In this brief reflection, perhaps visionary statement, I want to take some intellectual risks (already long underway), in hopes of advancing what might be framed as “contemplative philosophy,” that is, philosophy informed by contemplative practice, and contemplative practice informed by philosophy. Or perhaps what I am aspiring towards is philosophy as contemplative practice. This relates to my larger views about (and vision for) Contemplative Studies as an emerging interdisciplinary field and of contemplative practice as such, with particular concern for the Humanities and Liberal Arts, and perhaps beyond.
As articulated in my book Introducing Contemplative Studies (2018), Contemplative Studies (CS/COST) is an emerging interdisciplinary field dedicated to research and education on contemplative practice and contemplative experience. This includes three primary defining characteristics: (1) Practice commitment, especially formal meditation; (2) Critical subjectivity; and (3) Character development, with the latter being perhaps most controversial, but also especially relevant in the present context (I hope). “Contemplative practice” is a larger umbrella category; it encompasses approaches and practices more commonly referred to as “meditation,” “prayer,” and cognate disciplines. Contemplative practice refers to various approaches, disciplines, and methods for developing attentiveness, awareness, compassion, concentration, presence, wisdom, and the like. Possible connective strands and family resemblances include attentiveness, awareness, interiority, presence, silence, transformation, and a deepened sense of meaning and purpose. I am particularly interested in what I refer to as religiously-committed, tradition-based, and theologically-infused contemplative practice.
Drawing upon my larger “philosophy of praxis,” which might also point towards the possibility of a “praxis of philosophy,” praxis as a critical category consists of four interrelated dimensions, namely, views, methods, experiences, and goals. Although I have primarily utilized this interpretive framework to discuss religious practices, it has a broad application, including to any approach or undertaking such as philosophy itself or the present context of contemplative studies. So let us engage in a momentary meta-reflection along these lines, taking ourselves as our “data-set.” Presumably, we have an individual and collective belief in scholarship and evidence-based argumentation rooted in reason (ableness). This leads to making perhaps otherwise nonsensical and even absurd presentations (try doing this as street performance) to a room, sometimes modestly attended (exit stage-right), of well-behaved and respectful, sometimes even respectable and respected, “colleagues.” We sit or stand, clap (or not) when expected (or not). We may tell ourselves (and others, including administrators and students) accompanying stories about knowledge production, field development, the importance of so-called “higher” education, and even personal interests. Some then later gather to discuss “issues,” “insights,” “contributions,” and the like, perhaps over alcohol-infused banquets.
Here I should mention that my views and approach, which now involve a “new vision,” stand in contrast to mainstream or corporate COST (CCOST) (consider the unspoken true costs), now under the guise of so-called “contemplative research” (let’s all be good scientists together) and the like. Mainstream COST is actually an evangelical Buddhist project, often with covert proselytization and cognitive imperialism (not to mention Orientalism), with various careerist and corporatized subtexts. (Who wants to reproduce the status quo?)
Let me be clear: I do not believe that deep and committed contemplative practice (or authentic education for that matter) is compatible with capitalism and with corporate sponsorship and agendas. (I know, I have just lost my remaining non-existent funding.) (Alternatively, consider the Merton-Hanh-MLK, Jr. triad). While I could offer a systematic critical analysis of corporate meditation and its academic representatives and colluders, including reflections based on ethnographic, participant-observation fieldwork, this is not the place-time (exit stage-left). Nonetheless, one might simply consider the identities of the scholars and institutions involved; the excessive emphasis on the “wisdom-compassion dyad”; medicalization and scientization (i.e., Buddho-neuroscience) as a legitimation (and missionary) strategy; and an assumed/presumed Mahāyāna Buddhist aspiration to “alleviate suffering” and to “save all sentient (human) beings” (especially Buddhist sympathizers who go with the program), often with an unacknowledged and perhaps uncritical upaya (“skillful means”) subtext in which decontextualization and reconceptualization are rationalized in various ways (“the-ends-justify-the-means”). This includes banalized forms of so-called “mindfulness,” with various hues of cultural appropriation and commodification, in such a nebulous manner as to be basically meaningless. My apologies—I’m just trying to be mindful of those mindlessly practicing (and selling) mindfulness. And I’m sorry to tell you, the world is on fire, both literally and figuratively. So perhaps contemplative renunciation, infused with a sense of mappō 末法, is the more viable response (survival strategy). For my part, I am more interested in a field centered on equity, diversity, and inclusion (or whichever order you prefer), including “hidden diversity” with respect to affiliated communities, disciplines, and traditions. What would happen if we made Dance the baseline? Or Theatre? Or Architecture? I am more interested in the radical transformative, perhaps even revolutionary potential of a contemplative approach. As a Daoist scholar-practitioner (and now court-exile and outsider-scholar) with ecological and social justice concerns, I am committed to developing scholar-practitioner approaches (SPA) and critical adherent discourse (CAD), including the possibility of inter-contemplative dialogue (ICD) and even inter-species relationality (ISR), beyond the human-primate collective.
