Connect with us

Features

No Cure for Trump Plague

Published

on

As I have pointed out since the first term of the Trump administration, Donald Trump was never merely a leader in the conventional sense; he is a phenomenon. This phenomenon embodies a worldview in which truth is subordinate to loyalty, perception outweighs fact, and the manipulation of circumstances for personal gain is both instinctive and strategic. The Trump phenomenon thrives precisely because it sees opportunity where others see only risk or moral constraint. In a world already struggling with structural failures—from international organizations to grassroots communities—Trump presents an alternative: a chaotic, unrestrained force that reshapes rules according to his own whims.

Whether one admires him or despises him, the phenomenon reflects a darker truth about human ambition: the capacity to privilege self-interest and personal dominance above all else. Now, after a four-year hiatus and into the second year of his return, the world is encountering something markedly different—a subsequent stage of the same force. This, I would argue, is the Trump Plague: something far more enduring than a political cycle and far more difficult to contain, contaminating democracies, autocracies, and theocracies across the globe.

Today, one can step into a taxi in almost any part of the world, including Colombo, and, without prompting, hear global problems attributed to Trump. Only recently, a tuk-tuk driver remarked to me, “All these issues are because of that idiot.” Such reactions are not merely casual frustrations; they are symptoms of something deeper. The plague is political, but it is also psychological. It is everywhere, penetrating not only institutions but also the cognitive and emotional frameworks through which people interpret reality. It is a haunting condition that allows societies to externalize blame while avoiding introspection, a convenient narrative that shifts responsibility away from systemic and personal failures. In this sense, the Trump Plague is not just about one man; it is about a transformation in how truth is processed, how responsibility is evaded, and how the world increasingly explains its own disorder.

Trump demonstrates a consistent pattern: a refusal to acknowledge responsibility coupled with a relentless pursuit of admiration and control. From his earliest years, as David Cay Johnston (2016) chronicles in The Making of Donald Trump, he was shaped by a family legacy in which deceit and opportunism were considered legitimate business strategies. Fred Trump, his father, engaged in illicit business practices to build his fortune, from skimming profits on FHA-subsidised housing to partnerships with known organized crime figures. Donald Trump inherited more than wealth; he inherited a philosophy in which cunning, aggression, and the strategic use of fear were central. This inheritance explains why Trump never sees failure as his own.

Mary L. Trump (2020), in Too Much and Never Enough, notes that Fred’s constant enabling created a delusion of invincibility: “The more money my grandfather threw at Donald, the more confidence Donald had, which led him to pursue bigger and riskier projects, which led to greater failures, forcing Fred to step in with more help”. This cycle of reinforcement ensured that Trump never learned accountability; it was never necessary for him to confront the consequences of his actions, for he would always be rescued by wealth, influence, or the loyalty of those around him.

Loyalty, rather than truth or competence, is the central currency of Trump’s world. Roy Cohn, his first and most formative mentor, taught him that relationships should be transactional and adversaries crushed without hesitation. Cohn’s mentorship instilled a moral framework in which power is the measure of worth and loyalty is more valuable than ethical integrity. Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher in Trump Revealed recount that Cohn, reflecting on his influence, wrote of his ties to organized crime figures in New York, asserting that “in those days, nobody became US Attorney in New York without the O.K. from the mob” (Kranish & Fisher, 2016). Trump internalized this lesson: it was less important to act within the law than to surround himself with people who would protect and amplify his interests. This mindset explains why, as Johnston notes, Trump “has worked just as hard to make sure few people know about his lifelong entanglements with a major cocaine trafficker, with mobsters and many mob associates, with con artists and swindlers” (Johnston). To Trump, secrecy and deception are not failings; they are strategic tools to manipulate perception and control outcomes.

Trump’s business practices demonstrate a remarkable consistency of behaviour, revealing a pattern of aggression, exploitation, and disregard for legal or ethical constraints. From the demolition of Bonwit Teller in 1980, where Polish immigrant workers laboured 12- 18-hour days without proper safety equipment, to his dealings with Mafia-controlled unions during the construction of Trump Tower, Trump consistently placed personal gain above human cost or legal accountability (Kranish & Fisher). He not only minimized the value of others’ labour, he leveraged fear to enforce compliance, instructing foremen to destroy valuable sculptures despite the availability of alternate solutions (Kranish & Fisher).

