Year of Faith

The last sect of Buddhism that I will be writing about is Vajrayana Buddhism. This school of thought is predominantly found within Tibet and seems almost synonymous with Tibetan Buddhism, so I will be treating the two as pretty much the same. It is similar to Mahayana Buddhism in its rich rituals and symbolism, but differs because of its origins in Tibetan culture. Vajrayana bills itself as the fastest path to enlightenment, so for all those wishing to find themselves a diamond in the rough, better brush up on your Tibetan (and your Chinese, really).

Tibetan religion in pre-Buddhist days was centered around shamanic rituals and offerings to keep the powers of nature appeased. A great emphasis was placed on magic and incantations, which must have meshed well with Tantric Buddhism as it moved into the region in the 7th century BC. The Tantric school came out of Northeast India and was centered around key texts (tantras) which opposed the the usual Buddhist status-quo of avoiding bodily pleasures and sexual acts, and also gave magical words and phrases that helped the Tantric practitioner. Tantric Buddhism saw the body as an aide in one’s quest for enlightenment instead of a hindrance, and the sexual union of the opposites of male and female was seen as an example of unity instead of a taboo.

(more…)

Although many different vehicles of Buddhism have claimed to hold the original teachings of the Buddha, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most conservative branch of Buddhist philosophy. It sees itself as carrying on the traditions and teachings introduced by the Buddha, and as such it does not concern itself with rituals, deities, or anything beyond reliance of the self, though some Theravada Buddhists venerate relics of the Buddha, such as the hair at the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda.

This doesn’t mean that Theravada Buddhists are left to their own devices in order to attain enlightenment. Those who achieve sainthood (and once they die, Nirvana) by their own means are considered to have performed the same feat as the Buddha. This is not something that is impossible, as this branch of Buddhism believes, like the Mahayana tradition, that there are many Buddhas in the past, and that there will be more in the future. Though they do not consider the Buddha to be a deity or anything above a very wise, mortal man.

As achieving enlightenment for oneself is considered the ideal in Theravada Buddhism, the monk lifestyle is the ideal path for its practitioners. Laypersons do have the potential to achieve Nirvana, but for the most part they contend themselves with supporting the monks with alms and hoping to be born into a better position to attain sainthood and Nirvana in their next life.

Ordination as a monk is not always permanent. Many youth go through a brief period as a Buddhist monk as a rite of passage into adulthood. Once they join the monks, they are completely reliant on laypeople for food and new robes- living a life that would approximate that of Siddhartha’s.

Theravada Buddhism, in comparison to the other schools, is very conservative in that it has held on to most of its practices since its inception.  It maintains that the only way to enlightenment is the life of the arhat, of the person who will achieve Nirvana through meditation and asceticism.  It lacks the role of the Bodhisattva that was present in Mahayana Buddhism, and is less forgiving to those who do not choose the monastic life.

It is more of an ‘all or nothing’ school of thought, it seems.  With more focus on a life lacking material possession, wants, or passions.

Mahayana Buddhism is the largest school of Buddhist philosophy, making up one of the two major branches of Buddhsim (the other being Theravada). Mahayana Buddhists believe that there is an inherent Buddha nature in all beings, some great potential that we can all realize and cultivate, the ability to achieve enlightenment and Nirvana regardless of our level of monastic fervor.

But along with this inherent Buddhahood there is the duty and responsibility to waylay your transcendence into sweet nothingness until all other beings can do the same thing. Such is the commitment the Bodhisattvas made in the Mahayana philosophy. The Bodhisattvas are a large group of divine beings, revered for their virtues and duties toward helping all beings achieve their ultimate end.  I think it is fair to say that Mahayana Buddhism is characterized by this belief in universal liberation, an awakening for all beings either by monastic devotion, or simple faith and chanting for lay people.

On this path the Buddha is seen as a powerful, almost divine being, existing throughout different parts of time.  A being that came to the world as a mortal in order to help us all.  Not only that, but there are many other similar eternal beings, located in different parts of the universe, in different spots in space and time.
It is a less conservative branch of Buddhism, as it has added more rituals and doctrines to the religion, such as the Bodhisattvas and the many divine Buddhas.

Next, Theravada Buddhism!

Yesterday, when I said I would be making posts throughout the day, what I obviously meant was I would be posting about the various vehicles of Buddhism eventually. Yes, that’s right… eventually.

In the meanwhile I had an interesting question come to mind today. Why do we not forgive God for all the evil and suffering in the world?

We, in this context is a general term, meaning those who I would imagine being in this position, inferred from the various conversations about God and evil which I have had over the years. A very classic position to take on God, as you will see. In any case, the point I want to make is that it seems that every response to the problem of evil seems to avoid making God culpable.

The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling an obvious abundance of immoral action, suffering, and general badness in a world that is supposed to be created and/or governed by an all knowing, all powerful, perfectly good deity. There are many answers to this apparent paradox- that God allows evil acts so that there can be free will, so that we may choose what to do with our lives instead of always doing good by default. There is also the argument that how we suffer just makes us better, allows us to enjoy the good moments, or better prepares our souls by building character and such. It is an old problem and has many arguments on both sides, some claiming it to be a crippling argument against such a conception of God, or of no consequence, or perhaps further proof for God.

But what I finally realized today while ruminating about the subject, is that every defense avoids making God culpable for these pains and horrors inherent in the problem of evil. If it is for the sake of free will, then it is excused. If it is all part of a big Divine Plan, then it is not to be understood, and again it is excused. When trying to puzzle through the problem of evil, why do we bother trying to make excuses for God? Why not just admit that God was wrong, that He made a mistake?

This doesn’t seem like a conceivable conclusion for those who want to hold onto a conception of God as a perfect being. But the existence of the problem of evil as well as other theological fine points challenges this concept of God. From here we have two conceivable routes- we can paint God as a being that is beyond our understanding, as something Zen that is beyond all definitions and languages, as something the defies all reason. Or we could conceive of God as something imperfect, as a being that makes mistakes and judgments, who can be just as fallible as we are.

But this is getting a bit off topic. What I am getting at is that no matter how you conceive of God or our justification of evil, you still have to come to the inevitable realization that God is responsible for evil. Whether it be knowingly allow it to happen, or through His own incompetence, God is linked to horrible things happening to us.

And now we come back to my question- if we know God is responsible, why make excuses for God instead of forgiving Him? Most of the religions we have practiced have taught of the value of forgiveness and understanding, and Christianity makes this point extremely apparent in the role of Jesus Christ. God forgave us our sins, why can’t we do the same for God’s sins?

When I wrote this post I kept imagining the stereotypical funeral or the consul of a priest as they explain that God ‘has a plan’, that our lost ones are in ‘a better place’, and that it is not for us to understand. Why would we play these games, why not just cut across the bullshit and admit the frightening and difficult conclusion- that if we believe in such a divinity, we will eventually need to forgive Him for what He did to us.

I had every intention to return to the Richmond Buddhist temple yesterday morning for meditation instruction and more yummy vegetarian Chinese food. I would have done so had it not been for one very important obstacle.

I had to get up at 7 am.

Now, I understand that this isn’t a very impressive number, but I am not a morning person. If there is something to be done that early in the morning that will not carry serious repercussions if I missed it, then I would rather not face such an abysmal hour.

However, I am rather ashamed of not attending, and I have promised myself that I will attend the next one in June to make it up to myself. Not only that, but today I will be making a series of posts on the various paths of Buddhism, starting with:

Shambhala Buddhism

The ideal end of this form of Tibetan Buddhism is the enlightenment of all people to create a perfect, enlightened society.  In order to achieve this end, one spends time in meditation in order to awaken their true potential and use this potential to better interact with the external world.  Shambhala is the enlightened kingdom that can be created if we can train ourselves toward this end.

This path of Buddhism grew out of the teachings of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan Buddhist monk.  The beliefs and practices are very similar to the Mahayana philosophy of Buddhism, that the goal is to help all individuals achieve enlightenment and Buddhahood.  The practices and training which they offer in order to gain the insights necessary to bring about Shambhala are very secular- open to everyone of every religion and walk of life, regardless of your religious or spiritual beliefs.  It is a very practical school of Buddhism- helping you to gain greater insight to help deal with events in your daily life.

More to come!

This month I have a fairly diverse set of reading material. In addition to the Diamond and Heart Sutras that Sara mentioned earlier, I will be reading 4-5 other books to give me a better understanding of the many facets of Buddhism. Here is a summary of a few that I am slowly working my way through this month:

(more…)

My first thought was, “Why is there a gate?”

My second thought was, “Why is there a sign saying ‘Beware of Dog’?”

(more…)

On Wednesday I visited the Shambhala Meditation Center for their free weekly meditation instruction. Although I have done plenty of meditation, my instructions were rather informal, just random things I had learned online and once during a humanities course when we were visited by a zen monk. I was looking forward to the chance to learn something straight from the Buddhist’s mouth, so to speak.

A wee bit of history- the Shambhala movement was started by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan Buddhist monk who had to flee Tibet in 1959 after the Chinese invasion. After a few years acting as a spiritual adviser in Dalhousie, India, and studying religion and philosophy in Oxford, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche came to the west and established centers of meditation specifically tailored to the needs of western culture. Each center is run by volunteers and maintained by donations, and there are now more than 170 of these centers around the world.

The volunteer acting as the host was kind and welcoming, as were all of the other volunteers and practitioners that I met there. The center itself was small, and though it was sparsely decorated it was very pleasant and beautiful; a very calming atmosphere obviously tailored to the hour long meditation sessions they have every Monday and Wednesday nights.

The instruction itself was short, friendly, and conversational. We sat on raised cushions (the special names escape me) which kept our hips above our knees (which is important for reasons I also forget). Proper posture is important, a straight back with the head tilted downward slightly, as if a string was pulling at the back of your head. Your arms should rest comfortably on your thighs and your eyes should be cast downward.

The instructor advised that we should keep our eyes open, which is an approach I had not heard before. I had been keeping my eyes closed before, but they made a very interesting point. Their form of meditation was focused on practicality, on silencing the mind and trying to find peace in your daily life. Why close your eyes during meditation when you spend most of your life with your eyes open?

Attention to the breathing was paramount. Just focus on the sensation of inhalation and exhalation, trying to deflect other thoughts as they intrude. One shouldn’t become frustrated if you can’t focus of if your mind wanders. Meditation isn’t easy. It is best to have a kind of curiosity about the thoughts that come to mind. Examine them and reflect on them and then let them go, do not angrily try to shove them all aside.

It was a great experience, and now that I am familiar with their form and practice of meditation, I will definitely be heading back in the future, and I encourage anyone else interested in meditation to do so as well. I still prefer to keep my eyes closed, and to keep my hands in front of me with the thumbs connected when I meditate. It just feels right.

Tomorrow morning I will be traveling to the Richmond Buddhist temple for another meditation course. It is a very large, very beautiful temple so I will probably spend most of the day there, meditating, exploring the grounds, and reflecting on Buddhism.

In my post Beginning Buddhism, I made some fairly ignorant comments about Buddhist philosophy.  With some reading and further elucidation I have come to realize that the promise of Nirvana is not the goal of the Buddhist.  It should not be seen as some kind of reward for the proper amount of abstinence, asceticism, or contemplation.

The purpose of Buddhist philosophy seems to me, so far, to be three fold: extinguishing the illusion of self, to live in the moment, and to be as a reflection of the world around you.  It is interesting that having just finished with a rather cynical religion that I would start judging religions by their position on the afterlife, what LaVey called “spiritual pipe dreams”.  Really, this is not a fair judgment of this religion or perhaps any other religion.

Nirvana is something to be earned, and not through empty headed selflessness, but through reflection and contemplation on what is most important- how to treat others and the self.

It is easy to think that the end of Buddhism is escapism in order to achieve liberation from samsara.  But it is more practical than that, it is about self cultivation and right action.  As I meditate, I can see how one could become addicted to the feeling of fulfillment and happiness that I can occasionally glimpse.  But Buddhism is more practical than this.  Buddhism reaches out from these periods of contemplation and mediation into our everyday activities.   Every moment, every action, is a chance to reflect and concentrate.  By clearing the mind and letting go of the concept of self, you can achieve a better understanding of the problems and day-to-day experiences you face.

Remove yourself from the picture, and you not only avoid suffering, but see the world for what it truly is.  LaVey missed the practical part of Buddhism, probably because of his contempt for anything that pointed away from the flesh.  Shame he never thought that mediation could have helped instead of hindered these desires.

23 by .olivia.

The Fortean Times has republished a 1977 article by Discordian philosopher Robert Anton Wilson on the phenomena surrounding the number 23.

Reading all the different coincidences associated with the number, it’s easy to see why it has attained such a mythological status in the Discordian religion.

I first heard of the 23 enigma from William S Burroughs, author of Naked Lunch, Nova Express, etc. According to Burroughs, he had known a certain Captain Clark, around 1960 in Tangier, who once bragged that he had been sailing 23 years without an accident. That very day, Clark’s ship had an accident that killed him and everybody else aboard.

Furthermore, while Burroughs was thinking about this crude example of the irony of the gods that evening, a bulletin on the radio announced the crash of an airliner in Florida, USA. The pilot was another captain Clark and the flight was Flight 23.

The article suggests that this was unearthed from the archives partially because Mr. Wilson passed away recently and partially because of the release of the recent Jim Carrey film, The Number 23.

Whatever the reason it was unearthed, it was a good read. I wish I’d found it back in January. You can feed your hunger for the number 23 over on Flickr, where someone’s created a 23 Flickr group.