Buddha Dharma in the West

[Asanga]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

But I think I need to return to your original therapy/liberation dichotomy because there’s an aspect I missed the first time around. (Obviously, I should have reflected more before responding.) And that’s the fact that Buddhism of all major traditions may be the most susceptible to devolving into the mere therapy you’re talking about. From the point of view of basic practice, its simplicity, its lack of metaphysics, it’s easy to see the Buddha as the original psychotherapist, the first self-help guru, and thus very liable to assimilation to our age of psychobabble & self-help.

Buddhism can easily become a smorgasbord. When it is treated this way we often miss the golden thread of the teaching that runs through all the various and ennobling traditions which individually represent skillful means. This is to suggest, therefore, that we might be evolving a therapy tradition in the west. But it cannot pretend to speak for the true teaching. Yet, it happens that traditions in the past have claimed the Buddha's mantle. I don't know what to do about this except get up in the morning, make tea, read Sutras, and look within.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

So you may be right that there may be a parting of the ways. But I hope you’re wrong, because in that case what is likely to happen is a retreat by many into the mere forms of the root Asian traditions. So instead of true transmission – which is the vital translation of the essential core into a novel setting – we’ll have mere psychology on the one hand, and empty forms on the other. To me that’s the most pressing danger of the concern you’re raising.

The image which you bring to our minds is accurate. It may be that in this Dharma ending age we have done just that. On the one hand, Buddhism has become psychologized while on the other, it has fallen into empty rituals and pious rule following. I can't imagine a worse situation.

It is possible that the so-called light transmission spoken of in Zen is, therefore, over and done with. Dipamkara Buddha will no longer make the light shine for us. We shall live in shadow.

But I have met a few Asians who still see the golden thread. They tell me that they would teach it but they see many people as demons. I know this will raise some eyebrows! And I apologize for my incautious words. But I am starting to think this way, too. I see so much anger and depression in Dharma centers these days. I hear emotions speaking but very little intuition. I see a lot of belief in materialism but very little belief in our spiritual nature.

Blessings,

Asanga

[samabudhi]

I don't know what to do about this except get up in the morning, make tea, read Sutras, and look within.

Bliss!

They tell me that they would teach it but they see many people as demons. I know this will raise some eyebrows! And I apologize for my incautious words. But I am starting to think this way, too.

Just tonight I was sitting in a restaurant by myself thinking how ignorant everybody appears to be. How sentient beings incarnate, stumble through the trials of life losing faith, hardening, eventually dying.

"But what's the point" self thought.

And I took another look at the sentient beings in the restaurant and saw them as wonderful, pure beings, all on their way to enlightenment, no matter how long it takes. And I thought, "What is each persons next step?" The anticipation of their spiritual growth was tangible. The individuality of each, and seemingly disparate goals, yet the oneness of their destiny. Whether nirvana or samsara, all is mind, each being has the same innate potential, innate nature. E-ma! How wonderful!

[Asanga]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

And I took another look at the sentient beings in the restaurant and saw them as wonderful, pure beings, all on their way to enlightenment, no matter how long it takes. And I thought, "What is each persons next step?" The anticipation of their spiritual growth was tangible. The individuality of each, and seemingly disparate goals, yet the oneness of their destiny. Whether nirvana or samsara, all is mind, each being has the same innate potential, innate nature. E-ma! How wonderful!

The minute I read your words I remembered this passage from the Avatansaka Sutra:

Strange! How Strange! How can it be that although all sentient beings are fully possessed of the wisdom of the Tathagata, because of their ignorance and confusion, they neither know nor see that?

Indeed, as you suggest the world we see is really a manifestation of paths to enlightenment (samyaksambuddha). It is not even a world, as such, of karmic doom but one of the mind trying to find itself, represented in each individual thing, from the blessed gods to the lowly cricket.

The bright Buddha Nature flows through all things, but not all things know this. Because they cling to everything short of this illumined nature which is within them, their path continues.

Thank you so much for your glimpse into Buddha Nature.

Blessing,

Asanga

[samabudhi]

the mind trying to find itself, represented in each individual thing

Nice way of explaining it

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Asanga

It is possible that the so-called light transmission spoken of in Zen is, therefore, over and done with. Dipamkara Buddha will no longer make the light shine for us. We shall live in shadow.

But I have met a few Asians who still see the golden thread. They tell me that they would teach it but they see many people as demons.

I know this will raise some eyebrows! And I apologize for my incautious words. But I am starting to think this way, too. I see so much anger and depression in Dharma centers these days. I hear emotions speaking but very little intuition. I see a lot of belief in materialism but very little belief in our spiritual nature.

- No, I think I should apologize for helping to expand your initial concern into full-blown darkness! (But thanks to Samabudhi for bringing back the light.)

- Devils, celestial saviours & coming redeemers are out of my league, but I respect all wholesome verbal strategies. Your teachers may be talking perfect sense regarding some present conditions. And to me the spectacle of vast cycles of dhamma growth & decline & the punctuated equilibrium of the periodic appearance of Buddhas really point to how ungraspable & hydra headed the whole process of transmission really is.

with metta

[Pathless]

Devadatta

Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult subject. I feel like you bring up some good points, but I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear on them, so I may try to clarify them for myself through a post; then, if you like, you can feedback on whether I'm on the same wavelength.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

This leads into my take on this other question of the dichotomy between some "no-thingness" state and the everyday world. First of all, I don't think the dichotomy is meaningful in the conceptual way it's being posed. On the conceptual level, there is no difference between "no-thingness" and "many-thingness" - these are just labels for different states of abiding. Even in the Pali Canon it's crystal clear that the Buddha's nibbana was quite independent of all meditative states, even the ground zero of cessation-of-perception-and-feeling.

This seems to be more than an argument against the idea of a state of Nirvana separate from Samsara. Instead, your words cut deeper, pointing to the root of the problem being conceptulazation itself. For example, a toddler has not yet developed a solid sense of individual identity, of separateness. Being pre-linguistic, a toddler's conception of the world is much more holistic or "blurry" than a fully individualized person--a teenager, for example. Perhaps part of the work of liberation is to reclaim the holistic no-self of our own infancy. The real challenge in this is that we have to do it later in life, once we have been defined by all sorts of linguistic conventions, conceptualizations, and assumptions.

As an indivualized consciousness, a Buddhist practitioner must attempt to see past--not lose, necessarily, but see past--her learned concepts and assumptions, such as, "That's a willow tree," "My niece is four years old," "My favorite food is deep-fried rutabega with a honey-orange glaze," or "That piece of narrow steel is called a drill bit." Instead, she will soon be able to see that the true nature of all of these assumptions and defined things is no-thingness, or un-separateness. Not that the Buddhist would now start eating drill bits--that would be the action of a lunatic--but perhaps she will be able to see how a deep-fried rutabega is interdependent with a willow tree, a drill bit, and her four year-old niece, and how all of these things sustain everything else in their own way; how they are all part of one organic, ever-changing whole.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

So for me the conflict here is not between some imagined state of enlightenment and the evil state of samsara, but simply the contrast between adjacent states, neither of which (properly speaking) having anything to do with enlightenment.

I'm having a more difficult time with the second part of this one, "neither of which (properly speaking) having anything to do with enlightenment." I wonder if you are trying to point to the fact that "enlightenment" is just another concept and, as such, is unreal. What I take from this is that by conceptualizing enlightenment or Nirvana as a state above and transcendent from Samsara, we create a schism; that is, by making "enlightenment" a goal to be achieved, rather than a real, ever-present state to be accessed, we estrange ourselves from experiencing it.

Originally Posted by Devadatta

So in that sense the problem may be less that of getting enlightenment into one's daily life but in getting enlightenment the hell out of one's daily practice.

Following you now (I think). As stated above, when we create a schism between Nirvana and Samsara by defining enlightenment as a goal to be achieved, we estrange ourselves. However, if we can free ourselves from the idea that enlightenment is something to be achieved, we also open ourselves to experience it more fully. We invite it in by looking it in the eye, rather than push it away by putting it on a pedestal. A key seems to be discarding the dualities of Samsara/Nirvana and ignorance/enlightenment.

It sounds simple (kind of), but who can stare reality in the face?

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Devadatta

Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult subject. I feel like you bring up some good points, but I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear on them, so I may try to clarify them for myself through a post; then, if you like, you can feedback on whether I'm on the same wavelength.



This seems to be more than an argument against the idea of a state of Nirvana separate from Samsara. Instead, your words cut deeper, pointing to the root of the problem being conceptulazation itself. For example, a toddler has not yet developed a solid sense of individual identity, of separateness. Being pre-linguistic, a toddler's conception of the world is much more holistic or "blurry" than a fully individualized person--a teenager, for example. Perhaps part of the work of liberation is to reclaim the holistic no-self of our own infancy. The real challenge in this is that we have to do it later in life, once we have been defined by all sorts of linguistic conventions, conceptualizations, and assumptions.

As an indivualized consciousness, a Buddhist practitioner must attempt to see past--not lose, necessarily, but see past--her learned concepts and assumptions, such as, "That's a willow tree," "My niece is four years old," "My favorite food is deep-fried rutabega with a honey-orange glaze," or "That piece of narrow steel is called a drill bit." Instead, she will soon be able to see that the true nature of all of these assumptions and defined things is no-thingness, or un-separateness. Not that the Buddhist would now start eating drill bits--that would be the action of a lunatic--but perhaps she will be able to see how a deep-fried rutabega is interdependent with a willow tree, a drill bit, and her four year-old niece, and how all of these things sustain everything else in their own way; how they are all part of one organic, ever-changing whole.



I'm having a more difficult time with the second part of this one, "neither of which (properly speaking) having anything to do with enlightenment." I wonder if you are trying to point to the fact that "enlightenment" is just another concept and, as such, is unreal. What I take from this is that by conceptualizing enlightenment or Nirvana as a state above and transcendent from Samsara, we create a schism; that is, by making "enlightenment" a goal to be achieved, rather than a real, ever-present state to be accessed, we estrange ourselves from experiencing it.



Following you now (I think). As stated above, when we create a schism between Nirvana and Samsara by defining enlightenment as a goal to be achieved, we estrange ourselves. However, if we can free ourselves from the idea that enlightenment is something to be achieved, we also open ourselves to experience it more fully. We invite it in by looking it in the eye, rather than push it away by putting it on a pedestal. A key seems to be discarding the dualities of Samsara/Nirvana and ignorance/enlightenment.

It sounds simple (kind of), but who can stare reality in the face?

Your amplifications/correctives/repositionings/Zen babblings are humbly received. Nothing to do now but bark like dogs & whistle the Marseillaise.

with metta

[Pathless]

Point taken.

[bodhi_mindisfree]

Pathless, you ask, "Also, if you would care to discuss more about ways of practice that are not simply sitting meditation."

Instead of sitting meditation, there is Walking meditation, eating meditation, chanting meditation, on and on and on. Mindfulness is the key to meditation. If you live your life mindfully and in the present moment, this is the way of liberation. Some say Suttas offer insight, and even I read the Dhammapada daily, but mindfulness is the key to practise.

Sabbe Satta Sukhito Hontu!
May all beings be happy!

[No essential nature]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

It's like welling up the mud (kleshas) at the bottom of the stream (mind stream) so that it can be washed away (with awareness).

Will the bottom of a river ever run out of mud, before the river dissapears down beneath the stones?

[Asanga]

How do you teach Dharma in the West if it is about detaching from thought phenomena (which includes our emotions), external phenomena of all kinds until there is nothing left, and then you detach from that?

Blessings,

Asanga