Christopher Titmuss has an insightful article on the NOW.
Excerpt:
This article is a critical examination of the beliefs and conclusions invested in the Now. Despite the inner benefits from contact with the here and now, I regard it as irresponsible to grasp onto the Now, as if the Now served as the answer to everything. There are spiritual teachers whose claims to enlightenment rests on the conviction that there is only the Now, and they intimate that they abide in it all the time.
I suspect the Buddha would be bemused at the new lightweight determination of enlightenment as being totally in the Now that is on offer in the West. We might have the impression that the Buddha used the phrase “here and now” hundreds of times in his teachings, but I can’t find a single reference to “here and now” in his 5000 discourses. When the term “here and now” does appear it is usually as a translation of two words that the Buddha used – dittha dhamma. However this is a very, very free translation since neither dittha nor dhamma means here or now respectively. The Buddha would not be so shortsighted as to fix the now as the only truth.
Our culture has put such a positive spin on living for the moment that, sadly, this standpoint has entered into exploration of the Dharma. Dittha dhamma literally means “a thing seen” or when in the locative case ditthe dhamme – “in the visible order of things; in this seen dharma”. The Dharma points to awakening amidst the view and presence of phenomena. It is not a teaching of being in the Now or identifying with it in any way.
(Hat-tip to Hokai!)
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 1, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Todd Trimble
Interesting article. I wonder to what extent “nowism” can be attributed to “Beat Zen”. Certainly the notion of “freedom through completely living in the moment” resounds through Kerouac’s writings, and this may have helped pave the way for later popular books like “Be Here Now” (which is actually a fascinating read in some respects!).
I’m wondering though what specific teachers he has in mind as examples during his polemic. Certainly the more reputable teachers (from whatever school) wouldn’t equate enlightenment with “living in the now” — at least none that I can think of. Nor would they promote the idea of “Instant Zen” — that an opening can happen just like that (to anyone), without prior training.
On the other hand, I remember reading the response of Bernie Glassman when a student asked, “What does it take to live in the Now?”; he said, “Would anyone who is not living in the Now please stand up?”
August 1, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Vishal Lama
I think Titmuss has at least two teachers in mind both of whom are very popular and who are also mentioned in his article: Rama Dass and Eckhart!
August 1, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Todd Trimble
Sure. Any specifically Buddhist teachers though?
August 1, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Vishal Lama
Ah, that question, I think, doesn’t have an answer in the affirmative. Now that you’ve forced me to think about it, I don’t think there is any Buddhist teacher who equates enlightenment with “living in the now.” I guess Titmuss is really after people, whom he calls the “new high priests of the religion of Now” and who seem to de-emphasize the importance of training in spiritual practice. And, there is a sense that “Now” has now(!) been given an ontological status by those same teachers. It is as if the Now is a crucible/container for everything that happens now, and so, emphasis is placed on such an entity (acting as a frame of reference) instead of being placed on whatever (body, feelings, mind and mental objects) arises and passes away, or what is usually known as the “four foundations of mindfulness” (in Theravada circles.)