lotusinthemud

Clarifying Nembutsu Practice ~ Dharmavidya

QUESTION:  I’d like to be clear about what nembutsu practice is. It’s seems from what I can glean from your writing you are saying Amida Buddhism is the work of compassion in the world in the play of opposites. So practice begins with some kind of descent into what has been disowned. So I enjoyed the way you framed the practices of Chih Quan and Nei Quan as two koans. And the three kinds of mind seem to describe a larger picture of what Amida Buddha practice entails. 

So as I understand it, the nembutsu practice is the last step, maybe practice isn’t a word you would use to describe it since it seems to be an activated prayer based on faith in the unconditional love of Amida Buddha. So do you simply chant “Namo Buddha Bu”, like a mantra? Are you visualizing Amida Bu when you do this, or holding him in your heart and imagination. This seems to be both an act of faith and trust in the underlying love of the universe which supports us all, and a  act of imagination, as our Bodhisattva vow is as well. 

I’d appreciate any direction you could send me in to help me do some of this practice for myself.

 

SHORT ANSWER: Just say “Namo Amida Bu” in simple faith.

LONG ANSWER:  Thank you, great question. Yes, hold the Buddha in your heart and imagination. But even if, sometimes, you just say the words, it is still powerful. The nembutsu does its own work.

Nembutsu is an expression of refuge.  Understanding and entering into the deep and true meaning of refuge is the core of the Buddhist religion and it is a life long practice.  So a Buddhist is somebody who chooses to take refuge in Buddha and keeps on doing so in deeper and deeper ways as understanding and experience broaden and deepen.  In the Pureland forms of Buddhism, of which Amida Shu is one, the Buddha we take refuge in is Amida Buddha, on account of his all-acceptance.  This goes with the Pureland emphasis upon humility in the practitioner - even if one is the lowest of the low, Amida will accept you just as you are.  So the form of taking refuge in these branches of Buddhism is “Namo Amida Bu” or an equivalent in local language. 

In the larger Pureland Sutra it says that Amida accepts anybody who thinks upon him with sincerity and “thinking upon him” is, for practical purposes, taken to mean calling his name.  therefore, the most fundamental form of nembutsu practice is to call the Buddha to mind by saying his name - in this case “Amida” or “Amitabha”, usually “Namo Amida Bu”. This is called the nembutsu. (nem=mindfluness, butsu=Buddha, hence “mindfulness of Buddha” or “bringing Buddha to mind”). To call one Buddha is to call all Buddhas.

So nembutsu practice is simply to say the nembutsu in simple faith on all occasions, formally or informally, singly or in congregation, to oneself or out loud.  Nothing needs to be done in advance of this.  Choosing the nembutsu is the key action and commitment.  To entrust oneself to the nembutsu is called shinjin.

Several things, inessential but useful, follow, in no particular order:

1/ The nembutsu is a window through which all of Buddha’s teachings may be seen.  It gives one a perspective on the Dharma. Once one has chosen nembutsu as one’s key practice, all other practices become forms of nembutsu.  Why is one bowing, offering incense, reading scriptures, sitting in zazen, etc? In order to deepen refuge and so make the nembutsu more real and sincere.

2/ The nembutsu, in effect, is the planting of Buddha seed in one’s heart.  One becomes a Buddha womb.  This seed will grow, just as an embryo grows in the womb of the mother, but the mother does not make the baby grow; one does not need to do anything about it.  The process is unconscious.  All the mother needs to do is avoid anything dangerous or damaging.  Just so, a nembutsu practitioner should maintain good general spiritual health, but does not need to worry.

3/ Although subjectively one has the sense of having selected the nembutsu by oneself, in reality, the arising of the urge to do so is Amida’s grace. It is the Buddha who has planted the seed, not oneself.  It is not really that one has done something so much as that one has been “seized by Amida”.  This is not, therefore, a practice in which one strives to achieve something, so much as one in which one entrusts to a process more powerful than oneself and celebrates this grace that has come into one’s life.

4/ Consequently, many Buddhist teachings come to be seen “the other way around”.  there is a kind of reversal.  The eightfold path is an outcome, not a means.  Salvation, enlightenment, samadhi and so on are not things to be achieved.  They may be given, but it is all out of one’s hands.

