Music for your day, 9/24/10

The toolbox

I sometimes think about the fact that many of the separate Buddhist traditions are so heavily distinguished by emphasizing a particular method. Pure Land, as most of us casual students of Buddhist history will know, with its emphasis on nienfo, was a part of the larger package of techniques and emphases before it became a separate tradition. Focusing awareness through meditation and short-circuiting our habitual mind/conditioned existence through bizarre riddles, shouts, and whacks with a stick, while now associated with Chan and most especially its Japanese transmission Zen, were in fact part of this larger package of tools. Even Nichiren Buddhism's recitation of the daimoku, "Nam(u) myoho renge kyo", can function both as a form of nienfo (Buddha-remembrance or Buddha-embodiment) and as a koan. -And I don't want to leave out all the other traditions and schools, so feel free to add yours to the list in the comments section.-

Whereas in the Nichiren tradition and its many schools, there is an emphasis on their own method as the superior practice in the current age, there is also an appreciation for the teaching of the Lotus Sutra that the various methods of different Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Enlightened Beings were expedient means used by skilled teachers to reach people in different circumstances. Getting away from the idea that everything other than the Nichiren practice is "provisional" and antiquated, I have always found the ecumenical aspect of the Lotus Sutra to be quite inspiring. I am not concerned with whether the historical Buddha really gave this teaching before he died, or whether those who inherited his living tradition and realized this truth put it in a proper and acceptable form as yet another expedient means.

I was thinking about this idea, of the tool box, as I struggled to find a remotely useful analogy in clarifying my thoughts about having a settled mind. I was trying to convey that in areas where we should be perpetually open to experiences, flexible, and free from preconception, we in fact are closed to experiences, inflexible, and bound by preconception. This is particularly true when we are pleased with just how open-minded and impartial we are. And, ironically, this inflexibility comes from not being settled where it counts. With the clear vision, pure mind, and boundless heart of Bodhi (these are actually just three different labels for the same thing), we can, as the popular expression goes, be comfortable with uncertainty. With a settled, or adamant, mind, or as some traditions refer to it, a diamond that cuts through illusion, one has the truest form of what is captured by another popular Western Buddhist phrase - beginner's mind. And thus one who is so settled is able to be "unsettled" (which I previously referred to as "agitated"), or more accurately, unhindered, when encountering the utter novelty of the ever-unfolding moment in which we live.

(As an aside, that last though reminds me of many of the teachings of which I have become fond... "Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana"-Platform Sutra of Hui Neng; "Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form"-Heart Sutra; "The Way does not require cultivation, just don't pollute it."-Chan ancestor Mazu. Teachings which are oft-repeated: "Although you may understand the explanations, if you are still suffering because of problems, you clearly do not understand the true nature of your mind, your body, and your senses."-Lama Zopa Rinpoche; "You have always been one with the Buddha, so do not pretend you can ATTAIN to this oneness by various practices."-Huang Po; "Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death."-Dogen)

Does that mean that any Buddhist tradition is valid? No. But the proof is in the pudding. Rather like the Bible verse that suggests "By their fruits shall you know them" (Matthew 7:16). Nor is a tradition valid just because it worked for some in the past. Any sacred tradition which is not a living tradition is hollow and headed for hot-headedly intolerant radicalism or which goes the other direction into stale, inflexible, musty formalism. If you assume for the sake of argument that there is a Source which pervades and sustains our existence, whether this is expressed in terms of shunyata and tathata, or the yin and yang of the Tao, whether it is personified or non personified, as religious or non-religious, etc., and if you are a teacher who is trying to open people's eyes to their true nature, then one must further presume that an effective teacher is one who:

A) has had her or his own eyes' opened,
B) is deeply concerned with helping others do the same, and
C) is good at doing so.

Hence such an effective teacher would need to be able to read people, gauge their capacity for different types of teaching, and pick and choose from the toolbox to use not only the right practice but the right level of practice for each person they are teaching. For one student, a very direct method may helpful because they are already on the verge of awakening. For another, this same method may only cause confusion, frustration, and resentment.

