In recent years, several East Asian Buddhist teachers in Japan and Taiwan and perhaps elsewhere have touted what they call "Buddhist Humanism" but I have expressed some reservations about this. Is Buddhism really compatible with Western Humanism as it has come down to us from Renaissance times? What, in fact, is Humanism in the first place other than the buggaboo of fundamentalist Christians? Somebody finally asked me what I meant when I said I had reservations, and so I realized I would have to actually figure out exactly what I mean. So here is a preliminary attempt:
First of all I googled the following question: "What is Humanism" and got this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Humanism
Next I looked over some of the definitions and I would like to comment on a few of them:
Here is a good basic definition I think:
"A Renaissance philosohical and educational movement emphasizing the importance and dignity of the human existence and seeking knowlege and understanding of all matters pertaining to earthly, secular life. Central aspects of Humanism include its interest in the educational philosohies of classical antiquity, the development of human virtues and potentials, and the reform of culture for the betterment of human life and the human condition. Humanism originated in Italy in the 14th century in the work and ideas of figures like Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch), and Giovanni Boccaccio."
So how does Buddhism compare with that? Here are four comments on that definition:
1. While Buddhism does teach the dignity of human existence - to stress the importance of it over and above other states, or to seek "earthly, secular" knoweldge and understanding for its own sake is problematic.
Hinayana Buddhism does teach that the human world of the six worlds is the only one in which buddhahood can be attained. But that is the only standard by which it is "better" than say the heavenly world.
In Mahayana Buddhism, even this advantage is put into question by the attainment of buddhahood by the Dragon King's Daughter - a representative of a non-human being.
In general I would have to agree that the human world or a human rebirth represents a rational mode of life wherein one is not overwhelmed by suffering or lulled into complasence by too easy a life. So it is a good balanced position - but in Buddhism humanity is not valued more than other forms of life - it is not anthropcentric so to speak. And it is the capacity to attain Buddhahood that makes human life meaningful, but from the point of view of the mutual possession of the ten worlds, human life is not necessarily the only state wherein this can be accomplished.
As for "seeking knowlege and understanding of all matters pertaining to earthly, secular life", Buddhism would view this as of value only insfor as it leads to non-clinging, and the liberation of all sentient beings and not for its own sake. The Buddha himself refuted the worldly philosophers of his own time and they were referred to as "uutside the way" or "heterodox" in some translations of the sutras and gosho.
2. Humanism is then associated with "the educational philosohies of classical antiquity" by which Greek and Roman education, literature, and philosophy is meant. Now Buddhism can certainly engage in dialogue with those who are interested in this, and there may be many interesting points of comparison, but Buddhism diverges very significantly from classical European thought. In any case, Buddhism as a whole, is more about engaging the present situation and truly seeing the causes and conditions of our actual life lived now, rather than engaging in a historical, philosophical, artistic, or literary recreation.
3. Humanism is about the "development of human virtues and potentials" and here Buddhism and Humanism do have common ground, though I wonder if "human virtues and potentials" take in the six perfections of the bodhisattva, or the four bodhisattva vows, or the aspiration to attain buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. Buddhist virtues tend to have a very broad scope and imply a degree of selfless compassion that goes beyond secular or rational virtues. And again, while Humanism is restricted to the virtues and potentials found solely within the world of humanity, Buddhism has an eye towards all ten worlds and their mutual possession.
4. Humanism also calls for "the reform of culture for the betterment of human life and the human condition" and here again Buddhism and Humanism seem to overlap. But again I think that Buddhism is only interested in bettering human culture and the human condition so as to make it easier to attain awakening, and not because the human state itself should be glorified or clung to. In fact, Buddhism hopes to achieve the betterment of all life and of the condition of all samsaric beings, and not just human life and the human condition - and it does so through liberation from and not glorification of any given state.
Here is another interesting definition:
"Humanism is, more generally, a system of thought that focuses on human beings; their needs, capacities, values, interests, welfare, and worth. More specifically, Humanism was a Renaissance cultural and intellectual movement that emphasized secularism, drawing upon the culture of ancient Greece and Rome."
My comment on this is that Buddhism is not a system of thought that focuses only on human beings. Buddhism looks to the needs, capacities, values, interests, welfare, and worth of all sentient beings. While Buddhism does recognize that killing a human is worse than killing an animal, it's focus does include the welfare of even animals, and other forms of non-human life.
" 'Man is the measure of all things,' proclaimed Protagoras, the Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC. The term humanism has had numerous connotations over the centuries, some positive, some negative. As a movement, in general, the term is usually connected to the Renaissance era (1350-1600), when certain intellectuals began to absorb the literary genius of Greece and Rome, whose writings had been preserved for the most part in Constantinople. Prior to the conquest of Constantinople by the Muslims in 1453, many Byzantine (Greek) scholars fled to Italy and brought with them the ancient texts of Greek philosophy."
"Man (sic) as the measure of all things" is sheer anthropocentrism, whereas Buddhism does not see humanity as even the highest of the six worlds, let alone the ten. Buddhism is, rather, Dharmacentrism if anything. And let us not forget that when the Buddha was asked what he was - a human, or a god, or a spirit - he denied all those terms and simply said that he was an "awakened one" (a Buddha). So for Buddhism, the Dharma as realized and taught by the Buddha is the measure of all things, and while a human being, the Buddha is neverthless awake in a way that most people are not.