5/ There are practices such as nei quan and chi quan which can deepen one’s appreciation of nembutsu in an experiential manner.  One can come to understand better “Who or what is it that calls the Buddha’s name?”  “Who has the Buddha called?” One can have experiences of the grace of Buddha descending into one’s frame.  This deepening can also come through such simple practices as having gratitude, appreciating nature, simplifying one’s life and so on. 

6/ There are also practices that can amplify the nembutsu experience. Thus

   a/ visualisation.  One can visualise Amida Buddha or the attendant bodhisattvas Quan Shi Yin (Kanzeon), or Tai Shih Chi (Mahasthamaprapta), or one can do the series of visualisations described in the Contemplation Sutra for visualising the Pure Land, and so on. 

   b/ circumambulating or prostrating to a stupa, relic or Buddha rupa while reciting the nembutsu

   c/ ceremonies, litanies, etc.

7. There can be many psychological spin-offs from the practice since one develops faith and confidence, preoccupations fall into perspective, fear of death is dissolved and self-defensiveness tends to fall away.  Accepting that we are all foolish beings, one feels fellow-feeling for others so empathy becomes more natural.

Many of the above can be done individually or in a congregation.  It is important to stress, however, that they are all anciliary to the core practice of just saying the nembutsu as often as possible, on all occasions, inwardly or outwardly, and trusting that this does the trick without need of any additional aid since it invokes the power of the Buddhas.  One might, when reciting, coordinate the chanting with the breath.  If this helps one to keep going, very good.  Or one might use a mala - I recommend it - but it is not essential.

Nembutsu can be chanted, like a mantra, or it can be said in the course of daily life, whatever happens. Good things happen: “Namo Amida Bu”, bad things happen: “Namo Amida Bu” - meeting a fellow practitioner: “Namo Amida Bu” - stopped at the traffic lights: “Namo Amida Bu” - looking at clouds in the sky: “Namo Amida Bu” - holding up a flower: “Namo Amida Bu”.  Calling Buddha to mind in association with everything that happens saturates one’s being with grace and blessings and generates samadhi.

There is an endless amount one could say, but the basic practice is extremely simple. Namo Amida Bu.

 

:: link to original post

Shunyata - Emptiness: Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

QUESTION: What is shunyata?

SHORT ANSWER: Shunyata is the completion of learning

LONGER ANSWER: The important thing is to have the Dharma in your heart. How does this come about? There could be a million different ways. Perhaps something happens in life that shakes one’s complacency. One sees this with many of the great figures - both Dogen and Honen were orphans. Perhaps one has a disaster like Nagarjuna seeing his friends cut down by the guards. These things make one take life more seriously and one starts to learn the lessons in a deeper way. One yearns to get to the bottom of it all, to learn completely. This is the driving force of a life koan. These kinds of things, however, are adventitious. Life brings challenges. Mostly we try to avoid them and so only learn to hide. Is there a simple practice that we can use that will serve even if one has not had a great disaster in life?

One of the best ways is to always say the nembutsu. This is because the name of Amida Buddha includes all of the virtues of all the Buddhas; it encompasses all the possible practices. Individual practices each have their merit. To sit still for long periods of time certainly calms the mind and imparts a certain discipline. This has value. To do virtuous acts of charity cultivates the spirit of generosity. To make offerings at the temple teaches one the spirit of devotion. To make prostrations incises humility upon body and mind. All of these and many other virtuous practices are good. They are good for self in that one learns something and they are good for others in that one becomes a more kind, wise and useful presence for them in the world. All of these are means of learning. Generally speaking, however, those who practise these practices rarely complete such learning; they rarely integrate the learning totally in their heart. They sit on the meditation cushion for many hours but then go forth and become stressed and busy-minded all over again. They do acts of charity, but a meanness remains in the back of the mind. They make offerings, but want something in return. They make prostrations, but do not stay humble long. They have gone through the motions of the practice but they have not completed the learning. Consequently the mind does not arrive at emptiness. As Honen said, all of these are excellent and true but few people succeed.