Even when legal frameworks threatened his interests, Trump’s response was to manipulate outcomes rather than comply: his casino license applications omitted critical investigations, while his meetings with John Cody, a convicted mob associate controlling New York’s concrete supply, went unexamined by regulators (Johnston, 2016). Trump’s operational model demonstrates a psychology in which the ends justify the means and the narrative, rather than the fact, is the ultimate arbiter of success.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Trump’s psychology is his treatment of relationships, whether personal, familial, or political. Loyalty is rewarded, but disloyalty is punished with disproportionate vengeance. Johnston describes how Trump terminated medical benefits for a sick child after a lawsuit challenged his father’s will, remarking that “I can’t help that. It’s cold when someone sues my father” (Johnston). Mary L. Trump observes that this behaviour is an extension of Fred Trump’s conditioning: “Knowing ahead of time that you’re going to be bailed out if you fail renders the narrative leading up to that moment meaningless… That guaranteed that Donald would never change, even if he were capable of changing, because he simply didn’t need to” (Mary L. Trump). For Trump, loyalty is transactional, moral responsibility is negotiable, and ethical consistency is irrelevant. These traits translate directly into his approach to politics: the law is a tool to be bent, facts are malleable, and opponents are obstacles to be crushed.

Trump’s narcissism and need for validation are inseparable from his decision-making. He rarely makes choices based on objective analysis; instead, he weighs decisions by how they will enhance his image, consolidate his influence, or humiliate adversaries. Johnston illustrates this in his account of Trump’s obsession with revenge: “Second, Trump recommended revenge as business policy. ‘Get even,’ he said. ‘If somebody screws you, you screw ‘em back ten times over. At least you can feel good about it. Boy, do I feel good’” (Johnston). This principle governs his interactions at every level, from boardrooms to the Oval Office. In the political sphere, it manifests in impulsive actions, disregard for institutional norms, and prioritisation of personal vendettas over national interest. The USFL antitrust case, in which Trump pursued a reckless legal gamble resulting in a symbolic $3 award while destroying a potentially successful league, exemplifies this pattern (Kranish & Fisher). Decisions are judged not by consequence or strategic merit but by their capacity to reinforce his self-image or punish those who challenge him.

Trump’s approach to governance and policy follows the same psychological template. He consistently interprets events through a lens of personal threat and opportunity, rarely acknowledging systemic realities. In his dealings with Iran, as I have observed, Trump’s statements of self-reliance—”I trust no one”—reflect a mindset in which alliances, institutions, and norms are expendable. He thrives on disruption, treating crises as arenas for personal aggrandizement. Yet the danger lies not only in his decisions but in the vacuum they create: the institutions designed to mediate risk, enforce accountability, and maintain stability are systematically undermined by the Trump ethos. This is the Trump Plague: the transposition of personal narcissism into public consequence, where errors of judgment are magnified by power, and the incentives for ethical governance are inverted.

What makes Trump uniquely intractable is that he is impervious to conventional corrective measures. The combination of early familial enabling, a lifelong pattern of being bailed out, and an acute talent for spinning events into personal advantage ensures that conventional political checks—laws, norms, even media scrutiny—cannot recalibrate his behaviour. Mary L. Trump argues that Donald Trump’s self-perception is inseparable from his environment of enablers: “Fred had become so invested in the fantasy of Donald’s success that he and Donald were inextricably linked. Facing reality would have required acknowledging his own responsibility, which he would never do” (Mary L. Trump). Even failures that would cripple ordinary leaders—financial collapse, public scandal, legal penalties—are converted into narratives of triumph or vindication, reinforcing his delusional sense of omnipotence.

Trump’s decision-making is not merely flawed; it is structurally incapable of prioritizing collective interest over personal aggrandizement. As Johnston notes, he “told the New Jersey attorney general that unless he expedited approval, he would not build in Atlantic City… Given Trump’s well-known success in convincing the City of New York to perform lucrative favors, that was a subtle but powerful threat” (Johnston). This approach—leveraging institutional processes to enforce compliance with personal goals—has been replicated at every level of governance he touches. Loyalty and fear become the operating principles, while law, ethics, and reasoned debate are subordinated.

The world that emerges after Trump, therefore, is one that must contend with the structural consequences of his choices. His influence extends beyond policy into the norms of political behaviour: expedience over principle, loyalty over law, and spectacle over substance. There is no simple antidote. The Trump Plague is not a problem to be solved in one term or one election; it is a challenge to political systems, social norms, and institutional resilience. Attempts to treat it as a conventional political issue are doomed to partial failure, for the pathology at its center is neither transient nor externally imposed. It is an enduring feature of human ambition, magnified by wealth, media, and power.

