New Buddhist Path - Path / Transcendence? - PP 9-18

[Jundo]

Dear All Path Finders,

We continue with the sections "Path" and "Transcendence?" on pages 9 through 18.

A few suggested questions ... they are just suggested themes, so feel free to say something else or nothing ...

-Before you began your Buddhist Practice (and/or now), how do you picture or imagine "nirvana"? What would it be like to finally realize "nirvana"? (Don't feel the need to be logical about it, and please feel free to speak from your imagination. What do you hope that "nirvana" will be like?).

-Do you lean toward a "transcendent" interpretation of Nirvana as a realm unborn, or a more "immanent" psychological interpretation as an overcoming of craving and attachment, or both, or neither, or something else?

-Does it matter to you that we may never know what was the "original teaching" of the historical Buddha?

-Would later traditions and interpretations that deviate from some "original teaching" be less legitimate?

-What do you feel about the notion of Buddhist doctrinal development as, rather than "branches that diverge from the same tree trunk", something better described as "a braided river [of] multiple interacting streams that do not derive from a single source"?

-What is your feeling about the Joseph Campbell quote?

Gassho, Jundo

SatToday

PS - Please remember this about "Beyond Word & Letters Book Club" participation ...

Feel free to talk among yourselves here too, and comment on each others' comments, if you want. Visualize that we are all sitting in a circle with coffee and donuts (mmmm, Donuts!) at the local book store (those are becoming more and more imaginary too!). Everyone says their piece if they wish, but you can also ask each other questions or talk of impressions and insights from other members' words if you want.

However, okay not to as well, and just lay back and listen too. You can just stay for the coffee and donuts too, all free.

(IN MODERATION!)

[RonanJH]

The Campbell quote is wonderfully provocative but may end up being too rigidly binary. I have an Anglican priest friend who can happily accept that much of the Bible is metaphor but who draws the line at the resurrection of Jesus, on the literal truth of which his own faith partly rests.

s@t
Ronan

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[Myosha]

Hello,

Nirvana is still extinction?

Original teaching: Four Truths, Eight-Fold Path, Realization, Pass it on. No, guess it's never to be known. *wink*.

Joseph Cambell has always been dialectical. So . . . .?


Gassho
Myosha
sat today

[Mp]

Thank you Jundo. =)

Gassho
Shingen

s@today

[Byrne]

I truly don't care about the historical accuracy of the entire Theravada and Mahayana traditions. I don't care if Buddha or Bodhidharma or Dogen ever existed in the first place. What matters most to me is my personal experience engaging with these teachings while taking refuge in the three treasures.

I love learning about Buddhist history. I love reading sutras. I love engaging with a sangha and learning from other perspectives and challenges. The value I place on Buddhism is informed by its place in my life and how the teachings manifest themselves before me.

I've stopped thinking about the more fantastical stuff in terms of metaphors vs facts. I just take it as is and seek to understand it with the guidance of the sangha to the best of my abilities.

Gassho

Sat Today

[Jakuden]

Gosh this reminds me of "A Heart to Heart Chat With Old Master Gudo." Nishijima Roshi, if I understood it correctly, put Buddhism in a third category of religion--where the first was a transcendent or idealistic form, the second was a materialistic form, and the third was based on action. This is the "Middle Way" that contains all other ways. We cannot meet the extreme of idealism, nor can we find peace in the cold world of materialism.

I honestly can't remember what I ever thought enlightenment was, but I think in the beginning I actually felt it to be a scary, nihilistic letting-go of all attachments. Probably because I came to it from a materialistic, anti-religious POV. Bringing a bit of the idealistic into it, as in the Four Vows and the Eightfold Path, brought it alive. (Whatever it is. I still don't know).

Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Myosha]

Gosh this reminds me of "A Heart to Heart Chat With Old Master Gudo." Nishijima Roshi, if I understood it correctly, put Buddhism in a third category of religion--where the first was a transcendent or idealistic form, the second was a materialistic form, and the third was based on action. This is the "Middle Way" that contains all other ways. We cannot meet the extreme of idealism, nor can we find peace in the cold world of materialism.

I honestly can't remember what I ever thought enlightenment was, but I think in the beginning I actually felt it to be a scary, nihilistic letting-go of all attachments. Probably because I came to it from a materialistic, anti-religious POV. Bringing a bit of the idealistic into it, as in the Four Vows and the Eightfold Path, brought it alive. (Whatever it is. I still don't know).

Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You.

Wish smiles could be all over.

Don't have PC; 'K?


Gassho
Myosha
sat today

[Ryumon]

This begins the most important part of this book: the question of whether awakening is immanent or transcendent.

Going back to my comments on the previous section, I think a good way of defining a religion is that it is a system of thought that is based on a transcendent goal. Just as Christians live to attain heaven, certain Buddhist sects live to attain good rebirth, and eventually nirvana. And remember that religion, specially that which tells people to be good now so they have a good afterlife, is a great way to control people and make them satisfied with their (often dismal) lot in life.

But we, as Soto Zen practitioners, don't think that way. If, as Loy suggests in this section and later in the book, awakening is immanent, then this fits with Dogen's idea that (I paraphrase) the very act of zazen is enlightenment itself. In Dogen's view, awakening is immanent. "To study the self is to forget the self." I'm far from an expert on Dogen's writings, but does he ever espouse the idea of nirvana as a transcendent event?

As for the original teachings of the Buddha, it's obvious that we'll never know, unless, by miracle, some scrolls are found that are older than the ones that Loy mentions. (Hence the criticism of Stephen Batchelor who, in an attempt to find "the original Buddha," is cleanly picking and choosing among a vast collection of texts.)

But, again, as Soto Zen practitioners, does that matter? We look more toward Dogen and his followers for inspiration. Sure, Dogen's writings are based on what he knew of Buddhist sutras - the few he knew, since, most likely, there weren't that many collected in his time - but it's his special sauce that changed the dharma to take on its zen flavor.

If, as Loy says, what really matters is that the Buddha taught "dukkha and how to end it," it seems to me that focusing on those (profound) teachings is more than sufficient. The Buddha certainly discussed many other things during his many years of teaching, but we don't know if anything that has been handed down in the Pali canon is true, or if it is embellishment.

Joseph Campbell gets it right, as he does so often. Literal interpretations of texts as old as those of the various religions of the world are ludicrous. We know, for example, that the bible was aggregated by committee, and that many texts that discorded with the rest were cast aside. We also know that metaphor is a powerful way to tell stories, especially in pre-literary society, as those tales made it easier to remember the ideas that were being presented.

In response to Jundo's first question, my first contacts with the dharma were with Tibetan Buddhism, which I followed for many years. One is indoctrinated that "nirvana" is something that no one can achieve, but that there's a path to achieve it. If you're lucky, you'll get reborn as a human again in a few gazillion kalpas. This made it seem too magical, and contrasted with the down-to-earth teachings of the Dalai Lama and others, who did focus on living in this world. (Not that they ignored that concept of nirvana; they just knew it didn't sell very well.) I never bought into this, and it was a relief to discover that, in zen, there is no vast cosmology of gods and demons to overcome, but just an idea of being. To be fair, since I've been practicing zen, I don't think about awakening; it's not a goal, and it's not something that I even see mentioned often in the books I read.

Gassho,

Kirk

#sat

[AlanLa]

Nirvana meant peace when I was young, and it still does, but I define that peace differently now. It's more about immanence than transcendence for me these days. What good is the hereafter if the here-now isn't taken care of?

Once I got old enough to think more independently, I stopped buying into the literal interpretation of the Bible as a set of facts. Even as little kid, I remember having questions that did not get satisfactory answers. I was confirmed as a Lutheran because that was the thing to do. One of my confirmation classmates had to drop out right at the end because she said she didn't believe the resurrection story, and I always admired her for that. My faith in God is strong, however, so I am not an atheist. Anyway, it doesn't bother me in the least that the Buddhist canon might not be completely literal. My faith in and practice of Buddhism has zero to do with those fantastic stories; they are not helpful to me in any way whatsoever. What is helpful is the basic teachings: the four noble truths, the vows and precepts, the eight-fold path, etc., all the tools that help guide my actions on the Path to immanent nirvana.

I find the dogmatic belief in the ancient teachings of the Bible and Buddhism miss the point and sometimes lead to troublesome behaviors in the name of chosen designated dogma. I think Zen's middle way has it about as right as can be. But if people want to take different streams to get to the same place of compassion towards others in the present moment, then that's fine with me. We each need to find our own Path, or river. Specific arguments about what the Buddha did and did not teach miss the broader point and can sometimes be silly. I mean, he taught a lot of stuff! I didn't realize the Pali canon was so huge.

