Michele asked in re to the previous entry:
"How do we go about teaching Buddhism to folks who have ADHD or other learning disabilities, who have trouble focusing on more than a paragraph reading?"
This is an important question. Actually there is a story about the Buddha dealing with a person who had exactly that problem - he could not focus enough to take in and understand any of the Buddha's discourses. His name was Chulapanthaka. Here is a simplified retelling of the story of Chulapanthaka by Nikkyo Niwano:
There was once a somewhat dimwitted young man named Chulapanthaka who, with his more intelligent brother, went to the Jetavana Monastery to join the Buddhist Order. During his training, however, he could not memorize even a single verse of a sutra and was driven out by the older followers of the Buddha. As he stood sobbing at the gate, the Buddha appeared and led him back inside, handed him a broom, and told him to recite over and over as he swept, "Sweep away the dust," and "Take away the dirt." Day after day as he swept the rooms clean, Chulapanthaka tried his best to recite these phrases, but if he remembered "Sweep away the dust," he would forget "Take away the dirt." As months passed, however, he succeeded in remembering both phrases, and after doing that for several months eventually attained enlightenment. One day his brother, whom he had not seen for a long time, came to the monastery to visit him and saw a new light in Chulapanthaka's eyes and radiance in his face. Struck by these facial changes, the elder brother incredulously exclaimed that Chulapanthaka had attained enlightenment. Among the Buddha's followers were many great figures like Shariputra and Maudgalyayana, but nothing they did inspires us with as much courage as Chulapanthaka's transformation.
from Invisible Eyelashes
The original story from the Pali commentaries on the Dhammapada (I think that is where it is from) is more complex and much more fantastic, but the point is the same. All the teachings are to guide and encourage practice, they are not metaphysical propositions to be remembered and believed in. And the practice simply comes down to making good causes, avoiding bad causes, and purifying the mind. Even a phrase, or a sentence with two clauses, as in the Chulapanthaka story, can direct the mind, calm and focus the mind, elevate it into a more wholesome sphere, and then allow one to gain direct insight and see for oneself how things are, just as the Buddha did. Once one has directly seen the true nature, one can understand the true intention and point of all the complex teachings and methodologies of Dharma practice - but not from a conceptual acadmic point of view as doctrines to be memorized and passed on but as existential realities. One will see the Dharma and know it as easily as one can know the back of ones' hands.
Now granted there is, I believe, the danger of mistaking a shallow insight for a deeper one, or a temporary exaltation of mind for an insight. That is why some teachings point more directly than others in my view. But the principle doesn't change. Even the most sublime pointer does not need to be a difficult concept - it simply needs to point one in the right direction to see for oneself in one's own life what is the case. Nichiren taught that the Lotus Sutra boiled down in one age to Bodhisattva Never Despises simple greeting (in translation no more than 24 Chinese characters) of respect for all he met. In our age, Nichiren believed the pointer needed no more than the seven Chinese characters of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. Take that pointer to heart, let it be one's compass guide for contemplation - and all that matters will be revealed.
Still, that is not to say that there is no content at all to the insight that Namu Myoho Renge Kyo leads to. The content is elucidated in the eight volumes of the Lotus Sutra, the Lotus Sutra refers to other Lotus Sutras that are far larger. The content seems to be something ineffable that can't be encapsulated or exhausted by words. And yet, words are used nevertheless to inspire, guide, evoke a sense of how sublime and boundless the actual unborn and deathless awakening is. But how many words are really necessary? How few are too few? What do we need to assist pointing the practitioner in the right directions insofar as right view and right intentions and so on are concerned with respect to the fundamental practice of just chanting Odaimoku and upholding its spirit?
Do we need to know the ins and outs of ichinen sanze? Do we need to know how to authentically translate bonno soku bodai? Do we need to know all about the history of the Nichiren lineages in medieval Japan? Do we need to know how to discern the authenticity of gosho? How much scholarly work do we need to do before having a correct practice? Does one need a Ph.D. in Buddhist studies, or a bit of study, or simply a mentor one trusts? Or no study at all? Nichrien rules out that last option, by the way. He said that without practice and study there is no Buddhism. But how much is too much?