The remedy, if it can even be called that, requires vigilance, institutional reinforcement in the face of personal glorification, and a deeper understanding of the psychological architecture that underlies our own behaviour—for there is, in some measure, a Trump within each of us. From East to West, from ancient spiritually awakening philosophies to modern intellectual discourse, this has been a central question: how to be humane in the face of power, temptation, and self-interest. Only by recognizing the interplay of narcissism, opportunism, and cultivated impunity can we begin to safeguard governance from the extremes of the Trump Plague.

There may be no indefinite cure for the Trump Plague, but confronting it remains one of the most urgent and defining challenges the world faces today as the Trump Plague is both individual and systemic, both internal and external, both powerful and powerless; both rich and poor, both visible and invisible, both rational and irrational, both deliberate and instinctive, both truth and distortion, both order and chaos, both strength and fragility, both fear and ambition, both control and collapse, both dominance and decay.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Is power devolution under JVP-NPP a political daydream?

Published

on

Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga

The JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva’s recent remarks at a news conference in Jaffna where he ruled out the possibility of holding provincial council elections this year has been widely reported and widely criticized. About the same time there was another media event in Jaffna that went largely unnoticed and unreported outside Jaffna. What was said at the second media event may carry far more political implications than Tilvin Silva’s election timing talk. A veteran Tamil political participant made the startling yet not implausible statement that the prospect of having political devolution under the JVP-NPP government is becoming “a daydream”. The statement was made by Dr. K. Vigneswaran, who served as Provincial Secretary to the only North-East Provincial Council Government that was elected under the auspices of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Dr. Vigneswaran is a Professional Civil Engineer who studied at Royal College, graduated with First Class Honours in Engineering in 1964, and went on to complete a pioneering PhD at the university of Waterloo, Canada, applying the finite element method (FEM) in the field of Geotechnical Engineering. His engineering career has always been at the Irrigation Department where he rose to a Deputy Director. That was when the department was in its golden years, and Vigneswaran was known for his technical mentorship, meticulous administrative skills, and for knowing the fine print of everything. While at the Irrigation Department, Vigneswaran married Ramya de Silva, a fellow irrigation Engineer. After 1983, Vigneswaran became a fulltime political activist and a powerful resource in Tamil politics, but with unwavering commitment to nonviolence, democracy and federalism. The family moved first to India and then Canada, and Vigneswaran has been shuttling between Canada and Sri Lanka.

Devolution: Tortuous Trajectory

Since 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement, and the 13th Amendment, Vigneswaran has been a permanent fixture in all the politics and institutional dynamic of implementing 13A and establishing provincial councils. He served as Secretary to the only elected Provincial Government for the Northern and Eastern Provinces. After 1994 and the election of Chandrika Kumaratunga as President, Vigneswaran became a key participant in all the civil society efforts and government initiatives to restore the PCs and implement 13A, both during the Kumaratunga presidency and the succeeding administrations of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo.

Devolution efforts stalled after the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who in so many words declared that he had no time for 13A or PCs in his presidential agenda, whatever it was. Only that his whole agenda turned out to be a wholesale disaster for the country. Already by then, all the nine Provincial Councils had fallen into abeyance with the cancellation of the 1988 PC elections by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo, with the TNA standing by. The abeyance continues under the JVP-NPP government with no apparent end in sight after Tilvin de Silva’s statement in Jaffna.

I say all this to provide the proper context for Vigneswaran’s statement in Jaffna that the prospects for power devolution under the JVP-NPP government are becoming a political daydream. He said something else as well: that of all the government leaders he has encountered over the years, the only leader who has been genuinely sincere about power devolution is former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, and no one else. I am constrained to add that the insincere category would include Ranil Wickremesinghe, who for all his handsome promises, never matched any of them with experiential sincerity. The present JVP-NPP government still has time to show that they are not an insincere lot.

It is not my purpose to agree with or question Dr. Vigneswaran’s assertions, but to use them as cue and context to comment on the widening mismatch between the JVP-NPP government’s promises and its practices on the matter of power devolution and the restoration of the PC system. With a stalling economy, rising prices and external shocks, it is obvious that the government has all the economic matters to worry about, but that does not mean that it can ignore all the other government responsibilities. No government is put in power to solve a single problem or address a single issue. It is in the nature of governments to deal with multiple problems with varying priorities. Otherwise you could have a single cabinet minister to deal with one problem at a time. That is never going to be the case.