"A philosophical movement during the Renaissance that stressed life on Earth, and the quality of being human. Rejected living only for the afterlife of Christianity."
Buddhism would agree that one should not live only for the afterlife, but at the same time the Buddha affirmed that there were heavenly states, and rebirth, and that the causes we make now will not be lost but will become the effects which shape our body, mind, and environment in the future, even in a future rebirth. So Buddhism, unlike Humanism, takes in a greater perspective and context and not just this life. Nichiren actually critiqued Confucianism for not seeing beyond the present life in the beginning of the Kaimoku Sho (Opening of the Eyes) and I think he would view Humanism in the same way.
"The object of much critique, humanism is a description of a position which believes human identity is the result of the individual s human essence, rather than the influence of social or cultural factors. Humanism is thus an idealist, even essentialist, philosophy, rather than realist or materialist."
This is the first I had ever heard of this angle on Humanism. If it is an accurate assesment of the mainstream of Humanist tradition then this is very much at odds with Buddhism, which is a process and not an essentialist view of life. Buddhism critiques the whole idea of "essences" and points out that any phenomena we can point to our think of is a result of changing causes and conditions with no underlying substance or essence, though there is a consistency of causes and effects over time, but even these are not indefinately perpetuated.
"A doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; esp. a philosophy that usu. rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason."
Here is another problem. While some forms of Buddhism (like Zen) do seem to reject supernaturalism, and while all forms of Buddhism do stress the dignity, worth, and capacity for self-realization, it is not true that Buddhism seeks to do it through reason alone. Certainly reason is an important part, and Nichiren points to it as one of the three proofs. Reason or analysis is also important in the provisional approach of Abhidharma psychology and analysis of phenomena. However, even the Abhidharmists knew that only direct realization through meditation and other forms of mental cultivation (apart from the purely rational) would be needed to awaken to the truth. Mahayana as a tradition is especially critical of relying solely on reason and analysis, which is why is sutras emphasize the paradoxical and experiential. It is the overreliance on reason and its perhaps naive overestimation of humanity's reasonableness and inability to recognize the value of self-transcendence that limits Humanism in a way that I believe Buddhism is not limited.
All in all, I think there are some ways in which Buddhism is compatible with certain Humanistic ideas and attitudes, but in the end Buddhism goes far beyond Humanism in the same way that Nichiren pointed out that Buddhism goes beyond Confucianism. Humanism is just too anthropocentric, too essentialist, too one-sidedly rational, and too secular (in the sense of emphasizing worldly values and culture).
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
This will be short, I hope:
I think that while Buddhists should make the Dharma available to people who may be open to it, we should also try to see if Chirstianity itself as understood and practiced in this country can be induced to become more Christ-like through exposure to the Dharma.
What I mean is that Buddhism and Hinduism were rivals for a long time in India. And then Buddhism and Confucianism became rivals in China. In both cases, it was usually a healthy rivalry in that each tradition tried to show that it was wiser and a surer route to sanity and social harmony. Practitioners did their best to live the ideals of their chosen tradition and this attracted others, but also inspired those in the rival traditions to do the same. And for every insight or compassionate action presented by one tradition, the other(s) would try o account for that by bringing out the best in their own tradition. This did not happen in the West because the Roman Empire set an example of killing rather than trying to outdo one's religious rivals. When Cathars became popular in medieval France for instance, the response of the religious and political establishment was not to become better Christians but to begin an inquisition and a crusade and wipe them out. Fortunately at the moment we live a nation where the separation of church and state prevents the Pat Robertsons of the Christian tradition from murdering Buddhists and other "alternative" religions as much as I am sure they might like to. But this means that rather than the crusading route we can go the rivalry route.
Rivalry can be friendly too, and I think this is the way to transform our culture bit by bit, person to person. We need to have the mutual influence of rival traditions encouraging each other to bring out the resources of love and compassion from within their respective traditions.
But I need to give this some thought. Up until now I have thought primarily in terms of how to reach people who might want to take up Buddhist practice. And I certainly don't intend to stop doing that. But now I think I should give some thought to how to reach people who might want to become better Christians by presenting more teachings on the cultivation of love and compassion, and more insights that even Christians might want to account for that don't rely on jargon, metaphysical assumptions or mythology. In this way American Christianity - the mainstream spirituality of this culture - can receive some cross fertilization from the best of the Buddhist tradition while being encouraged to bring out the best within itself (maybe even some stuff that has been neglected or forgotten - like the spiritual advice of John Cassian or the more contemplative traditon of Psuedo Dionysios or the social conscience of St Francis or Dorothy Day or Thomas Merton for instance).
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
In response to a question on the Nichiren Shu Yahoo group I found myself thinking about the Buddhist view of life after death some more and I decided to clean some of that up and post it here as a follow up to my last article:
My understanding of the traditional East Asian Buddhist view is that when we die our superficial levels of consciousness fade away - which is to say the six consciousnesses of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and the mind that senses cognitive and emptional phenomena and co-ordinates the input of the other five senses. The seventh or "ego-consciousness" also fades away. The seventh is the consciousness that corresponds to our sense of self-awareness when experiencing data of the first six consciousnesses and also when acting on that data through mental, verbal, and physical acts. The seventh consciousness is the fruition of the seed of delusion that tries to grasp at phenomena (internal or external) in order to create a stable sense of self.