Nembutsu has the merit of being very simple yet all-encompassing. One merely says the name of the Buddha. It goes straight to the heart of the matter. This is like planting a seed in the ground. From one single seed may grow a great tree, the tree of the Dharma. The tree of the Dharma is different from other kinds of trees in that it has many different kinds of fruit. An apple tree bears apples only, a cherry tree only cherries, but the tree of the Dharma bears all kinds of good fruits. If this can come from one seed, how much more from many! Reciting the nembutsu is like scattering seed. Even in unexpected places, the Dharma may take root and flourish. As a result, the spirit of all the practices may be integrated in one's being. It gets under the skin without the ego being able to appropriate it. One then lives that spirit naturally. One becomes more humble, more generous, more devoted, more calm, and so on, not because one has set goals in each of these areas, but because one has the Dharma in one’s heart, one has learnt the lesson completely without really knowing what one was doing.

To learn a lesson completely is to have it totally integrated so that one no longer has to think about it. We can see this in the case of any skill. The Buddha was once asked if he had to prepare his lectures and he replied that he did not have to prepare because he knew it. The Dharma was so much what he was that he naturally responded to each situation or each audience and that was enough. He arrived at the lecture hall empty, but as soon as he saw the people he knew exactly what he must say. Such integration can come as a result of repetition. A skilled wood carver has carved many pieces of wood. He know how to do it. if you give him a piece of wood, as soon as he sees it he knows what he must do. The knowledge is complete in him. When the knowledge is complete the mind is empty. This is shunyata. When the mind is empty it is ready. As soon as something comes and fills it it responds in the appropriate way.

This is how one aspires to be with the Dharma. If one really has the Dharma in one’s heart, then the mind is empty and ready. Whatever comes along one will respond. That response will be “Namo Amida Bu” and in that response will be humility, generosity, devotion, equanimity and a multitude of other virtues, but this will not be because one has cultivated each of these individually but rather because the fundamental spirit of the Dharma has penetrated one’s heart directly. When the man comes to cut off one’s head, “Namo Amida Bu”. The learning is complete. That is shunyata.

:: link

Shinjin and Anjin ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

QUESTION: In Jodo Shinshu it seems that an experience of shinjin acts as a kind of 'proof' or 'guarantee' that one has called out to Amida with faith and has been received and will be reborn into the Pureland (do correct me if I'm wrong). What is the position in Amida Shu (and also what was Honen's position) - is it necessary for us to attain shinjin, or do we just say the nembutsu and trust that all will be okay, even after we've said it once?

SHORT ANSWER: Just say the nembutsu.

LONGER ANSWER: Honen’s position was that saying the nembutsu even once is sufficient, however, there might arise the question of faith or sincerity - i.e. is mouthing the words really saying the nembutsu? Everything in Buddhism hinges on intention. The best intention is gratitude: the sense of gratitude that Amida accepts even oneself just as one is.

In the Japanese Pureland schools generally experience of shinjin will be taken as personally evidential. There is a precedent for this in the early Buddhist regulations about ordination. For ordination to be valid, traditionally, four members of the ordained sangha have to be present at the ordination. However, in “border regions” - far away places where there may not be four - it is even possible to ordain oneself, but this is only valid if confirmed by a vision or dream within a short period of time.

In Rennyo’s writings the important things is not so much shinjin as anjin. Anjin means settled faith, or, more literally, mind at peace. There is clearly some danger in Buddhism that people get too much into chasing after experiences. Buddhism is not really a vision quest even though it recognises the significance of powerful visions when they happen naturally. Some of the early enthusiasm for Zen in the USA was stimulated by Kapleau’s book Three Pillars of Zen which included descriptions of satori experiences. No doubt many of the early Zen enthusiasts were in it in order to try to obtain similar experiences.

If one has a settled faith, virtues grow naturally, worldly worries become less pressing, and one becomes generally more liberated and at ease. If one happens to have had a powerful conversion or awakening experience - a sense of being “|seized by Amida never to be forsaken” - then this will strengthen one’s faith, but it is not a prerequisite and certainly should not be seen as a status symbol or entry requirement. Deliberately chasing after experiences always has some element of self-power about it.

The Amida ideal is simple faith - a secure refuge in the Three Jewels. Trust that the Dharma works secretly within, say the nembutsu, abandon ambitious practice and deal with life as it comes in a compassionate manner. Namo Amida Bu.

:: link

 

How to read a Sutra - Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya answers this question :: link

QUESTION: What is the best way of reading and interpreting a sutra?

SHORT ANSWER: One tries to understand the Dharma contained in it and let the images bring that Dharma to life deep within.

LONGER ANSWER: I think one of the points in the questioner's mind is the question of how literally to take such things as descriptions of the Pure Land. Different readers certainly do differ in such matters and there is not really a strong orthodoxy on the matter. If we take the descriptions of the Pure Land, I think we have to take it that these are descriptions of visions. They do not necessarily correspond in detail to the geography. If you plan to emigrate to New Zealand you no doubt have an image in your mind of what it is like but this image will not correspond exactly to what you find when you get there. Nonetheless, the image does, in a certain way, correspond to the aspiration that is in your heart. So Pure Land Buddhists expect to be somewhere after death and they expect it to be a place close to the Buddha that is inspiring and some have been so inspired that they visualise that land and some of those visions have found their way into the texts.

Not just in the Pure Land schools. Much of Mahayana Buddhist literature from the Avatamsaka Sutra onwards is visionary. These visionary samadhis are themselves important practice. If you cultivate that vision it will work magic in your soul.

I am in Korea at the moment. There are lots of depictions of Buddhas here with Korean facial features. Now we know that Shakyamuni was not Korean, but never mind, we all know what the picture or statue is about.

So what matters is, on the one hand, the Dharma within the imagery and, on the other hand, the way that the imagery itself gives life to Dharma. Dharma is not just intellectual, it is supposed to lodge deeply within you. It is not just something to think rationally about, but, rather, something that should enter into one’s dream body. When Dharma has penetrated and permeated the unconscious mind then one is somewhere near to being a practitioner and to get to that state poetry, imagery and story are more effective than reductive literalism.

:: link

Spontaneity ~ Dharmavidya

QUESTION: What is spontaneity?

SHORT ANSWER: Acting without conscious motive.

ANSWER: Spontaneity, nowadays, tends to mean setting aside one's plan or schedule when one is moved or touched emotionally and allowing oneself to respond directly to those feelings. Originally the word meant to do something by one's own will. The essential idea is one of direct connection with immediate conditions.

We can therefore say that spontaneity occurs when self-consciousness is absent or over-ruled or reduced to the role of a secondary observer. We can imagine the position of a person who arrives intending to make a speech that he or she has rehearsed who, when they go to the rostrum to speak, feels a strong connection to the audience, puts the prepared script aside, and speaks freely from the heart directly to the people present.

Another nuance of spontaneity, therefore, can be to do with originality. To do something that one has never done before, or to do a familiar action in a new way, constitutes a kind of spontaneity. Such an act, whether great or small, has a freshness about it that will not be present when the act is repeated many times. In this sense, 'spontaneous' is the opposite of 'habitual'. In a conversation it is often quite noticeable if a person is saying things that they have said many times before or if they are thinking on their feet and expressing new ideas. This aspect of spontaneity is closely connected with creativity.

Then, again, spontaneity can refer to situations where one did something more or less involuntarily. One might say, for instance, I was feeling sad but when my friend walked into the room there was a spontaneous smile on my face. In this case the person’s own action surprises them. Another example might be: I did not think that I knew that song, but somehow, spontaneously, when the music played, the words came to me. Here, a distant memory or long forgotten experience might be being triggered. In this sense, spontaneity is close to intuition. What we do intuitively we do without conscious motive.

Thus spontaneity generally means without prior contrivance. Thus spontaneous acts can, inter alia, be due to an upsurge of emotion, enthusiasm for a new situation, the triggering of forgotten memories or the expression of unconscious intention. A person who is spontaneous can be either fun or alarming to be with and neither boring nor predictable.

Often our socialisation has the effect of inhibiting spontaneity. In order to avoid infringing social rules one strives to stay in control of one’s thoughts, feelings and actions. As a young person I was terribly shy, always feeling out of my depth in social situations. I still often find them quite challenging. As I have come to take myself less seriously this handicap has lessened.

A spiritually cultivated person is spontaneous much of the time in that the fundamental principles of life are so deeply integrated in him or her that they no longer think about them but simply act well in immediate response to each situation that arises. This is more or less the original meaning of 'mindfulness' - that one's heart/mind be so full of love and compassion that good comes 'naturally'. This, however, is rather different from acting according to rules - such a person is not easily predictable, since there may be a number of possible good responses to any particular situation. Here, ‘situation’ often means what was done or said by another person, so this includes the kind of repartee that one encounters in zen stories.

Spontaneity is associated with high energy states. We form habits as a means of limiting our expenditure of energy and minimising risk, However, if the amount of spontaneity in our lives drops below a certain level everything starts to feel dull and meaningless. Therapy and spiritual practice are, inter alia, concerned to bring spontaneity back into our lives. The times when we feel most engaged in an activity are when we are being most spontaneous.

 

:: link

Rohingya ~ Dharmavidya

QUESTION: In light of Medecin Sans Frontiere’s recent comments on the Rohingya, and the backlash against Aung San Suu Kyi, I wonder if you might be able to post on the site about your thoughts. 

SHORT ANSWER: Violence springs from delusion and we strive to overcome it and bring compassion into the world, but understanding the roots of particular delusions is complex and difficult.

LONGER ANSWER: I have no solution, but I can, as you ask, post some thoughts. This is not a situation that I have followed in detail so there is a danger that I may be misinformed. That said, it appears that the Myanmar government decided to drive the Rohingya out of their country and set about doing so in a brutal manner, but have now agreed to let many of them back in, though understandably many are frightened to return as there has been killing and persecution. The Myanmar government has a different version of events, but most of the international media are not taking that account seriously. Although the recent dreadful events are suddenly shocking there is, presumably, a long history to this problem and it is difficult to understand the whole situation without knowledge of this.

The Buddhist view is easy to state in regard to immediate events: hatred is not overcome by hatred, by love alone is hatred overcome. This is a clear principle. On this basis, one prays for an end to the killing and ill-treatment and some reparation for damage already done. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, lethal violence is not the answer. But where is the love?

One then comes to the really difficult question of what should be done. Stop the killing, certainly, but what then? How ease the tensions that led to the killing in the first place? Is it better for the Rohingya to go back to Myanmar or to go back to Bangladesh? Where did they come from in the first place? Why did they go to Myanmar? To the Burmese, I gather, they appear as interlopers, unwanted illegal immigrants. The USA is currently trying to get rid of illegal immigrants and this is causing a lot of social friction in that country. They are not shooting people, but they are breaking up families in many cases. The problems caused by the strong feelings people have about immigration are troubling many countries at the moment and passions can run very high indeed.

I would prefer a world in which people were free to move from country to country as they wished, but I can see that when this happens on a large scale with people of a culture deemed alien by those already resident in a country, it is experienced as invasion, and the historic response to invasion has generally been armed resistance. My ideal, therefore, may not be attainable in the real world. This means that many real life situations actually require delicate diplomacy and compromise. This leads me to ask how it has come about that this situation has got so bad that nobody notices until people start being slaughtered. The international community - if one can make such a sweeping generalisation - seems not to have seen this coming and not to have done much, if anything, to avert the catastrophe.

Issuing condemnations rarely does much good. The popular media want to have heroes and villains and when somebody seems to have switched from one of these categories to the other it causes great confusion, but this confusion is really the result of a way of thinking that was wrong from the beginning. People are people and they have to deal with the situations that come before them and in those situations there are often a complex balance of forces in play. What decisions has Aung San Suu Kyi actually made? What were the influences that she was juggling when she made those decisions? Why did the pope not even mention the Rohingya during his visit to Myanmar? How is a newspaper reader in a country on the other side of the planet to make sense of what is happening? What is needed is not the passing of moral judgements. What is needed is for help to be mobilised, informed by an in-depth understanding of the full situation. I myself cannot claim to have such an understanding, but there must be people in positions of authority who do.

The resolution of complex international problems requires more than knee jerk reactions. It requires in-depth understanding and resolute compassionate action that somehow helps all the main parties. This is, however, asking a lot since all the players who have the power to assist also have vested interests. These comments do not just apply to the Rohingya crisis - they apply to refugee problems all over the planet and all the other actually or potentially lethal political situations - N Korea, Syria, the stand-off in the Gulf, Ukraine, and so on. We pray and work for a wiser, more compassionate world, an end to bloodshed and enmity, reconciliation and repair, while all the time knowing that there are few certainties and real progress requires the wisdom of Solomon.

Who actually loves the Rohingya? Where will they find a secure home? What have they themselves done to make this development more likely? Who else can help and how? Why do the Burmese feel so angry? What can bring peace? These are the kinds of questions that need to be understood.

:: link

Inevitable Awakening ~ Dharmavidya

Question: I read something the other day to the effect that, the universe is like an enlightenment machine, which converts ignorance into awakening. To exist is to be subject to its influence and propelled towards enlightenment regardless of the individual's intentions. This seems to correspond to the idea of buddha nature guiding the human journey towards spiritual perfection. Do you think that all beings are destined for enlightenment even though it may take forever for some to get there? Is buddhism a sort of fast-track towards this end?

Answer: I think that the answer has to be no. Although there seems to be repeated attempts throughout Buddhist history to introduce ideas of this kind, it appears to have been the teaching of Shakyamuni that nothing is inevitable. Things can go down as well as up. In fact it is this assertion of freedom and consequence that is one of the core notions of his teaching. We have freedom. If we act with good intention good consequences follow and if bad, bad. Buddhism can be seen as a fast track to a good end, yes, but there is nothing in the original teaching to the effect that everyone will inevitably arrive.

However, we also have to take on that enlightenment is not a result of an accumulation of good karma, it is an awakening and anybody might awaken however good or bad their karma is. Awakening is a function of faith and vision. It can be triggered by exposure to inspiring examples or to disaster sufficient to wake us up - often a combination of the two - but it is not something that can be contrived by a plan, programme or practice. These all generate secondary consequences, good or bad in themselves, but not constituting enlightenment.

Comment: Thanks. I thought it all sounded a bit too neat. I suppose that sort of thinking could be considered determinism?! Namo Amida Bu ( ;

Answer: Yes. Romantic determinism. Buddha was not a determinist. Though, as I say, there have been many attempts to bring in such ideas.

:: link

What is "Two Truths"? ~ Dharmavidya

QUESTION: Can you explain the idea of "two truths"?

SHORT ANSWER: Truth is truth and all encompassing, but there is a relative and an absolute way of intuiting it.

LONGER ANSWER: I am inclined to say that this idea of two truths is a misnomer. It is not really that there are two types of truth. Their are two domains of understanding. These are like axes on different dimensions that intersect but do not interfere with one another. If you wanted to be philosophical, you could say that the question is epistemological rather than ontological. I shall try to explain my take on the matter.

In order to live we have to have faith. We might call it faith in life, or faith in the universe, or faith that existence is somehow worthwhile. It does not matter. These are really just turns of phrase. Faith does not need to have an object or content, necessarily. It is a universal foundational quality. It is universal and foundational, but it can vary in degree, intensity and application. In application it can have a content or object, by which I mean that we can invest it in this or that.

If a person’s faith is weak or confused it is an impediment to functioning in life. In that condition, it is hard to get out of bed in the morning. Clients who come into psychotherapy can sometimes be in that condition. At times we might find ourselves there. Some experiences tend to unify our faith and some shatter it.

Mostly people function by investing their faith in love (or hate) objects and projects. This keeps faith unified and concentrated (samadhi). This is what gets us going and keeps us striving. Yet these objects and objectives, even religious ones, all reside within the domain of samsara. Consequently, they are impermanent. We know that they are not ultimate, permanent, or completely reliable, even in a practical sense. It follows that our investment of faith in them cannot be total. Unconditional love does not exist within samsara.

Nonetheless, the intuition of unconditional faith and love is so much a part of us that we cannot do without it. We cannot avoid having an intuition of nirvana. We might call it different things according to our culture, but we cannot rid ourselves of it. Sometimes we might try to do so when in the grip of an impulse to reconstruct ourselves as “modern” people, or as rational and “no nonsense”, but even doing this implies that we do have faith that there is truth that is not falsehood and that this exists as an independent and ultimate yardstick that is implicitly not to be found exemplified in imperfect, impermanent phenomena. We live in a world of relativities, but cannot avoid appeal to an ultimate domain that can only be intuited, yet is necessarily intuited. There are thus always these two domains, the relative and the ultimate.

For example, although we never actually encounter it empirically, we all have an intuition of unconditional love and this plays a major role in our lives, even though we never actualise it. Nonetheless, it would not be nonsense to say that, for this same very reason, we are always encountering it, always realising it, precisely because every imperfect instance of relative being points to it. When Kashyapa gives Gotama a flower, this is not the ultimate gift. It is only a flower. It is already beginning to wilt. Yet, at the same time it is the ultimate gift for it signifies that love that surpasses all understanding. There are thus two truths. Therefore, Shakyamuni halved his seat and shared it with Kashyapa. Kashyapa’s human love for Gotama was inevitably less than perfect. There were times when his argumentative nature must have been a disappointment and a trial for his guru, but still, “behind” or “beyond” all that the perfect flower still floated in space.

Thus when Kashyapa holds up the flower and Shakyamuni winks, both relative and ultimate truth are manifest. The two dimensions do not interfere with each other. Who winks? What winks? Kashyapa and Shakyamuni have both disappeared and flowers fill the firmament.

:: link

No Nature ~ Dharmavidya

QUESTION: Can you explain "Buddha Nature"?

SHORT ANSWER: Buddha nature is no nature.

ANSWER: Buddha nature is no nature. Different writers use the concept in different ways, so to elucidate it one needs to clarify which Buddha nature concept one is referring to. Thus, for instance, there is a common idea that Buddha nature is somehow the core or essence of the person - a kind of soul. This is an idea that has infected Buddhism from time to time, but is not in accord with the principles of non-self, dependent origination and emptiness that are fundamental to the teachings of Shakyamuni. It is more a Hindu or even humanistic psychology idea. A Buddha does not have a fixed nature. A Buddha simply has an absence of malice. However, it has been a problem in the presentation of Buddhism historically that people search for and cling to "positive" forms of expression of the Dharma and this then leads to the coining of many forms of upaya (skilful means). Thus the idea of Buddha nature does not go back to Shakyamuni, but seems to have been invented in the dialectic between Buddhism and other religions. In the West today it is a popular idea because ideas of soul are deeply embedded in Western culture and although people may think they have rejected the theistic ideas, they reinvent them. The soul then becomes the "self-actualising tendency" and so on, and Buddha nature can then be easily saddled onto the same horse. From time to time great teachers - like Nagarjuna - have to come along and dismantle all these constructions. In the meantime, however, if people find them helpful then they are not entirely bad, simply something that will have to be left behind one day.

The idea that there may be something called Buddha nature "within" oneself, therefore, is non-Buddhist. Nagarjuna would no doubt have said that were there any such entity then either it acts or it does not act. If it acts (i.e. if it is the doer of one's "good" deeds, for instance) then it cannot be eternal and must be subject to change, and if it does not act then it has no relevance to life and existence and so is a meaningless idea. Neither way can it really function as one's "true nature". There is no special agent "within" that is responsible for our good and wise actions any more than there is a devil within responsible for our bad and stupid ones. We can loosely and colloquially say that a person is part angel and part devil and so long as we take such expressions lightly and poetically they make sense, but if we try to reify them into a spiritual anatomy of the person we go astray. Buddhism is opposed to that kind of reification in all its varieties.

All this led to a good deal of controversy in Japan in what is called the "critical Buddhism controversy". There is excellent material all about it in the book Pruning the Bodhi Treee by Hubbard & Swanson. There is also a shorter account in my own book The New Buddhism. It is, for instance, sometimes thought that a belief in Buddha nature will make people into better people and insofar as it is simply an expression for seeing the best in others there is much to say for it. However, it has also been pointed out that the deeper logic of the idea that there is an indestructible core of goodness in people leads to the conclusion that it does not matter how badly you treat them because you will never destroy their core anyway, so it does not matter. This idea is strongly developed in the Bhagavad Gita and it is ideas of this kind that Shakyamuni was preaching against. The Critical Buddhists in Japan argue that this line of thinking lies behind many forms of social discrimination in Japanese sectarian Buddhism. We do not need to pursue every detail - sufficient to observe that ideas can be played both ways.

There can also be a kind of subtle arrogance in the idea of thinking that one "has" Buddha nature. It is much safer spiritually to keep one's focus upon one's avidya, upon one's blindness and short-comings. Perhaps I do have a perfect inner nature - so what? Perhaps I have a nature to make mistakes, to hurt people, to be vulnerable - so there is much to do and a basis for fellow-feeling with others. If a person really does have a buddha-ly nature then that person is probably not particularly - if at all - aware of it. It might be noticed by others, but even if the person is told so by such an observer, the person in question is likely to say, "Oh, no, no, I'm just an ordinary foolish being."

Thus, in Pureland, the emphasis is upon our bombu nature. This is the root of compassion, modesty and gratitude. It is also the foundation of faith. If one were already of the nature of Buddha, what need would one have of the help of the Buddhas - one would already have everything one needs. It is only when and as I acknowledge my bombu nature that I open myself to the possibility of being helped, of receiving a grace that may lift me out of my karmic plight.

Paradoxically, when I make such an act of humble faith, I do immediately participate in a certain way in the freedom and emptiness of the Tathagatas, since doing so involves letting go of all that I previously had clung to as my nature, and that is how Buddhas are - having no fixed nature, just willing to be whatever is needed, gratefully receiving whatever comes along.

Another slight, yet relevant, tangent to this line of thought is the question of awareness. As just pointed out, the buddha-ly person is not aware of being buddha-like. Saints are generally humble people more conscious of their sins than their virtues. The common idea that spiritual awakening is a function of becoming aware of one's Buddha nature is, therefore, well wide of the mark. To have a buddha-ly nature means to be somebody who acts in the manner of a Buddha quite naturally and when we do things quite naturally we are not especially aware of them. A Buddha is not acutely aware - a Buddha is a natural. Thus Dogen, in Genjokoan, says that enlightened people are not necessarily aware of being so. Certainly, Buddha nature is not a kind of awareness.

:: link

Suicide ~ Dharmavidya

QUESTION: This may seem a bizarre question but one I would like a Buddhist view on. Is suicide a sin,in Christianity to commit suicide is a total sin considered evil and completely against all it teaches but in Japanese culture from the past a way of proving total loyalty to ones sovereign lord the ultimate of duty giri. Has a human being diagnosed with incurable cancer facing death anyway the right to end their life on their terms. Does this send ripples in their karma. I know this is a weird question, but as someone who has had a heart attack and a stroke and has been told I face the onset of early dementia do I have the right to choose when I leave this world.

SHORT ANSWER: Not an absolute matter in Buddhism – it all depends upon motive and intention.

LONGER ANSWER: In Buddhism, one has neither “rights” nor “sins”, only consequences. One certainly has karma and if an act is intentionally committed in a self-serving manner it will create karmic seeds. Generally speaking, Buddhism cherishes all life and is opposed to suicide. There are instances in the sutras where the Buddha says that there was no fault in a particular suicide because the motive had been purely altruistic. This altruism could be that of saving others from being burdened by the care of one’s person when one’s medical condition was completely hopeless, but this does not refer to a situation where it is merely the case that, on the balance of probabilities, one is going to get worse and not recover. When a person does commit suicide, the “correct” Buddhist attitude toward them – except in these very rare completely altruistic cases – is compassion (not disapproval), both for what they did suffer and for the karma they have created. The idea of proving loyalty by katagiri is not Buddhist, it is a samurai custom deriving, I imagine, from Shintoism (if it has religious roots at all). When we say things like “the right to end their life on their terms” – this is an idea and a form of thinking very much grounded in the Western individualistic paradigm and is not really in the Buddhist mode.

We can take responsibility to use whatever life we have in a noble way for the benefit of all. This is true whatever the extent or limitation of our faculties may be. It is, of course, no easy matter, and we often get it wrong, but the principle is clear enough, I think. It is, perhaps, better to think of life as something entrusted to us than as something that we have power over. We do not know what the future holds and we do not know what influence our mode of conducting life will have, but we can be broadly confident that living in a dignified manner is itself supportive to many beings, including those we are unaware of. In general, suicide tends to undermine the faith of others and cause them dismay and fear.

Currently, there is a certain amount of debate about euthanasia, which has gradually become more popular in Europe over recent years. Again, it is the motive and intention that is crucial and the effect upon others. This is a difficult matter because one does not know the extent of that effect. Different people are affected in different ways. One cannot control such things. So, I think we can say that the Buddhist position in such debate should, on the one hand, be that of great caution regarding policy and, on the other, great sympathy for those who do resort to it.