Caring for the Experience Phenomenological Discipline and Ethical Development A Comparative Study of EUDE (Educación Universal para el Desarrollo Ético) and Buddhaghosacārya’s Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga) By Gilda Elizabeth Henriquez Darlas BCE (Mexico City, México), MSc Artificial Intelligence (Madrid, Spain), BA Religious Studies (Lancaster, UK), MA in Buddhist Studies (Hong Kong, China) This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University March 2018 THESIS DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis is of my own composition and that it contains no material previously submitted for any other degree of qualification. The work in this thesis has been produced by me, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text. I confirm that this thesis does not exceed the prescribed limit of 80,000 words, including the main text and any footnotes but excluding the bibliography. Gilda Elizabeth Henriquez Darlas - March 2018 II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was driven by curiosity sparked by provocation, as much as by discovery. The curiosity was originated by the paradoxical provocations between ethical development in human development and the long-standing question of decision-making in artificial intelligence. Seeking to bring something from the humanities into the field of artificial intelligence on this topic, I ended up doing the reverse, and now I dedicate my life to working with schools and children around the globe. Inspired by Buddhism, where I found many unexpected answers to my engineering questions, resulted in the design of EUDE (Universal Education for Ethical Development), and much later, the development of this thesis. One of the most precious gifts of this entire project was the journey I went on, which changed my understanding of the human mind, the human experience and human interaction. Many things of a personal nature - not all of them positive - happened during my research, which I began in Oct 2011. Due to these unfortunate events, I was forced to take almost three years off from the project. However, two things remained constant and kept me going: my purpose of working towards decreasing human hostility; and my determination to design a conceptual and philosophical framework for EUDE so that the programme could be put into a dialogue with other fields in the humanities. Achieving this was only possible thanks to many people, including friends, family, and the people in my foundation, who gave me constant moral and logistical support. However my special thanks go to Professor Ram-Prasad Chakravarthi1 for believing in me, and for his guidance, patience and help, not just as a supervisor, but also as a friend who supported me in the most difficult times during the development of this project. I want to acknowledge how privileged and honoured I feel to have worked beside him, one of the brightest minds of our time. He made my journey one of continuous discovery and personal development, and 1 Ram-Prasad Chakravarthi Distinguished Professor of Comparative Religion and Philosophy at Lancaster University who was awarded with the FBA (Fellow of the British Academy) in 2017. III challenged my ego by pushing me to acknowledge my ontic reflections of EUDE. Indeed this was my strongest challenge but also one of my greatest rewards, since I was becoming very dogmatic about my programme. I also wish to thank Maria Heim, a knowledgeable scholar of Buddhaghosacārya’s work and an amazing guardian of his work but most of all a good friend. She spent time with me in Amherst in 2013, reading the Visuddhimagga, and since then she has helped me to see and understand the text from Buddhaghosacārya’s perspective by showing me how to remain faithful to his work and not to vend it for my own purpose or interest. My thanks also go to Lancaster University for being so accommodating and understanding during the difficult times in my personal life when I was writing this thesis. And to Barbara Mason who began as my proof-reader and became a good friend, pushing me continually to be more precise and accurate in my written English. Last, but not the least, my acknowledgement and gratitude goes to all the children who made possible both the design of EUDE and this thesis. Without knowing it, they contributed greatly to crystallising what once was just a curious question. However my main gratitude goes to them for giving me the daily strength to continue with the project, for returning my hope in humanity, and for confirming my strong belief that working towards a more conscious and ethical human race is a goal worth striving for. IV ABSTRACT This thesis attempts to construct a conceptual philosophical framework for a pre- existing secular2 programme of ethical development for children called EUDE, by comparing its main principles and practices with the Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga), the work of a 5th century CE Buddhist scholar named Buddhaghosacārya. The comparison will help to make coherent sense of the EUDE practices and provide a conceptual framework for its methodology. The resulting comparison of both programmes will show the importance of phenomenological discipline in ethical development, that is, the programmatic and practical strategies for developing an ethical response to interaction with others. EUDE and Buddhaghosacārya share many of the same concerns and offer similar approaches to ethical development. They both address the conditions in experience that underlie moral choices and actions. Both work towards dismantling harmful conditions in experience through techniques that bring discipline, vision and understanding. Therefore, to a certain extent, the thesis is a comparative exploration of two practical disciplinary ethical programmes: The EUDE programme for children aged four to fifteen, and the Vissudhimaggha for Buddhist monks as well as the large virtuous (followers of sīla) Buddhist community. However, it is important to clarify that this thesis is more than a simple comparative exercise; it is a constructive effort to use Buddhaghosacārya’s systematic phenomenological methodology to provide a conceptual grounding for EUDE. This is because, although up to this point EUDE has been a highly successful and practical programme, its conceptual and philosophical principles have yet to be fully systematised and articulated. In a fascinating and productive way, this Buddhist thinker helps in that endeavour. My aim is to show how both programmes involve scrutiny of the conditions of thought and action as the means to make precise and structured interventions in ethical development. Their sustained attention to the psychological factors prior to decision-making or character formation allows for a very close comparative 2 By secular I mean that the EUDE programme is not advancing any particular religious doctrine, belief, or practice and is tailored to work in secular schools, that is, non-religious contexts. V project of identifying and analysing ethical resources. Thus, we will see how the techniques for analytical attention to the conditions in experience in both programmes makes possible systematic ethical change, underlying an important contribution to the study of an essential area of ethical development. Outline of Chapters Chapter 1 - The Prolegomenon presents an overview of EUDE and Buddhaghosacārya and highlights the key similarities of the programmes that drive the book to examine Buddhaghosacārya’s work for the design of EUDE’s conceptual framework. The chapter also shows that Buddhaghosacārya’s work was not chosen without first researching the most relevant work published in the field of moral psychology, moral education/character formation, contemplative studies and Buddhist ethics. The chapter should drive the reader to understand why the existing work in these field areas are insufficient for framing the principles and the methodology of EUDE, paving the way for my presentation in the next three chapters, which shows how through Buddhaghosacārya’s work the framing of EUDE is possible, highlighting the distinct methodology of both programmes. Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 provide an introduction to the programme of EUDE and the phenomenological methodology of the Visuddhimagga, so that the main principles to be compared in Chapter 4 become evident. Three points stand out in Chapters 2 and 3; a) the importance both programmes place on phenomenological discipline, b) their similarities regarding their understanding of human experience and the alignment of their techniques for removing harmful conditions in experience, and c) the significance for both programmes of forging such a similar disciplinary structure in ethical development. The problem as ever is how much to include and how much to leave out. I have had to assume some knowledge on behalf of the reader with regard to Buddhism and moral/ethical development. Chapter 4 brings out the comparison, through which a careful study of Buddhaghosacārya enables a systematisation of the concerns and assumptions that underlie EUDE’s programme, but which have not hitherto been articulated for want of guidance from an appropriately sophisticated and sensitive philosophy. The range of concerns shared by EUDE and Buddhaghosacārya are presented VI under three main comparative sections: a) the process for cultivating attention and concentration towards conditions in experience, b) Caring for the Experience by removing harmful thoughts and harmful