The economy is of course the top of mind priority for the government even as it is a top of mind concern for the people. Even on the economic front, the government is holding steady but is showing little progress. And there are other government initiatives where political accountability will call for answers: to wit, the catchall Clean Sri Lanka programme, ambitious educational reforms, contentious energy sector reforms and, yes, power devolution as well as the overpromised constitutional reforms. Not to mention the sprawling unforced errors over substandard coal imports, foreign exchange fraud, and the chronic neglect of developing the renewable energy sector. Correcting these fields of errors may require a separate ministry for each.

Devolution: Daydream or Deliverable

On the PC system and constitutional reform, there has been scant progress in spite of handsome promises. On both, the government is inadvertently deepening the holes that it had dug itself into through indifference, inaction or procrastination, or all of them and more. In the matter of devolution and provincial councils, the government can simply defuse the situation by directing the Election Commission to conduct elections at the earliest opportunity that is logistically possible. Making his statement in Jaffna, Mr. Tilvin Silva alluded to funding shortfall and legal complications as reasons for the necessity to postpone PC elections until next year. Neither reason holds water.

The funding question would seem to have been put to rest by the statement of Health Minister and Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa, presumably reflecting cabinet consensus, that there are no funding issues and if needed additional funds could be arranged through supplementary allocations. It is also disingenuous to cite legal complications as a reason. The so called legal complications arose because of the collective stupidity of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe parliament that included the then miniscule NPP and the politically-lost TNA. The JVP-NPP has now ballooned from a handful MPs to a two-thirds majority and it can expedite any legislation that it wants to enable the PC elections to be held without delays.

Alternatively, the elections can be held under the old arrangement of proportional representation with assurance by political parties to honour their commitment to fielding more female candidates. Already at a gathering of all political parties, including the NPP (but not the JVP), and civil society groups, convened by People’s Action For Free & Fair Elections (PAFFREL), the political parties jointly committed to a 25% quota for women and youth under the old electoral system. The ongoing parliamentary committee exercise studying the legal matter, headed by the overstretched Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, is also an unnecessary red herring. The Election Commission is ready to go under whatever law or electoral system that is before it. So, there is no reason to hide behind legal complications to further delay the PC elections.

Somewhat amusingly, Public and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wijepala has trotted out the argument that the NPP government has already conducted two nationwide elections during the one and a half years it has been in office, and that unlike the Ranil Wickremesinghe government the JVP-NPP is not in the business “to delay elections for our personal benefit” – whatever that means. Unfortunately, the good minister is missing the point. The question is not how many elections can the JVP-NPP hold in how many years, but how many years do people in the provinces have to wait before they vote in another provincial election? How many more years? That really is the question.

We know the current situation in the provinces. There are provincial governments but no elected provincial councils. The government administration in every province is being run by the President of the Republic through his handpicked governors and unelected government officials. This is a travesty of democracy and the euthanizing of the PC system. Already under 13A, the office of the provincial governors has been constitutionally and legally compared to the office of the Governors of old Ceylon who represented the monarch in what was then a crown colony. The irony is that a JVP-NPP President may have inadvertently positioned himself as the monarch of all he provincially surveys, courtesy of the Thirteenth Amendment!

The JVP was in the forefront of the litigation that caused the demerger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces. If Dr. Vigneswaran’s assertion were to prove correct, a potential dissolution of the provincial system under the JVP-NPP government would be the consummation of the JVP’s original opposition to the introduction of the provincial council system itself. The whole system may not be eradicated, but it could be devoured of its democratic essence while preserving the administrative shell as the medium for the country’s president to overreach into the provinces. That would be worse than a daydream, a real nightmare.

by Rajan Philips ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

‘Spectrum’ Art Exhibition Showcases Emerging Talent at Lionel Wendt

Published

on

A new art exhibition, titled Spectrum ,will be held at the Lionel Wendt Art Centre on the 20th and 21st of June 2026, bringing together a collection of works by ten emerging artists.

Athsara Wijegunawardena

Neha Thirumavalavan

Dillai Joseph

Wasantha Siriwardena

Champika Dias

Nipun Dias

Dr. Prasanna Siriwardena

Kalhari Perera

Siromi Samarasinghe

Chandana Illankone

All ten artists have trained under the guidance of renowned Sri Lankan artist Royden Gibbs, and this exhibition marks an important point in their individual journeys.

Dr. Prasanna Siriwardena

Spectrum brings together a mix of styles, subjects and approaches, giving visitors a chance to experience a wide range of work in one place. The exhibition will include pieces in watercolors, soft pastels, oils and charcoal, reflecting both the discipline and personal direction of each artist. The work ranges from scenery and portraits to still life and studies of the human form, offering different ways of seeing and interpreting familiar subjects.

