God is form (the immanence of God)

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.


There is a quite a bit of discussion in Western Buddhism about form and emptiness, as these concepts are featured prominently in the Heart Sutra which in turn has a close association with Zen. This invites comparisons between the Buddhist teaching of non-duality and the concepts of transcendence and immanence. The emphasis today is on form.

Form seems simple enough, given the Western emphasis on materialism. Everything that exists can be reduced to some measurable form of matter or energy, so form is anything composed of these things. Many English-language books on Buddhism use this frame of reference as an analogy to explain emptiness by pointing to subtler and subtler forms of energy until one gets to the fuzzy level of what has been dubbed the quantum field (or in some versions the quantum foam), which itself is compared to emptiness.

This can be misleading as it places the emphasis on an external process rooted in a strictly materialist paradigm. It is fine as an analogy, but prudence suggests it is risky and and unnecessary to draw a direct equivalence. Form is a phenomenological concept that precedes any explanation of the basis of what is being described. Form is, in a sense, anything which can be described and is hence born of discrimination and labeling by the mind. Feeling, intuitions, imaginings, logical musings, judgements, and the like are forms as much as tables, chairs, and chew bones.

In other words, whatever mind is or isn't, wherever and however mind originates, it is itself the origin of form.

Religious ceremony and the inner landscape

Image via WikipediaEach sacred tradition has some way of connecting what we consider to be the objective, or external world, to the subjective, or internal world. Even those which state that it is all one in God or in Mind or the like.

In Nichiren Buddhism, this is the Gohonzon, a scroll with sacred writing embodying the Lotus Sutra. One is to chant to the scroll, which is a physical representation of the Buddha-nature in the person chanting. The outer representation of the altar and scroll, recalling the Ceremony in the Air, is supposed to merge with the inner landscape of those performing this ritual.

In Shin Buddhism and in the larger realm of Pure Land Buddhism, the same can kind of association can be applied to its ceremonies and to the imagery of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land.

In Judaism, this externality was the Ark of the Covenant carrying the tablets of Moses as well as the tent in which it (and the Spirit of God) resided. It was also associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, and after the last demolition of the temple building, it was associated with the scrolls of the Torah itself. In Christianity, after and perhaps prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, this externality was transferred to the person of Jesus of Nazareth and was then extended to the Eucharist. And so on.

And I can hear some mumbling. "So what?"

Are flaws key to virtue?

Image by chris.chabot via FlickrWhat do you think of positive spirituality?

Many people like to hear that they are part of the divine, that they have Buddha-nature, etc. It's cool. It's uplifting. For people who have a poor self-esteem, seeing the beauty in your existence, however you describe that wonder of life, can make a remarkable difference.

So why am I going to drop the other shoe?

Because there is just as much value in what is sometimes referred to as negative spirituality. Looking at the shadows. The faults. The flaws.

Does Jesus represent one of the 84,000 Dharma doors?

                                         Image via Wikipedia

I would guess that at least some long time visitors and friends for this site, as well as new visitors who look at some of the site's history, will notice that the theme was mostly Buddhist in nature and is less so over the past 12-18 months.  At least overtly Buddhist, as in bearing the trappings of (East) Asian culture. There are still posts that are "Buddhist" even by this standard, but there has been much more on general spirituality and religion, interfaith issues, and Christian themes.  Some of this is partially explained by the background page I created.

As I alluded to there and elsewhere, I am not trying to "put a yak's head on a cow's body".  I don't think Christianity are Buddhism are the same religion or that should be stitched together as one; they clearly have different perspectives, backgrounds, and methods. They come from different cultures and have developed around specific concerns.  That does not mean that they cannot both reflect touching or learning from the same ground of wisdom, or that they aren't sisters.  They can be unique and still have the same mother.  In fact, we can see examples of how they both approach similar concerns very differently, yet underneath may be lurking a common thread.  In fact, it is the fact that they each diverge widely in some ways while retaining some key fundamental similarities that makes them more compatible to me.  Rather than trying to cover the same ground, and hence being directly in conflict, there distinctiveness allows them to be complementary. This gives them quite a bit they can learn from each other, an interesting interconnection between East and West. In it much like the yin and yang combining in the classic Taoist symbol, as I am holding both traditions in a dynamic tension.

I have always found Buddhist sutras, poetry and prayers, particularly of the East Asian/Mahayana traditions, to be very inspiring and moving.  The affirmation they offer, the consistently peaceful and empowering imagery and message, on occasion provokes a faint but endearing sense approaching what I imagine the sacred is like.  But I sometimes get fatigued with some elements of Western Buddhism, which ever so lightly imply they or their tradition is better than those "religious people" (there are those deny Buddhism is a religion because of the baggage they associate with that term), especially those from Western/Abrahamic religions.  I admit to once being tempted to feel the same way, to feel bodhier than thou. And while I may not look down on Christianity as a whole anymore, I am still tempted to be less than charitable towards those who have been loosely labeled fundamentalists.

On the other hand, I've been drawn to several traditions in East Asian Buddhism (Chinese Pure Land, Shin, Chan, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, etc), and have had a hard time consistently following one or finding groups to meet with. That of course can be seen as providing an opportunity to create new inroads and build something, but it also means much less support for someone who needs it.  There is also a kind of energy in Buddhism as it propagates out of Asia, a vitality and an enthusiasm that captures the imagination and the heart.  Ironically, in places like Japan, Buddhism is said to be slowly turning into a funeral religion. That is, people turn to it for major occasions in life; since those who practice it tend to be older, the most common occasion is, of course, the end of life. This trend is also seen in the Christian equivalent of East Asia for Buddhism. i.e. Europe (and by extension the United States). Old school and mainline Christian denominations have been on the decline for decades. Yet newer incarnations that have their roots in the first half of the 20th century such as Pentecostalism are making waves in the old territories, much like groups such as the Soka Gakkai have in Japan. And these Christian movements also have quite the vitality as they spread into places like Latin America and Africa.

Grace expressed in different cultural constructions

Image via Wikipedia

 Those who practice Jodo Shinshu, a Japanese style of Pure Buddhism, have an interesting relationship to Christianity.  Many acknowledge similarities between the two as a basis for interfaith discussion, while others are frustrated by overly simplistic comparisons.  Here I look at how an aspect of the human condition and humanity's relationship to the infinite can be expressed in two different cultures.  I am not denying differences between the two religions, in fact they are essential for the point I am making about an underlying truth manifesting in distinct ways.

In Pure Land Buddhism, Amida (aka Amitabha) Buddha is the face of Ultimate Reality, which is experienced by humans as boundless wisdom and compassion. His origin is rooted in the notions of karma held by the cultures in which his story arose, a figure from countless ages past who became the Bodhisattva Dharmakara who worked to purify defilements and accumulate merit -- enough to cover everyone everywhere. This bit is important because it was basically saying "Whatever you have been taught by your religion or culture about existential guilt and punishment that debt is going to be covered -- you are free." Dharmakara vowed he would put off complete enlightenment in becoming a Buddha until he was able to save all sentient beings.

God, Christianity, Buddhism, Shin, Ichinen Sanzen and more

What follows are replies in a discussion which started with a non-Orthodox modern Christian over an article about an Orthodox view of Jesus.  It is long.  Some of it covers things I have written here before.  Other material is new or incorporates previous thoughts and concerns in new ways.  Many Christians and Buddhists will have a problem with it, especially if they aren't familiar with how I used certain words and concepts and the material I have been posting here for years.  That is OK.  This isn't an argument or provocation which needs to be attacked or defended.  Thank you for understanding.

On the concern that the article suggests we will lose our identities if we are absorbed into Christ


Can't the same be asked of any language suggesting union with God? I have never seen anything in the usage of such language that suggests that this means loss of individuality but rather its ultimately fulfillment. Jesus talks about people being with God as He and the Father are one, so I'm not sure why this is problematic.

On the implication from the article on the role of the Church

Many folks would say "If you aren't going out to save people what is the point?" But the Gospel simply means good news and the commission is to share that news. Being an ambassador and building a Church to share this news doesn't have to equate with setting up an institution to save people (which first involves convincing them they are damned). The news that you are welcome, accepted and loved beyond measure isn't trivial nor is it easy to accept. The Church and its ambassadors would have plenty to do just living as if these things were true and sharing that acceptance and love with others.

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!