Deeper than the seventh consciousness is the eighth or storehouse consciousness wherein everything that we have experienced and everything that we have done in this and in other lifetimes is stored. Here is where our habitual responses and ways of perceiving life are stored like seeds and from here they come to fruition in terms of the experiences of the first seven consciousnesses. In a sense they generate the first seven from moment to
moment and from lifetime to lifetime. So when the first seven fade away at death, they are really being submerged once again into the metaphysical field of the eighth consciounsess from whence they will emerge again when conditions in the physical or external world are ripe from their reappearance. This is the consciousness that provides continuity from one lifetime to another according to the Consciousness Only school of Buddhism and came to be accepted throughout East Asian and even Tibetan Buddhism.
Notice that none of these consciousnesses are an entity, they are rather fields
of interactions that generate the feeling of conscious subjectivity. And each has a type of subjectivity particular to itself but which are all bound together in each
moment of life. It takes a lot of deep mindfulness to discern these different levels and how they work. So as I write this a part of my consciousness (the ear consciousness) is registering my wife and daughter speaking Japanese to each other and also the gurgling of water in the bathtub going down the drain and the tapping of this keyboard. Another part (the sixth) is telling me what these sounds mean and that the sound of talking is coming from those people
the eye-consciousness is registering in my peripheral vision and that that tapping is coming from the computer my body consciousness is feeling as I type and so on.. Another part (the seventh) is saying: "Look what I'm doing. Aren't I clever? That's MY wife and MY daughter. This is happening to ME, ME ME. Look what I'm doing! Look what I'm doing! This is happening to ME!" Sometimes that voice is just a whisper, other times (like when I try to meditate or chant) it gets very loud indeed because it knows it's being put in danger of
going to sleep or even of getting cut down to size (and then it congratulates itself on being so clever as to do that and to catch itself resisting doing that to itself in an endless circle like a puppy chasing its own tale). The eighth consciousness meanwhile keeps storing all of this up and generating more and more interpretations and impulses from the deep subconscious to keep the whole thing going. The eighth consciousness itself is not an isolated field as it opens up into the collective consciousness of all beings and is therefore also the field of collective karma and not just individual karma.
Now I think that when we are dreaming the first five consciounsesses are asleep, and the eighth starts providing all kinds of internally generated imagery and adventures for the sixth and seventh to enjoy. In dreamless sleep, even the sixth and seventh are at rest. But in death, I think there is a very subtle sixth and seventh consciousness that are totally at the mercy of whatever imagery and impulses are stored up in the eighth. In a sense the sixth and seventh are no longer anchored by any bodily input at all in the state between
death and rebirth. That is the reason for the 49 days of phantasmagoria spoken
of in the Tibetan Book of the Dead (though the idea of 49 days comes from Sarvastivadin Abhidharma theories.
Determined by karma (the balance of good, bad, and neutral causes stored up in the storehouse consciousness) the first seven consciousnesses are spun out once again at the moment of conception in one of the six worlds - the hells, hungry ghost realms, animal realm, fighting demon realm, human realm, or heavens.
So much for the standard Abhidharma and Consciounsess Only school ideas as I understand them. In short, subjectivity whether in life or in death is not the property of a fixed, independent self, but is generated by a stream of activity on the various fields of the eight consciousnesses. So the stream continues from life to life but is everchanging and dynamic and is not a "self" insofar as it is not such a fixed independent isolatable entity. The stream of the eighth is what provides the continuity from one lifetime to another but each lifetime may have a very different flowering of the other seven consciousnsesses (which is to say body and mind can be very different though there will be certain consistencies due to the underlying karmic flow of the storehouse consciousness).
Now, according to Pure Land piety (which is believed in by the vast majority of
East Asian Buddhists - Japan, Korea, China, and Vietnam) if anyone relies upon the 18th Vow of Amitabha Buddha and calls his name then they can be reborn in his Pure Land after death and attain buddhahood there instead of having to be reborn in the six worlds. So relying upon this faith, all the deceased who had faith in Amitabha Buddha can be called "buddhas" (hotoke in Japanese). This, of course, shorcircuits the whole system I just explained. Pure Land believers no longer think they are at the mercy of their karma (that is to say the outcome of their own actions) rather they are reborn according to the grace or "Original Vow" of Amitabha Buddha.
Not to be outdone, Nichiren proposed that the real buddha is the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha (of whom Amitabha is a mere reflection) and that the real pure land is the Pure Land of Tranquil Light (of which the Pure Land of Perfect Bliss is a mere reflection) and that what we should do to be reborn in the Pure Land and attain buddhahood is to uphold and praise the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Teaching. So once again, all who die are considered "buddhas."
This worked fine for the Confucianists because one should revere one's ancestors and if they are all buddhas then one should doubly revere them. And if one is in doubt about their piety at the moment of death, then one should pray on their behalf so they can proceed to the Pure Land. In Shinto, one can even become a kami (spirit) who will watch over one's descendants or a certain location or a specific field of endeavor. And since ancestors and kami and bodhisattvas or buddhas are all viewed as fulfilling the same role they are more or less equated as benevolent spiritual forces one can pray to.