Dillai Joseph

Although they share the same mentor, each artist presents a distinct point of view. The result is a show that feels varied yet connected, with each piece carrying its own character and intent. It is this balance that gives Spectrum its identity.

The exhibition aims to support and highlight emerging talent within Sri Lanka’s art scene, while also creating a space where artists and audiences can connect. Visitors will find work that shifts between quiet observation and more expressive pieces, making it an engaging experience for both seasoned collectors and those simply interested in art.

Spectrum is expected to draw art lovers, collectors, students and members of the wider creative community. It also offers an opportunity to discover and support new artists at an early stage in their careers.

Open to the public over two days, Spectrum invites visitors to experience a range of work in a venue that has long been part of Colombo’s cultural landscape.

Continue Reading

Features

Rewiring Brain: Meditation to Break the Cycle of Craving

Published

on

“Craving begets sorrow, craving begets fear. For him who is free from craving there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him,” Dhammapada verse 216 states. The mental factor craving, Tanha in Pali, is central to Buddhist Teaching, as its ultimate goal is the cessation or extinction of it—tanhakkhaya. Even though Tanha is translated as craving here, it can sometimes mislead modern readers into thinking tanha only refers to extreme or physical addictions. Just as with any Pali term, it has broad meanings. Venerable Walpola Rahula describes it as “thirst” or unceasing wanting, one of the deep-rooted proclivities or latent tendencies (anusaya) of life (Rahula 1959), without which life as we know would not exist.

Even though the Buddha recognized this natural phenomenon two and a half millennia ago, it was only in the late 20th century that science took note of it and gave it a captivating term—the Hedonic Treadmill. The advantage of this empirical investigation to us Buddhists is that it provides a way to gain penetrative, experiential comprehension (anubodha) of this concept using the vernacular of this technology-savvy age—an alternative to struggling with the language of a bygone era.

These investigations have revealed that there are no hard-to-comprehend metaphysical or mysterious elements involved with this phenomenon; it is a biochemical process fundamental to sustaining life. What is more, an effort to grasp this concept would be well within the goals of Vipassana meditation described in the Sutta Pitaka, incorporating the four elements of investigation: body (kayanupassana), sensations (vedananupassana), mind (chittanupassana), and natural laws (dhammanupassana).

Vipassana and modern science

Vipassana meditation is an in-depth exploration of how humans perceive the world, gain knowledge, and interact with themselves and the environment. Knowing this with wisdom allows one to lead a harmonious way of life (samadhi), a condition conducive to curbing the “thirst” and achieving the Buddhist ideal. The goal of modern science is also to investigate life, but humanity has often used that knowledge to increase material wealth and comfort, providing only lip service to spirituality on the fringe.

An attitude that tends to ignore the consequences of wanting more and more – thirst, potentially endangering the planet. However, that does not prevent us from using scientific information as and aid or a tool to grasp Buddhist concepts. The scientific method bears parallels to the Buddhist approach: it is based on causality (paticcasamuppada), empirical verification (ehipassiko), systematic observation (meditation), and rejecting dogma and beliefs. The primary difference is simply the vocabulary used.

The process of perception: five aggregates

Our five external sense organs receive data (vedana) containing information on the environment: Eyes: receive light, Ears: receive sound, Skin: senses physical contact and temperature, Nose & Tongue: sense chemical properties of substances. The data received by the sense organs is transmitted to the brain, where it is registered as neural networks (sanna). Neural networks, which are interconnected groups of nerve cells (neurons) can be viewed as mind-readable QR codes.

The activity of the brain, or mind (mano), processes this data and converts them into actionable information (sankhara). Modern neuroscience and psychology have made great advances in understanding these processes at the molecular level. This process allows the individual to become aware of their environment, build an autobiographical memory or the notion of a self (atta), and take actions to protect and perpetuate life.

The Pali term vinnana refers to the collection of information committed to memory. Translating vinnana as “consciousness” can be confusing, as the latter often refers to all brain activities. All physical phenomena that sense organs encounter and the mental constructs (sankhara) are referred to as Rupa. This activity of mind forms the basis of all knowledge, representing the entire world as perceived by the individual. This process is what the Teaching refers to as the Five Aggregates (pancakkhanda). The critical takeaway is that the world we perceive is merely a mental construct. While an objective world exists, our sense organs have limitations in seeing it—a fact easily realized through the hundreds of illusions used for entertainment.