"And I cried to the Lord, saying why should I be thus, seeing I was never addicted to commit those evils? And the Lord answered that it was needful I should have a sense of all conditions, how else should I speak to all conditions; and in this I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death, but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness."

-George Fox, founder of the Religious Society of Friends ("the Quakers"), from a journal dated to 1647 C.E.

"Thus, when one has boarded the ship of the Vow of great compassion and sailed out on the vast ocean of light, the winds of perfect virtue blow softly and the waves of evil are transformed. The darkness of ignorance is immediately broken through, and quickly reaching the land of immeasurable light, one realizes great nirvana."

-Shinran Shonin, founder Shin Buddhism, from The True Teaching, Practice and Realization of the Pure Land Way, dated to 1224 C.E.

On not disparaging practices such as Buddha and sutra recitation

Or, alternatively, this could be titled "On not getting too hung up on elegant-sounding principles and neglecting reality".

I recently quoted the Buddhist monk Nichiren as writing that "Neither the Pure Land nor Hell exists outside oneself; both lie only within one’s own heart. Awakened to this, one is called a Buddha; deluded about it, one is called an ordinary person." This comes from "Hell is the Land of Tranquil Light", one of the letters Nichiren Buddhists tend to view as highly instructive in terms of the insights of their tradition's founder. It was a follow-up to my most recent efforts in wrestling with an important concept in Mahayana Buddhism - the idea that nirvana and samsara are "not two". I want to share and explore a comment that was left, and to do so in a manageable way and to make the conversation more accessible, I am replying here as a new post rather than in the comments section.

Here is the very thoughtful and helpful reply:

Yes, but practically speaking, "ordinary persons" might talk a lot about these matters, and have no real transformation. Into my opinion, only a Buddha can say things like this and truly understand them. For an ordinary person, to see Pure Land and Amida as being outside himself, aspire to be born there and entrust in Amida is beneficial and this simple faith can lead him to Buddhahood. No matter how many times ordinary people talk about non-duality, they will never escape it, so why not use it and make it a skillful mean? I think that Pure Land path is really doing this, which makes it different from the Zen path or other paths based on personal power. When reading your post, I suddenly remembered the words of Shinran Shonin in his Kyogyoshinsho:


"But the monks and laity of this latter age and the religious teachers of these times are floundering in concepts of "self-nature" and "mind-only," and they disparage the true realization of enlightenment in the Pure Land Way."

I share the concerns expressed above, and that is why I feel it is important for me to keep pointing such concerns out. I often write that these things sound great but they don't do much good if they aren't connected to genuine insight into such matters. It just becomes some kind of vain speculation, where people like the idea but cannot or do not wish to deal with the reality. It is also why I constantly talk about my inadequacy in discussing such topics.

I am also reminded of something I read several months ago on this very issue which is very pertinent and may be useful to people dealing with these issues...

Question:


The Diamond Sutra states, “All mundane (conditioned) dharmas are like dreams, illusions, shadows and bubbles.” Therefore the Saha World being illusory, so is the Land of Ultimate Bliss. Why not enter directly into the True Original Mind instead of seeking rebirth in an illusory world.


Answer:


In truth, all the pure and impure lands in the tend directions are like dreams and illusions; however, only when we have attained the “Illusion-like Samadhi” can we see them as illusory and false. If we have not yet reached that stage, we will still see them as real, we are still subject to their sway, we will still know sorrow and happiness, we still feel uncomfortable during the summer heat and are even bothered by such small things as mosquito and ant bites. This, how can we speak about things being illusory? We should realize that the Pure Land method is a wonderful expedient of the Buddha, borrowing an illusory realm of happiness to help being escape from an illusory realm of great suffering, full of obstructing conditions and dangers. Them, from that happy, peaceful, illusory realm, cultivation progresses easily and the ever-silent realm of the True Mind is swiftly attained.


To take an example, in this Saha World of ours, the scenes of stifling family life and noisy downtown business districts are illusory, and so are the scenes of temples and pagodas or mountain wildernesses. However, why is that cultivators leave the noisy environment of the cities to seek the quiet, sparsely populated landscapes and pagodas hidden in the mountains? Is it not because family life creates many binding ties and bustling urban intersections are not conducive to concentration, while temples and pagodas and mountain wildernesses facilitate cultivation. For this reason, the circumstances of ordinary people are different from those of the saints. For common mortals to put themselves in the place of the saints is far-fetched and unrealistic. We who are still common mortals should follow the path of ordinary people, and cultivate gradually. We should not look with the eyes of saints and comment too far above our level, to avoid the transgression of false speech, which can be harmful… (pp.140-141)


Going one step further, as stated in the Great Prajna Paramita Sutra: “The Buddha explained to those of dull capacities that all dharmas are dreamlike, silent, and still, lest they develop view-attachment. To those of sharp capacities he spoke of the embellishments of the Buddhas, because they are like lotus blossoms, untouched by worldly dusts.” For this reason, Subhuti, who of all the Arhat disciples, was the one most completely awakened to the Truth of Emptiness (devoid of all names and marks) characteristically received a prediction that he would attain full enlightenment in the future under the title of “Name and Mark Buddha.” Thus the sublime truth of no name or mark is inseparable from name and mark; all illusory dharmas are the Buddha’s dharmas, true and unchanging. (pp.143)


Going deeper still, to the ultimate and perferct stage, as the Sixth Patriarch [Hui Neng, the Six Patriarch of the Chan tradition] has said sentient beings are originally Buddhas, afflictions are Bodhi (enlightenment), and all delusions are the perfect and illuminating essence, truly enlightened, of the womb of the Tathagata (Buddha).


[later in response to a similar question…]


“Persons of moderate and low capacity should strive to repeat the Buddha’s name as many times as possible. While they may still have attachments and see themselves as reciting the Buddha’s name and earnestly seeking rebirth, it is a good thing, because by so doing, they will assuredly achieve rebirth at the time of death and ultimately enter the realm of No=Thought, No-Birth. Where is the worry? Otherwise, not conscious of their own limitations, seeking a direct and lofty way, grasping a the teachings of emptiness while incapable of following the truth of No-Thought – yet unwilling to practice at the lower level of seeking rebirth through Buddha Recitation – in the end they achieve neither. They just remain common mortals in the painful cycle of birth and death!
(pp.145)


[and later still in the next section…]


The sutras say, “To tire of and abandon ‘conditioned’ virtues is the action of demons. Yet, to be greedy and attached to transcendental, unconditioned virtues is also demonic action.” Ancient sages have also said that “Conditioned dharmas, while illusory, cannot be abandoned if we are to attain the Way. Although unconditioned dharmas are true, if we become attached to them, our wisdom-nature will not be comprehensive.” These words clearly demonstrate that, on the path to enlightenment, unconditioned and conditioned dharmas, noumenon and phenomenon are inseparable.


It is also stated in the Treatise on the Middle Way that, “Because common sentient beings grasp at external forms, the sutras destroy them with the truth of emptiness. If as they are free of this disease of attachment they fall into the error of grasping at emptiness, there is no medicine that can help them. As the Prajna Paramita Truth of Emptiness sounds lofty and miraculous, when educated people read of this literature, they usually get caught up in the error of “speaking on the level of principle” about everything and look down on those who follow form and marks in their practice. Thus, they create the karma of arrogance and self-importance. While they mouth the Truth of Emptiness, their actions are entirely in the realm of existence… (149-150)


One more point to bear in mind: if we speak about the Truth of Emptiness without having attained that stage (or at least reached a certain level of achievement in our practice) we certainly cannot convert others but will only end up in useless arguments and disputes. (pp. 152)


Of the two types of attachments, to existence and to emptiness, the latter is very dangerous. Both the Lankavatara and the Esoteric Adornment Sutra state:

"It is better to be attached to existence, though attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to emptiness, though attachment may be as small as a mustard seed.”

Attachment to “existence” leads to mindfulness of cause and effect, wariness of transgressions and fear of breaking the precepts, as well as to Buddha and sutra recitation and performance of good deeds. Although these actions are bound to forms and not free and liberated, they are all conducive to merits, virtues, and good roots. On the other hand, if we are attached to emptiness without having attained True Emptiness, but refuse to follow forms and cultivate merits and virtues, we will certainly sink into the cycle of birth and death. (pp.153-154)


-excerpted from the comments of Master Thich Thien Tam in Pure Land Buddhism: Dailogs with Ancient Masters (from the section "Doubts & Questions about Pure Land")

What to do when there is nothing to attain?

