My upcoming book is devoted to the theme that suffering doesn’t come primarily from bad external situations (like political ones), but from the interaction of those bad situations with our mental states of craving and resistance. One might ask: is it possible to split the difference? Could it be that our suffering comes from our mental states but that the institutions make things worse?
Mindfulness critic Ron Purser and Zen teacher David Loy think so. Referring to the traditional “three poisons” of craving (rāga), anger (dosa) and delusion (moha), they claim:
today the three unwholesome motivations that Buddhism highlights—greed, ill will, and delusion—are no longer confined to individual minds, but have become institutionalized into forces beyond personal control.
The emphases are mine, to show what a strong claim is being made here: that our institutions today encourage craving, anger, and delusion in a way that previous societies and institutions did not. Once the problems were confined to individual minds, but they no longer are. Purser and Loy don’t explain their claim in that post, but Loy did so in an important 2004 piece called “What’s Buddhist about socially engaged Buddhism”, no longer available at its original site but thankfully still available through the wonders of archive.org.
I examine Loy’s arguments about institutions encouraging craving and anger in the book. (Overall I don’t think they work, though he’s got more of a case on craving than on anger.) But Loy’s claims about delusion take us far enough afield from the book’s argument that I abbreviated the book’s response to them. Here, I can now give that response in full. Is it true that delusion is “no longer confined to individual minds”, but has become “institutionalized into forces beyond personal control”?
Continue reading