But of course things can go terribly wrong and the Japanese aren't always sure their spiritual loopholes are as effective as advertised. So despite piety and prayers the deceased might not know they are dead and stick around or become a hungry ghost to accomplish some unfinished business or perhaps pursue some vindictive purpose. They might even possess one of their descendants and then a priest will have to be called in (and here Japanese Buddhism seems to revert to shamanism). Personally I think this is the East Asian way of expressing guilt, fear, neurosis, and nervous breakdowns. I think it has much more to do with their animistic
interpretations of mental illness than it has to do with anything in the spiritual world or in Buddhist or Confucian teachings - in fact possessions and exorcisms are not something one finds in Buddhist sutras or Confucian classics at all.
So here is what I say - leaving all the animism and Pure Land piety (whether
Amitabha or Lotus Sutra directed) aside - I think that people will be reborn in accord with what is in their hearts and what they need to work out for themselves. If a person can honestly and sincerely put faith in the center then they will be ok and will be reborn in the presence of God, the Eternal Buddha, one's loved ones, etc... If not, they will go where they need to in order to work out their karma. I think our prayers before and even after the death of another can help put their minds/hearts at ease as well as putting ourselves at ease and planting the seed of faith deep within our own minds/hearts.
My sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, once asked me if these Buddhist scholars
like Vasubandhu who wrote about what happens after death and before rebirth really know what would happen or if they were just speculating based on things said in the sutras. I had to admit to him that it was all speculation. My sensei then said, "The most important thing is to face death with Anshin." Anshin means "peaceful heart/mind" and is accomlished through faith, which is to say through our trust and confidence in the Dharma. We plant the Dharma in our lives and do our best to live in accord with it, and trust that spiritual resources greater than our own conscious intentions and efforts will add themselves to ours. We face our life and the inevitability of death squarely and see each moment of life as a bonus. In such a spirit of trust, deep appreciation and
gratitude we can put ourselves at ease and cultivate Anshin, and then when it is most needed it will be there. I think this teaching of my sensei is far greater than any of the others that I have recounted and certainly better than mere speculation which, whether true or not, is nowhere near as helpful as Anshin.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi everyone,
I think too often I pussyfoot around my own actual beliefs about the afterlife because I want to spare people's feelings, or because I don't want to disagree with Buddhist traditional views, or because I don't want to come across as unscientific (which to me is even more heretical than disagreeing with Buddha Dharma as I am very sensitive to anyone accussing me of not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality and I think people who can't make such distinctions should be locked up for the sake of public safety - particularly religious fantatics who can't make such distinctions). But really I should own up to my gut feelings/core convictions even if they are not provable.
When I was young (jr. high or high school at least) I took the Edgar Cayce past life readings as almost a given, the way other people grow up believing in heaven and hell as metaphysical givens. It just made sense to me that we are reincarnated and must enjoy or suffer the effects of our own karma. From the Edgar Cayce materials souls or entities have multiple lives as human beings though sometimes as animals and are responsible for their own individual karma and also for a group or collective karma and people tend to be reborn together again and again in different relationships. Also the Edgar Cayce worldview is monotheistic and Christian - so in some ways it is like a Western form of Vedanta with Jesus taking the part of Krishna/Vishnu and an eternal life in heaven as the final goal of all these trials in the world over many lifetimes.
When I learned about Buddhism it provided me with tools to think about rebirth and karma in a more sophisticated way. One big difference from the Cayce materials is that while Buddhism does posit a transmission of consciousness from one lifetime to another - this consciousness is not a fixed independent entity or soul but rather a bundle of habitual patterns, intentions, perhaps compassionate vows and the record of past causes and conditions within the "storehouse consciousness." Rational conscious thought is something that develops within mature human beings arising out of this complex of deeper levels of consciousness; and though the conscious mind is all we usually know it is only the tip of the iceberg. But none of the levels of consciousness (including the deep level that stores the seeds of all our intentions that will someday ripen into events in our lives and/or aspects of our physical,mental and emotional existence) are permanent or independent. They are all dynamic and the product of ever-changing causes and conditions and influences that reach out to all other beings and all things animate or inanimate in some form or other.
Another difference is that Buddhism posits ten different types of rebirth - as a hell-dweller, a hungry ghost, an animal, a fighting demon, a human, a heavenly-being, a saint, a contemplative, a compasionate being, or a fully enlightened one. Furthermore, these are not just literal states of rebirth but are mental states that we experience from moment to moment, they are all implicated in one another, and the literal rebirths are determined by which state we have the greatest tendency to gravitate toward at any given time. So if my disposition and the weight of my deeds tends towards the hellish and if in the very last moment (a microsecond really) of my life I am dwelling on hellish things - then I will be reborn in hell. Or conversely, if it is heavenly things like loving-kindness, then I will be reborn in heaven.
Also, whereas in the Edgard Cayce materials it was Jesus and heaven that described the final goal, in popular Buddhism it would be Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land, or the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha and the Pure Land of Tranquil Light that took up roughly the same functions.