In my previous attempt to write about being settled and unsettled, I ended with "So get settled and shake things up, or, for some of you, shake things up so you can get settled!" I think that's how it is with some methods. For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

No wonder some Chan masters chased their students with a length of bamboo and whacked them each time they tried to answer questions such as "What is your original face?", even when the student gave the answer of not answering at all. Each time the master asked the question, habit mind, conditioned mind, popped up, so "whack". Then again, "whack". Kind of like whack-a-mole with the . Unfortunately I think this kind of story suggests to some people that anti-intellectualism is the ultimate goal, rather than training the mind. A hammer is a very useful tool, but not for watering plants. In the same way, the rational, analyzing intellect is awesome and wondrous and highly useful for many things, but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for each occasion - enjoying a song, for example, or creating art. So to get to that clear insight and settled mind, the master would drive away things which hindered the student's perception. No wonder masters in that and other traditions would encourage students to visualize and verbalize something which would invoke a vibrant and peaceful yet non discursive state. No wonder other masters in various traditions instructed their students to develop serene trust in the vows and compassion of the Buddha(s).

So, rather than simply telling their students to do exactly what their teacher(s) told them to do verbatim, an effective teacher tries to discern what will be of use. That doesn't mean they won't have common methods, but that they won't apply them in the same way for each student. I would hope, for example, that even in Shin, where one moves toward trust in Amida's vow and develops "deep hearing" through recitation of that Buddha's name, that a teacher would recognize the different needs of those who may not yet truly see saying the nembutsu as a form of gratitude and those who do. That is, whatever tool one may find helpful at a given moment, it is just that. Which would normally bring us to the popularized phrases about not mistaking fingers pointing to the moon (sacred traditions and their practices) for the moon itself (reality as it is) or perhaps about ditching the raft (similar lesson). But that would just be a little too... too... well, too much. Instead, I just want to bring it back to this--

For some, you start by emphasizing being settled in Buddhanature, which in turn allows you to truly change how you see the world. For others, you may have your views of the world shaken up, which allows you to then be settled in Buddhanature. But no matter where you start, I suspect that this dialectic never truly ends as each reaffirms and sustains the other, because they are both manifestations of the same. Hence the common affirmations in Buddhism in general that you cannot "achieve" Bodhi nor can you ever "locate" Buddhanature.

Which is why my favorite teaching, the one that has been most effective so far in revealing and reminding me of both aspects of this single truth, is one that was given to me by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa...

"Never think that you've got it, and never doubt that you do."

An Expression from the Heart Sutra

To see a world in a grain of sand,
and a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
and eternity in an hour.
--William Blake

The Heart Sutra is one of the Prajna Paramita (Perfection of Wisdom) Sutras of Mahayana Buddhism. It has been studied for centuries with many fine commentaries produced on its meaning. This is not one of them. This essay just reflects one of the initial lessons I found on my own through meditating on the Heart Sutra.

(Incidentally it was written in January of this year in case someone detects something incongruous with something else I may have written in this blog.)

•••

Emptiness refers to the fact that things do not possess their form because of some essential quality or spirit inherent in that form or which gives rise to that form. Together with the teaching of impermanence they make a lesson about depedent origination, which in contemporary terms is best captured by the idea of cause and effect. To clarify my usage of these concepts consider the following: If everything is an interaction, an ongoing set of processes, then technically nothing exists inherently, only as a part of constant ever-shifting relationships. Objects are created and sustained by their relationships, and relationships are created and sustained by objects. To explore the substance of one is to reveal the other. These are the principles commonly known as emptiness and impermanence as explained by dependent origination. I have been considering some common thinking that appears from my reading to be present in the more visible aspects of Buddhism in the English speaking world. It seems that there is a lot of emphasis on the idea that emptiness of form, which in turn has been used in some cases to suggest detachment from caring about people or things rather than non-attachment to them. Letting go of an attachment doesn't diminish an experience, it enhances it.

By not grasping or clinging to unrealistic or unhealthy ideas about our relationships to other people and things we should be able to more fully appreciate other people or things, rather than strip them of any value just because they, like all things, are composed of the same basic essence and their form is temporary. That brings me to the Heart Sutra. Here is a relevant execert:

"O, Sariputra, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form, the same is true of feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness."

