Alone with Others

[AlanLa]

I just finished a really interesting book. Alone with Others, by Stephen Batchelor. It's an approach to Buddhism that is based in existential philosophy, thus he strips away all of the poetic language we are used to and replaces it with a philosophical argument format. I've outlined the contents below for a couple reasons. One, it's a dense read, so I needed to cut through all that to try and understand it better. Two, I thought his condensation of the Bodhisattva path was worth sharing.

I. Having and Being: the two basic attitudes toward life
a. Having: the horizontal existence we have
i. The acquisition of “stuff,” not just the secular or material things, but also spiritual things such as heaven, kensho, or enlightenment
ii. Since we can never have enough, having inevitably leads to anxiety, so we therefore turn to being
b. Being: the vertical existence we have
i. This is a radical reorientation; “instead of living to have more abundantly, it is necessary to live in order to be more abundantly” (p. 29)
ii. The story of Shakyamuni becoming the Buddha is the story of a person moving from a having orientation to life to a being orientation to life, thus it can also be our story
II. Being-alone
a. Inevitably, inescapably, we are born alone and we die alone
b. In between birth and death, life is contained within the polarity of facticity (what we are) and possibility (what we might become)
c. Taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha means fully accepting what we are and hoping to fully realize all that we might become
d. The meaning or purpose of life is thus “fulfilling the possibilities of the totality of one’s being in the actualization of Buddhahood” (p. 71)
III. Being-with
a. Inevitably, inescapably, our lives are bound together with others
b. There are two types of being-with
i. Inauthentic being-with-others is based on a predominant attitude of self-concern, which consists of:
1. Desirous attachment: getting others to submit to our desires
2. Aversion: removing others seen as obstacles to our desires
3. Indifference: disregarding others
4. Pride: elevating ourselves above others
ii. Authentic being-with-others is a developmental process
1. It begins with the development of equanimity that breaks down the boundary between self and other as characterized in inauthentic being-with
2. The flowering of equanimity leads us from being-with-others to being-for-others
3. Having concern for others eventually leads to doing for others
IV. Wisdom (being-alone)
a. Concentration (i.e., zazen, though never mentioned by name in the book)
b. Insight into the impermanence and emptiness of all things
V. Method (being-with-others)
a. Giving to others freely what one has; not just stuff, but anything and everything
b. Following the precepts; both what not to do and what to do instead
c. Acceptance without acceptance (though never said this way in the book)
d. Enthusiasm: having joyful energy to propel us along the Path
i. The aspiration to realize life’s possibilities
ii. The self-confidence that acknowledges your freedom and ability to realize life’s possibilities
All of the above (being alone with others via method and wisdom) adds up to being a Bodhisattva. “The Bodhisattva should be characterized by an open, outgoing generosity, tempered by mindfulness and ethical restraint. He should be accepting and submissive, yet fired by a natural, joyous enthusiasm. His mind should be discerning and critical, yet rooted in a deep inner calm. This is the model upon which we strive to pattern our lives as we engage in the actualization of the path.” (p. 114)

[Jundo]

Re: Alone with Others

Having a little trouble to make head or tail of his way of putting things. I will have to read it.

Thank you, Alan.

Gassho, J

[Amelia]

Re: Alone with Others

I just finished a really interesting book. Alone with Others, by Stephen Batchelor. It's an approach to Buddhism that is based in existential philosophy, thus he strips away all of the poetic language we are used to and replaces it with a philosophical argument format. I've outlined the contents below for a couple reasons. One, it's a dense read, so I needed to cut through all that to try and understand it better. Two, I thought his condensation of the Bodhisattva path was worth sharing.

I. Having and Being: the two basic attitudes toward life
a. Having: the horizontal existence we have
i. The acquisition of “stuff,” not just the secular or material things, but also spiritual things such as heaven, kensho, or enlightenment
ii. Since we can never have enough, having inevitably leads to anxiety, so we therefore turn to being
b. Being: the vertical existence we have
i. This is a radical reorientation; “instead of living to have more abundantly, it is necessary to live in order to be more abundantly” (p. 29)
ii. The story of Shakyamuni becoming the Buddha is the story of a person moving from a having orientation to life to a being orientation to life, thus it can also be our story
II. Being-alone
a. Inevitably, inescapably, we are born alone and we die alone
b. In between birth and death, life is contained within the polarity of facticity (what we are) and possibility (what we might become)
c. Taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha means fully accepting what we are and hoping to fully realize all that we might become
d. The meaning or purpose of life is thus “fulfilling the possibilities of the totality of one’s being in the actualization of Buddhahood” (p. 71)
III. Being-with
a. Inevitably, inescapably, our lives are bound together with others
b. There are two types of being-with
i. Inauthentic being-with-others is based on a predominant attitude of self-concern, which consists of:
1. Desirous attachment: getting others to submit to our desires
2. Aversion: removing others seen as obstacles to our desires
3. Indifference: disregarding others
4. Pride: elevating ourselves above others
ii. Authentic being-with-others is a developmental process
1. It begins with the development of equanimity that breaks down the boundary between self and other as characterized in inauthentic being-with
2. The flowering of equanimity leads us from being-with-others to being-for-others
3. Having concern for others eventually leads to doing for others
IV. Wisdom (being-alone)
a. Concentration (i.e., zazen, though never mentioned by name in the book)
b. Insight into the impermanence and emptiness of all things
V. Method (being-with-others)
a. Giving to others freely what one has; not just stuff, but anything and everything
b. Following the precepts; both what not to do and what to do instead
c. Acceptance without acceptance (though never said this way in the book)
d. Enthusiasm: having joyful energy to propel us along the Path
i. The aspiration to realize life’s possibilities
ii. The self-confidence that acknowledges your freedom and ability to realize life’s possibilities
All of the above (being alone with others via method and wisdom) adds up to being a Bodhisattva. “The Bodhisattva should be characterized by an open, outgoing generosity, tempered by mindfulness and ethical restraint. He should be accepting and submissive, yet fired by a natural, joyous enthusiasm. His mind should be discerning and critical, yet rooted in a deep inner calm. This is the model upon which we strive to pattern our lives as we engage in the actualization of the path.” (p. 114)

I will copy it into my files for further study...

[Rob_Heathen]

Re: Alone with Others

Hello,

Thank you for this. I have been meaning to buy this book. I have read two of Stephen Batchelor's other books "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist" and "Buddhism Without Beliefs." A few other Treeleafers can probably attest to my being a massive fan of his. I will most definitely get around to buying this soon. I strongly recommend reading both of the other books I mentioned to everyone.

Gassho (s)

Rob.

[AlanLa]

Re: Alone with Others

Having a little trouble to make head or tail of his way of putting things. I will have to read it.

Thank you, Alan.

Gassho, J

My way of clarity and outline may not work for another, and it is really a short form for a deeper clarity that I got which cannot be expressed. There is also much that I left out, especially political/religious stuff in the latter chapters, that I just left out of this particular posting for topical reasons,

Overall, I found it very much in sync with what we learn here at Treeleaf, just worded quite differently. Apparently, it is based on Shantiveda's Bodhisattva's way of life, which I can't find here on the reading list, though it seems like it would fit. I leave that up to Jundo.

[Jundo]

Re: Alone with Others

I just ordered it, and will have a read. Thank you, Al. I did not realize that it is a book from back in 1983. I believed that his philosophy on these issues had developed in later years.

Gassho, J

[AlanLa]

Re: Alone with Others

Yes Jundo, this looks like a preview of Buddhism without Beliefs, though that's 15 years in his future, because it's really stripped bare. It's a tough read in places, lots of big words, lol.

This is actually the second book I've read based on Shantiveda's A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life (the first was the Dalai Lama's Flash of Lightening in the Dark - highly recommended), so I decide I want to read the actual text and I see this in the Amazon description:

the distinguishing characteristic of Mahayana Buddhism that emphasizes the desire for enlightment as an act of altruism toward all beings. A Guide to the Boddhisattva Way of Life is a classic of Tibetan Buddhism

So it's both Mahayana AND Tibetan? That seems odd to me.

[Jundo]

Re: Alone with Others

Yes Jundo, this looks like a preview of Buddhism without Beliefs, though that's 15 years in his future, because it's really stripped bare. It's a tough read in places, lots of big words, lol.

This is actually the second book I've read based on Shantiveda's A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life (the first was the Dalai Lama's Flash of Lightening in the Dark - highly recommended), so I decide I want to read the actual text and I see this in the Amazon description:

the distinguishing characteristic of Mahayana Buddhism that emphasizes the desire for enlightment as an act of altruism toward all beings. A Guide to the Boddhisattva Way of Life is a classic of Tibetan Buddhism

So it's both Mahayana AND Tibetan? That seems odd to me.

(In my understanding) Tibetan/Esoteric Buddhism really developed as an offshoot of the Mahayana, and is not separate although having its own practices and interpretations of many Mahayana doctrines.

Gassho, J

[Saijun]

Re: Alone with Others

So it's both Mahayana AND Tibetan? That seems odd to me.

(In my understanding) Tibetan/Esoteric Buddhism really developed as an offshoot of the Mahayana, and is not separate although having its own practices and interpretations of many Mahayana doctrines.

Gassho, J

Hello friends,

I have this growing suspicion that Mahayana and Hinayana (NOTE: I'm not meaning to be derogatory here: I'm referring to "Greater" and "Lesser" in terms of the scope of the practice, like a schoolbus vs. a motorcycle) are terms that identify more with intention than any philosophical outlook; The three vehicles (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana) seem more classifications for schools that have similar teaching styles. I know there are Theravadins out there with Bodhisattva vows, and I know that there are Ch'an/Pureland practitioners working towards a fortunate rebirth for themselves.

Is it not possible to be a Mahayana-Theravadin, a Hinayana-Gelug? (Really, I'm honestly asking for clarification on this one)

Metta,

Perry

[Jundo]

Re: Alone with Others

So it's both Mahayana AND Tibetan? That seems odd to me.

(In my understanding) Tibetan/Esoteric Buddhism really developed as an offshoot of the Mahayana, and is not separate although having its own practices and interpretations of many Mahayana doctrines.

Gassho, J

Hello friends,

I have this growing suspicion that Mahayana and Hinayana (NOTE: I'm not meaning to be derogatory here: I'm referring to "Greater" and "Lesser" in terms of the scope of the practice, like a schoolbus vs. a motorcycle) are terms that identify more with intention than any philosophical outlook; The three vehicles (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana) seem more classifications for schools that have similar teaching styles. I know there are Theravadins out there with Bodhisattva vows, and I know that there are Ch'an/Pureland practitioners working towards a fortunate rebirth for themselves.

Is it not possible to be a Mahayana-Theravadin, a Hinayana-Gelug? (Really, I'm honestly asking for clarification on this one)

Metta,

Perry

Hi Perry,

Master Dogen often quoted and praised (and sometimes criticized) teachings from the "Small Vehicle". Sometimes, he would practice some esoteric elements, sometimes say they are not needed or misguided. As in our discussion of walking the Buddhist and Christian/Jewish path, as far as I am concerned, it depends how this is done. One can "make a salad" wisely or foolishly. Tomatoes and greens go together well, but I would not mix and match ketchup and bananas!



In this Sangha, the core is the wondrous, complete finding in the radical, non-attaining and goallessness of Shikantaza ... moving forward, yet ever still ... polishing the tile, yet not one thing to change. If one is of such Mind, then one can "add" (although nothing in need of "adding") to this Practice much as one can "practice Shikantaza" while chanting or bowing, baking a pie or doing the laundry. Do it some other way, with an excess of gaining and divisive mind, and none of it is very compatible.

Also, before feeling the need to "add" to this practice, understand fully the basic wholeness and completeness of this practice just as it is. Don't go looking to add more spices and salt and needless decoration to a soup which is already rich and nourishing and complete.

Gassho, J

[Engyo]

Re: Alone with Others

Not to try to change anyone's mind, but in the remote possibilty anyone is interested in understanding where some of Batchelor's combinations come from, he was once a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. In Tibet all three paths; Shravakayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, were preserved as an evolution of teachings completely. In terms of lineages, Tibet has the ancient Nyingma, the newer traditions of Sakya, Kagyu and Kadam. The present Gelug tradition evolved from the Kadam lineage. Despite the differences in these, they all incorporate the Buddha's teachings in full through the practices of Sutrayana and the Mahayana. Even the pre-existing Bon tradition came in time to possess its own full set. I think this is, in part, to the re-forming role of the Indian pandit Atisha in Tibet who once when asked about the range of teachings (which was the best way to practice?) uttered a much quoted phrase there. In effect he replied that one should study them all, practicing the points common to each. Doing so many found that (for instance) compassion was present in all.
You could read about this approach, if you wished, in the book "For the Benefit of All Beings: A Commentary on the Way of the Bodhisattva" by Dalai Lama.
Shantideva, who deliverd the Bodhicharyavatara (Way of the Bodhisattva) was Indian and it was delivered first at the Nalanda Monastery in India where monks from all traditions were taught the complete teachings of Buddha.
There is this view regarding mixing water and milk, I don't deny it, but there is also this other.
In the spirit of Nalanda and the Mahayana adherents, what was put in? What was left out? The path of the Arahant did not hold up well when debated and compared with the Way of the Bodhisattva discipline, to be sure. In other respects, a common conclusion was, "There is one dharma, not many."
Closer to home, and within the Zen ancestors, this idea is also expressed in the verses of "Shinjinmei" or "Shinjin no mei" or "Hsin Hsin Ming", as often attributed to Sosan Zenji, Third Zen Ancestor.
Gassho,
Don

[Rimon]

Re: Alone with Others

Instead of thinking of hinayana, mahayana and vajrayana as schools, I prefer to think of them as type of practices, that can be found in any school. In hinayana we realize dukha, that life is ultimately unsatisfactory and decide to the take the eightfold path to cure us from such a disease. In mahayana we realise Buddha nature and the need to put other beings happiness before yours. About varjayana I'm not that sure,as I am a lot less familiar with it. If we read it as using visualizations, I 've never read about using visualizations in zen, but then we can a more open reading of vajrayana as techniques to facilitate living our daily lives according to the Dharma.
And thanks a lot for the abstract, Al. As far as I can see Batchelor did a good job connecting Buddhism and existentialism. Not sure if Sartre wouls approve such a reading, but I'd say that concepts like unauthentic being or being-with actually become richer and more interesting with that reading.

Gassho

[Saijun]

Re: Alone with Others

Hi Perry,

Master Dogen often quoted and praised (and sometimes criticized) teachings from the "Small Vehicle". Sometimes, he would practice some esoteric elements, sometimes say they are not needed or misguided. As in our discussion of walking the Buddhist and Christian/Jewish path, as far as I am concerned, it depends how this is done. One can "make a salad" wisely or foolishly. Tomatoes and greens go together well, but I would not mix and match ketchup and bananas!



In this Sangha, the core is the wondrous, complete finding in the radical, non-attaining and goallessness of Shikantaza ... moving forward, yet ever still ... polishing the tile, yet not one thing to change. If one is of such Mind, then one can "add" (although nothing in need of "adding") to this Practice much as one can "practice Shikantaza" while chanting or bowing, baking a pie or doing the laundry. Do it some other way, with an excess of gaining and divisive mind, and none of it is very compatible.

Also, before feeling the need to "add" to this practice, understand fully the basic wholeness and completeness of this practice just as it is. Don't go looking to add more spices and salt and needless decoration to a soup which is already rich and nourishing and complete.

Gassho, J

Hello Jundo,

I'm not (intentionally) trying to add more spices to the soup, and while I'm still new at this practice (hopefully I always will be), gradually I think a little of what you say is making its way through this legendarily thick skull. There isn't, I'm beginning to suspect anything to add to, or take away from, this practice.

What I mean is, to try and use your analogy, that simply because recipe "A" uses ketchup and recipe "B" uses bananas, ketchup and bananas are not necessarily the exclusive property of those respective recipes.

Upon reviewing the topic, I think that David expressed my point much better than I have been able to, with the exception that I would posit "in Mahayana we realize Buddha nature and [that our happiness and the happiness of others are not two different things.]"

I apologize if my understanding is wrong, or lacking.

Metta and Gassho,

Perry