The liturgy of Nichiren Shu, I believe, really expresses what needs to be expressed about our teaching, practice, and understanding. I think it really lays out the most important view, intentions, attitudes, and way of life of a practitioner of the Lotus Sutra. In my view, one would do well just to really contemplate what the parts of the liturgy are saying, and when necessary to follow up on the allusions and references to make sure that one understands what the prayers, dedications, refuges, and vows are all about. These are all the most important of the facets of the jewel of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.
So my answer to people who may have trouble studying more abstract forms of Buddhism is to just study your own practice. Make sure you understand what it is that you are saying each day. Don't just say things by rote or without meaning them. Really mean what you say and make sure you are saying what you mean. I think this study of the practice itself is the most important study, and in many ways it is the beginning and end of study - to understand the practice and thereby to understand, open up, and awaken to the buddha-nature itself that the practice is leading one to, intimating, and expressing. Most importantly the practice is inviting one to see for oneself and to actualize for oneself this true nature. That is what needs to be studied.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi everyone,
As Byrd noted, my response to Glenn was rather on the eggheady side of things.
But after thinking it over - my response really came down to some core convictions of mine that I don't think are all that complicated.
1. I think that the Buddha took advantage of all the spiritual methods of his day that dealt with calming and being at peace but he took it in a revolutionary direction. He used that calm peaceful mind to just see how things actually are and by awakening to that freeing oneself of the mental and emotional poisons that ruin our life. This awakening allows us to express the love, joy, compassion, and true peace that is our actual birthright.
2. This method the Buddha uses boils down to samatha (stopping) and vipassana (looking). We say, "stop and smell the roses." It's the same idea but taken to a rutheless clinical extreme of dropping all our self-interest, preoccupations, attachments, aversions, and assumptions and just nonjudgementally being presently aware of what is. This is easier said than done of course. It takes courage, maturity, and self-discipline.
3. The Buddha realized that there does need to be a way to facilitate the maturity, stability, self-discipline needed to just stop and look. That is why he prescribed a program consisting of a holistic healthy lifestyle called the eightfold path or the Middle Way. This can be explained in a simpler way as the threefold training of morality, meditation, and wisdom, or broken down into a system of 37 aids to enlightenment. But these all come back to the Middle Way of the eightfold path. The Buddha unequivocally stated that the only way to liberation is through following this path. I believe that. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be followed self-consciously, and in some cases it would be detrimental to do so.
4. Now there are some elements that the Buddha taught which do not fit into the eightfold path. One of these is faith, or sraddha, which means "trust" or "confidence." Faith is one (actually two in different modes) of the 37 aids to enlightenment. The Buddha realized that in order to take up the Middle Way and follow through with it, one must be motivated and must have deep trust and confidence in this Way and one's ability to accomplish it. The Buddha also realized that some people have a more simplistic and devotional orientation and if that could be utilized in the direction of faith in the Middle Way then such people could awaken as well, just as their more detached and intellectual counterparts - maybe even more easily because they wouldn't have to contend with so much conceputalizing and intellectualizing and second-guessing. I believe those who strongly emphasize just silent sitting or mindfulness to the exclusion of the role of faith are overlooking an imporant element of the Way - perhaps the key element as without faith one cannot even begin the Way let alone conclude it in the face of difficulties both internal and external.
5. The Buddha also taught the six recollections as a way of fostering faith, confidence, and to enhance one's motivation to practice. These are recollection of the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, and of the merits of generosity, morality, and aspiration to the heavenly realms. Perhaps the six recollections cannot in and of themselves lead to right view and the rest - mindfulness and insight. But they strengthen, direct, and inspire the faith that does lead to the emulation of the Buddha, the practice of the Dharma, and so on. I believe the recollection of the Buddha eventually evolved into Nembutsu, whereas the recollection of the Dharma can be seen as the prototype of Odaimoku. In fact, I think the recollection of the Dharma can be said to be the Buddha's own practice in a very fundamental sense - but that is another article.