Applying and expanding these points, I would like to invite you to join me in reframing philosophy (in whatever form), perhaps you already are, through the revisionist frameworks of Pierre Hadot (1922-2010) and the later Michel Foucault (1926-1984), specifically their respective emphases on “spiritual exercises” and “techniques of self.” This has the potential to lead to a (re)new(ed) philosophy, even a “contemplative philosophy.” For those of us who care about the Humanities and Liberal Arts (and perhaps something else and something more), such a philosophical approach results in a reframing of the philosophical project as one centering on “philosophy as a way of life” aimed at holistic and integrated character development. In such an approach, we might, à la Hadot, investigate some lost, or at least hidden wellsprings. We might think of this as both a hermeneutics of retrieval and a hermeneutics of (im)possibility.
Again speaking out of turn (a potentially dangerous re-turning, un-winding, and over-stepping), I find myself intrigued by what I (mis)understand about the Greek and specifically Aristotelian Peripatetic (Walking) School, associated with the Lykeion (Lyceum; gymnasium). As someone who walks-and-thinks, who thinks in/as/through walking, as someone interested in embodied cognition and movement awareness, I imagine a new Peripatetic scholarly tradition. As a thought-experiment, actually a “body-experiment,” this would be teaching and learning in/as/through movement. Walking-lectures. Outside and beyond the classroom as conventionally conceived and structured. A somatics of (un/re)learning. As Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) tells us, “It is only ideas gained from walking that have any value.” And from mountaineering and pilgrimage and… Wanderlust. (An important counterpoint might be contexts of mobility limitation, such as Nelson Mandela in Robben Island Prison or Stephen Hawking in ALS). In any case, I see great potential for reengagements, revisions, and new applications. This is philosophy as embodied and enacted. A philosophy of praxis, and praxis of philosophy. And perhaps an as-yet-unimagined and unrealized alterior contemplative philosophy.
Louis Komjathy welcomes questions about contemplative philosophy and invites you to share your own thoughts on reframing philosophy in the comments or by email.
Louis Komjathy
Louis Komjathy 康思奇 (Ph.D., Religious Studies; Boston University) is a leading independent scholar-educator, outsider-scholar, and translator. He is founding Director and Distinguished Professor of Unlearning at The Underground University (TUU). He researches and has published extensively in Contemplative Studies, Daoist Studies, and Religious Studies, following specific interests in contemplative practice, embodiment, and mystical experience. In addition to over thirty academic articles and book chapters, Dr. Komjathy has published nine books to date. These include the more recent Taming the Wild Horse: An Annotated Translation and Study of the Daoist Horse Taming Pictures (Columbia University Press, 2017), the first book to fuse Animal Studies, Contemplative Studies, Daoist Studies, and Religious Studies, and Introducing Contemplative Studies (Wiley-Blackwell, 2018), the first and only book-length introduction to the emerging interdisciplinary field. His current work explores cross-cultural practices and perennial questions related to aliveness, extraordinariness, flourishing, transmutation, and trans-temporality. He lives in semi-seclusion on the Northshore of Chicago, Illinois.
