Tibetan Buddhist analytical meditation and monastic debate: a psychological analysis of a reasoning-based meditation practice Authors: Marieke K. van Vugt, Institute of Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Amir Moye, Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Joshua Pollock, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent OH, USA Bryce Johnson, Science for Monks. Marcel O. Bonn-Miller, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Devon, PA. Kalden Gyatso, Sera Jey Monastic University, Bylakuppe, India. Jampa Thakchoe, Sera Jey Monastic University, Bylakuppe, India. Thokney Adentsang, Sera Jey Monastic University, Bylakuppe, India. Ngawang Norbu, Sera Jey Monastic University, Bylakuppe, India. Lobsang Tenzin, Sera Jey Monastic University, Bylakuppe, India. Thabkhe Lodroe, Sera Jey Monastic University, Bylakuppe, India. Jampa Lobsang, Sera Jey Monastic University, Bylakuppe, India. Thupten Gyaltsen, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala, India. David M. Fresco, Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent OH, USA Abstract Analytical meditation and monastic debate are contemplative practices engaged in by Tibetan Buddhist monastics that have up to now been largely unexplored in Western contemplative science. The highly physical form of contemplative debating plays an important role in the monastic curriculum. Based on intensive discussions and recorded interviews with Tibetan monastics at Sera Jey Monastic 1 University and preliminary experiments, we outline a theory that elucidates the psychological mechanisms underlying this practice. We then make predictions about the potential effects of this form of debating on cognition and emotion. On the basis of initial observations, we propose that successful debating requires skills that include reasoning and critical thinking, attentional focus, working memory, emotion regulation, confidence in your own reasoning skills, and social connectedness. It is therefore likely that the many cumulative hours of debate practice over 20+ years of monastic training helps to cultivate these very skills. Scientific research is needed to examine these hypotheses and determine the role that monastic debate may play in terms of both psychological wellbeing and educational achievement. Keywords: monastic debate, meditation, contemplative practice, emotion regulation Introduction Although the literature on contemplative practices is burgeoning, the extant literature is almost exclusively restricted to the study of mindfulness and concentration and awareness meditation practices. Such practices represent only a small sliver of the palette of contemplative practices that further includes many practices that focus on cultivating wisdom and insight (Dahl, Lutz, & Davidson, 2015). Two practices in the category of practices that focus on cultivating wisdom and insight that is common to Tibetan monastic traditions (especially the Gelug school) are analytical meditation and monastic debate. Given their centrality to monastic training in Tibetan Buddhism as a means of cultivating critical reasoning and wisdom, analytical meditation and monastic debate may have important implications for the improvement of Western psychological and educational practices. Moreover, this practice may provide benefits for physical and mental health even in old age. In this article, we seek to describe these practices and our efforts to apply scientific research principles to better understand how analytical 2 meditation and debate may strengthen desirable cognitive and emotional capacities. Main body Analytical meditation versus debate Although analytic meditation (ché gom), and debate (riglam), are separate facets of monastic training, they are routinely engaged in tandem with one another. Debate is not practiced independently of analytical meditation. Rather, debate may best be regarded as an embodied form of analytical meditation. During seated, individual analytical meditation, the practitioner contemplates a passage of text or an idea in their minds. Whereas in focused attention meditation practices commonly studied in the West (Lutz, Slagter, Dunne, & Davidson, 2008) the meditation object may be the breath, here the object consists of the contents of a philosophical text. This analytical meditation is contrasted with resting meditation (jok gom), a practice similar to the open monitoring meditation practices in which there is no particular object. Whereas analytical meditation allows for new insights to develop, resting meditation allows these insights to get consolidated and become embodied (Desbordes & Negi, 2013; Kongtrul, 2003). What is monastic debate? Analytical meditation can be practiced on its own, but in the context of Tibetan monasteries it is typically complemented by the practice of monastic debate. Monastics first listen to and read the material to be studied, then they memorize and contemplate the text, and finally they test and deepen their understanding through the practice of debating (G. Dreyfus, 2003). Interestingly, monastics report that the final authority in debate is not the tradition and scriptures, but reasoning and logic. Monastic debate is a highly social practice in which the understanding of the memorized and contemplated material is deepened by means of constant questioning. As Kenneth Liberman (1992) writes, “It is a creative activity that depends upon continually placing the thinking of participants at risk.” Unlike Western-style debate, in which the objective is to convince the opponent, this form of debate is more dialectic and serves to “carry the participants to logical 3 conclusions they may not have otherwise realized.” (Liberman, 1992) The main question that drives the debate is “what is the consequence of that?” (Tillemans, 2008). Monastic debate is also unique in its physical manifestation with clapping movements, stomping on the ground and other specific gestures that make the debate more engaging and forceful. Importantly, monastics we interviewed explained that these gestures are symbolic reminders that the goal of each question posed is to remove ignorance and to compassionately alleviate misconceptions about reality. Debating can also involve humor, teasing, and even shoving matches between the various challengers to get the opportunity pose a question or make a statement (G. B. Dreyfus, 2008). The physical dimension of the practice may help the interlocutors to convert knowledge from mere intellectual knowledge to embodied knowledge. Debates follow strict argumentation rules, intended to provide the debaters with insights into the logical consequences of the defender’s statements. These insights are important, because it gives the interlocuters a deeper understanding of the different theories in Buddhist philosophy and how they compare to each other. Moreover, it allows the debaters to examine what it would mean to really apply these philosophical insights in the context of other scriptures or everyday life. The structure of debates, with its emphasis on dissecting definitions and categories, ensures that both debaters are very clear on what they are talking about (Liberman, 1992). 4 (bpm) Figure 1: Heart rate (beats per minute; bpm) during two example debates as a function of role in the debate. The heart rate of the challenger is much higher than of all the other participants in the debate (the defender and two observers). The two colors indicate the separate debates, which each lasted 15 minutes, and the heart rate is the average over the whole debate. The resting heart rates while sitting were on average 83 beats per minute (bpm) for the defenders, 77 bpm for the challengers, and 67 bpm for the observers. Average heart rates for these same individuals while jogging were 114, 131, and 109 bpm, respectively. In its simplest form, debate consists of an interaction between a defender, who is sitting down, literally defending his or her ground and being held to consistency of the assertions s/he1 agrees to, and the challenger, who is standing and challenges the statements of the defender without being held to consistency for his/her statements (G. B. Dreyfus, 2008). Challenger and defender take turns in the debate. The challenger is making statements, often in the form of syllogisms, and sometimes accompanied by quite forceful movements and strongly expressed 1 Traditionally, much debate was done by male monastics, but recently also female monastics have started to engage in debate and obtain higher degrees in Buddhist studies. For a more extensive description of debate practices by female monastics see MacPherson (2000). 5 emotions. During a pilot experiment, we found that the heart rate of the challenger could go up to values of 180 beats per minute (Figure 1). Monastics we interviewed explained that the goal of the challenger is to demonstrate an inconsistency in the defender’s argumentation, and when one is detected, s/he emphasizes that by a forceful utterance of “tsa!”. In contrast, defenders can only choose from one of four response options to each of the challenger’s statements: (1) I agree, (2) please state a reason why, (3) reason is not established or (4) no pervasion (i.e., the statement does not apply to this class/these beings; Dalai Lama, 2018; Sera Jey Science Centre, 2015). Another important characteristic of debate is that long pauses with silence are