6. The Buddha also taught the cultivation of the Brahmaviharas - boundless loving-kindness, boundless compassion, boundless sympathetic joy, and boundless equanimity. He taught these to those who wanted to be reborn in the heavenly realms in union with Brahma (the creator God). He taught them to those who needed to overcome hatred and ill-will. He taught them to the Kalamas so they could directly experience wholesome states of mind. In short, the Buddha realized that some people need to work on their emotional life and bring it into a more wholesome balance before embarking on the more detached and clinical method of stopping and looking. There are some hints in some discourses that the Buddha believed these could lead to awakening itself if taken to their ultimate conclusion. Others, the Mahayanists, came to believe that an awakened person would not have transcended these states, as though leaving them behind or outgrowing them; but rather the Buddha had consummated these states and naturally expressed them in his interractions with others without any trace of self-consciousness, self-serving purposes, or even any duality between self and other. I think these Brahmaviharas should not be underestimated or neglected, even though they are not part of the 37 aids to enlightenment or explicitly part of the 8-fold path.
So in short I see the Mahayana as a blossoming of the importance of the Brahmaviharas, an further awakening into the no-self nature and the non-duality of the conditioned and the unconditioned, and in many of its forms as a realization that if Buddhism is to be a Way of awakening for more than an elite few, the element of faith can be the Dharmagate that unselfconsciously allows for the development of the rest. Can faith and the cultivation of devotional methods be misused or misdirected to further exacerbate greed, hatred, and delusion? Sure. But that is when these skillful methods are no longer skillful and no longer an effective method. But that does not mean that Buddhism should not try to be skillful and should not try to use those methods that speak to the heart of the common person as well as the mind of the skeptical detached observer.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Some of you might remember that I have written about an old friend of mine (well he's not "old, old" just a friend from way back) named Glenn Wallis.
Glenn recently asked for my reaction to an article that he wrote regarding whether Buddhism is an anything goes affir?
It is quite a challenging article, and it is something that I have thought long and hard about from time to time. Glenn invited me to post my comment about this on his blog as well.
But I'd also like to share my comments here as well. So here they are:
The question you ask in the article is "We say Buddhist, but on what grounds, what basis?"
I think this is a very fair question. My own question has been: "When is an alleged skillful methods neither skillful nor an effective method of helping people understand suffering, cut off its causes, realize freedom, and cultivate the path?"
I don't think skillful methods can be dispensed with. I think that Buddhism does have just one taste, the taste of liberation, but to get to that requires many different methods and the liberation itself is a "you have to be there" kind of experience that cannot be pinned down. I do think its fruits or traces can be described. One can, in a sense, triangulate authentic awakening by looking for things like selflessness, equanimity, compassion, nonattachment, and so on.
I find Buddhism to be a living breathing culture whose aim is supposedly that awakening or liberation. That culture is certainly wheezing and gasping and in some of its forms is either dead or perhaps undead (by which I mean a rotting thing that moves though it should have been buried long ago and that sucks the life out of others rather than bestowing life). This can be said of any religious tradition though - they are cultures based on some awakening or liberation (on some level - or at least the appearance of some kind of salvation) that changes, evolves, mutates, dies, passes on old insights or values(sometimes way past the expiration dates), as well as old biases and prejudices, breaks up other biases and prejudices, and occasionally picks up new insights and values or picks up new biases and prejudices.
You start your investigation with an overaching premise: that Gotama was an unsurpassed scientist of the real. I don't know enough about scientific method, and I have never even read Thomas Kuhn's book (though probably I should), but it seems to me, judging from the Pali Canon that is all I have to go by, that Siddhartha Gautama was at least a deep empiricist. By this I mean that he did not arrive at awakening through some mystical revelation or scripture, nor through logic or speculative reasoning, but through his own direct experience based on meditative praxis (samatha and vipassana). This is empiricism but not in the sense of the materialistic or positivistic sense of people today - but more in a yogic sense. If meditation is an experiment and the meditation room is a laboratory, then yes I guess we could say Gautama was a scientist. I looked up "scientific method" on wikipedia though, and it states that it is a method of observation and experimentation based on testable hypothesis and able to be objectively verified. But was what Gautama awakened to objectively verifiable? Or was his awakening the fruit of a spiritual maturity that is inherently a subjective matter?
I like your way of expressing the four noble truths - that in itself is a skillful means. I see the four noble truths themselves as a skillful means of setting up a method whereby we can discern how things are really and be liberated by that insight.
I also agree that the four foundations of mindfulness are an effective means of awakening to our situation. I think all Buddhist practice should boil down to samatha (necessary to overcome negativity and cultivate enough focus and clearheadedness to observe impartially how things are) and vipassana (and this is when meditation becomes truly Buddhist when it leads to actual insight). I think when you get past the hype, spin, and packaging it can be seen that Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen and the rest all boil down to samatha vipassana.
But what about the six recollections (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, dana, sila, devas) or the recitation of the Metta Sutta or the Brahmaviharas (the divine abodes of boundless friendless, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity)? These are also found in the Pali Canon though they are not given the importance of the four foundations or the other 37 requisites of enlightenment. For that matter, was it the Buddha or later redactors that put the emphasis on the 37 factors over and above the Brahmaviharas or the six recollections? For my part I agree that vipassana or insight into the conditioned nature of dharmas that leads to detachment and liberation trumps the Brahmaviharas or the more devotional six recollections. Without that insight each of the Brahmaviharas can lead to its near or far enemies, and the six recollections can lead to increased attachment (and their corollary aversions) rather than less. And yet, I have to wonder about three things:
1. In terms of the outcome of the practice of the 37 qualities: Is the detachment of seeing that all dharmas are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and selfless all that we are looking for? Is equanimity really a supreme value that supercedes compassion? Or is compassion somehow integral? And if so, how does it fit into this detached empirical investigation leading to disenchantment and detachment?
2. In terms of helping people actually practice the 37 requisites: What about all those for whom the five hindrances of sensual desire, hostility, heavy lethargy, agitated worry, and debilitating doubt are so overpowering that they are not able to give this bare bones practice a try? Shouldn't other wholesome practices be introduced to help get people to the point where they are able to appreciate and take up the practice of being fully awakened to the real? Isn't this the point of the Buddha's "graduated discourse" wherein he taught people about the value of generosity, self-discipline, and aspiration to the heavenly realms, and then the value of renunciation? He taught all this and only then taught the four noble truths. So the Buddha himself apparently knew that some groundwork needed to be laid before getting into his core teaching and practice - at least according to the Pali Canon. If skillful methods are the downfall of Buddhism, then the Buddha himself is as much to blame as anyone else. And who is to say that the 37 requisites are themselves not just another skillful method, though a deeper and more comprehensive presentation? In the case of Bahiya, the Buddha simply taught, "In the seen only the seen, in the heard only the heard..." That seems to be the most direct teaching of all. If one is looking for "no-nonsense, no-frills, clutter-free methodology" the teaching to Bahiya makes the 37 qualities seem like a lot of busy work and self-conscious all too deliberate analysis and parsing.