The philosophy of Afred North Whitehead presented a contemporary Western metaphysical system that was not allied with any particular religion or faith, but which neverthless described a universe of interdependence and metaphysical mechanisms for the transmission of our conscious intentions and activities (as well as unconscious ones). But in the end, I viewed this as a nice way of organizing our experience, but it didn't prove anything or make rebirth or the Buddhist point of view seem more likely. Basically Whitehead's process philosophy could be enlisted for many different process oriented views - whether Christian, or materialistic or Buddhist. So I found that to be a kind of fascinating dead-end, though I think process thought is superior to substance/essence ways of organizing experience and is much more in line with what science has learned about how the measurable universe actually works.
After graduate school I got onto the net and ran into Brian Holly. Brian recommended the book Dying to Live: Near Death Experiences by Susan Blackmore. http://tinyurl.com/bxkqd
That book threw me for a loop. It basicaly put the NDE phenomena under a microscope, and Susan (a Buddhist and parapsychologist) basically did a very convincing job of accounting for the various elements of an NDE in terms of the subjectivity of brain-death. That book, along with some other books I had been reading that did a very credible job of debunking the Ian Stevenson studies of reincarnation and the veracity of Edgar Cayce's claims caused me to realize that I could no longer naively take for granted any of the metaphysical assumptions about life and death that I had been clinging to.
I also read more widely about the phenomena of past-life regression and realized that the mind is indeed capable of imaginatively making up past-lives that convince even the person who is unconsciously making them up that they are reporting actual experiences of a distant past that can explain the present. The book Life After Life by Raymond Moody http://tinyurl.com/bv2yp was particularly helpful because in it (if memory serves) Moody admits that these people may be unconsciously making up the material but that therapeutically this was useful because they were making up stories to create a meaningful context for their present problems.
So I learned that people who had experience NDE's or were "remembering" past lives were honestly and sincerly reporting what they had directly experience for themselves - or at least what their minds had experienced or created for them to experience. It is said that when the Buddha attained enlightenment he reviewed all his past life experiences, all the past, present and future lives of other beings, and then the causes and conditions which gave rise to all that he had reviewed. This insight into causes and conditions based upon his review of his own past lives and the lives of others was what enabled him to become free of delusion and awake to life in a way that few people ever achieve. After reading Susan Blackmore and Raymond Moody I realized that the Buddha may in fact have felt that he had directly experienced all these past lives and seen for himself all these heavens, hells, and hungry ghosts, but the genius of his unconscious mind could have manufactured it all and his conscious mind accepted it as fact.
So this brings me to my present thoughts. I can no longer claim, even on the testimony of Edgar Cayce or the Buddha or anyone else that there are literally such places as the ten worlds. On the other hand, my conviction that our lives are determined by causes and conditions, and that we are part of a living selfless universal interdependent process that can be subjectively experienced as universal compassion has not been shaken. I also deeply believe that our conscious minds are just the tip of the iceberg and that beneath it our minds contain vast worlds and innumerable lifetimes that it manufactures moment by moment as the mind takes in all the many experiences and influences of the whole universe as it impacts us and turns it all into a coherent narrative to guide our conscious mind (for better or worse). This can sometimes be accessed if our conscious mind is trained to do so - and it is by tapping into these deeper metaphorical levels of the mind that we experience intuitions of a greater reality than ourselves and our present finite lifetime. Some have experienced this as union with God, others experience it as a non-dual ultimate reality, others might feel that they are reviewing other lives or lifetimes, or are connected to all life in some unimagineable way. And out of all this comes stories of past lives, heavens, hells, deities, angels, bodhisattvas, buddhas, cosmic saviors and so on. It is the vast usually unplumbed potential of the mind subjectively experienced by our conscious awareness as a numinous reality.
But what about the afterlife? I promised not to pussyfoot around but instead have gone on about Edgar Cayce, Alred North Whitehead, Suzan Blackmore, Raymond Moody, and the Buddha beneath the Bodhi Tree reviewing all lifetimes.
Here is what I think - whatever objective reality is we will always experience it in terms of mind - just like the Consciousness-Only School of Buddhism teaches. It is good to be objective, but authentic objectivity only comes through authentic subjectivity (at last I have mentioned Bernard Lonergan who is never far from my mind) and our subjectivity is not something that we can ever escape even in death - since death ends the conscious subject (or at least the continuity thereof) as well as the subjectivity.
So whether there is an afterlife or not we will experience it as a subject - and we will experience it in terms of one or another of the ten worlds. Our subjectivity can be hellish, or heavenly, or compassionate or awakened or any of the others. Where do our minds and hearts dwell? That is the important thing. In that last culminating moment our mind will most likely gravitate to that world whose orbit it is most familiar with of those ten worlds - and I see no reason why that would not (as Buddhism teaches) carry through or over into whatever is past the final moment. I don't believe in inconsistent breaks in other words.