The blog Echoes of the Name recently published a great quote about authentic religion not addressing our "self-seeking demands." This is true for all such demands or desires, even the notion of attaining Buddhahood. I have a nice list of quotes I keep around. They talk about Buddha-nature and its pervasive presence. They emphasize that you are never really separate from Buddha-nature, and imply that you therefore cannot somehow earn it or work towards it.

This idea has been discussed before. It is really popular on English-speaking blogs and message boards concerning Buddhism. It is a major aspect of (Mahayana) Buddhist teachings as they are being transmitted to the west. In response to the quote at Echoes, I commented:

Which is why it is so hard for us. We always want to fix, to solve, to reconcile, to mend, to complete… And, of course, when a Zen monk or a Shin teacher or other Buddhist guide on the path (or even someone from another tradition such as a contemplative Christian religious) tells us that, in ultimate terms, there is nothing to attain and nothing to grasp, many of us tend to become despondent, or suspicious, or frustrated (nor are those mutually exclusive reactions).


“What is wrong with this moment?” asks the Zen teacher.


“Rest in the Vow of Amida,” suggests the Shin lay minister.


“Let go and let God,” offers the Christian priest.


“Yeah, but– but–” we reply.


That would mean transcending the small-self (ego) is accepting small-self, which requires sacrificing the small-self, which is an act of surrender.

If you search the blog archive here you will find a substantial amount about the idea of surrender. In a recent post I talked about some of the commonalities of many Buddhist practices which are relevant to the idea of "non-attainment" and "non-separation". I wrote, "In Chan/Zen, there is nothing to attain. In Shin, there is nothing to do. In Nichiren Buddhism, one must not seek enlightenment outside of oneself. In Dzogchen, one is to experience 'natural great perfection.' And on and on it goes." This of course related to a post I have been citing written at the Amida-Ji-Retreat-Temple-Romania blog written by Josho Adrian Cirlea (as one can easily discover I like to frequently recycle quotes I find useful):

Many Buddhist practitioners are like a man staring at the sun, but with his body in a hole full of shit. He is always looking at the sun, but he never realizes that his body is drowned in shit. Here the sun represents the ideal – Buddhahood to be attained through his own powers. This ideal is of course very beautiful and the practitioner always like to stare at it and to take delight in many beautiful words about Enlightenment, emptiness, Buddha-nature, that we are all Buddhas-to-be, etc. The hole of shit is his true reality of the here and now, his deep karmic evil, his limitations, attachments and blind passions that cover all his body and mind...

I often meet with people that talk a lot of the fact that we all posses Buddha-nature and because of this there is nothing that we have to do, but just realize this truth in our mind. They are always full of wise quotes from Buddhist masters and sages of the past from various schools, about Buddha-nature, emptiness, etc. Usually this kind of people try many types of practices, always going here and there, never being totally satisfied with any school or teacher...

I once tried to write about why, then, there is any point to practice if there is nothing to attain. Ironically, the way some advocates of Shin seem to describe their faith, there is no point. But I think it might be more accurate to say that there is no point to do practices intended to accomplish or done with the objective of "obtaining enlightenment". Otherwise, I might agree with the notion that once you have realized something like "shinjin" you are better off not getting into "practices" such as seated meditation.

Of course, many (most? all?) Zen teachers will remind their students that there is no "good" or "bad" practice, just practice. Throw away the mental yardstick of progress. Let go of the blinders of expectations. Coming from this perspective there is nothing to attain - only to accept, only to realize. And we could go on with other traditions. Yet that still leaves the question - why practice? Not just formal liturgical observances, but even our "every day" practice? If the practices aren't to "get us" to enlightenment, then what the heck are we doing?

Having mentioned here the importance of acceptance and surrendering the ego, I refer now to something else that reflects my attempts to clarify these issues in my own mind, particularly an small addendum I wrote after describing seated meditation as a form of surrender:

I am not suggesting there is nothing else “to do”. In fact, it would be closer to the other way around. That is, such meditation, whether done while seated, while standing, while walking, while brushing our teeth, etc, doesn’t get us anywhere, it just reminds us where we are. The result to which I am alluding then, the peace in the turmoil, is not “the end” either (a concept which, when related to our practice, we could all do without). Again, that is about remembering what, who, and where we are. Nor is it escapism – it is not a static blissed-out obliviousness to the world around us.

There is still work we can do, but not for the “sake of” attaining such abiding confidence. The work of the Bodhisattva path, as this ego-centric, un-ordained, and overly outspoken lay Buddhist currently understands it, rests on this all-embracing affirmation that is beyond any concepts like attainment. That work rests on it, it abides with it, and the Bodhisattva finds the will and energy to do this work through it: to cultivate ethics, concentration, and wisdom through the Eightfold Path, to embody the six paramitas, to uphold the foundation of the three Pure Precepts.

Looking back at an earlier attempt to answer the question, "Why practice if there is nothing to attain?", I find the following conclusion:

To expand a little, one means of expressing teaching about Buddha-nature is to say we all have access to it/are unified with it, but not everyone actualizes/realizes it. Some people then think, 'Oh, so I'm a Buddha, great, then I don't need to practice, because there is nothing to attain.' Which, in a way, I believe, is correct. There is nothing to attain. The problem is that while it is true we already are/possess/have access to Buddha-nature, that there is nothing to attain, we still do strive to attain the things we crave, the things that validate the tiny ego of the selfish mind. So while it would be nice if people really did grasp the need for/directly experience non-attainment in actualizing/realizing Buddha-nature just by hearing that they are Buddhas, our ingrained tendencies and unrealistic views about ourselves unfortunately require some weeding of our hearts and minds (the middle line of the proverb about the mountains and the rivers is not inconsequential). So then the cultivation spoken of in Buddhism isn't to try to "get" or "grow" the seeds of Bodhi, but to keep out the weeds so that what is already always growing in our hearts can bloom. Hence my recent citation in another recent post of the saying "The Way doesn't need cultivation. Just don't pollute it" (Ch'an ancestor Mazu)

I find now that this answer simply begs the question, why should we care about our grasping?

Looking just above at my quote about the work of a Bodhisattva resting in and being powered by "this all-embracing affirmation" of our Buddha-nature, then the reason for practice isn't self-powered salvation, as some may view it, but rather an act of deep compassion. The practices aren't selfish or strictly for ourselves and our own attainment, but, as the Bodhisattva Vows remind us and challenge us, they really are for the benefit of all sentient beings. The practices then can be seen as an outpouring of our gratitude and realization and a desire to limit or end any further harm we may be causing.

The grace of Buddhanature, of Dharmakaya, of the Inconceivable Clear Light of Ultimate Reality, manifests from the realm of the unconditioned as compassion in the conditioned world (the historical realm of time and space) through the wisdom perceived by finite, karmically bound sentient beings. By those receptive to such insight, not in spite of their failings but at least in part because of them. The story repeats itself in various religious and spiritual paths. In the end, it may be that genuine practice, whether it is through mantra/dharini recitation, focused concentration, etc, is not done because we want to (so we can feed the ego) or because we feel obligated to (so we can feed the ego), but because we are compelled to do so. Not because we are driven to complete or correct our imperfections through our own efforts at self-improvement but because we are grateful for seeing that we are (all) capable of accepting and transforming such "flaws" through faith. Faith in Mind. Faith in Amida. For some, perhaps faith in a figure from another spiritual tradition. Or as Sharon Salzberg memorably phrased it, faith in "the possibility of our own awakening."

Overabundant choices for the expression of direct and simple spiritual practice

Too many choices? It can be a pain being a sincere searcher for an authentic practice to express a simple and direct experience of grace, acceptance, and empathy. Even within the confines of Buddhism. Chan/Zen can be simple and direct. So can reciting the nembutsu. So can reciting the odaimoku (of Nichiren Buddhism). Even in Tibetan Buddhism there is the directness of Dzogchen. Each of them is intended to represents the full teaching of the Dharma in a format generally intended to be accessible to everyone to help them accept /realize /experience /awaken to their limited, karmic existence as well as their limitless, non-conditioned reality (i.e. becoming Buddhas). Greaaat. So which one?

That is, using myself as an example here, I have read and heard enough from many teachers to see how each tradition or school or sect claims to embody the various teachings of the Buddha and all Enlightened Beings in a simple, direct practice. They have (superficial) differences in how they are described by their proponents, and how they are doctrinally or hsitorically distinct from other traditions. That's fine. One claims to be active. One claims to be passive. Another claims to be active and passive. Another claims to be neither active nor passive. OK. But they all offer a way to transcend delusion and transform suffering, and while some traditions can get very elaborate and detailed in the rituals, observances, and other liturgical aspects, I have always been a fan of those practices that are accessible to and work for everyone, not just for those with a lot of money and time to spend on de-stressing or self-improvement.

In Chan/Zen, there is nothing to attain. In Shin, there is nothing to do. In Nichiren Buddhism, one must not seek enlightenment outside of oneself. In Dzogchen, one is to experience "natural great perfection." And on and on it goes. And heck, I really think if you picked one of those, and let it symbolize/represent your aspirations and serve as a reminder of your true nature/reality-as-it-is, then hey, they could all make great rafts to cross to the other shore. I know that rankles some folks who are keen on this or that tradition or school. I apologize for the rankling.

I could go on listing other examples from Buddhism and never even get to the similar examples from other religions and spiritual paths. I think that it is nice, on the one hand, to have so much exposure to so many traditions, but it can also provoke indecisiveness among searchers and seekers. For example, should one see "Nam(u) Myo Ho Renge Kyo" as the underlying Call/Rhythm which permeates our existence? Or how about "Namu Amida Butsu"? Or perhaps it should be deep silence. Perhaps something else. When one is rooted (not cemented) in a particular tradition, it can allow for (although it doesn't nearly always lead to) a deeper appreciation of other traditions also offering a practice to express a simple and direct experience of grace, acceptance, and empathy. "Oh, yes," a well-rooted one might say, "those are all just expressions of what I know as X, but which others refer to as Y or Z." But for those who are not rooted, with so many beautiful expressed and sincerely-formed practices from which to choose, how does one pick and stick with a single option?

For some, this is not a concern. After all, being non-committal may seem more comfortable or even preferable, especially if they have had negative experiences with a religion or spiritual path that claimed to have the one, final, exlcusive answer to life and death. But there is I believe a difference between keeping an open mind and refusing to actually be involved or take a decisive step. Otherwise one is just wearing a meticulously chosen label that reflects a particular set of political, social, or cultural affinities. There is no substance, just the appeal of associating with religion or spirituality.

For those for whom the lack of decisiveness is a problem, on what basis should they precede in making a choice? I have personally experienced this problem before myself, and I am wondering if others who have "been there" would be willing to share their own experiences? How did you finally make a connection? Did it last? What advice would you give someone in similar circumstances?

Coming and goings

Nobel Peace Prize winner, champion of the the importance of the eminence of reverence for life, accomplished musician, theologian, physician, and ethicist, Albert Schweitzer, was born on this day in 1875. Shinran Shonin, disciple of Honen, the founder of the Japanese school of Pure Land Buddhism, died on this day 1262. While not seeking to establish his own sect, his interpretations and clarifications led to a new form of Japanese Pure Land most commonly known as Shin Buddhism. The Level 8th Buddhist has a post on this memorial and a link to a nice performance of Shinran’s hymn, the Shōshinge

What light through yonder window breaks?

"Imagine the world as a vast cathedral. Contemplate the windows. In the Cathedral of the World there are windows beyond number, some long forgotten, covered with many patinas of dust, others revered by millions, the most sacred of shrines. Each in its own way is beautiful. Some are abstract, others representational, some dark and meditative, others bright and dazzling. Each tells a story about the creation of the world, the meaning
of history, the purpose of life, the nature of humankind, the mystery of death. The windows of the cathedral are where the light shines through.

"The same light shines through all our windows, but each window is different. The windows modify the light, refracting it in various patterns that suggest discrete meanings. Even as one cannot believe usefully in 'everything,' to find meaningful expression Unitarian Universalism must be modified or refracted through the glass of individual and group experience (which by definition will be less than universal). One can be a Buddhist Unitarian Universalist, a Jewish Unitarian Universalist, a Pagan Unitarian Universalist, a Humanist Unitarian Universalist, a Christian Unitarian Universalist.

"As with all extended metaphors, this one is imperfect. The Light of God (or Truth or Being Itself) shines not only upon us, but out from within us as well. Together with the windows, we are part of the cathedral, not apart from it. Together we comprise an interdependent web of being. The cathedral is constructed out of star stuff and so are we." - excerpt from a sermon titled The Cathedral of the World by Forrest Church.

If you've read the book A Chosen Faith, which is an introduction to Unitarian Universalism, or if you have attended the right UU service on the right day, you have heard this analogy before. It has been used in a number of sermons and can be readily found in many places through a brief internet search. But the lesson isn't limited to UUism per se. Many in the interfaith and interspiritual movement who are not UUs will nonetheless recognize and in many cases agree with this sentiment. I think in particular this imagery is also very useful from a Buddhist perspective, regardless of whether one is a Buddhist and a Unitarian Universalist.

From Chan Buddhism, one can recognize the light as the illumination of Pure Mind. Seeing the illumination in each window is a way of expressing how Enlightened Beings see others as Buddhas and the world as the Pure Land. Nor is this insight of the power of perspective limited to Chan. The Shin layperson and poet Saichi wrote:

84,000 delusions
84,000 lights
84,000 joys abounding

From Sri Lanka to Thailand, from Mongolia to Japan, and now in the West, one can find Buddhist teachings which echo the lesson of the image of the Cathedral of the World.

May you recognize the Light.

Being Buddha, Being "a" Buddha

Another nice find, both in terms of a blog and particular blog content, comes in the form of BuddhaDharma Mum and specifically the post on The Supreme Identity which features a video of a talk by the late Brother Wayne Teasdale. The format is an interview with Ken Wilber. While the talk itself is, typical of Teasdale, and interspiritual / intermystical / interfaith review of Ultimate Nature, it tends to use the most common term for such Supreme Identity, a.k.a. God. To me this was reminiscent of my recent musings on Ultimate Reality and taking refuge as well as James' discussion of a famous quote by Pai-chang that all is Buddha --

Each form, each particle, is a Buddha. One form is all Buddhas. All forms, all particles, are all Buddhas. All forms, sounds, scents, feelings, and phenomena are also like this, each filling all fields.
-Pai-chang

In turn, this reminds me of a collection of quotes I gathered once in contemplating the regarding the implications of emptiness and the nature of existence and identity...

Do you want to understand? The whole world is one of your eyes, the body produced by your parents is a cataract. All ordinary people ignore the indestructible, marvelously clear, unfailingly mirroring eye, and cling fast to the dust cataract produced by the relationship of their father and mother. Therefore they take illusions for realities, and grasp at reflections as the physical forms themselves.
-P'u-an

Ultimately, all phenomena are contained within one's life, down to the last particle of dust. The nine mountains and the eight seas are encompassed by one's body; the sun, moon and myriad stars are contained within one's mind.
-Nichiren

The Smaller Sutra is a highly imaginative portrayal of the realm of enlightenment in very concrete terms: bejeweled railings, nettings, trees; bathing pools lined with golden sands with steps of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and crystal; pavilions covered with exquisite jewels built on the earth made of gold. The atmosphere is filled with celestial music, rare and exquisite birds, and a subtle breeze blowing through jeweled trees which produces a melodious chorus. This rich and colorful description is said to be a manifestation of emptiness (shunyata) that expresses itself freely in any way it chooses. Since reality is empty of permanent being and all things are in flux, it can take any form.
-Taitetsu Unno

Once you stop clinging and let things be, you'll be free, even of birth and death. You'll transform everything; you'll possess spiritual powers that can't be obstructed; and you'll be at peace wherever you are. If you doubt this, you'll never see through anything; you're better off doing nothing. Once you act, you can't avoid the cycle of birth and death, but once you see your nature, you're a Buddha even if you work as a butcher."
-Bodhidharma

When I was a young novice, I told my Master, 'If the Pure Land doesn't have lemon trees, then I don't want to go.' He shook his head and smiled. Maybe he thought I was a stubborn youngster. However, he did not say that I was right or wrong. Later when I realized that both the world and the Pure Land come from the mind, I was very happy. I was happy since I knew that lemon trees and star-fruit trees exist also in the Pure Land, with dirt roads and green grass on all sides.
-Thich Nhat Hahn

