I used AI in class today.
The class was "Religion and Ecology: Buddhist Perspectives," and it became clear last week that many had signed up for the class for the "Buddhist" part but brought no prior knowledge of it. "Would you like me to give a short introduction to Buddhism next week," I foolishly asked, and of course the answer was yes. I've done similar things in years past, always queasy at the simplifications, but students need some overview of this vast tradition, if only to appreciate its vastness.
But then came the faculty retreat on AI, where we were encouraged to experiment with AI in connection with what we were teaching, so I asked first one, then a second, AI engine for three ways to give a 45-minute introduction to Buddhism. They were impressive - historical, thematic, with an activity, etc. - but the content for all was pretty much the same. I couldn't get any of them to offer me any hint that there might be more than one way to tell the story.
So that was my story in class! I told the class I'd gone AI foraging (some eyebrows lifted a little), and they'd all recommended the same story, which I would describe to them but then show why they were lucky to have me by showing the story's limits.
What the AIs all recommended was spending the majority of the time on the life of Siddhartha Gautama and the story of his enlightenment, along with the most celebrated of his teachings: the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and, perhaps, non-self, interdependence, meditation, etc.. After that they counseled wrapping up with a few minutes on the spread of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana), and a final few minutes on Buddhism today. I zoomed through that in ten minutes, availing myself of a projected map of Asia to draw arrows pointing to central, east and southeast Asia. If they wanted more on any of this, I could recommend AIs they could consult.
And yet there were some big problems with this story. For a 2500 year old tradition spread across an amazing range of cultures and languages, generating new texts as it went, how could it be right to spend only 5-10 minutes out of 45 on that spread? Practices, ideas, iconography varied so much in each of these places and at different times - interacting with indigenous and other teachings and communities all along the way - that many scholars think it more helpful to talk about Himalayan religions, religions of Southeast Asia, Chinese religions, etc than a pan-Asian 'Buddhism.' Such local emphasis could counterbalance the implication of the Gautama-heavy story that what happened over those 2500 years was at best faithful transmission, and, if things differed, a drift away from purity or authenticity. But it's in the nature of traditions to grow and change.
Further, I averred, few of the people who lived in all of those places and times (and remember that Buddhism disappeared from its native India) would recognize the AI-endorsed story as their own. Look at any of their temples: they're full of statues but almost none of them are of Gautama. Since he was just one of many beings enlightened to the same truth, his biography is irrelevant. (And if you are interested in him you should be interested also in the stories of his 500+ earlier lives chronicled in the Jataka Tales.) The traditions are full of new teachings (and teachers), further articulations, they claim, of the same truth - with plenty of criticisms of others for failing to keep up. (These criticisms, which you'll find in any tradition, were what I sought in vain from the AIs.)
Is Buddhism not a thing, then? Not the kind of thing the AI proposed - a world religion launched into history complete by a single remarkable individual. It's a tradition, which I availed myself of Alasdair Macintyre to suggest is not all about uniformity and agreement; rather, “A tradition is an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined.”
What fundamental agreements? The world religions stories brought together by the AI would point to something like the problem of suffering, but that may be a problem for many traditions. What we can see as distinguishing Buddhist traditions, I suggested, is that they found the cause of suffering not in sin or chaos or human nature or a struggle between light and darkness but ignorance.
A simplification, of course. Ignorance or delusion is but one of the three poisons that produce clinging, but it fuels the other two (greed and hatred). And the dispelling of ignorance doesn't just release one from suffering but - depending on your flavor of Buddhism - discloses worlds of unimagined relation, wisdom, compassion, power and delight. Depending where and when we're talking on our map and timeline of 'Buddhism,' it would come with a different story.
All this was definitely a lot for a first overview. Too much, if this were all! But for a start I hope it'll do. Students know there's a facile view and where to find it, and why it's worth learning more.
Thank you, AI?