And now for my gut belief that goes beyond logic, or science, or particular dogmas (though it is certainly colored by Buddhism because that is what makes the most sense to me and seems most fitting): I think that our bundle of subjectivity and intentions and habit-patterns, and karmic seeds, and perhaps compassionate vows does have some medium of transfer that transcends material measurements. This bundle is dynamic, without a single fixed or independent element, but it is consistent and has a continuity determined by causes and effect. I think we can be reborn as people again. I think that it is not inconceivable that we could get stuck as ghosts. I think it is concieviable that this "spirit" (for want of a better word) could identify itself with some forms of animal life before taking on a human birth again. I think it is concievable that while there are no geographic heavens or hells the spirit could lock itself into a self-absorbed paranoid nightmare of suffering or find a restful abiding in some heavenly contemplation or even communion with other spirits. Anne Rice makes these kinds of speculations in Memnoch the Devil. Horror fiction, true, but I think Anne was using the medium to think about how the afterlife could be possible given our scientific materialistic worldview - her speculations are certainly no crazier than a lot of New Age ideas, and in fact make a lot more sense than the traditional Buddhist Mt. Sumeru cosmology.
So I will admit that I don't know one way or another. None of us can know until we are actually past knowing. But it seems to me that our mind will and can experience the fullness of itself in this way - through rebirth in terms of the ten worlds in accord with the law of cause and effect. Whether it is or only seems so - I am convinced that there are heavens and hells and more. This means that what the Buddha taught is as true now as ever - we should refrain from making bad causes, endeavor to make good causes, and above all strive to purify our minds.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Here is an article from www.RobertScheer.com that was forwarded to me by my friend Taigen. It articulates my own feelings and observations so well that I felt that I should put it on my blog. It also responds to questions posted to one of my earlier blogs about how the kind of barbarity witnessed in the Superdome could happen here when it would be unthinkable in countries like Japan or Denmark. Anyway, here is the article that articulates views I have held for a long time and which have come into immediate focus in the wake of what has happened:
Disaster Is Rotten Fruit of the 'Reagan Revolution'
September 6, 2005 -- What the world has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.
Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.
Yet the problem is much deeper. For half a century, free-market purists have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent them back toward the abyss.
Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."
None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence. It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life. Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist" government policies that aid only poor brown and black people -- even as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.
For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone -- education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services -- in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.
And, although the wealthy can soften the blow of this national decline by sending their kids to private school, building walls around their communities and checking into distant hotels in the face of approaching calamities, others, like the 150,000 people living below the poverty line in the Katrina damage area -- one-third of whom are elderly -- are left exposed.
Watching on television the stark vulnerability of a permanent underclass of African Americans living in New Orleans ghettos is terrifying. It should be remembered, however, that even when hurricanes are not threatening their lives and sanity, they live in rotting housing complexes, attend embarrassingly ill-equipped public schools and, lacking adequate police protection, are frequently terrorized by unemployed, uneducated young men.
In fact, rather than an anomaly, the public suffering of these desperate Americans is a symbol for a nation that is becoming progressively poorer under the leadership of the party of Big Business. As Katrina was making its devastating landfall, the U.S. Census Bureau released new figures that show that since 1999, the income of the poorest fifth of Americans has dropped 8.7% in inflation-adjusted dollars. Last year alone, 1.1 million were added to the 36 million already on the poverty rolls.
For those who have trouble with statistics, here's the shorthand: The rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting, in the ripe populist language of Louisiana's legendary Long, the shaft.
These are people who have long since been abandoned to their fate. Despite the deep religiosity of the Gulf States and the United States in general, it is the gods of greed that seem to rule. Case in point: The crucial New Orleans marshland that absorbs excess water during storms has been greatly denuded by rampant commercial development allowed by a deregulation-crazy culture that favors a quick buck over long-term community benefits.
Given all this, it is no surprise that leaders, from the White House on down, haven't done right by the people of New Orleans and the rest of the region, before and after what insurance companies insultingly call an "act of God."
Fact is, most of them, and especially our president, just don't care about the people who can't afford to attend political fundraisers or pay for high-priced lobbyists. No, these folks are supposed to be cruising on the rising tide of a booming, unregulated economy that "floats all boats."
They were left floating all right.
I don't usually post other people's writings here, but this one is an exception. The following lines in particular really struck me because they echo the point I was trying to make in my Rissho Ankoku Ron commentary: "There is no such thing as a "natural" disaster. Hurricanes happen, but death comes from official neglect, from tax cuts for the rich that cut the heart out of public protection. The corpses in the street are victims of a class war in which only one side has a general." So here is the article:
BUSH STRAFES NEW ORLEANS
WHERE IS OUR HUEY LONG?
by Greg Palast
Friday, September 2, 2005
The National Public Radio news anchor was so excited I thought she'd piss on herself: the President of the United had flown his plane down to 1700 feet to get a better look at the flood damage! And there was a photo of our Commander-in-Chief taken looking out the window. He looked very serious and concerned.
That was yesterday. Today he played golf. No kidding.
I'm sure the people of New Orleans would have liked to show their appreciation for the official Presidential photo-strafing, but their surface-to-air missiles were wet.
There is nothing new under the sun. In 1927, a Republican President had his photo taken as the Mississippi rolled over New Orleans. Calvin Coolidge, "a little fat man with a notebook in his hand," promised to rebuild the state. He didn't. Instead, he left to play golf with Ken Lay or the Ken Lay railroad baron equivalent of his day.