In terms of bringing the entirety of ourselves to the practice: The practice of the 37 qualities assumes that we bracket or put aside our imaginative and emotional life (except perhaps as bugs to put under the lens of mindfulness until they evaporate away with the flow of causes and conditions). It certainly does not indulge the imagination or the emotions, and that is its strength. And yet, I think there is great wisdom, found as far back as the Abhidharma at least, of looking at particular types of people and helping them direct these parts of themselves to Buddhist practice. Why not utilize our imagination and emotions to, on the one hand, facilitate samatha and, on the other hand, to bring to the fore qualities that should be examined in greater depth? This is tricky, of course, because this can lead to catering to delusions and rationalizations of all kinds of conduct and base motivations. At the same time, if done skillfully, why shouldn't the hostile person cultivate friendliness? Why shouldn't a warmhearted person but simple person of faith use the six recollections to put their mind on wholesome inspirational models that will lead them to actual practice of vipassana? Why not have practices that can counteract specific character traits or hindrances, and other practices that can utilize a person's inclination and abilities and channel them in such a way that they lead to the development (perhaps even unwittingly) of the 37 qualities that lead to awakening? These methods are not even Mahayana innovations, nor are they only found in the Abhidharma. They too are found in the Pali Canon and I don't see why they shouldn't be given credence. Evidently those who created the current rescension of the Buddha's teachings that became the Pali Canon with its emphasis on the 37 requisites also saw fit to include things like the six recollections and the Brahmaviharas as well.
It is very fair to ask of all the Buddhist paraphenalia and procedures that have since arisen "how proximate are they and all that they involve to the zero point of wise investigation?" But I have to wonder, is a clinical detached investigation of how empty everything is really the zero point? Chih-i didn't think so. Chih-i thought the analytical analsis (and direct observation) of how all dharmas are empty is just the beginning. I think Chih-i was right.
You go on to say that "skillful means" are just a "clever ploy of later Buddhists to say and do, in the name of the Lord, whatever they wanted." Perhaps philologically upayakusala does mean "clever ploy" but I think that is an unecessarily cynical way of looking at it. As I mentioned, Gautama himself would be to blame for using them in the form of his "graduated discourses." Can skillful means go too far? Can they be used to rationalize and justify things that controvert the Dharma? I certainly agree they can. But primarily I think they are the pedagogical methods of a skillful teacher. That they have been and occasionally are used unskillfully does not mean that one should not try to use skillful means.
You mention the so-called "three turnings of the Wheel of the Dharma", I can understand that they help provide a certain perspective - but I agree that they are the passing off of an opinion as the Buddha's word. All the Mahayana sutras are that. I prefer the T'ien-t'ai schema of the five periods and eight teachings which are another opinion. I am not afraid to admit that these are opinions that arose as Buddhism developed and later teachers had to try to come to terms with what is and is not important, what is preliminary and what is vital. Your article is itself another attempt at this - cutting away the dross, pointing to what is vital and essential and what is merely of subordinate value or perhaps none at all. For my part, just as I am not afraid to admit that these are matters of opinion, I am also not afraid to embrace the ones that seem to be helpful to me insofar as clarifying practice and wholesome motivation and avoiding pitfalls and oversights. But certainly I reserve the right to second-guess, double-check, and keep a certain healthy skepticism. That is why I see myself as a modern Buddhist and not just a traditionalist taking everything at face value.
"Certainly, there is room for movement, adjustment to circumstance, intelligent application. Certainly; but to what extent? Is there a limit? Where is it? Where do the extreme points lie? Where is the responsible middle?"
This is the key question. When is a skillful method neither skillful nor effective as a method, and perhaps even detrimental? That is how I think of the question. You then lay out some premises so let me comment on those:
Premise #1: Gotama was a man. - I think this is unfair to the Gotama Buddha of the Pali Canon, the only one that we can really know. He was not a superhuman or a god or anything like that. But he also stated quite plainly that he was not simply a human to the brahmin Dona. Yes, I know, his actual response was something more like, "I will not become a human." The point is that he defined himself as one who is awake. This is the crucial difference. He attained a level of spiritual maturity beyond our usual experience of what it is to be human. A human capacity, yes. And no, I don't believe it was supernatural. But he no longer viewed himself in terms of the aggregates the way we do. There was a qualitative and revolutionary difference between Gotama the awakened one, and the way we usually think, act, and relate to ourselves, others, and the world. There are, I suppose, very down to earth and clinical, I suppose psychological or developmental, ways of describing this. But would they do that qualitative difference between a person still caught up in becoming and an awakened one justice?
