Buddhist Evolution
Buddhism has often and rightfully been presented as a path of "inner revolution". In fact, the term "dharmacakra pravartana", literally "turning of the dharma-wheel", may be rendered as "spiritual revolution". The early sangha is a result of the great revolution initiated by the Gautama Buddha's own awakening and teaching; Mahayana is a result of the revolution initiated among the early Sangha; Tantra and Zen are results of revolutions initiated within Mahayana itself. Now, looking at 25 hundred years of continuation, we can see that these revolutions proceeded along a spiritual evolutionary trajectory hardly envisaged or planned. Every shift was a reaction to a limitation that became evident, and certainly there was a potential for both the limitation and the breakthrough into novelty provided by the preceeding stage in the unfolding of Dharma. Each of these revolutions preserved what was necessary to retain an organic continuation at the level of the View, while advancing fresh formulations and perspectives on the Ultimate and introducing new applications in terms of method. And the last such revolutions happened long before the advent of modernity, before the dawn of awareness which found everything in manifest universe to have evolved, that is, developed through vast stretches of time.
So, for approximately 2,500 years the View, or in other words the Big Picture, has been summarized as follows:
All compounded things are impermanent.
All phenomena lack self-nature.
All dualistic experience is intrinsically painful.
Nirvana alone is peace [and is beyond concept].
With the advent of modernity, evolution enters the Big Picture, becoming a compelling aspect of, well... everything. All compounded things are still impermanent, but their mode of impermanence is held in place by laws of evolution. All phenomena still lack self-nature, and this allows them to be relatively unobstructive to emergence of novelty. And yes, all dualistic experience is intrinsically painful, while Nirvana beyond concept alone is peace. But the View doesn't stop there, not if we embrace what we discovered in "Western" enlightenment and digested in postmodernity. This indeed is just the beginning of something new altogether: this is where we embrace cosmic evolution as the very purpose of awakening. Giving birth to bodhicitta becomes nondual with giving birth to a new level of authenticity, the latter a natural continuation of the former.
So, for approximately 2,500 years the View, or in other words the Big Picture, has been summarized as follows:
All compounded things are impermanent.
All phenomena lack self-nature.
All dualistic experience is intrinsically painful.
Nirvana alone is peace [and is beyond concept].
With the advent of modernity, evolution enters the Big Picture, becoming a compelling aspect of, well... everything. All compounded things are still impermanent, but their mode of impermanence is held in place by laws of evolution. All phenomena still lack self-nature, and this allows them to be relatively unobstructive to emergence of novelty. And yes, all dualistic experience is intrinsically painful, while Nirvana beyond concept alone is peace. But the View doesn't stop there, not if we embrace what we discovered in "Western" enlightenment and digested in postmodernity. This indeed is just the beginning of something new altogether: this is where we embrace cosmic evolution as the very purpose of awakening. Giving birth to bodhicitta becomes nondual with giving birth to a new level of authenticity, the latter a natural continuation of the former.
5 Comments:
I'm just not getting the heart of these last two posts. And I viscerally feel the same problem when I hear Wilber and Cohen talk about evolutionary enlightenment. Forms evolve, teachings evolve... but what's the point in saying that? It seems like a truism. And it seems there is a lot of self-congratulation about recognizing this truism. What am I missing? I ask this in good faith.
Hi, anon! Well, this is straightforward. Observe the opposite. Forms may not evolve, and the same is true with teachings.
As I wrote, we rely on teachings that have last been revolutionized before anything obvious today was even beginning to emerge. Also, we deal with degrees of covert and overt sectarianism and lack of inclusiveness typical for premodern impulses. At the same time, there's a non-reaction to the materialistic culture suggesting a cynical refusal to recognize our dire predicament. Most of "seriously spiritual" people consider too much involvement with the world of form to be a "hindrance", while those less serious don't recognize action is the only measure of awareness. Evolution now depends on individuals taking conscious responsibility for further development, instead of more deeply embracing, as Thich Nhat Hanh preaches in the last issue of Buddhadharma, the end and death of civilization. For some, and that's a truism, there's too much to give up, a whole worldview in fact, so they become morbid.
That would be the heart of the last two posts, but I'm not sure you're missing anything.
Thanks for taking the time to respond!
I think I see why this is important and I've tried to explain the way I'm understanding it in the next few paragraphs.
It seems like this is really directed towards advanced practioners who have already have a lot of insights, especially from within the longer-lived traditions, but who aren't quite moving beyond working toward the monastic/denominational model?
So instead of looking at ways to interface with "outside" society, they are more focused on the well-being of a particular monestary system or denomination... and then not seeing the consequences of being isolated like that?
I do think I understand that. I think of the recent history of Tibet as a very good teaching lesson. That society probably had one of the highest densities of awake humans, but it was mostly limited to some men and was blind to the technological advances around them. As a result, they were steamrolled by a modern military. I also suspect that there was more to it. I think there was also enough "have nots" in Tibetian society who were willing to see what a new government would bring. I am simplifying things greatly, but only see if I'm understanding your point about how a monestary can pretend that it exists in isolation. Am I understanding your point?
I still didn't understand the last sentence about TNH and morbidity. (I don't have access to the article.) Could you explain that last part a little more?