In 1927, the Democratic Party had died and was awaiting burial. As depression approached, the coma-Dems, like Franklin Roosevelt, called for balancing the budget.
Then, as the waters rose, one politician finally said, roughly, "Screw this! They're lying! The President's lying! The rich fat cats that are drowning you will do it again and again and again. They lead you into imperialist wars for profit, they take away your schools and your hope and when you complain, they blame Blacks and Jews and immigrants. Then they push your kids under. I say, Kick'm in the ass and take your rightful share!"
Huey Long laid out a plan: a progressive income tax, real money for education, public works to rebuild Louisiana and America, an end to wars for empire, and an end to financial oligarchy. The waters receded, the anger did not, and Huey "Kingfish" Long was elected Governor of Louisiana in 1928.
At the time, Louisiana schools were free, but not the textbooks. Governor Long taxed Big Oil to pay for the books. Rockefeller's oil companies refused pay the textbook tax, so Long ordered the National Guard to seize Standard Oil's fields in the Delta.
Huey Long was called a "demagogue" and a "dictator." Of course. Because it was Huey Long who established the concept that a government of the people must protect the people, school, house, and feed them and give every man or woman a job who needs one.
Government, he said, "We The People," not plutocrats nor Halliburtons, must build bridges and levies to keep the waters from rising over our heads. All we had to do was share the nation's wealth we created as a nation. But that meant facing down what he called the "concentrations of monopoly power" to finance the needs of the public.
In other words, Huey Long founded the modern Democratic Party. Franklin Roosevelt and the party establishment, scared senseless of Long's ineluctable march to the White House, adopted his program, called it the New Deal, and later The New Frontier and the Great Society.
America and the party prospered.
America could use a Democratic Party again and there's a rumor it's alive -- somewhere.
And now is the moment, as it was in '27. As the bodies float in the streets of New Orleans, now is not the time for the Democrats to shirk and slink away, bleating they can't "politicize" this avoidable disaster.
Seventy-six years ago this week, Huey Long was shot down, assassinated at the age of 43. But the legacy of his combat remains, from Social Security to veterans' mortgage loans.
There is no such thing as a "natural" disaster. Hurricanes happen, but death comes from official neglect, from tax cuts for the rich that cut the heart out of public protection. The corpses in the street are victims of a class war in which only one side has a general.
Where is our Huey Long? America needs just one Kingfish to stand up and say that our nation must rid itself of the scarecrow with the idiot chuckle, who has left America broken and in danger while he plays tinker-toy Napoleon on other continents.
I realize that the middle of rising flood is a hell of a bad time to give Democrats swimming lessons; but it's act up now or we all go under.
**********
A pedagogical note: As I travel around the USA, I'm just horrified at America's stubborn historical amnesia. Americans, as Sam Cooke said, don't know squat about history. We don't learn the names of a nation's capitol until the 82d Airborne lands there. And it doesn't count if you've watched a Ken Burns documentary on PBS.
I suggest starting with this: read "Huey Long" by the late historian Harry T. Williams. If you want to ease into it, get the Randy Newman album based on it (Good Old Boys) with the song, "Louisiana 1927." Listen to part of the song at www.GregPalast.com Do NOT watch the crappy right-wing agit-prop film, "Huey Long," by Ken Burns.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his commentaries or view his investigative reports for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com
On various lists people have posted links to articles about the
Rissho Ankoku Ron (Treatise on Spreading Peace Throughout the Country
bey Establishing the True Dharma) by Nichiren in reference to the
Katrina disaster in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast. The idea being
that in 13th century Japan, Nichiren submitted this treatise to the
government insisting that various natural and man-made disasters would
continue to befall Japan unless the Japanese people stopped slandering
and neglecting the True Dharma.
Nichiren, however, conversant with weather patterns, plate tectonics,
and other scientific means of understanding the causes and conditions
that bring about natural disasters. Like the Hebrew prophets he
believed that divine powers directly brought about such disasters to
punish people for their sins. Though in the case of monotheists, it is
God who does this Himself (sic) by directing human politics or natural
events - thus the "Act of God." Nichiren, however, believed that it
was a matter of cause and effect, though set into motion by good
deities and bodhisattvas abandoning the country that neglects the
truth and allowing evil demons to come in and take advantage.
Obviously we are not pre-scientific people, nor is our society
Buddhists. I personally do not believe there are literal thunder gods
or demons who create storms because not enough people are chanting
Odaimoku. Anyone who would say such a thing should be put in a
straight jacket and locked into a rubber room with other
fudnamentalists. However, I do believe that behind the pre-scientific
rhetoric of Rissho Ankoku Ron is a valid point - that the values our
society holds and acts upon collectively will contribute to the causes
and conditions that we as a people face for our good or ill. My Rissho
Ankoku Ron commentary investigates this point in depth and may be
found here:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/RAR.html
But now that Katrina has devesated our Gulf Coast and the city of New
Orleans has been inundated and looting and social unrest have broken
out and the economy of that region and are country as a whole stands
to have been equally devestated (which will have long term tragic
effects) I can't help but wonder what are the causes and condtions
behind this? Buddhism does NOT teach that human beings are not
accountable for their actions. Buddhist DOES teach that we must
recognize our role in creating the causes and conditions that
determine not only the nature of our lives, but our society, and the
environment in which we live. This is the basic premis of the teaching
of ichinen sanzen (the three thousand realms in a single moment) that
we as Nichiren Buddhists supposedly put so much stock in. To say that
human values and decisions have no impact, that we are totally
powerless to avert or ameliorate disasters, or that we are not linked
in to our environment is non-Buddhist thinking in my view.