Joseph Campbell has had a huge influence on my thinking in these matters. In his fantastic series of interviews with Bill Moyers, I remember him saying something about how an understanding of the old stories as myths rather than factual realities can actually deepen a person's understanding of their faith due to their archetypal nature, which seems like a lot more of a middle way than his quote in the book, and that's not how it worked for me when I changed my thinking on any of the old religious stories. I generally find dichotomous thinking to be in error on both sides of the artificial divide, and my not being an atheist is an example of how that quote errs.

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,

I definitely lean towards the immanent interpretation of Nirvana. I suspect it has to do with my intellectual history (perhaps conceptual karma is a better definition.) Where I went to school
what I did there, the influence of my Father etc... I recall getting upset one time when I a close friend of the family (a good Catholic) told me that dogs didn't have souls and didn't go to heaven. I think that might have made me skeptical
of the whole thing. Either way, these influences steered my thinking towards of life as a one time deal and a kind of materalist-reductionist world view (I'm not sure if I still hold that.) Either way, the idea of Nirvana as immanent fit
better with the other ideas floating around in the "old Duder's head."


I don't think it matters to me much if we never know the "original teaching" in fact it might be better if we don't. It might be pretty disappointing But in all seriousness it could be used as a way to try and discredit newer traditions. In addition,
ambiguity in the original source can also promote the development of newer traditions as new people come to grips with the various teachings.

I found Campbell's quote to be amusing and I think we can see what hes talking about when we look around. However, when we are dealing with such ideas I think its good to keep in mind that they are very broad brush strokes and there will be a lot
of people who don't fit neatly into either category.

Anywho just a few of my thoughts.

Gassho
Sattoday
Hoseki

[Hoko]

-Before you began your Buddhist Practice (and/or now), how do you picture or imagine "nirvana"? What would it be like to finally realize "nirvana"? (Don't feel the need to be logical about it, and please feel free to speak from your imagination. What do you hope that "nirvana" will be like?).

I remember Brad Warner quoting Nishijima Roshi when asked "can a person realize her own enlightenment?" responded "no".
This gets to the heart of the matter. If we can't realize our own enlightenment then why bother? This is what Kodo Sawaki Roshi would call "ordinary person thinking".
We're an attainment oriented species. Everybody's tuned in to WII-FM "What's In It For Me?"
I was no different. When I started Zen practice nearly a decade ago I was VERY attainment oriented. I still struggle with it now and then.
I imagined nirvana would be some magical thing that would transform me into something else. But it's not. So if you can't realize your own enlightenment then why bother?
If nirvana is satori or kensho that occurs as part of deep samadhi then it's the complete extinguishing of the self.
If the self is utterly destroyed during meditation then how would you recognize it? It would be like being knocked unconscious. How is that helpful to ordinary life?
Why would the Buddha preach "suffering and the cessation of suffering" and then recommend making yourself black out? I don't think that's it at all.
I imagine nirvana to be a fluid thing, like a skill. Some days you're on point, others not so much. It's here, it's now, some days coming, some days going. Just like life.
By becoming less reactive, more aware of both the relative and the absolute we become liberated. We can't be caught.
To me THAT'S nirvana: being so skilled at the dance of emptiness and form that we can slough off attachments before they lead to "rebirth" into a realm of suffering.

-Do you lean toward a "transcendent" interpretation of Nirvana as a realm unborn, or a more "immanent" psychological interpretation as an overcoming of craving and attachment, or both, or neither, or something else?

Neither. Both. Something else. If it's transcendent then what are you transcending? Stepping "outside" of ordinary life is nihilism. There is no "outside" reality. If it's immanent then it's nothing more than Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Hegelian Dialectic. It becomes just another brittle philosophy that inevitably fails to capture the vicissitudes of actual existence.
In my experience most of the suffering in my life has come from trying to categorize reality into "this or that". The greatest moments of peace have come from simply halting that process and bowing to IT.
As-it-is-ness.
And not in a "just accept it like a big, fat doormat" kind of way but in the way the Buddha described pulling out the arrow without stressing over the make and model. Flathead, spade shaped? Who cares, get it out!

-Does it matter to you that we may never know what was the "original teaching" of the historical Buddha?

Nope. I like this Soto Zen practice. It resonates with me. But I also know that it's an interpretation of the "original teaching". I have spent some time studying the more "traditional" vipassana flavors of Buddhism and while I enjoy the historical aspects of the Pali canon I recognize that it's always going to be someone else's interpretation. Similarly I enjoy reading koans but to really get the most out of them you sometimes need some historical understanding so you can sort out the cultural references. Having someone like Jundo or Shishin Wick perch metaphorically on your shoulder and guide you towards the "original teaching" is far more helpful to this ordinary person than is groaning "MU" endlessly. We're all in this together and if we're going to work towards the end of suffering we need to breathe life into the teachings so that they remain relevant and applicable to modern life. Ananda's teachings were inevitably going to be different from the Buddha's and Jundo's teachings are going to be different from Nishijima's and that's OK! Different hands pointing to the same moon.

-Would later traditions and interpretations that deviate from some "original teaching" be less legitimate?

I would argue the reverse is true. The more culturally relevant the teachings the more effective they are.

-What do you feel about the notion of Buddhist doctrinal development as, rather than "branches that diverge from the same tree trunk", something better described as "a braided river [of] multiple interacting streams that do not derive from a single source"?

As long as the water is the same I'm fine with it.

-What is your feeling about the Joseph Campbell quote?

I think it's a pretty good argument for the non-dualism baked into Buddhist philosophy.
A metaphor is there for a reason just as a word is there to convey meaning.
The word is not the thing and the metaphor is not the essence of the teaching.
If you allow yourself to become mired in fundamentalism; confusing blind acceptance as some sort of merit badge proving your piousness you've missed the point entirely.
And if you can't see past the metaphors and accept the underpinning ideas behind them then you're just as lost.


Gassho,
Hoko
#SatToday

[Shokai]

being so skilled at the dance of emptiness and form that we can slough off attachments before they lead to "rebirth" into a realm of suffering.

Ya gotta love it; thanks Hoko
gassho,

sattoday

[Byrne]

A metaphor is there for a reason just as a word is there to convey meaning.
The word is not the thing and the metaphor is not the essence of the teaching.
If you allow yourself to become mired in fundamentalism; confusing blind acceptance as some sort of merit badge proving your piousness you've missed the point entirely.
And if you can't see past the metaphors and accept the underpinning ideas behind them then you're just as lost.


Gassho,
Hoko
#SatToday

Well said.

Gassho

Sat Today

[Ryumon]

If nirvana is satori or kensho that occurs as part of deep samadhi then it's the complete extinguishing of the self.
If the self is utterly destroyed during meditation then how would you recognize it? It would be like being knocked unconscious. How is that helpful to ordinary life?

Why do you say this? First, I don't believe it would be "the complete extinguishing of the self," but rather a profound, visceral understanding of the impermanence and emptiness of the self. Why would that be like being knocked unconscious?

Gassho,

Kirk

Sat

[Jeremy]

Interesting section this. I think it's worth noting that David Loy could have used the Bahiya Sutta alone to show the ambiguity he's talking about.

He quotes from the Bahiya Sutta on p17 "In the seen, there is only the seen...", using this as an example demonstrating the immanent nature of nirvana. If you take a look at this sutta e.g. at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.10.irel.html, you'll find right at the end another passage quoted 2 pages earlier on p15 "Where neither water nor yet earth...". But this passage was used to exemplify the transcendent nature of nirvana.

So what is the Bahiya Sutta saying - does it point to the transcendent or to the immanent nature of Nirvana? The Bahiya Sutra is a good story, and when you read the sutra as a whole, rather than relying on quotes taken out of context, it's pretty clear that you've got to be dead to attain Nirvana, implying that Nirvana is something transcendent... (If you don't know the story, you'll have to read it to see what I'm talking about).

...Or, speaking from modern perspective, is the story of Bahiya a myth, and we modern folks are so clever (I'm being sarcastic) that we don't need to take it literally? In that case the 'death' of Bahiya can be interpreted figuratively and his attainment of Nirvana can be seen as immanent.

Just one more note - reading Joseph Campbell's quote in context is another good story (p1 and p2 if you click "Look inside" at https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Tra...+thou+art+that)

Not that any of this is terribly important - just an entertaining way to pass the time (-:

Jeremy
SatToday