure so to speak. Whereas the Buddha experienced them distinctly at each step, without assuming the entire thing was one “blur” or a monolithic sort of blob.

What is then the earliest stage at which the individual begins to be ethically responsible for the reaction beyond the mere cognitive-recognition stage (i.e. the Arahant still recognizes a beautiful woman but it stops short before Assāda – the puthujjjana goes beyond that stage)? Is there more or less karmic debt depending on how far somebody is already conditioned to that particular thing (i.e. serious drug addictions)? I suppose that last question though is maybe more of an Existential one than anything (it is horrifying to think that some individuals may reach such a “momentum” through prior actions that their fates become sealed).

[Lal]

1. B.F. Skinner’s Skinnerian view of phenomena is rooted in radical behaviorism, the idea that psychology should study only observable behaviors and their environmental consequences, rejecting the study of internal mental states such as thoughts, feelings, or motivations. 

• The following video provides an introduction for those who are not familiar with his ideas.

2. At a superficial level, Skinner’s ideas are compatible with the teachings of the Buddha. However, as stated above, he seems to have rejected the study of internal mental states such as thoughts, feelings, or motivations. 

• B.F.Skinner based his conclusions on the behavior of animals under rewards and punishments.  
• Recent studies by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz extend such examinations to humans. See “How Habits are Formed and Broken – A Scientific View.”
• Also see “The Law of Attraction, Habits, Character (Gati), and Cravings (Āsavas)“ and “Habits, Goals, and Character (Gati)“

3. Buddha’s teachings go deeper into the root causes of such behavior. 

• Internal mental states, such as thoughts, feelings, or motivations, underlie one’s actions, speech, and conduct in general. 
• The studies of Skinner and Schwartz consider only the influence of one’s environment on one’s behavior. Those do play a significant role. However, until one’s mental states are changed permanently, such changes are temporary. 
• For example, a child brought up to be a ‘good, moral person’ in a ‘moral family’ could start associating with immoral people and change, or vice versa. 
• In other words, one’s character (gati, pronounced ‘gathi’) must be changed permanently for such changes to take hold.

We can continue the discussion, based on your thoughts after you read the references in #2.

[dadawg911]

A general progression of Skinnerian habit-formation (some overlap with Buddhism, possibly?)

Biological Variation (individual-organismal-differences)
+ environmental reinforcement (friends, family, upbringing, etc)
+ contextual stimuli (the same stimuli can occur in infinitely many contexts)
+ motivational states (the particular “mood” in which stimuli are encountered)

habit formation (gati?)

But Gati appears itself to always simply be a product of “some-prior-behavior” – does that mean that all habits or even likings or dislikings are themselves arbitrary? That would explain why it’s possible for Gati to change for the better or for the worse, I think (rather than being “locked in” or “hard-coded” so to speak into the individual).

[Lal]

1. Yes. Skinnerian habit-formation overlaps with Buddhism at a superficial level.

• It is now well established that animal behavior can change drastically. K-9 units of police departments have well-trained dogs, for example.

2. Biological Variation (individual-organismal-differences):

• Lower animals (worms, birds, etc.) hardly change their behavior in specific ways. They all act the same way.
• Higher animals with somewhat developed brains (dogs, chimpanzees, etc.) can be trained to change their gati. 
• But, in general, animals cannot change their gati drastically. They live their whole existence within the main types of gati they are born with. 

3. However, a human can change their gati drastically. Some live like animals and then are subsequently born in that specific animal realm. Those who engage in vicious acts are likely to be born as lions or tigers. Those who live moral lives and help others are likely to be reborn as humans or Devas. There are many possibilities; see #4 below.

• Humans are easily influenced, especially in the early years. We can clearly see that in society. 
• One carries gati to this life from the previous life. Consider a human who has more time in their life at the time of death. They live in the gandhabba state (with only the mental body) until they can enter a ‘suitable womb’ where the gati of the parents are similar to that they had in the previous life with a physical body.
• See, for example, “Buddhist Explanations of Conception, Abortion, and Contraception,” “Cloning and Gandhabba,” “Gati to Bhava to Jāti – Ours to Control,” “Gati and Bhava – Many Varieties.“

4. This is a subject that can be discussed in great detail. See, for example, “Cuti and Marana – Related to Bhava and Jāti.” The following is from that post.

“2. The Buddha divided all existences into five main categories based on predominant gati. The “Gati Sutta (AN 9.68)” lists those five main categories: Hell (niraya), the animal realm (tiracchāna), the hungry ghost realm (peta), humans (manussa), and Deva. Many suttas (including Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) sometimes lump the Devās in the six Deva realms and Brahmās in 20 Brahma realms into one category as Devās.

• When a lifestream is in a specific existence, it will predominantly have the gati associated with that realm. While in the Deva realms, that living being mainly displays “Deva gati.”  For example, Devās in the lower six realms still crave sensual pleasures, i.e., kama raga. Brahmās in the higher 20 realms don’t have cravings for sensual pleasures. But neither will engage in akusala kamma during their life as Deva/Brahma.
• A lifestream in a niraya realm will have the gati of a “hell being.” During such an existence, no pleasant thoughts arise; rather, a painful, angry mindset persists. This bhava has dosa (extreme anger/hate) as the base; of course, moha is there, too.
• In the hungry ghost (peta) realm, the mindset (gati) will be that of one constantly in hunger pangs. This gati is based on lobha (extreme greed) and moha.
• The animal realm has “all three defiled gati,” i.e., lobha, dosa, and moha.”

5. More related posts in “Gati, Bhava, and Jāti.”

[Author]

Posts