Rising Above Spiritual Danger

[Dharmavidya]

One of the perennial problems in the interpretation of Buddhism is to fathom what Shakyamuni meant by "dukkha". It is commonly interpreted as suffering or affliction and I have, at times, used these interpretations myself. I have come to think, however, that there is a strong case for 'spiritual danger' being a more precise rendering. After all, Shakyamuni was a stoical person. He suffered at times and, we are told, he bore such suffering with fortitude. His life was not eternally happy, but he had the strength of character to handle the difficulties he encountered which included schism in the movement he started, the assassination of his friend and patron Bimbisara, attempts upon his own life, injuries, sickness and death by food poisoning. All these he took in a dignified and cheerful manner. It would not be apt to describe him as one who was always happy, but it would be true to say that when he encountered difficulty he did not sell out or compromise his core principles. He went on doing his best to help others through it all.

The word dukkha etymologically means a 'bitter space' and this seems to me to have echoes in such ideas as 'the dark night of the soul'. When we come up against something tough we are challenged. We might be defeated or we might rise above the obstacle. Shakyamuni used the word 'defeat' alot. Clearly a central part of how he saw his mission was to help us to avoid defeat. He lists the kinds of things that are dukkha: birth, disease, old age and death, having our plans not work out, our friends leave or betray us or die, being associated with those we hate, and so on. He also included the working of our own 'skandha cycle' - the process by which we form habits and interpret the world around us. Now you can call all of these forms of suffering if you like, but it seems much more apposite to Shakyamuni's purpose to realise that they are all times when we become spiritually at risk.

So it is possible to interpret the Four Noble Truths as saying:
1. Dukkha: There are recurrent situations that are unavoidably part of life that bring with them spiritual danger.
2. Samudaya: When such situations come along our energy is raised to a pitch. We either turn this energy to noble or to ignoble ends.
3. Nirodha: Following noble ends means having the faith to unhook ourselves from old attachments and self-centredness.
4. Marga: If we do so unhook, we find ourselves upon a genuine spiritual path. He defined such a path as having eight elements.

[John Wylder]

This is interesting, but the more I think about it, the more I have two questions:

1) How do you define "spiritual danger?"
2) Why would most people care? Maybe it's just my social set, but most people I know aren't worried about their spiritual wellbeing, and if they think of it at all, they have an easy formula that answers all their questions so they never have to think about it again. Suffering--sickness, death, unfaithfulness, the economy--they care about.

[Maxine Fine]

Are we not more spiritually at risk when things go according to our plans and wishes? We feel gleefully deserving and entitled and not motivated to question why we should be enjoying good luck. When difficulties arise some people examine their lives and ask questions that are difficult to answer and may lead to them to a spiritual search.

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Maxine - Very nice reply - thank you. Yes, indeed, there is certainly a major spiritual danger in complacency. Namo Amida Bu. That was certainly one of Shakyamuni's worries - hence all the emphasis on impermanence, of course.

[Dharmavidya]

Thanks for getting involved in this John. Good question: why would people care? Perhaps this was what Shakyamuni was asking himself when he was initially reluctant to teach, thinking nobody is going to understand this. Yet, there will be a few "with but little dust in their eyes". If most people cared about their spiritual state they might be in a better one.

[Konchog AlTorres]

Thank you for your thoughts... I have found in my own personal journey that my realization has sometimes come about from dukkha...
I have been lazy at times .. and self - complacent to an extreme.. I have been able to overcome this only through my "Dukkha"... which presented me the options of giving into "Spiritual Danger" or moving on and entering the next level of my journey. As you state in reference to Shakyamuni "He also included the working of our own 'skandha cycle' - the process by which we form habits and interpret the world around us" to this end I try to be positive and nurture a sense of compassion, and practical interplay with the world about me that leads to my awareness. Thank you again for your thoughts

[Franco Acquaro]

I like this formulation very much. As always, thank-you for the teaching Dharmavidya.

It does seem that we go astray due to our inability to value things correctly. Mistakenly, we devalue some phenomena - often leading to aversion. Mistakenly, we over-value some things - often leading to greed. And many times we are just unsure as to how to value the remaining things - leading to confusion. All three states are nicely captured in the idea of "spiritual danger" - though some of these states might feel pretty good in the short run, as noted by Maxine. Regardless, trouble is certainly brewing if we do not value things correctly, and act nobly in response. We need to wake-up (see clearly), and valuate phenomena according to reality (not just simply through the lens of our personal and collective projections).

[Ben Ross]

I'm also grateful for this discussion. The Feeling Buddha is a book I've returned to many times for guidance and protection in the midst of my own spiritual dangers.