If form and emptiness are the same then the only reason for the saying "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form" is to give voice to the error itself, that of splitting the two and considering them separately ("If I want to understand form I better try to comprehend empitness" or "If I want to understand emptiness I better learn about form"). It occurs to me that that's part of the significance of the phrase, rather than simply saying "Form and empitness are the same thing--they are both just concepts to be transcended." In one incorrect view, you come to see "form" as "something" or "the answer", in the other you come to see "empitness" as "something" or "the answer".

When you begin to forget that form is emptiness, you run the risk of being lured in by some belief in eternalism. That is, you believe that there is some component inside you that makes you who you are, a basic essence which is commonly referred to as a soul. Belief that this soul is an actual transferable object which can only be created or destroyed by God, and which is fundamentally distinct from all other forms of matter and energy, is the basis for "eternal life" in many religions.

When you forget empitness is form, you are in danger of adopting a nihilistic point of view. Even if you don't have the error of thinking that "emptiness=nothing" or oblivion, you can still focus overly much on the notion of emptiness and arrive at conclusions about the nature and worth of things which can rightly be called a form of nihilism. This can result, the same as eternalism, from attachment to the ego. However, instead of believing that the ego last forever (eternalism), you believe that if you aren't "special" then nothing is, and so if you are no longer "essentially you/set apart", then you don't matter and therefore nothing matters. That is where I found the second half of the teaching to be useful.

To elaborate on that last point brings up an issue common to both Buddhism and secular humanism. It is precisely because each person is ephemeral and because there will never be another person like you, or me, that their life should be valued. For the Buddhist, though, it goes deeper than this. Each form is a distinct manifestation of our common root of being to be valued as a unique treasure. Obviously sentient beings are especially important because they have the capacity to suffer, and Buddhism is about using clarity to remove suffering, but each tree is also unique. Each sunset. Each star. Each dung beetle. This is how and why Buddhism can be so blunt about emptiness and impermanence, the birth of form and the death of form, and yet pronounce a view which generates boundless compassion and appreciation for all forms, whether they are deemed to be grand or common, fair or foul. And this can be captured in such a simple and elegant phrase: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

***Addendum***

A couple months after I wrote this I ran across a book on the Heart Sutra and took it home to read. I was delighted to come across the following passage:

One commentarial tradition--perhaps stemming from the Myingma master Ju Mipham--has a customary way of reading this passage of the Heart Sutra presenting the four approaches to understanding emptiness. According to this reading, the first statement, "form is emptiness," presents the emptiness of the phenomenal world, thereby countering the extreme of existential absolutism, the mistaken belief that all phenomena have absolute reality. The second statement, "emptiness is form," presents emptiness as arising as dependent origination, thereby countering the extreme of nihlism, the mistaken belief that nothing exists. The third statement, "Emptiness is not other than form," presents the union of emptiness and dependent origination, countering both extremes, nihilism and existential absolutism, at once. The fourth statement, "form too is not other than emptiness," indicates that appearance and emptiness are not incompatible, abiding instead in a state of total unanimity. Thus, these four aspects are understood as presenting total transcendence of all conceptual elaboration.

The Path and Fruition (Lamdre) tradition of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism presents a similar fourfold approach to understanding emptiness: (i) appearance is established as empty; (ii) emptiness is affirmed as dependent origination; (iii) emptiness and appearance are affirmed as a unity; and (iv) this unity is affirmed as transcending all linguistic expression and conceptual thought.

Normally, emptiness is said to be an antidote to the appearance of intrinsic existence, but this fourfold approach indicates that, if one's understanding is sufficiently deep, one will be able to use the truth of emptiness to counter nihilistic views, and use the affirmation of the world of appearance as a way to overcome absolutism. This reverse way of transcending the two extremes is a unique feature of the Prasangika Madhyamaka School.

The Essence of the Heart Sutra, by Tenzin Gyatso the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Wisdom Publications, 2002 (pp. 119-120)

I was happy to read this, but not out of vanity. It's hard sometimes to know if an insight, however small, has merit. To see that others, much smarter and more spiritually advanced than myself, have had similar ideas is nice. Not because they said it therefore it must be true, but rather because it suggest that the insight is more likely to be a sign of genuine progress than wishful thinking propped up by vanity.

The entire Heart Sutra is a page or so long and very easy to read. What does the Heart Sutra say to you?