We discussed these things at length last night at the Mt. Source
Sangha's Wednesday night gathering. Led by Taigen Roshi we discussed
the causes and conditions of global warming, the diversion of federal
funds from hurricane protection and construction work on the levees in
New Orleans so that we could fight an unjust war abroad, the fact that
there are not enough National Guards onhand in those states because
they are busy occupying Iraq, and the fact that public transportation
or even school buses were not arranged to get the poor out of New
Orleans - they were just left behind (and not by a rapture).
To be clear - I do not think that global warming as a cause of
Katrina's ferocity has been proven, nor do I think it has been
conclusively disproven. For some different views on this here are two
links to some news articles (one from Time one from the Independent in
the UK - tiny URLS follow the original link):
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article309214.ece
As far as the war goes - I insisted before it began, when it was
underway, and to this day that the invastion of Iraq did not meet the
criteria of a "just war" as upheld today by the Catholic Church among
others (see their Catechism for a modern expression of
this "doctrine"). The Nichiren Shu uphelds an even stricter standard
against war than the Catholic Church though it does not have a clearly
articuted doctrine but rather a stand against all war on principle
that can be found expressed in the English language book Awakening to
the Lotus. I am, however, glad that Saddam Hussein is in jail where he
belongs, that the Baathist party is out of power (though the total and
sudden dismantling of the Iraqi government and infrastructure was
perhaps not the brightest move), and that the oppression of the
Shiites and Kurds is at an end. I am, however, apprehensive that as
soon as our troops are pulled out the country will degenerate into a
merciless and civil war of many factions. We have a responsibility to
the people of Iraq now, but I am not sure if it is to "stay the
course" (whatever that means - and I hope it is more than just pursit
of our own or rather of corporate self-interest) or to abandon them to
their fate. In any case, billions, I guess trillions of dollars have
been poured into our efforts in Iraq, our National Guards are there
instead of here, and two or three or more of our troops die everyday
as though in a grim lottery. And the effect of diverting all these
resources to Iraq (and I should mention Afghanistan too which we have
yet to stabilize) can be found to be directly felt in the lack of
funds for hurricane protection and levee construction and lack of
manpower to restore order now that a disaster has struck. One can read
about this and follow up on some thought-provoking links here (again
followed by a tiny URL in case the main link gets broken when I post
this):
http://corrente.blogspot.com/2005/09/death-president.html
As a Nichiren Buddhist I hold the conviction that neglecting our
responsibility for the environment and invading a sovereign nation are
bad causes and in accordence with the principle of ichinen sanzen our
society (including hundreds, thousands, even millions of personally
innocent people) is suffering because of it. I am convinced that if
Nichiren were alive today, the Rissho Ankoku Ron he would write would
include this disaster and instead of attacking the exclusive and
reductionist Pure Land piety of Honen, he would attack the arrogance
and militarism of our business and political leaders - and perhaps he
might add in something about Christian religious leaders who believe
that assassination is a legitimate way of doing things and isn't
afraid to say so publicly.
Here is a link (which was actually within one of the other articles I
linked to earlier) which really lays out all the facts:
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html
Now for a bit of ugly honesty from me: There is a part of me (the
fighting demon political partisan part of the ten worlds within me)
that is glad to have a scapegoat that I can self-righteously rail
about, that feels that my views in the Rissho Ankoku Ron have been
proven by actual events. But the bodhisattva world within me is close
to tears thinking about the man whose wife was swept from his grip, or
the kids crying for their father after he went back to look for their
cat and did not return, or the stories of apartment building swept
away with people in them and bodies floating through the streets, or
the story I heard on CNN about dogs (and if it happened to them than
maybe it has happened to people) getting caught in downed electrical
wires and slowly electrocuted. How horrible when prophecies come to
pass. Just a few months ago I was reading the Hebrew prophets and
their predictions of what would happen to the people of Jerusalem if
the Babylonians beseiged it. These devout men who loved their country
more than their own lives predicted disasters with images gruesome
enough to induce nightmares in even the modern reader - and they came
to pass! How horrible for the prophets to have seen their worst fears
come to life. Nichiren was fortunate that he did not get to personally
see the devestation of the Mongol invasions, but he still lamented and
grived in his letters that his predictions had come true, even as he
admitted to feeling vindicated. But now we have CNN, and internet
access to everything that is happening - including eye-witness
accounts, blogs, photos, and even streamed video.
The bodhisattva acknowledges the outrage of the fighting demon, the
bodhisattva even acknowledges when the fighting demon is correct. But
the bodhisattva then ask, "O.k, what do we do know? How do we turn
from assigning blame to taking responsibility for how each of us is a
contributor and a benefactor to the system which has brought this
about? How do we find ways, no matter how small, to make better
causes, to relieve the suffering present now, and work to avert it in
the future?" This is something we also taked about last night.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei