lotusinthemud

Amida Shu Basic Definitions ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya writes: 

What are the Basic Teachings of Amida Shu Buddhism?
Added by Dharmavidya on July 19, 2008
 
Amida Shu is a form of Buddhism that affirms

- (together with all Mahayana Buddhsim) the threefold nature of Buddha (ultimate Buddha, spiritual Buddha, Buddha in the world),

- adheres to the Pureland Buddhist emphasis upon the ‘bombu’ nature of the practitioner (that we do not have the power to become enlightened unaided), and

- adopts as its core practice the ‘nembutsu’ (calling upon Amida Tathagata).

These three constitute the core teachings of Amida Shu. Different members of Amida Shu may interpret these teaching in different ways. Amida Shu is in favour of personal spirituality and regards these three teachings as a framework within which individuals pursue their spiritual quest. The nature of faith, the real meaning of a ‘spiritual Buddha’, the value of particular practices, and so on are things for the practitioner to find out through experiential immersion, experiment, and reflection. Amida Shu is thus a school of Buddhism with much scope for enquiry and is not a ‘hand-me-down’ set of dogmas, even though it does provide a simple frame within which enquiry can proceed.

Broadly, Amida Shu differs from many other schools of Buddhism in seeing many of the elements of Buddhist teaching as ‘outcomes’ rather than as ‘means’. Thus, it is common for Buddhism to be presented as a means to attain enlightenment and the ‘eightfold path’, for instance, will then be presented as the method by which one can practice so as to arrive at the spiritual goal, whereas in Amida Shu the eightfold path will tend rather to be seen as the outcome of a spiritual life. This gives a particular flavour to this kind of spirituality making it celebratory rather than goal oriented. The emphasis on 'bombu nature' similarly eliminates any kudos in being 'spiritually advanced' and facilitates a spiritual relaxation into a sense of assured grace.

The Amida Shu understanding of faith is ‘other power’ but not passive. We believe that by associating ourselves with a Buddha we become part of that Buddha’s work. The outcome of ‘taking refuge’ is therefore an active life, not ‘in order to’ gain salvation  - Buddha will look after that for us - but rather as a result of one’s affinity to a Buddha whose sole wish is to benefit all beings. Amida Shu thus offers an ‘engaged’ Buddhism in which the engagement flows naturally from the basic teaching. To be a Pureland Buddhist is to be engaged in creating Pure Lands wherever one may be.

Amida Shu asserts the value of Buddhist ethics and encourages non-killing, vegetarianism, honesty, sexual responsibility, non-theft, abstinence from intoxicants and a scrupulous life generally. These are seen as intrinsic goods. The more spiritual a life a person lives the more likely they are to conform broadly to such standards. Pureland, however, is by no means puritan and does not assert either that it is possible to keep such precepts completely nor that it is possible for an individual to achieve a life that is pure or free from implication in the troubles and evils of this world. Pureland is aware of the richness of life, the joy of experience and the necessity of being involved in a robust way if one is to do any good. Creativity inevitably implies some destruction.   

The Amida Shu perspective is essentially pluralistic. Mahayana Buddhism, of which it is one form, asserts the existence of many Buddhas. By associating with one Buddha - Amida - we do not exclude the merit of associating with other Buddhas - whether ‘Buddhist’ or not. It thus offers a frame within which one can be at ease with the diversity of religions and religious practices in the world and Amida Shu generally supports inter-faith harmony and co-operation.

How Does Pureland Differ from Christianity or other Religions?
On the one hand, Pureland has, as just mentioned, no difficulty with accepting Christianity or any other religion as a valid means of spiritual practice. On the other hand, we would assert that what matters is whether or not what one puts at the centre of gravity of one’s life is what we call a Buddha or not. If the God or being or messiah or avatar or saint that one worships is compassionate and wise then that may be a Buddha. If he, she or it is warmongering, condemnatory, exclusivist or punitive, then that is probably not a Buddha. From this perspective, some Christians might seem to be engaged in a wholesome spiritual path while others might seem to be in spiritual danger from a Pureland perspective. 

Three Fundamentals
Posted by Dharmavidya on March 22, 2009

We say that there are three fundamental teachings in Amida Shu:
The threefold nature of Buddha
The twofold nature of the practicer
The singular nature of the practice.

The Buddha is the object of refuge and source of grace in three ways: as absolute truth, as spiritual presence and as physical manifestation.
The practicer is 'bombu' in being fallible and vulnerable.
The practice is singular in that nembutsu encompasses all.

Taking refuge in Buddha we choose the nembutsu as our single practice and, when we have done so, all practice becomes nembutsu.
We take refuge because we realise that we are fallible and vulnerable and incapable of saving ourselves from spiritual danger by our own power unaided.
We are able to take refuge because we attain faith by perceiving with our own senses, by having that faith enhanced by spiritual realisation, and by grounding it upon the intuition of absolute truth that lies beyond our immediate comprehension. 

This summary encompasses the whole doctrinal and practice basis of Pureland.


Why Chant?
Posted by Dharmavidya on November 26, 2008

Everything in life depends upon causes and conditions. Set up the right conditions and the right things happen. Buddhism teaches the right conditions for spiritual growth. A person is what they do. If a person acts with right intention they transform spiritual dangers into opportunities. Buddha taught that times of change (birth, illness, loss, gain, conjunction, separation, and encounter) are occasions of danger that can also be opportunity. However, a person is seldom able to take hold of such opportunity by their will-power alone. Will-power alone tends to be self-defeating because even when it achieves something it gives rise to pride over and attachment to those results. There is a more effective and subtle path to wholesome transformation via the deeper mind and the most effective way of activating such change is to chant.

Actions are conditioned by mind and mind by actions. Since actions are conditioned by mind and mind is also conditioned by its objects, holding a wholesome object in mind conduces toward a wholesome life. Since the most wholesome object is a Buddha, keeping a Buddha in mind is the key to transformation. Since mind is conditioned by actions, the action of calling the Buddha deeply impresses this most wholesome object upon the mind, like a seal pressed into wax. The Buddhas are constantly trying to help us, but generally we resist their help. By calling out to them we open the door to our inner being through which they can help us and, through us, help others.

Actually, the Buddhas are always calling to us. Amida Buddha is calling each of us. Amida’s light penetrates the deepest part of us, but unless we also call we remain closed. Once we begin a practice of chanting, however, a process of transformation begins. Something subtle starts to happen. Each person who chants becomes a vehicle for Amida’s compassionate work in the world, whether they are aware of it or not. Mostly, in fact, one is not aware of Amida’s action until one looks back over a period of time and sees that one’s life has changed. One has become more trusting and more effective in many ways and obstacles that used to seem big now seem manageable or small. We do not chant in order to change. We do not chant in order to help others. We chant in order to call the most loving presence into our life and to make ourselves available to it, but the effect is that we do change and others are benefited.

Auxilliary Practices: Nei Quan and Chih Quan
Posted by Dharmavidya on January 1, 2009

The primary practice of Amida Shu is nembutsu, the verbal utterance of "Namo Amida Bu" or its equivalents. Nothing else is required for salvation. Nonetheless, the auxilliary practices of Nei Quan and Chih Quan do have intrinsic merit and they can expand one's appreciation, both intellectually and exprientially, of the importance of the nembutsu in our life.

Nei Quan (inner reflection) derives from vipassana and refers to the first half of the nembutsu, that is, to reflection upon "Namo" - what is the nature of this creature that calls out? It’s nature is 'dependently originating nature' - we therefore reflect upon 'What have I received?' 'What has supported me?' 'What burden has my existence placed upon other things and other beings?' 'What have I done in return?' This kind of reflection can be targeted on a particular relationship or upon a situation or a time period. In a nei quan (Naikan in Japanese) intensive one might review one's whole life bit by bit - 'What did I receive from my mother in the first five years of my life?' '... between five and ten?' etc '...from my father...' and so on. Gregg Krech has written a nice book called Naikan. The practice generates many emotions and insights. It does not require formal meditation posture (in fact formal posture may hinder). Some people like to write or draw as part of the practice. It is a spiritual exercise that is not aimed at generating a particular state of mind, but rather a shift in one's orientation to life and feeling for others. It tends to generate gratitude, generosity and fellow-feeling, but each time one practises, new things may be discovered.

Chih Quan (reflection on cessation) derives from samattha and refers to our experience of the second half of the nembutsu, Amida's grace. In this practice one imaginatively offers everything to Amida - all feelings, thoughts, sensations, imaginings, circumstances - whatever comes up. If one does Chih Quan after Nei Quan then one probably starts with feelings and thoughts generated by one's inner reflection. Offer them to the Buddha. Imagine that the Buddha receives them with a smile, joyfully (which is not actually just imagination). Whatever we offer to the Buddha, whether it is something that we think is good or bad, worthy or shameful, whatever, the Buddha has a way of using and transforming it. So we can give to the Buddha in a sense of confidence and assurance. There is no judgement from Buddha, only delight. As Buddha receives, so we feel peace - the Buddha's grace - descending through our being. You can feel it physically in the body.  We experience that joy and ease of which the sutras speak. As we feel that joy and ease we can simply dwell in it. Dwelling in that joy and ease, or deep peace, we are actually in the second (or a higher) dhyana. If something (a thought, sensation etc.) comes along that disturbs that peace, then we simply offer it to the Buddha and so continue.

Through Nei Quan we gain a deeper sense of ourselves as bombu, dependently originated beings. Through Chih Quan we receive a taste of the Buddha's grace bestowed. Insight and grace make up facets of the nembutsu. When they are totally unified it is called nembutsu samadhi. This unification, however, is not something one can work at or achieve. From one's own side one can merely utter the nembutsu in faith. The two auxilliary exercises, Nei Quan and Chih Quan can, however, give one a stronger sense of oneself as bombu and of the Buddha as gracious and this makes utterance of the nembutsu more meaningful for the practitioner. These two exercises are not salvation nor do they lead to salvation, but they are the joy and ease that is the rightful heritage of practitioners, given to us by the Buddhas, that have been treasured by the faithful throughout the ages.

Amida Shu Definitions
Posted by Dharmavidya on October 20, 2008

Q: What is Amida Shu
A: Socially engaged Pureland Buddhism, a generic, religious spirituality animated by the energy of Amida Buddha. Amida Shu has three basic teachings: the trikaya nature of Buddhas, the bombu nature of adherents and the nembutsu as principle practice. The core teachings of Amida Shu are found in the Three Pureland Sutras. Amida Shu is an other power spirituality.

Q: What is other power?
A: Other power refers to the Buddha's teaching of 'dependent origination', according to which all things arise in dependence upon causes and conditions. This means both that the causes in our karmic history will always cause us to be bombu and also that there are other causes that can, nonetheless, empower our spiritual life. All of these - our own karmic history and our openness to the healing power of Buddhas - are outside of ('other' than) our present self. We are both victims and beneficiaries of other powers. When we take refuge in the healing power of a Buddha it is as though a seed were planted within us that will then grow by itself. We then become a tathagatagarbha, or 'buddha-womb' within which the seed of Buddha gradually matures. Calling upon Amida Buddha is thus like allowing oneself to be impregnated by the Buddha's healing power which will then grow of its own accord. At some time in the future, a Buddha will be born.  Amida Shu thus relies upon a subliminal process.

Q: What are the Three Pureland Sutras?
A: The Smaller Pureland Sutra, also called the Amida Kyo; the Larger Pureland Sutra or Sutra of Immeasurable Life; and the Contemplation Sutra.

Q: What does the Larger Pureland Sutra say?
A: In brief, it is the story, told by Shakyamuni Buddha to his disciple Ananda, of a bodhisattva called Dharmakara who establishes a Pure Land and thereby becomes Amida Buddha. Included are Dharmakara's prayers that describe the nature of that land as a place where there are no hells or places of punishment, no discrimination or disadvantaging of particular social groups, no war or oppression, only opportunity for spiritual advanement and enjoyment. Dharmakara also promises that he will bring to his realm anybody who sincerely calls upon or takes refuge in him. The beings in Amida Buddha's Pure Land are all either shravakas or bodhisattvas. Thus the sutra specifies the calling of Amida's name as the means by which an affinity is created between oneself and the Buddha and also provides an archetypal example of how, in the case of Dharmakara bodhisattva, such a connection eventually ripened into the creation of a Pure Land and full Buddhahood.

Q: What is a shravaka?
A: The word means 'listener'. Somebody who listens to the Buddha's teaching and enjoys the benefit. Merely listening is enough for the Buddha seed to become lodged within one. All shravakas will eventually be Buddhas after many lifetimes or after a long period in Amida's Pure Land..

Q: What is a bodhisattva?
A: Somebody who 'serves all Buddhas' and thereby dedicates their life to the spiritual assistance of others. Those who are powerfully inspired by Buddhas, but are not yet Buddhas themselves, are called bodhisattvas. Bodhi is the vision of things that is held by a Buddha. While bodhisattvas do not yet fully embody that vision, they have some of its spirit at work in their lives.

Q: What does trikaya nature mean?
A: Tri means three. Kaya means body or manifestation. Trikaya is a Buddhist teaching that Buddhas have concrete, spiritual and absolute manifestation. A Buddha acts in the mundane world, appears in our spiritual life and embodies the absolute truth of unconditionality. This means that Buddhism is a spiritual, not merely a moral teaching.

Q: What does 'bombu' mean?
A: This is a Japanese term referring to the fact that we are vulnerable, limited, unenlightened beings subject to conditions. We have various delusions, are affected by greed, hate, and a variety of other wayward passions. To recognise one's bombu (or 'guchi') nature is to adopt a realistically modest assessment of what it is to be an ordinary human being.

Q: What is nembutsu?
A: Nembutsu means to be mindful of Buddha - to bring Buddha or Buddhas to mind. To conceive of the unconditioned and make it sacred in your life makes one a Buddhist. This is called taking refuge. The unconditioned is embodied by Buddhas, described in their Dharma teachings, and works itself out in the life of the Sangha. All Buddhists take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. These are called the Three Jewels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels is the act that makes one a Buddhist. This refuge may be focussed upon a particular Buddha. In the case of Amida Shu the particular Buddha is Amida Buddha.

Q: Why Amida Buddha?
A: Amida Buddha is the Buddha that most completely manifests unconditionality. Amida Buddha made a paradise called Sukhavati for everyone who calls upon him. This means that if we put Amida Buddha at the centre of our life we shall create a karmic connection with that Pure Land and this will be so irrespective of what spiritual or moral level we have reached. Amida loves us unconditionally, just as we are, already.

Q: What is social engagement?
A: Social engagement means to resist oppression, assist the afflicted and demonstrate an alternative, individually and/or collectively, and to apply Buddhist ethics at a social as well as a personal level. It includes social action, relief work, education, psychological and pastoral assistance, community building, alternative lifestyle, eco-awareness, life simplificaion, and participation in specific projects, campaigns, communities, or programmes intended to contribute to a Pure Land in the world. There are many ways of being socially engaged and different people contribute in different ways. Shravakas listen to the Buddha's teaching and put it into practice in their personal life, thereby allowing the seed of the teachings to grow secretly. Bodhisattvas more openly dedicate their lives to the cause taking on the task of assisting all sentient beings. Both are welcome in Amida's Pure Land.

Q: What is sangha?
A: Sangha is the term for the Buddhist community - all those who have taken refuge in the Three Jewels. The sangha aims to be the ideal community that demonstrates an alternative way of life and faith that avoids the extremes of consumerism and self-indulgence on the one hand and those of fundamentalism or puritanism on the others.

Q: What is Pureland Buddhism?
A: Buddhism is the spiritual tradition deriving from Shakyamuni Buddha who lived in India 25 centuries ago. It is a religion of personal and social peace and harmony based upon the creation of karmic affiliation to a Buddha or Buddhas through an act of 'taking refuge'. 

Q: What is a Buddha?
A: A being who is awakened to the power of the unconditional: unconditional love, unconditional wsidom, unconditional goodness, unconditional generosity, unconditional patience, unconditional energy, unconditional presence. Buddhas support the unconditionality of one another - Buddhas are inspired by Buddhas. We who are not Buddhas are also inspired by Buddhas.

Q: What is meant by the unconditional?
This is the principle of willingness and complete acceptance. A Buddha loves each person just as he or she is. A Buddha does not condemn. Ordinary people are not capable of doing this, but they can grasp the principle.

Q: What is spirituality?
A: Spirituality has a number of meanings. Amida Shu is spiritual in being (a) a relationship with what is sacred, (b) a personal and individual form of devotion and religious exploration as well as a collective one, (c) a relationship to Amida Buddha who is commonly experienced as spirit, appearing in dreams and at death, not merely as a historical existence, and (d) centred on religious feeling and devotion.

Q: What is meant by religion?
A: Amida Shu is a religion inasmuch as it is an organised communion of fellow spirits. Religion generally refers to the institutional aspect of the spiritual life. Buddhism takes a middle position on religion - not too organised and not too anarchic. A degree of organic organisation is necessary if a group of people are to have any effect in the world. Since Amida Shu has an acknowledgedly utopian vision to create 'Pure Land in this world' some organisation is necessary. Amida Shu is therefore a communion of people of common faith in the Pure Land of Amida, working together for a better world, supporting one another as a mutually caring family, and thereby demonstrating an alternative way forward in which diverse people care for one another and co-operate in the service of a better vision.

Q: What is meant by saying it is a 'generic' spirituality?
A: The basic principles of Amida Shu define a simple structure within which a person can live a spiritual life. All that they have to do is recognise their own limitations, recognise the unconditional ideal, and adopt a practice that relates the two in their consciousness. This latter, whatever form it takes, will be a form of nembutsu. The framework of Amida Shu is thus of more or less universal application for people with a spiritual outlook. Thus, it is easy for an Amidist to relate to the other major religions by simply assuming that their gods are Buddhas. So long as your god is a Buddha - i.e. embodies unconditional love - then your religious practice is a form of refuge and parallel to Buddhism. Buddhism claims no exclusivity. (Problems in inter-faith dialogue generally derive from claims to exclusivity, but Buddhas do not claim exclusivity because what they teach is universal.) So Amida Shu is universalistic both in the sense of recognising the validity of other spiritualities and being able to talk about them in its own language as well as theirs and also in being a simple structure of doctrine that persons of any faith background can readily utilise.

 

:: link to original post

Heart Sutra (cho ver.)(2020 mix.) × Ikkyu-ji Temple,Kyoto,Japan - Japanese Zen Music

 

 

Shock and Grace ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

Humans press on forward.  It is like an automatic car.  The basic state of such a car is to move slowly forward.  To get it to stand still while the engine is running one actually has to apply a brake.  It will not come to a stop of its own accord.  Humans are the same.  When you learn to drive a car, the first thing to learn is how to apply the brake.  The spiritual life is the same, first learn to apply the brake.

For a long time in psychology it was thought that a person’s instincts were always trying to bring the person to a halt.  Needs were met in order to end the state of neediness and this end of neediness would be a halt. 

Then some people decided to test this out.  If there is a basic instinctive need to return to rest, total rest should be blissful.  Experiments were done using sensory deprivation.  Subjects were put into float tanks where they received minimal sensory input.  This was as near to complete stasis as can be contrived.  Subjects were paid to stay in the tank.  They had a button they could press when they wanted to get out.  The vast majority of subjects found it intolerable after a short time.  Even though they were being paid to spend time doing absolutely nothing they soon asked to be let out.  Returning to zero is not bliss for most people.  They are all itching to complicate their lives.

The Buddha realised this.  If you are to simplify your life and discover real bliss, this will not happen by just indulging your feelings.  If one goes with the flow, life gradually becomes more and more complicated until something breaks down.  If people have capacity - time, space, money, attention - they get a hankering to use it.  

You can see this operating in many areas of life.  For instance, it causes economic cycles.  When times are good people invest.  In order to invest they borrow.  Others lend.  Lending is one simple way of investing.  Demand grows.  Lenders gradually make more and more risky investments.  As people push for more and more the whole structure becomes increasingly fragile. Eventually some shock to the system tips the balance.  Some borrowers fail to pay their debts.  This leads to a “loss of liquidity” - in other words, the people that they borrowed from now do not have the money to pay their debts either.  There is a general loss of confidence that anything will get paid.  Investment dries up.  The crisis ripples through the whole system very quickly and there is a crash. Then it all starts all over again.

These kinds of cycles involve pain.  One can see that it is all rather unnecessary, but it is not so easy to avoid.  On top of one’s own tendency to get involved in things one does not need, there is the fact that everybody else is doing it too, so we egg each other on.  Surveys have suggested that most people think that they would be happy and content if they just had 25-30% more income than they currently have.  This stays true however big the income is.  It is thus apparent that whatever they currently think, they will never actually be happy.  They will always want that next increment.  Many career structures have increments built in.  On the one hand, this means that people have an incentive to stay in the job. On the other hand, it also means that the cost of keeping them gets higher each year.  Organisations that use such a system - and most big bureaucracies do - thus have to have a “restructuring” - an artificial crisis - every so often so as to get rid of the staff who are now costing more than they are worth.

Although it is easier to see these cycles and their effects when we look at large scale social structures, the same is true in individual lives.  When life becomes simpler it is more blissful, but there arises also the hankering to complicate it - a new relationship, a bigger car, a new house, a better job, or, simply, get a dog - there is always an urge for more, an incessant irritation.

So the Buddha said that unless there arises a revulsion for this aspect of oneself, one will stay tied to the cycle.  Samsara will just keep going round and round.  The key to liberation is restraint.  If your relationship has ended, don’t immediately go onto a dating site and find a new one - enjoy the liberation of having some space in your life.  If your events cancel, don’t immediately fill up the time with new commitments - enjoy the free time.  If you have this kind of attitude, nothing is a disaster.  If the car breaks down and you have to walk, enjoy the exercise.

It has all become worse since we increasingly live in urban environments.  Most people no longer live close to nature.  If you do, cherish it.  Take time to stop and stare.  Smell the flowers, listen to the birdsong, hug a tree.  Observe the cycles of nature.  You will see that they have a similar pattern, but you can stand outside of it and watch.  In an urban environment one is surrounded by things that advert toward complication.  Buy this.  Get one of those.  Don't miss out.  Don't be late.  And so on and on, endlessly until the crash. Birth, old age, disease and death.     

At the present time, we are at a point in the cycle where quite a lot is breaking down due to the arrival of the corona19 virus.  People are staying at home rather than going out.  Many are obliged to “self-isolate”.  This is like sending half the population on a religious retreat.  Some people find it hard to bear, though it means that they are living much as I do most of the time.  Sartre said "Hell is other people," but many find it a kind of hell just to be on their own.  Yet what could be easier?

Eventually the crisis will pass and things will “return to normal”, but normal is not a steady state. Normal is a constant pushing forward - shop til you drop.  For sure, when the present crisis is over, there will be some kind of rebound.  Not everything will be the same as before.  During the crisis people will have learnt new ways of doing things and some of these will stick.  But the point to notice is that the crisis creates space and the rebound fills it up again.  Better to keep some of the space free. 

Spiritual teachers teach restraint - he who does not know contentment will never have enough.  Do not complicate your life unnecessarily.  Enjoy the freedom that you have and hold back from filling it up with new stressful commitments.  Every loss is also a freedom regained; don’t squander it.

To do this there has to be some countervailing force to the urge to ever press on.  This force has two components.  The first is paravritti - the revulsion for the samsaric hamster wheel.  The second is grace - allowing the bliss of spiritual sustenance in.  Amida’s light is always everywhere if we will allow it.  To fulfil the spiritual life, both of these elements need to be present.  Commonly this means that enlightenment arrives when shock and inspiration coincide.  Right now we are in a time of shock, but will one allow the inspiration to enter or is the itch to get back to "normal" irresistible?

:: link to original post on La Ville au Roi (Eleusis)

The Meaning of Mindfulness: Reply to Tineke ~ Dharmavidya

Following the discussion coming from the essay :: here

Dharmavidya writes:

I am making this into a new discussion as it is somewhat at a tangent from the "Unmodernising Buddhism" theme.

Clearly Anapanasati and Satipatthana were teachings that were important to the Buddha.  These were key items that he wanted disciples to hang onto.  The question is, therefore, what do they actually mean and imply, and at the core of this is the word sati, translated as mindfulness.

Now the sutras on anapanasati and satipatthana contain exercises and generally the Western take on this has been to assume that these exercises are the way that one develops mindfulness and that mindfulness is some kind of present moment attention or awareness.

As far as I can see, this is a misreading.  These sutras do not say that they are teaching one to be mindful and they do not say that mindfulness is a form of attention.  In fact in both the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta it is clear that the practitioner has to have mindfulness already established before he does the exercises. The bhikkhu “establishes mindfulness before him” before he starts.  So both assume that the practitioner already has mindfulness.  Mindfulness is a precondition for the exercises that follow, not a result of them. 

The intended result of them is that the practitioner shall have an experiential understanding of the truth of the Dharma teachings, since this will keep him in good stead in the future.  He will learn things that are to be kept in mind. Thus, if he approaches awareness of the body with this mindfulness established, he understands experientially that the body is just a body, feelings are just feelings, etc. Keeping this discovery in mind will help him in many situations.  If he were to do body awareness without having the  Dharma already in mind, he might come to all sorts of other conclusions.  The worldling is also aware of his body and concludes that it is his self, or concludes that it should be pampered, or whatever. Many people are aware of their feelings and as a result are completely enslaved by them.

It is not that by doing these exercises he learns how to be more aware of what is happening in the present moment.  It is that by them he learns something that will be for his benefit for a long time.  For a bhikkhu to sustain the kind of composure Buddha is expecting, he has to keep in mind that the body is just a body, feelings are just feelings.  They pass. When he has got this then he is freed from covetousness and grief.

Also, the refrain “ardent, mindful and aware” surely designates three qualities that work in synchronisation. There is no implication here that mindfulness = awareness any more than mindfulness or awareness = ardour.

Interestingly, in the Salayatana Vibhanga Sutta (MN137) there is a threefold satipatthana.  This does not mention awareness exercises at all.  It outlines three situations, one in which the disciples do not take in what the teacher is teaching, one in which some do and some don’t and one in which they all do.  It says that the teacher is only satisfied in the third situation, however, in all three he is “unmoved, mindful and aware”.  So here mindfulness is a foundation for equanimity. I am inclined to think that satipatthana does not mean the setting up of mindfulness, but rather what mindfulness sets up.

The practice of anapanasati is not a practice of learning to follow the breath, like a yoga exercise, it is a practice of learning to experience rapture, tranquility, joy, liberation, etc, with every breath.  The emphasis of the teaching is not on the physical yoga as such but upon having the good qualities of the Dharma as close and as constant as breathing. Or, indeed, not only the good qualities, but also whatever else the bhikkhu is studying.  He is to give it attention as unwavering as breathing. In other words, having them in mind unceasingly. When this is achieved then satipatthana is also thereby achieved.

So what is mindfulness? In the Mahasihanada Sutta, mindfulness is linked with “retentiveness, memory and lucidity of wisdom”  (MN12.62)) and in the Sekha Sutta ()MN53.16 it says “He has mindfulness; he possesses the highest mindfulness and skill; he recalls and recollects what was done long ago and spoken long ago”.  In other words, mindfulness means to have a good memory, and this is supported both by the etymology of the word sati, which comes from remember, and from the fact that at the time when Rhys Davids chose “mindfulness” as the best word to translate sati, that was what mindfulness meant in the English language - to remember or keep in mind.  Rhys Davids wrote in a footnote to this translation that the Buddhist notion of mindfulness on all occasions was the Buddhist equivalent of the Christian injunction “Whatsoever you do, however mundane it may be, do it in the name of the Lord” - in other words, mindfulness is, for Buddhists, about keeping Buddha, Dharma and Sangha in mind whatever one is doing.

In Pureland Buddhism the central practice is niàn fó 念佛  which means recollection of  Buddha (J. nembutsu). Niàn is the Chinese for mindfulness. The aim is to keep Buddha in mind on all occasions.

As a result of the recent upsurge in something called mindfulness, we now have two different meanings of the word circulating and this sometimes leads to quite a bit of confusion.  The idea that mindfulness is deliberate, non-judgemental attention to whatever is arising in the present moment is a fair distance away from mindfulness as in the sentence, "I'm always mindful of what my mother told me before she died."  The latter meaning is, however, closer to what I think the Buddha meant: there are things to be remembered and treasured that will be for one's benefit for a long time, and they will be so because they will protect you from what may arise in the unpredictability of the present moment.

This is how I have come to understand it.

:: link

And a further comment from Dharmavidya:

Thank you for the question.  Often in the sutras we see the Buddha delighting in receiving a good question.  He says such things as "Oh, well done, Ananda!  This question will be for the benefit of many beings for a long time".  A good question is a Dharma door.

As I understand it, anapanasati is not so much the sati of anapana but rather sati by means of anapana.  In other words, anapanasati is not “watching the breathing” but rather it is what the Tibetans call “mounting the practice on the breath”.  This is a significant change of emphasis.

In Amida Shu the practice is to remember Buddha at all times.  The recollection of Buddha enters into everything one does.  This is called nembutsu, literally “mindfulness of Buddha” or “recollection of Buddha” and it often takes the form of saying the Buddha’s Name. To this end I encourage my people to have a mala and to use it.  This is not just because the mala is handy for counting recitations of the Buddha’s Holy Name,; it is rather that as soon as one sees the mala, or whenever one takes it in hand, the thought of Buddha is straightaway in the mind.  Telling the beads keeps the recollection going.  With each bead one says so many nembutsu.

Now anapanasati is like that.  When one mounts the practice on the breath, then the breath becomes your mala.  Every breath becomes a nembutsu.  Through anapana one’s sati (nen in Japanese) is reanimated. The breath is the soul of recollection. 

The Pureland way is also to make every aspect of Dharma into a Buddha recollection. This both simplifies and deepens the practice.  So it is not a matter of learning a scatter of practices - wisdom, compassion, rapture, impermanence, truths, powers, etc., so much as that all of these become  extensions of the one key recollection.  This being so, one does not need, necessarily, to learn many volumes of teaching in order to get the blessing.  Whether you know one teaching or many teachings, they are all recollection of Buddha. It is always valuable to listen and learn, but always, whatever the teaching, one is listening to Buddha.

Once one has selected nembutsu (selection is an important word in the teachings of Honen Shonin) then all practices become nembutsu and “only nembutsu is true and real”. 

Thus,  in the anapanasati passages in the sutras, anapanasati might be used to establish, for instance, rapture.  With each breath the rapture comes back to one.  In this way, by means of breathing, recollection of rapture occurs.  In Pureland, rapture is just another way of experiencing Buddha.  Buddha is rapture.  Rapture is the blessing of Buddha entering one's physical being.  So anapana bringing rapture is anapana bringing the experience of the presence of Buddha.

In anapanasati, the breath is ones mala.  When the breath is one’s mala the recollection occurs all the time and it does not matter which aspect of the Dharma appears, they are all recollection of Buddha.  Buddha is the mani gem: it is a jewel with innumerable facets. Buddhism is to ever be in contact with Buddha, ever receiving the blessing, taking it in with every breath.  Sati is to keep the blessing in one’s heart and anapanasati is to refresh it with every breath.  I am not breathing - Buddha is breathing in me.

Unmodernising Buddhism ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya writes:

BUDDHIST MODERNISM

One reads a good deal these days about Buddhist modernism.  This is a movement that began in South and South East Asia as a resistance to colonialism.  Local Buddhists wanted to present their countries as “modern” and so injected a lot of Western rationalist prejudices into their culture and religion in order to make it look  more compatible with science which was, in the West, becoming dominant over the established monotheistic religions.  It became possible to say that Buddhism was the most scientific religion, or even that it was not a religion at all but rather a way of life, a philosophy and a science of the mind.

This strategy proved more successful than even its inventors had hoped.  Not only did it stimulate a rejuvenation of Buddhism in Asia, it led to this new Buddhist modernism or modernised Buddhism being imported into the West.  By deliberately playing to all the prejudices of Western culture, a new Buddhist product had been created that had direct appeal to Westerners alienated from their traditional faith traditions.  In the process the modernisation went further and further.  Buddhism was presented as a psychological technique leading to happiness, free from rituals, superstition, gods, priests and any kind of superstition.  In other words, Buddhist modernism became, as many writers have now pointed out, a new fabrication that has precious little in common with Buddhism as practised for the twenty five centuries or so up to 1900, or, indeed, with Buddhism as still actually practised by ordinary folk in Thailand, Taiwan or Tokyo.

WESTERN CULTURAL ACCRETIONS

So now we face a situation where Buddhism in the West has absorbed a mulitude of values and attitudes that have no connection with Buddha, but have their roots in Europen history and North American concerns. 

There have been a number of reactions to this situation.

1/ As Buddhism has become more established in the West Buddhist groups have sought legitimacy and have established institutions.  Temples, monasteries and centres have come into being.  Generally these strike some compromise between their historic tradition and what is necessary to be sufficiently popular in a Western context to keep people coming through the door.

2/  Some people and groups have sought to extend Buddhism into or even identify it with current “progressive” Western concerns - ecology, psychology, gender equality, democracy, social justice, racial parity, and so on.  Sometimes this is a bit of a stretch since traditional Buddhist texts do not mention most of these subjects.  It can be argued, however, that Buddhism did advance what is recognisably a psychology and that since it taught universal compassion, these are naturally the modern forms of such.

3/  Some have taken techniques from Buddhism and applied them in the service of amelioration of contemporary ills.  In the process, in order to make them acceptable to modern sensibilities, they have carried moderisation to an extreme, stripping out every trace of religiosity.  The most widespread and notable case is “mindfulness” about which I have written extensively elsewhere.

4/  There has emerged a quasi-spiritual quasi-commercial phenomenon called New Age.  This is a kind of hotch-potch of popular spiritual and magical ideas combining a variety of (often mutually contradictory) principles such and practices drawn from Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, Shamanism, Sufism and so on.

5/  In the forms of Buddhism now popular in the West there has emerged a broadly recognisable consensus around such principles as interdependence (or interbeing), non-duality, Buddha nature, present-momentism, expanded consciousness and awareness. 

6/ All of this has been linked to an almost complete identification of Buddhism with the practice of meditation, especially three forms of contemplation: insight meditation, metta (loving kindness) practice, and choiceless awareness.  Most Western people now assume that meditation and Buddhism are more or less synonyms.

7/  Most recently Buddhist modernism has struck up an alliance with neuroscience, a branch of science that has been rescued from moribundity by the discovery of neuroplasticity.  If the brain can change, then Buddhism, presenting itself as a set of meditation techniques, can claim to be the methodology for improving the brain.

8/  Some more academically minded, surveying this scene, have despaired of the idea that there is really any such thing as Buddhism.  Rather they see a diversity of forms, more appropriately studied by anthropology than religious studies or theology, that have some family connection, but no core essence.

There are others. There is no doubt that this has produced a fertile and creative melting pot situation in which new ideas and new forms periodically emerge and, broadly, this is all to the good as far as it goes.  However, in the plethora of adaptations and confusions, the actual salvation that Buddhism offered tends to get lost or submerged.  This feels rather unsatisfactory, but one cannot go backwards, so the question become how to go forwards from here.

I recently spoke at a conference.  The speaker who followed after me was Chinese.  He started his presentation by saying (and I paraphrase from memory) “Doctor Brazier and I are on opposite, perhaps complimentary, tracks.  He is trying to remind Westerners that there was a perfectly good, functioning Buddhism before it got contaminated with modern Western culture and I am trying to persuade Easterners that Buddhism needs modernising and reforming to conform to the needs of the contemporary world.”  No doubt he and I shall go on learning from one another.

BUDDHISM IS A RELIGION: YOU CAN BELIEVE IT

I am a Western born and Western educated person.  I share many of the views of my progressive liberal friends and even some of those of my more conservative ones.  None of these, however, take priority over my faith. I do not see Buddhism as a way of advancing other causes and I do not think that the Dharma of Buddha needs to be modified to fit us.  We need to modify ourselves to fit it.

I came into Buddhism from the position of an already established spiritual outlook.  To me, religion is not something to be rejected out of hand as old fashioned, nor is it a modern invention, as some have suggested.  As I see it, people have a fundamental spiritual need and an unavoidable intuition of a beyond.  We call ourselves homo sapiens, but this is a conceit.  It would be truer to call ourselves homo religioso.  Every culture generates, in one way or another, a dimension that is recognisably religious.   

Everything in ordinary life is finite, impermanent, incomplete, measurable and non-ultimate, but to say that this is all is to deny the unavoidable intuition.  All worldy things can be counted, but, as Einsteinn is supposed to have said, not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.  There are numbers, but there is also zero and infinity and these beyond-the-limit items, which we all intuit, do not behave like rational numbers.  The same is true with the lived life: we experience a great diversity of conditional circumstances, but somehow the mind cannot avoid intuiting the unconditional.  To me, this is what Buddhism is fundamentally about. This is what Buddha designated as the only possibility of true liberation. 

My own approach therefore has been

1/ to study the sutras and try, as best I can, to glean the real message

2/ to strip away the Western cultural accretions and try to find the true spirit

3/ to take it that the core of Buddhism is, on the one hand, an answer to the religious longing of people, and, on the other, a way to let the Beyond into our lives

4/ to take seriously the assumption of pious Buddhists that Buddha can help

5/ to not be afraid of ritual, symbolism, poetry, priestly roles and overt religious forms; their replacement by socio-political equivalents is not progress

6/ on the observation that most Buddhists do not meditate, to not assume that Buddhism is a technique

7/ to take it that Buddhism is seriously religious and is not simply an anthropological cultural category or congeries of diverse practice forms lacking ultimate meaning

8/ to assume that Buddhism is not designed to answer “modern” questions, but rather to satisfy the heart and soul of people in all cultures in all times, like any other major religion

I respect the religious impulse.  That does not mean that I approve of the subversion of religion by politics in order to set communities against one another.  Nor, contrarily, does it mean that I think all religions are the same.  I see them as vehicles.  The well designed ones can get you from here to infinity.  Some will give you a more comfortable ride than others.

Modernist people are often completely cut off from their religious heart.  They think in materialistic terms and lack a sense of spirit.  Their world is disenchanted and they think that this is reality, whereas, in fact, it is a spiritual desert.

In a nutshell, the problem is that we have taken the bhakti out of Buddhism.  We have tried to make it into a cold, clinical, secular, utilitarian, intellectual rationalism with a set of techniques that can be used as remedies for modern ills.  It is not and never was like that until this modernism came along.  To hear modern Buddhists, one would think that Buddha never mentioned such things as faith or devotion, yet for most Asian Buddhists throughout history faith and devotion have been precisely what Buddhism has always been about. That is bhakti.  Bhakti is to throw oneself heart and soul into the hands of Buddha.  It is free fall.  or, at the simplest level, it is to kneel in humility, place a flower on the altar, and receive the blessing in one's heart. This is what we have lost.  It is not that we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, it is that we only have bathwater and the baby has gone.

MISSING THE POINT

A simple example of where we have got to is the fact that almost all Western Buddhists like the idea that Buddhism teaches that everything is impermanent.  This sounds like science and it is the kind of phrase that can be applied to a multitude of situations.  However, it completely misses the point that what Buddha actually taught was that all worldly things are impermanent and impermanent things offer no reliable or permanent spiritual refuge.  This was not the Buddha stating a hypothesis about physical reality, it was an injunction to find that which is not impermanent, to find the true refuge.  Finding such a true refuge - nirvana - is the core of Buddhism.  Modern Western Buddhism has lost this core.  But if you take the heart out, the body no longer lives.  At best you are left with a mechanism, a robot. Buddhist modernism is such a robot. It has no soul, no spirit, no religion.

Somebody wrote to me recently and said that they had been to an event at which the presenters had been asked if they were Buddhists.  One of the presenters had said that yes, he was Buddhist, but immediately hastened to say that Buddhism is not a religion and that for him it was simply a collection of techniques that could make life less stressful.  My correspondent found this unsatisfying, which is why he wrote to me about it.  No doubt the presenter was in some degree nervous of alienating the audience if he showed anything more than this very watered down idea.  Perhaps he really was wishy washy or perhaps he just did not have the courage of his faith.  Unfortunately, in the contemporary West, wishy-washy is the norm and, often, the only socially acceptable stance.

To unmodernise Buddhism does not mean adopting tenth century packaging nor pretending that we are not twenty first century Europeans or North Americans, but it does mean finding some way to put the bhakti back into Buddhism.  Buddhism needs rehydrating; it needs to rediscover its passion.  When Buddha gave teachings people danced for joy, the hair on their necks stood up, they wept and sang. Where has this gone?  Rationalism launches no ships.

Somehow we have inoculated ourselves against drinking the living water.  In our haste to expel anything that seems remotely superstitious we have become academic.  To say that something is merely academic is to say that it does not really matter.  The modernised Buddhism is a hobby that does not really matter.  Real Buddhism is about salvation and liberation and this is not achieved through something that is merely a hobby or an intellectual interest.  Real Buddhism has a vast cosmic vision that includes the possibility of myriad lives in myriad realms, with beings rising and falling according to their deeds.  It is not just giving impartial attention in the present moment; it encompasses destinies in the perspective of eternity.  Somehow we have made something inherently vast and magnificent into something trivial and cheap - an easy sell.  For sure we have established Buddhism in some of our academic citadels and we have infiltrated vaguely Buddhistic ideas and techniques into society at large, and this is better than nothing, but it is still a long way short of the liberation promised.  Many are wasting for want of the Dharma.  I hope that some few shall understand.

:: link to original essay - please comment there rather than here

Joni Mitchell on meeting Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche

Tibetan, rather than Zen

 

Joni Mitchell on meeting Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche ... / ... Thanks for the link John Burris

"He was the bad boy of Zen. I wrote a song about a visit I made to him called 'Refuge of the Road.'

I consider him one of my great teachers, even though I saw him only three times. Once I had a fifteen-minute audience with him in which we argued. He told me to quit analyzing. I told him I couldn't — I'm an artist, you know. Then he induced into me a temporary state where the concept of 'I' was absent, which lasted for three days.

[Later], at the very end of Trungpa's life I went to visit him. I wanted to thank him. He was not well. He was green and his eyes had no spirit in them at all, which sort of stunned me, because the previous times I'd seen him he was quite merry and puckish — you know, saying 'shit' a lot. I leaned over and looked into his eyes, and I said, 'How is it in there? What do you see in there?' And this voice came, like, out of a void, and it said, 'Nothing.' So, I went over and whispered in his ear, 'I just came to tell you that when I left you that time, I had three whole days without self-consciousness, and I wanted to thank you for the experience.' And he looked up at me, and all the light came back into his face and he goes, 'Really?' And then he sank back into this black void again." - Joni Mitchell
--- --- ---

Refuge Of The Road

I met a friend of spirit
He drank and womanized
And I sat before his sanity
I was holding back from crying
He saw my complications
And he mirrored me back simplified
And we laughed how our perfection
Would always be denied
"Heart and humor and humility"
He said "Will lighten up your heavy load"
I left him for the refuge of the roads

I fell in with some drifters
Cast upon a beachtown
Winn Dixie cold cuts and highway hand me downs
And I wound up fixing dinner
For them and Boston Jim
I well up with affection
Thinking back down the roads to then
The nets were overflowing
In the Gulf of Mexico
They were overflowing in the refuge of the roads

There was spring along the ditches
There were good times in the cities
Oh, radiant happiness
It was all so light and easy
Till I started analyzing
And I brought on my old ways
A thunderhead of judgment was
Gathering in my gaze
And it made most people nervous
They just didn't want to know
What I was seeing in the refuge of the roads

I pulled off into a forest
Crickets clicking in the ferns
Like a wheel of fortune
I heard my fate turn, turn turn
And I went running down a white sand road
I was running like a white-assed deer
Running to lose the blues
To the innocence in here
These are the clouds of Michelangelo
Muscular with gods and sungold
Shine on your witness in the refuge of the roads

In a highway service station
Over the month of June
Was a photograph of the earth
Taken coming back from the moon
And you couldn't see a city
On that marbled bowling ball
Or a forest or a highway
Or me here least of all
You couldn't see these cold water restrooms
Or this baggage overload
Westbound and rolling taking refuge in the roads

© 1976; Crazy Crow Music.

Dharmavidya on Authenticity

Dharmavidya:

:: link

I am a Religious Buddhist ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

A little while ago I answered a knock on my door and found myself in conversation with two Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I told them I was Buddhist.  They immediately asked if I was a religious Buddhist or a philosophical Buddhist.  I replied, without hesitation, that I was a religious Buddhist.  We had a pleasant conversation and found some commonality of concern about various issues such as the current ecological crisis.  They then went on their way. 

Afterwards, I reflected that they would probably have made a more determined effort to convert me if I had answered the first question differently.  The person without religion is in a more vulnerable position and soon likely to admit to some uncertainty and anxiety. I also thought about why I had had no hesitation in answering the question as I did.  Many people who identify with Buddhism these days do not identify with religion.  What is the real point at issue here?

The fundamental definition of religion is that it is a system of thought, philosophy, culture and practice within which the core element is a distinction between the mundane and the sacred.  We could also term these poles the finite and the infinite, the conditioned and the unconditioned, the here-and-now and the eternal-beyond, the mortal and the deathless, or any other parallel set of terms. In the West they have come to take on the form of the mortal and the divine.

On this definition, secular or philosophical Buddhism is not really a religion because it lacks a sense of the beyond.  It is Buddhism minus nirvana.  If you had asked Shakyamuni about this, however, he would surely have said that Dharma without nirvana is not Dharma.  It is like a one legged man or a one wheel bicycle - it is a precarious balancing act that easily tumbles without the application of unwearying vigilance, contortion or extra props.

According to secular Buddhism, only the here and now exists, the only benefits available are mundane ones, and the only way to proceed is with the pursuit of this-worldly results.  This type of thinking is considered progressive.  However, it is fragile.  Those following such an approach, if they do so in a serious rather than dilettante manner, are liable to get burnt out, because this-worldly goals offer no permanent succour, no real solution: they are just more of the same. Many “modern” people find this very difficult to grasp. Consequently they never escape from their stress and anguish. They set up a goal of this worldly perfection and then come unstuck because there is no such perfection here to be had.

The original teaching - the Dharma - aimed at salvation from this world while within it, not mere transient happiness or pleasure.  Happiness within it might often be a spin off, but was incidental to the original purpose.  Nor is Dharma really about self-development.  Again, a good deal of character reform may well occur as a spin off - sila and samadhi develop from prajña - but the core is right view and right view is lokavid, the ability to see beyond.  We might like the idea of perfecting ourselves, but we all remain bombu.

In the Ariya Pariyesana Sutta (MN26), Buddha says:

Bhikshus, before my awakening, while I was still only an unawakened bodhisattva,

9. I, too, being myself subject to birth, sought what was also subject to birth; …
subject to decay, sought what was also subject to decay; …
subject to sickness; …
subject to death; …
subject to sorrow …
being myself subject to defilement, sought what was also subject to defilement.

Then, bhikshus, I thought thus:

‘Why should I, being myself subject to birth, seek what is also subject to birth; …
subject to decay; …
subject to sickness; …
subject to death; …
subject to sorrow; …
being myself subject to defilement, seek what is also subject to defilement?

Suppose that I, being myself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, were to seek the unborn supreme security from bondage, nirvana.
Suppose that I, being myself subject to decay …
subject to sickness …
subject to death …
subject to sorrow…
subject to defilement, were to seek the undefiled supreme security from bondage, nirvana.’

If we recouch this in Pureland terms we get:

Formerly I, a bombu, sought that which is also bombu,
being a foolish being, sought that which is also foolish,
being subject to wayward passion, sought that which is also wayward.
being an impermanent mortal, sought that which is also mortal and impermanent.

Then I thought, why do I do this?

Suppose that I, a bombu, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is not bombu;
suppose that I, a foolish being, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is not foolish;
suppose that I, a being subject to wayward passion, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is pure;
suppose that I, being mortal and impermanent, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is not mortal, not impermanent.

What if I were to call out to what is beyond this mundane samsaric merry-go-round. What if I were to call out to Amida.

At a philosophical level, secular Buddhism is propped up by the wooden leg of non-duality.  A great deal is made of this notion, but it is quite clear here that the Buddha has a critically important duality in mind, namely that between the being who is limited by birth, sickness, death, sorrow and defilement on the one hand and, on the other, the unborn, the deathless, that which is not subject to sickness, sorrow and defilement. In the Dharma of Buddha, not everything is impermanent.

This is the same distinction as that between the bombu being and Amida.  Buddhism occurs when the limited being reaches out to the limitless, the finite to the infinite, the measured to the immeasurable.

One does not cross this divide, for one remains a mortal being, but one takes refuge in the other shore.  In the here and now, one calls out to the eternal. In this very life, one calls out to the beyond. In this perilous situation, one pleads for help  - “Tai Shi Chih, aid me now!”.

Such calling is nembutsu. “Namo Amida Bu”.  Then, amazingly, it comes to you. This is the meaning of Tathagata (Nyorai, in Japanese).

It is said that the difference between Jodo Shu and Jodo Shin Shu is that Jodo Shu places the emphasis upon the calling and Shin Shu places the emphasis upon it coming to you.  These, however, are two aspects of the same movement.

This is religious consciousness giving rise to a religious act with a spiritual result - the religious act that is the core of all true religion, whatever the names or terminology may be, and the result that is the reason why religious movements have had such influence and sway in human affairs.

As long as one, a mundane being, continues to call out only for an improved mundanity, one has not grasped the Dharma nor been grasped by it and so one does not get the result.

Only when, as a mundane being, one nonetheless calls out to what is ultimately sublime, beyond this tawdry sphere, does one grasp at the real Dharma and create the condition within which one can be grasped by it.  This is why it is important not to be ashamed to be religious.  Without religious consciousness one is eternally vulnerable and lost because, however much effort one makes, one is still dependent upon things that are as vulnerable, impermanent and unreliable as oneself. 

Buddha said that few would be able to get this.  He was right, but there are some with but little dust in their eyes.  Don’t let them waste for want of the Dharma.

For me personally, it makes complete sense.  Even if I were the only person left on the planet who saw this, it would still deeply satisfy.  Furthermore, it is what Shakyamuni taught.  This is original Buddhism and universal Dharma.

If Jodo Shu is “Please” and Shin Shu is “Thank You” then Amida Shu is Please and Thank You together, the complete set of cosmic good manners. Learn these good manners and use them on all occasions. Then you will be welcomed to the feast where all the Buddhas dine.

To comment, please follow this :: link

Dharmavidya on Solitude

 

 

What Keeps Buddhist Activists Sane?

Satya writes:

In January, I co-facilitated a weekend retreat for Buddhists from different traditions who are involved in eco-activism. Various themes and questions emerged during our time together. There were questions about how arising anger could be used in the service of activism, and how this fitted with Buddhist ethics. There was frustration about Buddhist colleagues who were in denial about the climate and ecological crises, and how they might be skilfully influenced. There was a lot of despair and grief.

One of the themes that arose repeatedly was the immensity of the task ahead and the inadequacy of our efforts. One colleague came up with a beautiful metaphor for this. He described himself as a drop of water, surveying a vast lake. The lake had been whipped up into fierce waves and he was trying to decide exactly where to add his drop of water in order to calm the whole thing.

This struck me very deeply as I have been wrestling with a similar dilemma. My life is already quite full. I run a Buddhist temple with my husband, which involves wearing various hats: landlord, celebrant, marketing executive, accountant, gardener. I work as a psychotherapist to earn my living, and I make space for writing books as a way to feed my soul. How can I fit my new role as an eco-activist into this busy schedule without overloading myself and becoming useless as a holder-of-space and as a guide for others. In the precious time I do have available, exactly what should I be doing? The fate we are facing is so terrifying, I also wonder why I don’t just relinquish all of my other roles, as some of my friends have done, and sign up for full-time work with Extinction Rebellion.

We sat with these questions as they swirled inside us. It was helpful to know that others sat with them too. It was also helpful to study a beautiful text by Akuppa* on how to be a Shambhala warrior, with sage advice for Buddhist eco-activists including simplifying our lives, remembering we can’t save the world on our own, and balancing outer activity with inner sustenance. Still, I was left feeling daunted and overwhelmed by the task ahead.

On the second morning I offered a piece of our liturgy to the group. As a Pureland Buddhist, my primary relationship is with Amitabha Buddha, the Buddha of Infinite Light. Amitabha (or Amida) is flanked by two attendant bodhisattvas—Quan Shi Yin, also known as Guanyin, Avalokiteshvara, or Kannon, and Tai Shi Chih, also known as Mahasthamaprapta. The piece I shared was the Tai Shi Chih Prayer, written by our teacher Dharmavidya David Brazier, and set to a very simple melody.**