Oct 2
If we wish to look for Buddhism today in India, it is in the guise of Vedanta and Vaishnava. The docrines of mâyâ and the distincition between veiling and higher truth are virtually identical with those found in Mahayana Buddhism. What makes this standpoint firm is that there is virtually no support for these Vedanta doctrines to be found in Brahmanism according to K.L. Hazra. So Buddhism seems the more likely canadate for a number of important Vedanta’s principles. Of interest, Sankara’s Vedanta school was stigmatized by his opponets as being Buddhists in disguise. According to other scholars, Buddhism may well have played a part in the evolution of modern Hindism insofar as the Buddha deformalized Brahmanism bringing its mysteries to the bulk of the Indian population. Indeed, there is nothing new in Buddhism that is not found in the Vedas or the Upanishads. There is even a trace of evidence that Buddhism may have influenced the Upanishads.
Sep 10
Okay, what was the Buddha really like?
“O Ananda, the [real] Buddha is indemonstrable. He cannot be seen by the eye. O Ananda, the [true] Doctrine is unutterable. It cannot be heard by the ear. O Ananda, the [true] Congregation is of an immutable character. It cannot be worshipped, neither by body nor mind" (Sthira-adhyâshaya-parivarta Sutra). (This Sutra appears in Obermiller, The Sublime Science of Maitreya.)
Aug 21
The idea of the solitary meditator has played a significant role, certainly in the Indian religions. The recluse, the anchorite, the hermit, the rishi (P., ishi), all speak to the fact that solitude, in particular, inner solitude, is recognized as a prerequisite for profound, firsthand intuition.
It is important to understand that inner solitude is not a flight from the material world rather this solitude is found by penetrating through the external rind of the material; no longer being mesmerized by it. Seeing it to be an illusion.
The greatest of solitaries is the
muni. He is
Shakya-muni recognized as the Buddha or awakened one. The qualities of a muni are further explored in the
Sutta-Nipata. The
muni has reached the other shore (210). He has overcome all, who knows all (211). He wanders alone (213). He has perceived the highest truth (219). He meditates aloof in the jungle (221). He is one who is freed from name and body (
namakaya) and cannot be determined (1074).
The
muni, i.e., the ecstatic man, has gone beyond the material plane of existence. He directly communes with spirit, which is beyond the nets of sensory consciousness.
Aug 12
Mahayana Buddhism is not an easy subject (and it is almost impossible to understand without direct insight into pure Mind). When the treatise, The Awakening of Faith, speaks of the One Mind or ekacitta which is simultaneously absolute and phenomenal, this is a call to look within rather than speculate. This is where the rubber meets the road because eventually we have to leave theory behind if we wish to advance in Buddhism.
Our looking within will arrive at the
âlaya-vijñâna where the absolute (which we intrinsically are but fail to behold it directly) interfaces with its phenomenalizaitons. Recognizing this interfacing ( a super kind of awareness), it is important to point out, will not give us the slightest clue as to the absolute, itself, that is Mind shorn of its oscillations/phenomenalizations. Our perdicament will be more like the denizens in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. We are facing in the wrong direction unable to turn about so that we might behold true reality (
tathata).
This interfacing of the absolute with phenomena is also
trsnâ or attachment insofar as we don’t recognize pure Mind remaining, as a consequence, hopelessly fixated on phenomena of all grades including thought. It is an attachment that, in our ignorance of pure Mind or true reality, we cannot negate, reverse or detach from. The only way rightly to detach is by recognizing Mind, itself, which is naturally free of oscillations since it is
tathata.
For the average Zennist the failure to pursue the recognition of pure Mind is often substituted with seated meditation. This meditation rests on the mistaken belief that phenomenal actions such as sitting in meditation is the Buddha-nature (i.e., buddhhood). This is wrong.
Aug 2
Starting from the nature of pure Mind or Suchness (tathata), itself, it is difficult to imagine it being ‘transmitted’ as if it might be conveyed from one person to another. In one of the Buddhist treatises it says: "The Buddha’s Law (dharma) is to be known by one’s own realization, one cannot take one’s realization and hand it to someone else, like a possession, etc."
Fundamentally, the dharma or the Mind of the Buddha cannot be transmitted. How, for example, might one transmit space or the ocean? Buddhism is about Mind awakening to itself—something which is already present and universal but which remains, for us, unrecognized.
What the Buddha awakened to cannot actually be conveyed or transmitted. If truth be known, there is no Zen transmission. Mind simply awakens to its own sublime nature. That is the real transmission. We can all do this if we try.
Jul 24
Secular Buddhism, I am inclined to believe, rests quite a bit on secondary gain. The secular Buddhist bets all of his chips on his belief that the Buddha only taught about the conditioned world that it is impermanent, unsatisfactory and without self (anattâ). With this in mind, the secular Buddhist is convinced that he doesn't have to do anything else as far as gnosis or sambodhi is concerned. Just accept this crappy life—and there you have the Buddha's teaching in a nutshell!
Perish the thought that the Buddha also talked about nirvana which is immortal (
amata) and how we might achieve such immortality. Adding to this, perish also the thought that the Buddhist adept attains nibbana in the very self (
paccattmyeva) (
M. iii. 244); that nirvana is supreme bliss
(nibbânam pramam sukham), and the ultimate reality (
paramam saccam).
Jul 16
The Buddha’s teaching is not based on some cobbled together metaphysics which is essentially based on letters and words. The individual who takes up the Buddha’s teaching must attain gnosis or super-intuition. Without it, it is impossible to grasp the essence of the Buddha’s teaching. This is what the Buddha means when he says the following:
"This doctrine is profound, hard to see, difficult to perceive, calm, sublime, beyond the sphere of thought (P., a-takka-âvacara), subtle, to be grasped only by sages" ( S. i. 136).
Western Buddhists are uncomfortable with the term atakkâvacara because modern reasoning is based solely on thought. There is nothing else. Western Buddhists who take up Buddhism, for example, Stephen Batchelor is not only unwilling to bend to gnosis or super-intuition, but he condemns the process towards its achievement.
Jul 9
There is a degree, more of less, of knee-jerkiness which comes with being a skeptic (don’t get me wrong, not all skeptics are bad). In other words, some skeptics, without knowing it, suffer from a bad case of apriorism, that is, jumping to conclusions before the facts are in, or the same, dismissing the evidence in advance because they disagree with the subject presented.
More to the point, closing one's eyes to paranormal evidence about NDEs or OBE's is a good example of what I mean. This is often the case with false Buddhists who claim to be Buddhists but have dismissed the Buddha's teachings of rebirth and karma—and certainly his teachings about the body made of will (
manomayakaya). While they claim to be genuine skeptics they are little more than hardcore materialists defending their turf.
Jul 4
Sorry for not blogging as I should. I feel like I have climbed Mt. Everest. Moving to the flat upstairs from my old 'rabbit warren' carrying twenty years worth of books, my wife's clothes, and countless whatnots, has proven to be a daunting task for this out-of-shape old Buddhist dude.
Still, I’ve managed to think a thought or two about Buddhism in the 21st century. Maybe the moving has altered my brain, but why aren't Buddhists discussing the paranormal such as NDEs and OBEs in a bigger way? After all, nirvana is supposed to be deathless (amrita). My sneaking suspicion is that Western Buddhism is overly populated with secular materialists who find the paranormal odious.
By the paranormal, here is what I had in mind:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
Jun 21
I haven't been doing this blog as much as my other, The Zennist. I have been moving from my old apartment (the rabbit warren), of some twenty-years, to a better apartment. I am still in the process of moving. I have thrown my back out twice. I am really out of shape to be a mover!
What I have found interesting of late is the Lankavatara Sutra. Since 1965 it has never ceased to surprise and amaze me. There is an online copy of it (by D.T. Suzuki). I also have it on The Zennist.
I hope my back holds out! I should be done moving by the 4th of July.