Each Buddha-Tathagata, as the body of the Dharmadhatu, pervades the mind of all sentient beings. This is why when your mind perceives the Buddha, it is your mind that possesses the thirty-two prominent features and the eighty secondary attributes. This mind that creates the Buddha is the mind that is the Buddha, and the wisdom of the Buddhas true, universal and ocean-like arises from this mind. This is why you should single-mindedly fix your thoughts and contemplatively examine that Buddha, that Tathagata, that Arhat, that Supremely Awakened One.
-The Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Immeasurable Life

Which brings us back to the discussion by Teasdale and Wilber, particularly the difference between saying all things are of the substance of God but that no one thing can claim to be God. This can be confusing unless one applies a concept like dependent co-arising and emptiness, in which the fullness of "God" is in all things but no one thing can be separated out/singled out as God, as in a localized, intrinsic, or dualistic identity. This would be the difference in Triyaka doctrine between the created body which manifests in time and space and limitless body of the Dharma itself. Hence in terms of the latter, all things are Dharmakara and Dharmakara maniefests in and as all things, and one who awakens to this is called enlightened. That is the difference, such as it is, between being Buddha and being a Buddha.

Effortlessness - simple yet challenging

I have been drawn to certain teachings (or should I say different expressions of the same fundamental teaching) and have been collecting them here. Thanks to James from the Buddhist blog I have added another. I will briefly butcher the underlying premise and then hope that your own practice and the words of others will do more justice to that which is being conveyed.

As I wrote at The Buddhist Blog, perception and intellect are limited - not bad, not something to be shunned or minimized, but also not relied on to grasp the Truth being described. I think to some looking at Buddhism from the outside such admonitions may seem like forms anti-intellectualism or anti-rationalism, given the focus on using various combinations of our intellect and our perceptions to form our basic maps of reality (memory, imagination, etc). But even so, it doesn't take much to demonstrate that both the intellect and perception, while important and useful, are woefully limited.


Instead the practice advocated in some form or another by various Buddhist traditions (but most blatantly by Chan/Zen) is paying attention/focusing on (our) actions, effortlessly, without resorting to judgment or elaboration or abstraction. To truly grasp (realize? ...notice?) that sitting is sitting, crapping is crapping, scratching is scratching. No greater or deeper revelation is necessary from reflection or sensation to improve upon such attentiveness (which is not an obsessive focus of great mental force being constantly applied like neurotic self-consciousness). And in that situation, one is also not "being in the moment", which is already an abstraction and the start of dualistic thinking, but simply being. Whether our appreciation this results from a visualization practice of Tibetan Buddhism or from the true entrusting of Shin Buddhism or the direct focus of Zen or some other tradition or lineage is irrelevant. That is why so many of the quotes are from such a diverse array of places and times. So here are those who can and have said it far better and more succinctly than I could ever hope to:

"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

Recent quotes from Beliefnet:

"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

"Hear me, future disciples!
Your time will have been badly wasted if you neglect to put this teaching into practice."

"What you should do is to know your own mind and realize your own buddha-nature, which neither rests nor moves, neither becomes nor ceases to be, neither comes nor goes, neither affirms nor denies, neither stays nor departs."
-The Sutra of Hui-Neng

The current quotes being added to the list:

"Happy is one who knows samsara and nirvana are not two."
-Milarepa, "Drinking the Mountain Stream"

"Enlightenment is a way of saying that all things are seen in their intrinsic empty nature, their Suchness, their ungraspable wonder. Names or words are merely incidental, but that state which sees no division, no duality, is enlightenment."
-Prajnaparamita

At this moment, is there anything lacking? Nirvana is right here now before our eyes. This place is the lotus land. This body now is the Buddha.
-Hakuin

Don't taint my Buddhism with comparisons to Christianity

There's room... at the stupa... for you.
There's room... at the stupa... for you.
Though as many as-the-number-grains-of-sand-in-the-Ganges-of-every-Buddha-field have come...
We are all still One,
Yes there's room... at the stupa... for you.

Thank you, please be seated. This morning's sermon is taken from 3rd chapter of the Platform Sutra...
----------------------

OK, you may be wondering what that was supposed to be. If you have ever spent much time in a small Protestant denomination (or even a so-called non-denominational church), I'm betting that sounded familiar. I recently commented on an article discussing Buddhism from a more traditional Christian perspective and subsequently received a reply from a Catholic priest in a small spark of interfaith dialog. Perhaps it would for some be better to call it establishment Christianity rather than traditional as some could rightly point out that many now heretical views on the life of Christ once flourished among the early Christians. This raises the question of how many Buddhists, especially Western Buddhists, see Christianity.

At a particular Buddhist forum, whenever anyone makes any suggestion of commonality between Christianity and Buddhism, there are always several individuals who chime in to list the most incompatible and radical elements of establishment Christianity. And quite frequently this isn't just a side-by-side comparison - there is a passive aggressive quality to the comments, if not outright ridicule or derision. Getting past the snarkiness or sense of superiority that is sometimes present, there is something to be said for recognizing the differences. That is fine. Just as the good priest who replied here suggested, we can disagree in good will.

But that doesn't mean that a dismissive attitude towards Christianity by Buddhists is justified. I think part of it comes from the same source that drives the bitterness of the so-called "angry atheists" - the vision of religion and God put forward by many of those who focus on fear, condemnation, and exclusivity. Many of the latter also emphasize the literal reading of sacred texts (something that historically non-Western Buddhists did as well, btw) over the spiritual reading of such texts (i.e. focusing on whether the stories are all historically true rather than the ahistorical truths that are expressed). This is the distinction between what has been referred to as "the Christ of history" as opposed to "the Christ of the heart". Some Christians accept the former, some the latter, and some both.

If we read the Gospels without worrying about the historical details (like I discuss here or here, or even over here, for example), I do think that one can infer, though not "prove", that there are common spiritual truths that are embodied in story and teachings of Christ that are also present in the story and teachings of the Buddha (as well as other sacred traditions). But they are expressed through the cultural framework of their place and time. And it is to this framework that some traditionalists become attached/from which they formulate their theology and this is in turn what many people use make their religious comparisons.

For example, if what one may refer to as the Source is literally the potential for Creation, then they are not technically separate. Instead it can be thought of as looking at the same reality at different levels, the relative and the absolute. In this sense, Source/Creation are indentical, one giving rise to/sustaining the other. To get at this idea, imagine then Creation not as a static act or a fixed origin. Instead think of a perpetual Creation, in which the historical dimension (space/time) arises and dissolves simulateously from/to/as the Source. This view does not have to lead to "Oh, and let's call this source God and reinstall popular cultural conceptions." In fact, the apophatic tradition among many Abrahamic and Hindu mystics would warn against doing so, even though ultimately they do at some level still do so for reasons to be discussed.

I think this is an important point of distinction between Abrahamic apophatic mystics, many forms of Hinduism, and (Mahayana) Buddhism. In Christianity et al, there is still the feeling that the cultural constructs and mythology of the Bible/Church tradition is best at mediating the human approach to the Source/Absolute Truth/Ultimate Dimension and so there is still a "Person" of sorts in their relationship. Among many Hindu, the various gods are just different avatars for our own relationship to the Source because it is easier to grasp and act on. This is true because it is a matter of heart, and even while academic descriptions are great, people find it easier to "open" themselves to a person. Hence in the Upanishads, the commentaries on the Vedas (supremely ancient spiritual/religious texs), there is mention of the Person who dwells in the heart that one must meet to finally drop their final delusions of separation between the relative (historical) dimension and the absolute (ultimate) dimension and our own existence as part of an interdepent web. So many who have studied in the Hindu tradition have great respect for Christianity and the rest because they see Christ as the avatar some use to come back to (or realize their inherent union with) the Source. And doesn't that sound a lot like John 14:6 - "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No man cometh to the Father except by me." If we see "the Father" as a symbol for the Source...

