Does A Starfish Have Buddha-Nature?

I had the good fortune to be raised on the coast, and have spent a good deal of my life beside, on, and in the sea. The incredible diversity of the marine environment has always fascinated me; I never tire of turning over stones and gazing into tide pools, every one full of intriguing new creatures.

But from toddlerhood, what has captivated me most are the lowest phyla. And of these, my decided favourite were the echinoderms. I loved sea cucumbers, sea urchins, and sand dollars, but most especially starfish, in all their myriad extraterrestrial forms.

At the risk of bathos, I believe they were my first Zen teachers.

Because starfish, like other faceless marine invertebrates, have no brain. Yet they get on just fine.

They move about, eat, reproduce, and apparently enjoy your typical animal lifestyle, all without hearing, seeing, or thinking.

Still, they have to experience their habitat on some level. They're highly active, constantly touching everything with thousands of tiny restless feet. They know light from dark, warm from cold, wet from dry. When I pried one from a piling and lifted it out of the water, it clearly knew something was up, demonstrating behaviours my species associates with animation and alarm.

But they were obviously incapable of grasping my nature. Those little translucent fingers must've telegraphed something on the subject, but the creature clearly had no idea what I looked like; the whole notion of visual appearance is foreign to organisms without sight. Or sound, so there goes that dimension, too.

Raised into the air and sun, every marine thing suddenly gone from tactile contact, it had to be completely bewildered; the simple displacement of a few feet having brought this limited being into a world so strange it literally had no idea how to proceed.

I used to think about this as a kid: that starfish, wholly competent and to all appearances supremely confident in their intended environment, were probably certain that everything in existence could be known by their tube feet and rudimentary photosensors. Growing older, meeting many more sea stars, it also occurred to me that "what can be known" to starfish must in places exceed "what can be known" by humans; their radically different neural network can't just fail to catalogue information that ours can; in some domains, it must also catalogue information ours can't.

Jump ahead several decades, and I've now tried and failed to read marine biology at university (chemistry proving one of the categories of information my neural net does not catalogue), to splash at length into the sea of Zen.

Where I'm reminded daily of starfish.

Because Zenners talk about perception a lot. And the lack of it. And the lack of perceiving our lack of perception. And the perception that we're perceiving perceptions that we can't perceive we can't perceive.

And then perceiving that.

Without perceiving it.

All of which I suspect starfish are too insightful to piddle with.

But my species is dead certain everything that can be perceived, we can perceive. With our so-so eyes, our so-so ears, and especially, our simply magnificent, climax-community brain.

It isn't belief. It's knowledge.

I run into it all the time. Near-death experience people. Atheists. Certainty addicts of one cant or the other. And those annoying "scientific mindset" people who can't even perceive science, let alone everything.

We are chronically, incurably ignorant of giant swathes of existence. Whole dimensions. Entire phenomena that we don't simply not see or feel, but indeed that our brains, constructed for seeing and feeling, can't even picture. The very existence of these characteristics of reality, we will never grasp.

Because we're starfish.

And I think if a human can grasp that, there's hope for that human.

Besides, now Pisaster ochraceus, the purple sea star of my own North Pacific, apparently hunts in packs.

You read that right. These echinoderms band together like wolves and pitch epic raids against terrified prey.

This fact was only recently discovered by the planet's most advanced species, by an amateur diver no less, who noticed something quizzical in footage he'd taken of a P. ochraceus colony off the coast of Oregon. Curious, he sped up the film, then watched in horror as a brainless swarm of purple and orange sci-fi monsters zoomed at great speed over the rocks and sand, implacably herding and finally engulfing their presumably screaming quarry under a heap of flailing rays and gnashing centre discs.

Starfish are not intellectually equipped to do that.

But these do.

Discursive Mind Kyôsaku

"We mustn’t forget that today’s science and culture have only developed out of the lowest levels of consciousness."

Sawaki Kōdō


(Photo of lotus pond in the Singpore ArtScience Museum courtesy of Dietmar Rabich and Wikimedia Commons.)

The Cul-de-Sac of Science

This week a Zen droogie slipped me The Philosophy Force Five vs the Scientismists, a terrific graphic essay by Existential Comics. In this gripping tale of superhero¹ derring-do, five ferocious female filosophers confront three uniformly male [c.f. “unsupported hypotheses”] cavaliers of positivist complacency.

They’re annoying, those guys. Furthermore, their boorish self-congratulation gains no evidentiary weight by their peremptory tone. (Incidentally, one of them does not bear a striking resemblance to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. So stop saying he does.)

All of which fired my interest, because Scientism is the third wheel, alongside Taoism and Buddhism, of an up-and-coming Western school of Zen that is highly influential here. It’s called “Secular Buddhism” and/or “Atheist Zen”. In it, Scientism replaces the traditional Confucianism, an equally ad hoc, if older and Asian, retrofit I’ve already lambasted elsewhere.

I’ll leave a full workup for another time, but for now I’d like to suggest that evidence-based religion makes as much sense as revealed science. Which we tried for centuries, and some – such as creationists – are still trying to make happen.

To borrow an argument The Philosophy Force Five literally kick down their adversaries' throats: “Science can only tell us how to effectively [sic] pursue a goal, but no experiment has ever told us what we should value.”

What they do not point out is that the latter is also much harder to discover, and requires a great deal more intellect, to say nothing of perseverance, self-control, and courage. Science is in fact not the most difficult brainwork we do, and our compulsion for herding our best and brightest into it may yet prove maladaptive. (Which is Scientismist for "suicidal".)

By my reckoning, intellect, perseverance, self-control, and courage are also the foundation blocks of Zen. Aren't they prerequisite to our much-ballyhooed "don't know mind"? This is one reason I’m suspicious of the anti-religious zealotry of many Western Zenners. Atheist Zen seems about as doable to me as Atheist Christianity.

Please note that I wish my Secular Buddhist brothers and sisters health and success, have no intention of obstructing their teachings or practice, and learn a great deal from the insight they share. My argument is purely theoretical. And theory has no objective existence. See? I told you I was listening.

But as I grow older I’m learning that the market value of the scientific method is greatly diminished by the moral and intellectual laziness of many who claim it – particularly the sarcasm they’ve made a tribal language. In clinical terms, science seems to have died the same death as religion: strangled by the undisciplined ego of its adherents.

I believe we’re now suffering the consequences of this global catastrophe – the simultaneous extinction of insight and inquiry. In the end, it may well lead to our own.

But while you're waiting, be sure to read The Philosophy Force Five vs the Scientismists. It's either brilliantly hilarious, or hilariously brilliant.

Discuss.

¹"Superhero" is a registered trademark of Marvel Comics and DC Comics. God I wish I were joking.

(Graphic from the linked web comic by Existential Comics.)