Evolution and emotion

The evolutionary purpose of this data processing mechanism is to enable living beings to respond to environmental factors for survival. The psychological and physiological state that arises prior to acting is called emotion. Primarily, emotions can be of three kinds: desire (loba) – seeing a new phone causes an urge to buy it, even though the current one works fine; aversion (dosha) – encountering a vicious dog triggers a “fight or flight” response; delusion (moha) or illusion – an unanswered message to a loved one triggers worry or speculation. Thus, tanha or thirst represents how we connect to the world in its entirety; it can be desire, aversion, and delusion, not merely simple greed. Consequently, these are natural phenomena beyond our immediate control, which are intended to sustain life. In other words, emotions are the forerunner to volitions or intentions, which the Teaching defines as kamma.

The biochemistry of craving

Emotions result from the interaction between the nervous system and biochemicals known as neurotransmitters and neuromodulators (e.g., dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, GABA, glutamate, acetylcholine, and endorphins). Just as the Buddha’s simile of two bundles of bamboo supporting each other describes, these two processes are interdependent and co-arising. Every thought or emotional state corresponds to patterns of neural firing. When neurons fire, they release these chemicals into synapses, influencing how one feels and acts. This release perturbs the body’s normal balance, or homeostasis. Once an action is complete, these chemicals are reabsorbed, and the body returns to its baseline.

Return to baseline is essential for survival. For example, if we stay satisfied with just one meal forever, we could not sustain life. Nature has developed another mechanism to prevent us from being satisfied – we also habituate. In the case of dopamine, the brain adapts by reducing the response to the same stimulus. To get the same level of satisfaction with repeated experiences, the amounts of neurotransmitters needed keeps increasing. This leads to the cycle of craving and dissatisfaction—the Hedonic Treadmill. You “run” toward happiness on the treadmill, but it does not take you anywhere, leaving you in the same emotionally unsatisfactory state, wanting more and more.

Breaking the cycle

This explains why achievements and possessions do not bring permanent happiness, and lead to a cycle of struggle, addiction, crime, and other ills of society. For Buddhists, it also explains why we cling to meaningless rituals. The Dhamma captured this complex phenomenon in the Four Noble Truths: pleasant experiences are impermanent (anicca), leading to grasping (tanha) and unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). The remedy is the Eightfold Path that involves wisdom (panna), conduct (sila), and harmony (samadhi).

Neuroplasticity and the point of liberation

While we cannot stop the sense organs from receiving stimulation (vedana) and sending them to brain, the mind can be developed to prevent vedana from leading to tanha. This is the “point of liberation,” the seventh link in the paticcasamuppada formula. We may not have free will, but we have ‘Free Won’t’ or the ability to say no to the natural tendency to act upon stimuli. We can rewire our neural connections to do so. This ability can be cultivated by practice and repetition, and neuroscience refers to it as neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to change with experience.

The natural tendency of the brain is to strengthen frequently used neural networks while weakening and eliminating lesser used networks and building new ones as needed. This is known as neural plasticity or rewiring the brain. As described in the Eight-fold Path, the way to weaken and eliminate dopamine-driven neural networks includes three aspects. First, the process leading to thirst must be understood. One must engage in sila – activities and thoughts that cultivate Metta: loving-kindness and goodwill, Karuna: compassion, Mudita: appreciative joy, and Upekkha: equanimity, emotional stability, calmness, and evenness of mind in the face of gain and loss, praise and blame, fame and disrepute, pleasure, and pain. That must be done with wisdom, ritualistic behavior does not strengthen the correct neural networks. These activities promote a “cocktail” of oxytocin, serotonin, and GABA, subduing the role of dopamine and helping us step off the Hedonic Treadmill. This leads to a tranquil state of mind and a harmonious existence – samadhi. Again, it is an interdependent, co-arising process that improves upon repetition. Using mind altering substances hijacks this process, thus the need for adhering to the Fifth Precept.

The goal of Vipassana is to understand this process and train the mind to say “no” to tanha. It is not just about sitting on a mat; it requires developing a lifestyle that maintains homeostasis or harmony, samadhi, at every moment. Pali term bhavana means the development of wisdom and insight. In modern vernacular – rewiring brain. This model must be assessed for its efficacy by the individual and realize the benefits by themselves –ehipassiko; knowledge without practice does not work. According to what the Buddha taught, that is the path to cessation or extinction of craving – tanhakkhaya, the supreme goal.

by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D. ✍️

Continue Reading

Trending