You are currently browsing Vishal Lama's articles.
With the aim of delving deeper into the various sociological, political, philosophical, psychological and cultural aspects of Buddhism, I have been, lately, reading quite extensively books, scholarly works, published papers and articles on the same, and I have to say the whole exercise has been a very rewarding experience on many levels. There is, for instance, a deeper understanding of the different schools of Buddhist thought and how and why they arose based on their soteriological and metaphysical foundations as well as the influence they have had on the development of Buddhism in different regions of the world. And, then, there is the wisdom gained by immersing oneself in the variegated ways that other Buddhists think and feel about Buddha’s teachings.
There is, in fact, much material I have read and absorbed in a relatively short span of time that could be the subject of my posts on this blog. And, I shall begin with a gem that I found in Smith and Novak’s Buddhism – A Concise Introduction. In chapter 7 (titled ‘Theravada and Mahayana: The Great Divide’) of their book, the authors lay out some of the key differences between Theravadins and Mahayanists in their approach toward the Buddhist goal (if there is just one!) assuming that such a conceptual bifurcation of Buddhist thought is even admissible. I don’t think it is, but others will beg to disagree.
At the risk of oversimplifying, the salient features of the two schools of Theravada and Mahayana can be be laid out by way of comparison. Smith and Novak write that Theravada maintains that “Human beings are emancipated by self-effort, without supernatural aid” while in Mahayana it is accepted that “Human aspirations are supported by divine powers and the grace they bestow.” Wisdom is the key virtue in the Theravada school, whereas compassion is the key virtue in Mahayana. Theravadins maintain that “Buddha [was] a saint, supreme teacher, and inspirer”, while Mahayanists look at the “Buddha [as] a savior.” The former downplay both metaphysics and rituals while the latter elaborate metaphysics and emphasize rituals. There are other distinct features of the two schools, but the one that stands out most prominently, to my mind, is related to the Buddhist Ideal. In Theravada, the Buddhist Ideal is “the arhat who attains nirvana“, whereas in Mahayana, it is that of “the bodhisattva who indefinitely postpones nirvana to care for others.”
But, Smith and Novak narrate a story (which is the gem I was referring to, earlier) that essentially demolishes most of the differences (notwithstanding the doctrinal ones) between the two aforementioned schools.
Following World War II, two young Germans who were disillusioned with Europe went to Sri Lanka to dedicate their lives to the Buddha’s peaceable way. Both became Theravada monks. One, his name changed to Nyanaponika Thera, continued on that path; but the other, while on a sightseeing trip to north India, met some Tibetans, switched to their tradition, and became known in the West as Lama Govinda. Toward the close of Nyanaponika’s life a visitor asked him about the different Buddhisms the two friends had espoused. With great serenity and sweetness the aging Theravadin replied: “My friend cited the Bodhisattva Vow as the reason for his switch to Mahayana, but I could not see the force of his argument. For if one were to transcend self-centeredness completely, as the arhat seeks to do, what other than compassion would remain?”
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!)
Over at the Dharma Overground community, a member started a thread by posing the following question: how to investigate no-self? For serious meditation practitioners who may have encountered this question before or may have reflected on the same, it poses an “enigma”, if you will. One of the members, haquan, from the same community responded by setting up an illuminating dialectic, a sort of a koan.
David Hume criticized those thinkers who claimed that there was no self, saying “They are like the man that leaves his study, goes outside to look through the window, and concludes that he is not home.”
My counter (haquan): “Those who claim there is a self are like someone who leaves his study, goes outside to look through the window, and points to the desk and empty chair saying “See – there I am!”"Now does the self exist or not? How can the man investigate it when he can not see himself, and has no mirror?
There is only the field of experience.
I have always wondered – and I am sure there are many others who do too – if there really are enlightened beings today! And just like anyone else, I have my own “model(s)” of enlightenment which I constantly use in order to evaluate the writings and teachings of so-called “masters”. It is a very tricky business, and for quite some time I have been very much aware of the severe limitations I impose upon myself by using those models: how can I even have a model of enlightenment if I don’t know what enlightenment means. This is even more problematic considering the fact that there is a growing consensus now that “enlightenment” is not the correct term to use; rather, “awakening” is more accurate!
So, with the above in mind, when I listened to this particular show/podcast titled “Enlightened Teachers” on Buddhist Geeks, wherein Daniel M. Ingram talks about arahatships and the like, my mind was immediately drawn to the topic in discussion. What is particularly striking is the fact that Daniel claims he is an arahat/arahant and writes more about it in this essay. He seems to be able to cut all that crap about enlightenment that one hears from different sources (including tradition) and talk directly to the practitioner. The feeling one gets is that it is possible, after all!
The show is just 12 mins long and the essay isn’t too long either. I would be interested in any kind of comment/feedback from readers of this blog. Thanks!
Six wise but blind elephants were discussing what humans were like. Failing to agree, they decided to determine what humans were like by direct experience. The first wise, blind elephant felt the human and declared, “Humans are flat.”
The other wise, blind elephants, after feeling the human, agreed.
A quote from one of Shunryu Suzuki’s book.
The purpose of studying Buddhism is not to study Buddhism but to study ourselves. It is impossible to study ourselves without some teaching… We need some teaching, but just by studying the teaching alone, it is impossible to know what ‘I’ in myself am. Through the teaching we may understand our human nature. But the teaching is not we ourselves; it is some explanation of ourselves. So if you are attached to the teaching, or to the teacher, you should leave the teacher, and you should be independent. You need a teacher so that you can become independent. If you are not attached to him[her], the teacher will show you the way to yourself.
Q: What is Buddhism?
A: It is kinda like a hippie religion, but no drugs. (Heard on Youtube!)
1) Why does Bodhidharma have no beard?
2) Where do you go when you die?
A Zen master is surrounded by his monks at his deathbed. The senior monk leans over and asks the master for any final words of wisdom he may have for his monks. The old master weakly says, “Tell them that Truth is like a river.” The senior monk relays this message on to the other monks. The youngest monk in the group is confused, and asks, “What does he mean that Truth is like a river?” The senior monk relays this question back to the master, who sends the reply, “Okay, Truth is not like a river.”
Recent Comments