A story might illustrate my searching this morning:
One of my favorite stories of the Buddha is the one where he's walking with a disciple (Sariputra, I think) and the disciple says, "I have had a realization: friendship is half of the dharma" and the Buddha responds, "Don't say this, Sariputra. Friendship is the whole of the dharma." What I find so appealing in this is my sense that the Buddha was concerned with the opening of the self into greater and greater connection with others. I tend to view this as the ultimate value of suffering - its capacity to open us up in this way.

I notice during this discussion that I'm uncertain if this conception matches a sense of the Buddha as stoic and devoted primarily to principle. I wonder if at times the Buddha bent principle to allow for greater relationship - by taking on followers who were thoroughly enmeshed in the world and not insisting that they become monks or change everything about themselves, and possibly by not taking sides among the various branches of the early Buddhist community. And yet there were moments where it seems he was more focused on principle - such as when he left his wife and child to pursue a realization of truth. But ultimately didn't his enlightenment come about when he was able to accept the kindness of the boy who brought him grass to sit on, and the woman who gave him the milk intended for a ritual offering? These stories as they were related in The Feeling Buddha moved me so deeply, and seemed to illustrate a kind of spontaneous kindness arising from open hearts.

Are principle and relationship really necessarily at odds? Is being stoic at odds with the openness needed to create friendship with all beings? I may be caught on semantics or abstractions. Thanks for bearing with me!

[richard meyers]

First of all I'd just like to say I am anything but an expert in the subtleties of Buddhist thought, so I offer what I say here somewhat tentatively. Dukkha, for me has been the pain and inherent unsatisfactoriness of living without a Faith and the driving force that initiated my spiritual journey, so in that respect I am grateful for it.

Those 'recurrent situations' that are so much part of life, are deep holes into which we stumble again and again.
Certainly the phrase about our energy 'being raised to a pitch' tells it like it is.
Interpreting Dukkha as Spiritual Danger, I find a little difficult to grasp. And yet I suppose it may well be so. For me 'complacency' and self satisfied religiousity are more dangerous. I sense spiritual danger as something more insidious. But I like the 4 Noble Truths as presented.

I like what you say about 'having the faith to unhook ourselves'. In the sixties we spoke about 'being hung-up' on this or that addiction. In the past I always understood it as a 'once and for all' enlightenment, that would erase all suffering. I now believe this to be unrealistic and 'foolish'. Thank Buddha for the Pure Land!

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Alberto, Thank you for sharing. As you say, dukkha can be a wake up. Of course the term 'anta' which means 'end' has the same double meaning in Sanskrit as in English. When Buddha talks about the 'end of dukkha' it does not have to mean 'no more dukkha' it can also mean 'what dukkha is for'. Buddha says, "Nobody is more concerned about the anta of dukkha than I am" - a deliciously ambiguous statement.

[Dharmavidya]

Thank you Franco. Yes, I agree. Also, we think we can change things that we cannot and thus distract ourselves from doing anything about what we can change. Shakyamuni says that dukkha and samudaya are both noble truths. Should we try to get rid of things that are noble truths - no. Should we learn and grow through them - yes.

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Ben, Thank you. Actually it is Ananda. The wording of the original is, again, slightly ambiguous:
Ananda: God friendship is half of the Dharma
Shakyamuni: Say, friendship with the good is the whole of the Dharma.

Of course this is open to a number of nuanced interpretations. The good in general, good people, good friendship with everybody, goodness through friendship. All are good.

I dont think it is quite right to say the Buddha was devoted to principle - rather he was devoted to something beyond principle, something difficult to articulate, something embodied by Buddhas. Shakyamuni was himself extremely skilled at formulating that refuge into principles suitable for particular people in particular situations.

The matter about the Buddha's family is interesting. In his self-power (pre-enlightenment, ascetic) phase, Gotama left his wife and child and dedicated imself to the search for his own personal salvation. In his other-power phase (post-enlightenment, middle way) he went back to make his peace with his family and brought them into the Dharma life. Thereafter his wife, son and step mother were all important figures in the sangha.

Stoicism, at best, as in this case, simply means to have the courage of one's convictions. Those convictions were, for Shakyamuni, more deeply rooted after his awakening than before and consequently he was more compassionate and more engaged after than before.

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Richard, I would certainly classify complacency and self-satisfaction as spiritual dangers - or indeed, spiritual diseases already established. The danger of some situations is that we may fall into such diseases. The danger of other situations is that we might fall into other spiritual diseases - such as addiction, cruelty, enmity and strife. There are many such.

Thank you or sharing about "the pain and inherent unsatisfactoriness of living without a Faith". So true. The import of the 4NT is that we need to face this pain and not just seek anaesthetics. When we face it it may drive us into a deeper spiritual commitment that, as in the case of Gotama, turns our life around. Many thanks. Namo Amida Bu.