Yes, the mythological portraits with their superpowers and freakish 32 and 80 signs are not really anything I can relate to literally. I view those who take them literally as a bit out of touch with reality. But I can appreciate that the folklore of ancient Indian culture was utilized to try to convey a very real revolution from becoming to being awake - the difference between Siddhartha the enlightening being and Gautama the Awakened One. I think we need to honor the old folklore for what it is, myth and poetry, but at the same time find a modern way to describe that qualitative revolution in a way that will continue to inspire people to take up the Way and awaken themselves without the drawback of having to cling to old myths in a fundamentalist way.
Premise #2 Gotama was an unsurpassed scientist of the real. - I already responded to this above. I agree with what you say here: "His basic teachings concerning these matters are irreplaceable and non-negotiable." I have the same conviction - even though unlike yourself perhaps - I do think it possible to candy coat them to make the medicine go down smoother. In addition, by basic teachings I would include the six recollections and Brahmaviharas and even the "graduated dicourse" which I often refer to as generic spirituality 101.
Premise #3: Gotama prescribed meditation, not religion. - I kind of agree with this, but I believe Gautama was wise enough to appreciate and utilize the aesthetic impulse just as he allowed for the ascetic one. The Buddha did not permit ascetic practices like starvation or acting like a dog or cow, but he permitted the dhutas as a more constructive middle way of utilizing the ascetic impulse. Likewise, the Buddha never set up a priesthood or asked to be worshipped, but apparently taught the six recollections and the graduated discourse which both have what some might call a religious element or at least the seeds of such. I do find it problematic when the religious impulse overrides and even does away with the meditative.
You say, "Religion tells stories and show pictures; it is narratological." That is fine with me, I think that is good and necessary. In the Buddha's day they had the Buddha's living example to guide and inspire, to attract and lead the way. Now we use stories and images to inspire and arouse bodhicitta. The problem is when the next step is not taken - the meditative step. Religion is also a way of celebrating and sharing how wonderful it is to have taken that next step and to see what there is to see. I don't know about you, but one of the nice things about being out walking around on the ground is to have fresh air and clear sky above. Do we want a sky with no earth to land on, or an earth with no sky overheard?
Premise #4 Gotama is not the Buddha. - The way I read this, you seem to see the Buddha as a strictly mythological construction. I don't see it that way. I see "Buddha" as the "Awakened One." The mythical Buddha is a personification of selfless compassion, but wasn't that what the humble Gautama was all about? Selfless compassion. If he was not, then there was nothing so special about Gautama at all that we should bother with him or his methods or insights or values. "Buddha" is a way of highlighting what it was that made Gautama worth listening to, and why his teachings and experiences resonate so deeply with us even now - because the Buddha is also our own selfless compassion when we do the work and awaken.
Premise #5: Gotama was an ironist; his compilers, strategists. - You say, "Coming from the mouth of Gotama, on the other hand, such supernaturalism doesn't make sense - at least not supernaturalism." I don't think it sounds strange at all. Gautama was a man of his times. Later you say, "One final possibility: maybe he was just dead wrong about some things. After all, Gautama was not the Buddha." Frankly, I do think he was just mistaken about some things. I think he mistook the unconscious narrative making function of the mind and in accord with his cultural assumptions believed them to be actual past lives of himself and the actual past and future lives of others. But I do think he was an Awakened One to that which is essential. He utilized this raw narrative material to reflect on life's essential nature and thereby awakened to the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless nature of all dharmas, and then went even further to the more postive awakening to the unborn, the deathless. I can forgive him his quaint patriarch pre-industrial worldview, because what he awakened to, what made him Buddha, was this insight into the conditioned and the unconditioned.
I have to bring this to a close now, but I look forward to any response you may have to this response.
In many ways I agree with you. In other ways, my approach is very different as you know. I just hope that I can make the approach I take (and the experiences I have had which led me to it) intelligible.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei