The No-Self Fallacy

No-self, non-self, or not self? And that's only the beginning. An interesting interview in Tricycle with scholar and author John Peacocke, available online. Here's a snip:

What is the Buddhist answer to metaphysical inquiry, then?
The Buddha’s method is a phenomenological one. How does something appear, how does this thing that we call the self operate? He’s not asking, Is there a self or is there not a self? One possible answer is deterministic and eternalistic, and the other, nihilistic. So the Buddha is asking not so much what as how.

I should add that I feel “not-self”—anatta—is actually a much-misunderstood teaching. The Buddha is not saying that there is no self, which is an idea that I think in a Western context can be extremely dangerous.

Why?
Because it’s nihilistic. The Buddha himself says it’s better to teach self than to teach annihilationism; given the choice, it’s better to teach that there is something because this leads at least to some kind of ethical responsibility. I think in our Western culture sometimes people have a very fragile notion of what the self is anyway, so to come along and tell them there’s no self could be very destructive.

I'm very much in agreement with these points. So, basically, the Buddha is not saying that there is no self, plus it's better to teach self than to teach nihilism. Many Buddhists stumble on this crucial point of something vs. nothing, not seeing that nairatmya (pali: anatta) is indeed neither. In short, nairatmya is path, not the ultimate.

Read the whole interview.

Thurman at NYTimes Magazine

Thanks to WH for pointing to this interview with Robert Thurman at NYTimes. It's fun, as usually, to read Thurman's observations on the Dalai Lama, China, and Buddhism in American culture -

...when I am annoyed with Dick Cheney, I meditate on how Dick Cheney was my mother in a previous life and nursed me at his breast.

Nice image there. Then we have the inevitable E-question:

Do you consider yourself enlightened? Someone who goes around saying, “I’m enlightened,” is almost categorically not.

That's exactly the kind of generalization and evasion we don't need these days. Gautama the Buddha went around and said he was awakened every single day, throughout his life. His awakened disciples, from Shariputra to Kashyapa to Maudgalyayana, even his aunt Pajapati Gotami, freely proclaimed their attainment to everyone who'd listen. Examples too numerous to list abound in the histories of every major Buddhist school from India to Japan. Robert Thurman's answer should have been (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) Sometimes; (4) Partially; (5) I'm on my way but haven't made much progress; or the tantric (6) Ask my wife!

Granted, it's become customary with institutionalization of Buddhism in most Eastern cultures - from Tibet to Japan - to consider open disclosure of accomplishment as something of a taboo. Others are supposed to do it for you, and they usually do, even when it's not the case and you've been appointed to an important position.

But it's simply not true that proclamation of awakening demonstrates the opposite. And it's unbeneficial to spread this sort of political correctness in these days when most Buddhists in the West of every tradition and ilk don't even consider enlightenment in their own lives as something really doable. That is almost categorically not beneficial.

On Models of Wakefulness

Vincent Horn writes in his post "How you Approach Enlightenment and Why it Matters":

It’s often recognized by meditation teachers that the notion of enlightenment carries with it a whole host of misconceptions and unhelpful interpretations. In Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, Theravada teacher Daniel Ingram writes about this at length in his section on the models of enlightenment. He describes and distinguishes between the many different models we have for what enlightenment bestows on the individual, including things having to do with emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual perfection. He also points out how dangerous some of these models can be, as they do at least two things: First, they make enlightenment appear to be completely impossible as most of the models people have, and especially when you combine several of them, are largely unattainable. Secondly, they take the focus off of what enlightenment is really about, the realization of non-duality, or “those models having to do with eliminating or seeing through the sense that there is a fundamentally separate or continuous center-point, agent, watcher, doer, perceiver, subject, observer or similar entity.” These Non-Duality models, Daniel claims, are the only models that one can trust from the beginning of the path, until the very end.

Yes, music for my ears. Read the whole post.

Happy 2008

The One Way

"According to the Buddha, no one can attain basic sanity and basic enlightenment without practicing meditation. You might be highly confused or you might be highly awakened and completely ready for the path. You might be emotionally disturbed and experiencing a sense of claustrophobia in relation to your world. Perhaps you are inspired by works of art you have done or the visual and audial aspects of works of art in general. You might be fat, thin, big, small, ntelligent, stupid -- whatever you are, there is only one way, unconditionally, and that is to begin with the practice of meditation. The practice of meditation is THE and ONLY way. Without that, there is no way out and no way in."

Chogyam Trungpa

Drop karma

Buddhist teaching of ethical cause and effect (skt. karma-vipaka), as well as it's variant causes and conditions (skt. hetu-pratyaya), has historically been used at various levels of philosophical and practical sophistication. When transmitting Dharma to the West, the notion of "karma" has most often not been properly translated, that is, it has never been properly and sufficiently interpreted to give rise to a practical conceptual translation. Knowledge and awareness of natural karmic dynamics (as distinct from karma being controlled by something or someone) is considered to be indispensable for genuine Buddhist practice.

What the Buddha's teaching of karma does, in effect, is empower the individual practitioner. Since I am simultaneously the actor (skt. kartr) and experiencer (skt. bhoktr), fundamentally it's up to me. Structurally speaking, this is an enormous leap. At the time of the Buddha, karma was interpreted in many different ways, all of which had one thing in common: karma was inflicted upon you, and there's not much an average individual can do about it. The Buddha did a strategic reframing of this valid, albeit partial truth. First, since a present felt-sense is a result, technically "a fruition", of previous actions, and the present action is at it's core a cause for future fruitions, your first task is to act upon the opportunity and transform the felt-sense into a stream of self-liberating events. To act in this way, you need to become a knower (skt. jnatr) and not just an actor/experiencer, because awareness/wisdom (skt. jnana) must arise in the middle of those two aspects that all too often generate a self-perpetuating reactive compulsion, known also as "laukika pratitya-samutpada", the worldly/cyclical dependent arising.

Arising from the self-protecting momentum of the felt-sense, there appears to exist a fundamental duality of acting and experiencing self on one side ("here") and the objects of one's actions and experiences, the conditions of the world and others on the other side ("there"). This illusion of fundamental separation makes the whole process appear unquestionable, as a matter of fact. Thus, one is surrounded with infinite sources of either pleasure or pain, hence one is at mercy of other powers. Subjectively speaking, one is at every step followed by fear. Not knowing any better, not understanding the beginnning and end of such predicament, being a victim of sorts, one divides this world into that which is craved for and that which is feared, and one divides others into allies and enemies, friends and foes. The Buddha's teaching points back at the experiencing self, offering steps toward freedom from this phobic relationship to life. (Buddha's activity is often equated to bestowing freedom from fear.)

So first of all, instead of being a victim, become a witness. Step back for a moment and allow your experience to arise of it's own accord, in light of your awareness. Witness, without acting or avoiding. You will discover that action is essentially volitional impulse (skt. cetana) and you will decide to develop sufficient presence of mind to dwell at that level, recognizing that without such development you are at the mercy of your own unawareness (skt. avidya). Depending on one's spiritual talent, such witnessing gives birth to either dispassion (seeing your own predicament) or compassion (seeing everyone's predicament). In either case, you are given a chance to not do anything or act differently, but always consciously.

So, basically, get your act together, own your felt-sense, take heart and assume responsibility, and develop the ability to be free from compulsive reactivity, more and more, day by day. Pursue this course of awareness without attachment (dispassion), gentle and generous (compassion), untill you find all fundamental objection to life and death has been eradicated. Herein lies the initial freedom from karma.

Drop karma and assume responsibility.

(to be continued)

Hardcore Dharma

Good Daniel Ingram has made his book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha", available in blog form ("blook") to make it searchable and perhaps easier to read. The book is also available in several static forms here for download and printout (300 pages). If you're seriously into meditation and realization, and not just hanging around Buddhist centers and teachers 'till the holy cows come home, you should be very interested in this material. It is not intended to make you more comfortable with yourself, nor to make you believe in the myths. Instead, it is a perspective of honest clarity, based on first-hand experience as well as the teachings of the Buddha and subsequent enlightened practitioners. I praise this offering and look forward for Daniel's posts in his recently activated blog.

A beautiful quote from MCTB, that is the last 37th chapter of the book, entitled "Conclusion and Best Wishes":

"I do hope that people will not settle for becoming lost in the dogma of this work, Buddhism, or of any mystical tradition. I hope that they learn to actually do the practices that lead to freedom and to the deep integration of that freedom into their lives. I hope that they have faith that mastery can be attained. I hope that they will learn to ask good questions that will help them to accomplish this. I hope that the culture of Buddhism and the world in general will become less sectarian instead of more. I hope that students of meditation will use spiritual conceptual frameworks as tools and not worship them as sacred dogma. I hope that the huge amount of magical and fantastic thinking that accompanies spiritual traditions will immediately vanish from this planet forever.

I hope that those on the path will learn to talk with each other in ways that are conducive to clear practice. I hope that any controversial points made in this little book will promote skillful debate and real inquiry rather than contraction into fear and dogma. I hope that people will work towards actual mastery of the path so that they will no longer need writings such as this one. I hope that people will not spend their lives lost in content but will also delve deeply into the liberating truth of the Three Characteristics. I hope that the level of expectation about what is possible will be raised in a way that is helpful, and that any jealousy or frustration that results from this will be skillfully channeled into precise practice and the joy that it can be done.

May all of this be for the benefit of all beings. Should you realize that you wish to awaken, know that it is within your capabilities and do so."

Buddha and Myth

One of special features of Buddhism is the function of myth. When Shakyamuni Buddha aka Siddhartha Gautama set in motion the wheel of doctrine in 6th century BC, his approach to myth was revolutionary for that time anywhere. And it still is for many minds today.

(1) The Buddha did not dispense with myth, but instead pointed out we need not be limited by mythical narratives, nor should we continue disempowering ourselves by unconsciously objectifying as external to ourselves that which we cannot grasp, that is, the Reality-as-such. So, in history of Buddhism, the first strategic move was to undo the immense power locked in myth. The Buddha, hence, did not reject the mythical narrative as such, but decided to engage it's transformative power as long as we endeavour to look beyond the myth itself. (See his treatment of Aryan traditions in Sigalovada sutta: summary at Wikipedia here, the whole text here. This is a fine example of the way Buddha skilfully unpacked the potential of a symbolic instruction that his audience was already familiar with.)

As preserved in the Nikaya/Agama tradition (the textual collection known as Tipitaka in Pali, or Tripitaka in Sanskrt), such is the general treatment of myth. Interpretations of this textual collection vary from lineage to lineage. A general non-literalism, however, is a hallmark of genuine Buddhist hermeneutic, irrespective of vehicle or tradition, although it's easy to find examples of simplistic approaches, of course. Non-literalism was the basis for Gautama Buddha refusing to have his words formulated exclusively in Brahmanic Sanskrt - he chose instead to have it transmitted in vernacular along with linguae francae.

(2) In due course, the Dharma was once again revolutionized in the emergence of Mahayana, specifically in the teaching of "emptiness" (shunyavada), non-duality of samsara and nirvana, and the ideals of bodhisattva and mahasattva. There are many ways to conceptualize emptiness, depending on depth and specific application. "Emptiness of myth" signifies the radical transparency of the mythical narrative, which could be used now as a potent metaphor for Reality-as-such, namely suchness. Therefore, with the advent of Mahayana, we find the myth coming back in a big way - the grand figures of Buddhas historical and eternal, of Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Samantabhadra and Vajrapani, and of protectors and numerous deities, populating and animating the spiritual world as allegories of transcendental virtues that adorn the peerless Bodhi. Such virtues were no longer static and abstract even to the less fortunate followers, who were told all such virtues of Bodhi are reflected in their own buddha-nature (Skt. sugata-garbha).

(3) When Mahayana gave rise to Mantrayana - or rather guhya mantranaya - it's most secret path, the myth was once again recharged with new limpidity and even luminosity. While exoteric Mahayana used myth to allegorize Reality by employing transparent symbols (along with using rationality and logic to analyze what could be analyzed), the esoteric approach went one step further: it used the mythical narrative to engender not symbols but veritable sacraments, embodiments of ecstatic intensity manifesting in the fusion of transcendent and immanent. Not gods or even mahasattvas, but esoteric Deities; embodiments not of a distant Goal, but of an immediate Path; not dualistic meanings, but non-dual mantras; not words and objects and actions, but microcosmic enactments of Reality-as-such. The esoteric Deity is always emptiness Itself, quite devoid of meaninglessness, here and now.

These three moves are as significant for us today, or perhaps even more so, since the majority of humanity is immersed in magic-and-myth, in miracle and literality.