Then there is Buddhism, which does have many similar concepts (yeah, I know, boo hiss). Dependent coarising, impermanence, emptiness. This last is the key. As has been discussed ad nauseum, emptiness means both the lack of instrinsic/permanent existence of any form as well as the well-spring/potential from/in which form can arise and change. On the second aspect it is remarkably like the Tao, ("the Tao which can be named or described is not the true Tao"), and I think some Buddhists see them as essentially the same (especially in Chan). The difference is that Buddhism tends to be non-theistic, that is, it does not directly personify the Source nor talk about a Creator Being. Of course, some Buddhists are theists (yeah, boo hiss, they aren't "true" Buddhists, whatever), but some are also agnostic (and some may call themselves atheist, but it depends I suppose on how one defines both Buddhism and atheism). Of course, it doesn't take much to see that the ineffable Source of Taosim and Buddhism sounds very much like the views of the Source in Hinduism and even some corners of Abrahamic religion. But because the apophatic mystical tradition is not the majority view in current Christiany, Islam, etc, the gulf between Dharmic and Taoist traditions and Abrahamic traditions is often seen as virtually uncrossable.

Yet even in Buddhism, there seems to be a recognition of the need for visualization in practice, and this can be manifest in talking about Buddha-nature on a cosmic scale. Hence the Buddha is often said in (Mahayana) Buddhism to have three bodies - the manfestation in the historical dimension (i.e. Siddhartha Guatama as well as all sentient beings who experience the same realization/awakening) called nirmanakaya ("created body"); the unlimited "reality body" or dharmakara which is basically back to the ineffable/nondual Source; and something called the sambhogakara or "body of mutual enjoyment" which is described in a Wiki article as the archetypal form. It is the idealized form, the icon. And it serves the role of the image that can be used in visualization when opening one's heart to reality-as-it-is. This form could in some cases be a mandala, for instance.

I would suggest that Amitabha (i.e. Amida) Buddha has a similar role and hence the comparisons between Pure Land/Shin Buddhism and Christianity. In Pure Land it is said that a person long ago vowed to not to accept total enlightenment until his vows had been fulfilled (for the non-Buddhists such people are called Bodhisattvas), and his particular vows included the creation of a realm where people would not help but achieve enlightenment themselves. Some still see this in the most literal sense as an afterlife of bliss, others see it as a recognition of the clarity of the Buddha (i.e. it is both "here and now" and "otherworldly" in the same sense as we can talk about the historical and ultimate view of the same reality above). In traditional (i.e. "Chinese") Pure Land if one recites Amitabha's name and visualizes him/his realm one will be reborn in that place (the Pure Land). In Shin (a Japanese form of Pure Land), one does not recite the name to get into the Pure Land but as a means of expressing gratitude for foolish beings (us) being given such a gift - in realizing we are "already home" as it were. Yet Amida is not seen as a God in the traditional western sense, and eventually we come to see Amida as ourselves and ourselves as Amida (similar to other forms of Buddhism in which the same may be said of the archetypal image of the Buddha himself). {There is a lot here I am skipping about Buddhism and Shin in particular}

This sometimes is seen as being at odds with "self"-Power schools such as Zen. Instead "Other-Power" is relied on. Yet the self is not replaced by but fully realized in Other-Power and Other-Power is completed/fulfilled by each self. Still, even in Zen one talks about going beyond the ego, and in the end dropping many assumptions and self-made barriers, so that it really isn't strictly "self-Power" as one learns to transcend the view of identity as an isolated entity. Just different strokes for different folks - depending on which issues one is wrapped up in different practices may be more beneficial. But the point of the detour skimming the surface of Buddhism is that even there, with no God, there is still an avatar upon which one can use to help them on their way to the Source, beyond conventional knowing.

It is interesting that if one gets past parochialism, while there are still recognizeable differences historically and globally, there are in some corners of Abrahamic traditions and Hinduism and Buddhism a common thread that hints at something to which all of them maybe pointing (and I'm sure we can throw in other traditions as well). So it isn't about needing to be religious or even a theist, although as others have said regarding religion in general in such discussions, there is no point in reinventing the wheel. Nor does this mean that Buddhists must openly embrace Christianity. Yet I am reminded of a set of vows I have often repeated...

I vow to assist all beings without exception to attain the Highest Perfect Wisdom


I vow to transcend the endless delusions which hinder the perception of Universal Truth


I vow to learn and actualize the limitless teachings of all Buddhas and Enlightend Beings


I vow to follow unceasingly the Buddha's never ending path.

I think that the first two are as obvious as can be without getting into a a further discussion of what "the Highest Perfect Wisdom" and "Universal Truth" might mean. So I would like to get to the second two. Number three is particularly interesting. There is nothing whatsoever that says that a Buddha or Enlightened Being must practice one of the number of spiritual practices that are commonly referred to as "Buddhism". There is no legitimate exclusive claim made by Buddhism about realizing the Highest Perfect Wisdom or perceiving Universal Truth. While there is a social tendency to set up institutions in a culture or society that then becomes self-serving , an affliction that has affected many forms of organized religion, there is no core teaching attributed to the Buddha or his philosophy that would justify a claim that one needs to practice "Buddhism". It is more like a formula - practicing attitudes A, B, and C, while cultivating virtues D, E, F will lead to an awareness of reality-as-it-is and liberation from the existential suffering that afflicts sentient beings. So, while practicing Buddhism might be beneficial, if one is vowing to "learn and actualize the limitless teachings of all Buddhas and Enlightened Beings", one must be open to discovering and seeing different manifestations of such formulae and those who demonstrate their efficacy in all their forms.

----------------------
As we go out from this place today, let us remember the Buddha in our actions, speech, and thought. Let our reverence for the Light in everyone we meet be as clear on our faces as it is in our hearts.

Juseige

If you haven't been here much or just hadn't caught on, I am one of those people who sees the commonality in the practices and teachings of Chan/Zen, Pure Land, and other popular forms of Mahayana Buddhism, even when many advocates of different traditions have stressed differences. I think that in learning about each one can look at the others and say "Oh, well, I can see a way to understand an interpretation or meaning of this or that concept that makes better sense when trying to understand it from this other perspective."

That doesn't mean that people in a tradition don't believe or accept a particular interpretation or implementation that isn't as amenable to such an ecumenical view, but I have talked before about how if we get passed some of deep technical arguments that often amount to arguing how many Bodhisattva's can dance on the head of a pin, the spirit is the same. Some think of Zen as achieving a mental state, whereas another path isn't about such self-discipline and concentration, but I see Zen as a state of the heart (or at least the root of what we may mean by "mind" and "heart"), and the awareness is not limited to any particular frame of mind if one is referring to an individual person with the word mind. Nor is my approach new or revolutionary. But I bring it up because I don't just find the following beautiful interpretation of the Juseige, produced by Rev. Shoji Matsumoto and Ruth Tabrah and hosted on a site by Alfred Bloom, to be just a "Shin" or even just a "Pure Land" prayer/litany. I can even see spiritualists of other traditions finding this affirmation very inspirational, particularly if your read it out loud with conviction as thought they are your vows, being made each time for the first time, because in a way if you take them seriously, they are...

These forty-eight great vows which I,
Dharmakara Bodhisattva,
Established for myself and all beings --
None to be excluded --
Now,
Everywhere,
In the ongoing timelessness of this present moment
Affirm the reality of the infinite
Within this world of birth-and-death.

Through these vows I vow
The Vow that is primal vow of life itself.
Until this shall be fulfilled for each one,
Everywhere,
I will not accept the great supreme enlightenment.
I will not rest as Amitabha,
Amitayus,
Amida,
The Buddha of universal reality,
The Buddha of truth of things-as-they-are.

Throughout all time
In every generation of beings,
If my vow does not become
The source of wisdom and compassion,
The cause of this great awakening
In each and every one everywhere,
I will not accept the great supreme enlightenment.
I will not rest as Amitabha,
Amitayus,
Amida,
The Buddha of universal reality,
The Buddha of the truth of things-as-they are.

Upon my becoming a Buddha,
My name shall resound
Throughout the farthest reaches of the universe.
If there is even one place
Where my name is not being heard,
I will not accept the great supreme enlightenment.
I will not rest as Amitabha,
Amitayus,
Amida,
The Buddha of universal reality.
The Buddha of the truth of things-as-they-are.

To attain the great supreme enlightenment
To become the dharma teacher of gods and men,
I shall, without ceasing,
Practice the great practice: Brahma-carya,
The all inclusive
Most difficult
And final practice
Without the hindrance of desire,
In the dhyana-samadhi of contemplation
From which the purest wisdom,
The immeasurably pure compassion
Of the workings of my vow shall flow.

This Great Vow shall be all-penetrating,
Universal,
A shining light of wisdom and compassion,
An inconceivable light
Illuminating our inner darkness,
Enabling us to see our ignorance,
Our hatred,
Our unquenchable desires,
Our own deep, awesome true reality.

But the Vow's incomparable enlightenment rescues us,
Just as we are!
From the heavens of self-pride,
The hellish torments of the worlds of illusion
Which we constantly create.

The Vow's unfailing light replaces our blindness
With the eye of wisdom.
It dispels the illusions of these empty worlds
To which we cling.
It transforms the realms in which we suffer
And opens to us the real world of things-as-they-are,
The Pure Land,
The realm of this extraordinary light.
Amitabha, Amitayus, Infinite Light and Life
Awakens us to a joy that never diminishes --
The true happiness of working for the welfare
Of all beings everywhere,
The true happiness of Buddha-hood,
The universe endowment of the Vow.

For the sake of all beings,
To all, at all times, everywhere,
With the light of wisdom itself
I preach the Dharma.
My vow assures this treasure of all treasures,
The virtue among virtues,
The inexhaustible storehouse of Dharma
Which my Name shall convey.

I offer the flowers of enlightenment
To all Buddhas-to-be.
I show my reverence to each of them.
I praise each one's virtuous roots.

As my vows become fulfilled
I will be the champion of naturalness,
Freed from the proud thought of
"I am such."

A Tathagata's eye of wisdom
Penetrates even man's self-centeredness,
Penetrates conditioned and unconditioned equally,
Piercing the depths of inner darkness.

I vow that the power of my wisdom will be such
That I will become a true Buddha.
This having become so,
The cosmos will resound with the dharma.
Flowers of enlightenment
Like a rain of light
Will adorn all beings.

Getting to 108

This isn't a critical or necessary aspect of Buddhist study, but I was wondering how one gets to "108" types of delusion. One version suggests 6 gates (the five physical senses plus the mind), 3 poisons (greed, anger/hate, and ignorance), 2 aspects (pleasurable and nonpleasurable), and 3 time periods (past, present, future). Hence 6 x 3 x 2 x 3 = 108. How else have you heard the formula described?

It might be said that these also form the basis for 108 blessing, with the actual number of delusions and blessing (unlike the number of types) endless. Hence the vow to "transcend the endless delusions which hinder the perception of Universal Truth". Which could also be phrased, I think, as "transform the endless delusions". Which calls to mind a favorite line I cite so often from the Platform Sutra, "Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana." Which some may associate more with Chan Buddhism. Which goes well with the poem by the Shin Buddhist Saichi:

84000 delusions
84000 lights
84000 joys abounding

Ahh, fun with numbers. Just recall that they point to a truth, they are not a truth unto themselves.

Amitabha!

Differences, again

I had a recent post called Differences where I posited that in many ways several Mahayana schools and traditions (and by implication other forms of Buddhism as well) are really talking past one another. In other words, their views of the other schools are often based on caricatures, although to be fair I wouldn't necessarily say they are always strawmen because there may be folks who do think/practice in certain ways. Plus, let me repeat what I said then about "true Buddhists" or true Buddhists of any particular tradition--I am not suggesting what a "true" this or that should think or say or do in light of their cultural and historical associations with various rituals, stories, etc.

I think the "talking past one another" phenomenon is especially prevalent among East Asian Buddhism, particularly the Japanese-based varieties. I mentioned before that Zen, Nichiren, and Shin all have their version of "all existence in a thought-moment", which is the result of the implications of dependent coarising and emptiness. They all talk about some form of "not two, not one". And they all try so hard at times to distinguish themselves from the others.

From one of the newer listings on the blogroll, Jeff Wilson's blog at the American Buddhist Study Center, we have a story which is supposed to sum up the differences between the "Path of Sages" (typified by Zen) and the Path of Pure Land (in this case Jodo Shinshu). Two priests auditioning to be the new clergy of a village each take turns demonstrating what they have to offer. The Zen monk sits in a pot of boiling water without being harmed, owing to his Self-Power cultivated through years of mindfulness training. The Shin priest, on the other hand, uses his boiling pot to make soup and feed the village, showing that he had no special powers other than true entrusting to Amida and through this limitless compassion for all sentient beings. Hence the Shin priest's own limited Self-Power was encompassed by and transformed though Other Power for the benefit of all.

Yet I can just as easily imagine reading a similar story on a Zen or Chan Buddhist blog. It would go something like this: The Shin priest goes first, chanting "Namandab namandab namandab namandab..." and telling people to simply trust in Amida and they will be reborn into the Pure Land upon their death where they can find the right conditions to realize their enlightenment. The Zen monk, however, simply sees what needs to be done in the village and takes action in the present rather than delaying concern for others until another lifetime or relying on a mantra to set things right.

(CONTINUE...)

Now, a Shin Buddhist can argue that this is more like a traditional Chinese forms of Pure Land than Jodoshinshu, which does focus on the hear and now. And she or he could also argue that the nembutsu is not a magical invocation or spell but a means of appreciating/valuing their connection to and inclusion in the greater whole of reality linked through dependent coarising and emptiness. Yet a Zen Buddhist could take issue with the idea that they are all about "Self-Power" or acquiring superhuman abilities. He or she could make the case that it isn't about attainment but realization and acceptance, born from awakening the great doubt, i.e. challenging the ego-centric view of the universe. He or she could point, for example, to the Ox Herding pictures, in one of which after the seeker finds the Ox and is riding it both disappear in the next panel (signifying nonduality and emptiness). The sitting and walking meditation is used to help focus the practioner, not to provide amazing superheroic abilities. Just as the Shin practioners develop "deep hearing" through their practice, so to do the Zen students through theirs. The sitting and walking in Zen are just training for the real practice which is everyday life, much like the chanting and contemplation of Amida functions in Shin.

Now, it is true that Zen and other traditions like Tendai still incorporate the monastic model, but I also know of ordained monks who live in regular houses and have wives but who have shaved heads and wear the robes during formal practice and ceremonies. Maybe this is more of a Western thing, but they seem to generally be using the robe and bowl (and bell and drum) as a way of setting a mood and honoring a tradition/teaching rather than substituting these symbols for that to which they pointing (which would more or less be a form of idolatry). I've written before that for me, when someone shaves their head and/or dons the robe, sets up an altar, etc, its value isn't in showing some "higher rank" or "personal authority". Rather it is in recreating the objects of refuge--the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. It is in a sense an act of servitude, eschewing one's own identity for a time to represent something greater. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with those Buddhist clergy who want to just dress like everyone else.

And of course, if you've read much of anything by Nichiren or his followers you will notice the same kinds of critiques as the above-mentioned stories highlighting the differences between Zen and Shin. One thing I did like about some Nichiren Buddhists' perspective was that based on the chapter in the Lotus Sutra on expedient means, they don't see the other traditions as totally misleading or wrong-headed just outdated provisional teachings. Of course, that's not the only conclusion one can draw. One can also simply see how in the end many different Buddhist schools, while superficially (in ritual, phrasing of doctrine, etc) different, have at heart the same core teachings regarding the Noble Truths and the Dharma Seals. So then...

Namu Amida Butsu.

Amitabha!

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.

Namo Dai Bosa.

Om Mani Padme Hum.

Gassho.

Namaste.

Differences

Consider the following quotes, both ancient and contemporary, from various Mahayana traditions...

Do you want to understand? The whole world is one of your eyes, the body produced by your parents is a cataract. All ordinary people ignore the indestructible, marvelously clear, unfailingly mirroring eye, and cling fast to the dust cataract produced by the relationship of their father and mother. Therefore they take illusions for realities, and grasp at reflections as the physical forms themselves.
-P'u-an

Ultimately, all phenomena are contained within one's life, down to the last particle of dust. The nine mountains and the eight seas are encompassed by one's body; the sun, moon and myriad stars are contained within one's mind.
-Nichiren

The Smaller Sutra is a highly imaginative portrayal of the realm of enlightenment in very concrete terms: bejeweled railings, nettings, trees; bathing pools lined with golden sands with steps of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and crystal; pavilions covered with exquisite jewels built on the earth made of gold. The atmosphere is filled with celestial music, rare and exquisite birds, and a subtle breeze blowing through jeweled trees which produces a melodious chorus. This rich and colorful description is said to be a manifestation of emptiness (shunyata) that expresses itself freely in any way it chooses. Since reality is empty of permanent being and all things are in flux, it can take any form.
-Taitetsu Unno

Once you stop clinging and let things be, you'll be free, even of birth and death. You'll transform everything; you'll possess spiritual powers that can't be obstructed; and you'll be at peace wherever you are. If you doubt this, you'll never see through anything; you're better off doing nothing. Once you act, you can't avoid the cycle of birth and death, but once you see your nature, you're a Buddha even if you work as a butcher."
-Bodhidharma

(CONTINUE...)