Now this is where it gets interesting. It's not only advanced practitioners who need to consider these issues, because here we're dealing with reforming the very context for spiritual practices of all sorts and levels, as well as redefining the motive for engaging both the formal practices and the world of relationship and culture and commerce itself. The post-denominational orientation and understanding is only one aspect of this context, but it's definitely an area where we (meaning spiritual subjects of every ilk) need to come together and endeavor to create a new culture beyond the traditional focus, as you mention. The narrow focus does not disappear, though, but it gets subsumed into a wider concern of global and then cosmic context. There's plenty room for that in profound teachings if we pay sufficient attention to unpack them accordingly.
Yes, you're getting a part of my point, which is the social dimension, but even more importantly the same point has a huge impact on the awareness of individuals and the manner and motive for their continued development.
As to the reference to TNH, my remark on morbidity didn't refer specifically to anything he said, but to the resistance of many upholders of traditional purity to embrace change in culture and consciousness, usually by saying something like "Things always change" and then not realizing that we should reflect that change at the relative level. As to TNH, The Buddhadharma brings a quote from his newsletter "The Mindfulness Bell" entitled "The End of the World" where he talks of accepting the end of civilization on the line with accepting our imminent death. IMHO, these two issues are of a completely different order, and while one must accept one's own mortality and not struggle with it, but instead make it an incentive to live a deeper life and contribute more, accepting the death of civilization is a different issue altogether. Surely, we should be able to imagine this as a possible outcome, but "accepting" it as something we cannot escape is morbid, to say the least. He also makes quite a few dubious remarks, and here's just two:
"I have known people with cancer able to survive ten, twenty, even thirty years because of their capacity to accept and to live peacefully."
"We have to learn to accept the end of our civilization. Just as we accept our own death, we accept the death of our civilization. We know that another civilization will be born later on, maybe one or two million years later."
"Buddhism is the strongest form of humanism we have ever had... If we awaken to our true situation, there will be collective change in our consciousness."
(1) Because of their capacity to accept??? And not because of anything else, like genetic predisposition and treatments and disciplined medication etc?? So, those awakened masters who have died of cancer in a matter of weeks or months we're what, unable to accept?
(2) We know that another civilization will be born later on? And how does he know that? For 13 billion years there was no culture to speak of, and certainly no self-reflective awareness asking the crucial questions like "Who am I?" and "How shall I live?" Should we become "more peaceful" while accepting that this is our destiny? Peace and happiness are dissolving our spiritual impulse into oblivion. We must practice getting upset for right reasons, while remaining unmoved at the core. Yearning for happiness ought to be transformed into yearning for awareness.
(3) Buddhism is the strongest form of humanism we have ever had?? Yeah, let's make everyone Buddhist and mindful and peaceful, that should take care of everything.
I can see what he's saying, if we'll willing to give ample poetic and logical license, sure, and I find it rather disconcerting, given his influence and authority. Waking up into the unmanifest and realizing peace is not enough. We need to act from that peace not just to help others achieve peace but to actually help human culture evolve beyond present horizons, starting from ourselves. The new understanding is that enlightenment never ends.
I hope this answers some of your comments. Any thoughts?
Very cool. Yes, I understand the heart of it now.
I can only comment on this from the so-called lay perspective, but I think it is an interesting perspective in this context. From my point of view, I have to integrate practice and "worldly life" for the simple reason is if I don't do that, there simply is no opportunity to practice. No momentum can be generated. What little I can in daily sitting do is easily erased by working/home life unless I can find a way to weave a thread of practice through it all. That's the simplist way to say it.
I can say that this attempt (to somehow never stop practicing) actually changes the workplace around me and the life with my wife, but I really have no idea what I'm doing, except essentially staying true to the heart of what I know.
Yet it is sad, because it is one of those things where the saying "if you have to ask, you will never know" seems to apply. (Maybe TNH has simply given up in the face of this situation?)
You know, I think I reacted negatively to the last two posts because the kind of involvement that needs to occur in those of us who haven't even found the first stage of insight and aren't making a living as a spirtual teacher, yet who are nonetheless deeply practicing... it really doesn't seem terribly different than someone might have seen through completely and continues to live from that position. We still need to engage with this world, applying what we know as true, and still let the world play out the way it will, knowing that the facts of what happens are completely beyond our control.
Anyway. without having read the article and relying on your quotes an my own readings of other TNH, I would very much agree and say that TNH -- in his weakest moments -- seems to preach a kind of "don't worry, be happy" philosopy that I find both wise but also very naive. But mostly naive.
I really agree that confusing the end of an individual life and the end of civilization is horribly wrong... in fact, I think that the apocolypic tendency in the christian path is along the same lines: "I'm happy to think about the end of this world because then it won't keep going without me." In other words, the idea of a near-term end of civilization is a comfort because it makes our own near-term death less of an individual tragedy and more of a collective one. That's a lot different than really knowing that I will die and the world will keep on going without the slightest hesitation, which is much much closer to the truth, I think.
Well, thank you very much for this conversation! I think that's all I can say. Maybe I can leave it to you to wrap this up or to choose to leave it as it is!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home