When I was a young novice, I told my Master, 'If the Pure Land doesn't have lemon trees, then I don't want to go.' He shook his head and smiled. Maybe he thought I was a stubborn youngster. However, he did not say that I was right or wrong. Later when I realized that both the world and the Pure Land come from the mind, I was very happy. I was happy since I knew that lemon trees and star-fruit trees exist also in the Pure Land, with dirt roads and green grass on all sides.
-Thich Nhat Hahn

Each Buddha-Tathagata, as the body of the Dharmadhatu, pervades the mind of all sentient beings. This is why when your mind perceives the Buddha, it is your mind that possesses the thirty-two prominent features and the eighty secondary attributes. This mind that creates the Buddha is the mind that is the Buddha, and the wisdom of the Buddhas true, universal and ocean-like arises from this mind. This is why you should single-mindedly fix your thoughts and contemplatively examine that Buddha, that Tathagata, that Arhat, that Supremely Awakened One.
-The Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Immeasurable Life

I could go on, but I haven't had a chance to collect more of these in one place. I may add more in the future as I find/remember them. Feel free to reply and suggest more if you see what they are all saying.

These quotes demonstrate an appreciation of the constancy of rebirth as the manifestation of emptiness, that through the teachings of no-self and nirvana Buddhism is not espousing some abysmal fatalistic escapism ('life is so bad let’s hope we don’t get reincarnated any more and simply cease to exist because being nothing is better than being alive'), and also that perspective is crucial. My oft-quoted favorite passage from the Platform Sutra of Hui Neng, 'affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana', as I have suggested before, is actually saying the same exact thing as 'form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form'. It just phrased differently to fit a different context. To me other teachings or phrases seemed to echo this as well, such as ichinen sanzen within Namo Myoho Renge Kyo (3,000 realms in a single thought-moment) and Namu Dai Bosa (manifestation of Bodhi in all things), and Ichinen tanen mon'i in Namu Amida Butsu (Ultimate Reality manifested/calling from/to/in Limited Beings). I have heard that in traditional Pure Land writings there is a phrase along the lines of 'Amitabha is no other than the regular person and the Pure Land is the ordinary world'.

Which is why it is so interesting to me to read critiques of Zen from Nichiren Buddhism or Pure Land, or critiques of Pure Land from Zen from Nichiren sources, etc. I am sure that there are many people in various sects and traditions within these schools who really do cling to tenets and doctrines and don't go beyond the constructs of their tradition to what I would personally see as a greater understanding of Buddhist teaching, but I think there are many who do. It's the same with the fact that people always want to put supernaturalism and superstition into their sacred beliefs, creating a duality between the sacred and the ordinary and perpetuating perceived dicohtomies like life and afterlife, heaven(s) and hells(s), etc. Every religion has some version of indulgences (paying off a loved ones time in an afterlife realm of pain), or potions or rituals for 'faith'-healing. It's just a human quirk. So, I am not going to say that 'a true Nichiren Buddhist should think this' or 'a sincere Pure Lander would recognize this teaching as'. However, I do think that often times when a Shin Buddhist talks about comparing 'The Path of Sages' versus 'The Path of Amida Buddha', or when someone in Nichiren Shoshu talks about the 'teaching of the one-vehicle' versus the 'provisional teaching', they are really perpetuating contextual differences born from the doctrinization of teachings coupled with cultural and historical circumstance.

That is not to trivialize the differences in terms of that historical significance or to deny that they exist as these schools are often taught, or to call for a uniform syncretism and total blending/merging of the various Mahayana schools. Instead, I wish to put them in their place, at least in my practice/study of Buddhism, as fingers pointing to the (same) moon. Now when I write on topics such as this, some Pure Landers may congratulate me on beginning to hear the call of Amitabha/Amida, some Chan/Zen folks may silently approve of my rudimentary grasp of sunyata and tathata, and a few in the Nichiren crowd may suggest I have begun to appreciate the teaching of ichinen sanzen (or they may all think I am a clueless wonder who over-intellectualizes everything..could go either way).

If you listened to those MP3s of Dharma talks by the Venerable Shih Ying-Fa I linked to recently, you may recall in the 'Over-Under-Sideways' talk he says something akin to 'Screw the Ox-Herding pictures...the Ox-Herding pictures should be burned if they are an impediment to our practice.' I suppose that's how I react to so many of the exclusionary-sounding (or at least implying) positions that sometimes creep up within the various schools of the Mahayana. I have had the experience before of pointing out to someone that something in their school is also taught in a different form in another school, and they were very surprised, believing it was a break-though in Buddhist thought from the founder of that person's particular school that made it somehow superior to the others. So, while I don't suggest that we should erase the tools and heritage that have developed in different schools, perhaps it would help if we 'got to know each other better'.

(Naturally, this can be extended to other avenues of Mahayana and beyond)

Why seek rebirth in the Pure Land?

One of the forms of Buddhism I have always found fascinating is Pure Land, both the "traditional" form associated with Chinese practice as well as Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu (or just Shin). I recently ran across a question someone had about the appearance of escapism and other-worldly salvationism of Pure Land and how this can be consistent with the general teachings of Buddhism about the importance of here and now and cultivating our own Buddha-nature. I am not a Pure Land scholar but off the top of my head this is a the quickly response I came up with:

While there is no consensus support for this view, one way to think of it is this:

1. There is only ever the living moment
2. This moment can be seen in terms of form (time and space) and formlessness (the undiscriminated totality)
3. The world of form is defined by its interdependence as impermanence allows causality and hence change; reality is ever unfolding.
4. Form and formlessness are only distinguished as separate things (rather than separate perspectives) by the mind
5. The mind heavily influenced by conditioned responses often focuses on an incorrect view of the world of form
6. Among the delusions of an incorrect view of the world of form are greed, anger, and ignorance
7. These three poisons can keep us from realizing our own inherent potential to change ourselves and the world around us for the better, but more importantly they keep us from realizing that fundamentally we are already complete (i.e. we already possess Buddha-nature)
8. Amitabha can be seen as the primal or eternal or common Buddha-nature of all sentient beings
9. The Pure Land reflects how a Buddha sees the world which is manifested through the pure intentions and meritorious actions on behalf of all sentient beings
10. Initially for many these are seen as an external figure (Amitabha Buddha) and an external place (Pure Land)
11. Aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land is manifested through faith in Amitabha's vow that those who recite his name will achieve this end (rebirth in the Pure Land)
12. In time the practioner may see Amitabha internally, as an aspect of their own self, or themselves as an aspect of Amitabha, or Amitabha as metaphor
13. Eventually for some the distinction is gone--Amitabha is neither a just a figurative myth nor a real but distinct individual
14. Similarly, the Pure Land becomes more than "just" a representation of our goals or "only" a faraway separate world
15. The faith in Amitabha becomes faith in our own pontential for awakening and hence at the point of clarity alluded to one is a realized Buddha*
16. Therefore by dwelling in the Pure Land by seeing the world through pure intentions and actualizing them in meritorious actions we can realize enlightenment

(*this works for Jodo Shu and Shin as well as we are already Buddhas, and hence by having faith in the Vow we have faith in our own capacity for wisdom and compassion despite our perceived shortcomings; just as Amida has already made a Pure Land, we are already sleeping Buddhas--we are awakened to both of these realizations by faith)

Ironically I think that a verse from a sutra associated with Chan Buddhism is helpful here: "Affliction is just Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana"

The Pure Land counterpart to this would be something like "The ordinary man is Amitabha and the everyday world is the Pure Land." The difference between being able to percieve this and not is what people call awakening or enlightenment. Form and formlessness are mutually perceived simulataneously.

(Caveat: this view is based on the premise that rebirth occurs each moment, not ONLY between the lifespans of historically distinct named individuals)