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.

[Zhenlian]

I think that it is wrong to say that Gotama left his family for his own salvation, rather he did this for the salvation of those in sufferings and in distress. He was trying to look for a solution to human sufferings.
As a born prince his life was nothing but roses and happiness, he had never experienced any sufferings and had never seen any sufferings in his life until one day he was on his trip out of his paradise did he see sufferings of common people. These poor people are not only suffering from deprivation and hard work, they are in fact suffering from a craving for more material satisfactions. When a poor man or a poor woman marry they are only putting more burdens on their shoulders, miseries begets miseries, the children of poor people are having a hard life before them, poverty generates sin, crimes, quarrels,disharmoney, shame and all kinds of evils. He had compassion for all these miseries, how he as a prince could heal all these miseries. Even if he gave out all his riches he knew that he could not heal all the poor in his country , this is where enlighment came upon him, he left his family to live a life of deprivation to see if man can still be happy in deprivation, and he tell you that he can, we can live in happiness even if we are deprived of all things but we have our spiritual enlightment!

Dharmavidya said:

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.

[Tharakesh]

Does being a "bombu" pre-dispose us to spiritual danger??

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Zhenlian, Thank you. The question of why Gotama left home is interesting. I am inclined to see it in the same terms as we discussed recently about the individual recapitulating within himself the karma of the society. The artist, for instance, often has no consciousness of the fact that she is solving a cultural problem for society - she just works with her own material - but nonetheless she moves the culture forward. Perhaps Gotama is a similar case. Perhaps his greatness lay in his recapitulating not just one bit of he 'capital' of his times, but the greater part or even totality of the problem of the society of his day. By reaching a solution for himself he reached one for others and, in fact, his 'solution' was a turning around which changed his whole approach to life. Gotama before that awakening is not the same as Shakyamuni after it. Opinions will, of course, vary about how 'enlightened' Gotama was at the point at which he abandoned his family. But certainly he encapsulated in his person the social problems presented by rich-poor divide, caste, peri-natal maternal mortality, early ubanisation, and the political instability of a world of small vying principalities. One interesting problem that we are discussing in the Engaged Buddhism and in the Critical Buddhism groups is the extent to which his solution was a solution for society as well as the individual and the extent to which that applies to today's society not just the one of his time and to Western society, not just that of the East. Thank you for your writing. I'm glad that you have joined us - welcome.

[Zhenlian]

I don't think that Buddhism is intended to be a solution to society, I rather think that Buddhism just shows a way for one to transcend oneself, or rather it shows a way to the less privileged to escape from the misery to which one is born into. The greatness of Buddha is that he puts all the pain and sufferings of miserable people onto his shoulders and try to find a way for them to get rid of these miseries. Buddha's way of transcending misery is by renouncing all material preoccupations ,regaining your pure image and the joy of being alive. Buddha's philosophy is that man can arrive at this stage of spirituality by intent.
The greatness of Jesus is that he puts the sins of all people on his shoulders and he redeems their sins by dying on the cross. Not everyone can be Buddha, and not everyone can be Jesus. There is only one Buddha and one Jesus in this world. If each one of us can weep ( as Buddha weeps) when we see others suffer, there will be no wars, if each of us can forgive ( as Jesus forgives) , there will be no revenge in this world.
Buddhism is widely accepted in the Eastern world, because most miseries exist in the Eastern world. In fact Buddhism can be said the religion of the poor, it brings solace to a lot of people living in miseries. A lot of us especial in the East are born into miseries, we have no choice, because we cannot choose our births. I don't think that Buddha in fact has ever had any intention himself to be a God to be revered by people, it is the process of history that Buddha has become a God in most people's mind and in the end he has become a God in the Buddhist religion. But in fact, Buddhism is more a philosophy of living rather than a religion and much less a solution to society problems.
Of course not all disciples have found enlightement and salvation by following the path of Buddha, there are always distortions and abuses. The Dalai lama monks of Tibet live on the privileges given to them by landlords and the emperors, they live liked kings in paradises (before the communists liberation), they even owed slaves and enjoyed the worldly power.They are a special kind of parasites, they act as a kind of media between the landlords and God(Buddha). After the communist liberations, they have lost all privileges, and they turn to look for satisfaction of more worldly power. In fact , the crave for power is the greatest of all vile practices in the Buddhist religion and in all other religions. Is this Buddha's fault that some people commit crimes in his name?

Dharmavidya said:

Dear Zhenlian, Thank you. The question of why Gotama left home is interesting. I am inclined to see it in the same terms as we discussed recently about the individual recapitulating within himself the karma of the society. The artist, for instance, often has no consciousness of the fact that she is solving a cultural problem for society - she just works with her own material - but nonetheless she moves the culture forward. Perhaps Gotama is a similar case. Perhaps his greatness lay in his recapitulating not just one bit of he 'capital' of his times, but the greater part or even totality of the problem of the society of his day. By reaching a solution for himself he reached one for others and, in fact, his 'solution' was a turning around which changed his whole approach to life. Gotama before that awakening is not the same as Shakyamuni after it. Opinions will, of course, vary about how 'enlightened' Gotama was at the point at which he abandoned his family. But certainly he encapsulated in his person the social problems presented by rich-poor divide, caste, peri-natal maternal mortality, early ubanisation, and the political instability of a world of small vying principalities. One interesting problem that we are discussing in the Engaged Buddhism and in the Critical Buddhism groups is the extent to which his solution was a solution for society as well as the individual and the extent to which that applies to today's society not just the one of his time and to Western society, not just that of the East. Thank you for your writing. I'm glad that you have joined us - welcome.

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Zhenlian, Thank you. How interesting it is to have a perspective from a different part of the world and a different political perspective. I will answer your message in three sections:

Solution for Society or Not
Do you not think that if the less privileged were to escape from their misery this would have an effect on society? I don't think you mean that they will just starve happily. If there were no wars and no revenge, international politics would be hugely different from how it is today. Most people will, I am sure, regard any prescription for ending war as a 'solution for society'.

A Religion for the Poor or Not
Perhaps Buddhism has become, in some places, as in contemporary India, the religion of the poor. Like Francis of Assisi, Gotama advocated poverty to his closest disciples. This was, in both cases, a significant up-ending of conventional values. However, in India, Buddhism is also the vehicle for social betterment for the masses throwing off the yoke of the caste system. Buddhism spread in the East when the East was rich and powerful as well as when it has been poor. Is not buddhism a religion for all? Was Gotama not able to do his work, at least in part, because of the patronage of Anatapindika and Bimbisara? I do not think Buddhism is only about poverty - it is also about the wiser deployment of riches.

The Dalai Lama and Tibet
Of course, many people in the West (including many on this network) will disagree with you about the position and work of the Dalai Lama who is widely regarded as a bodhisattva and man of peace, perhaps, even, the leading example in the world today of a man of peace in many people's eyes. This difference of perception seems to me to show rather strongly that it is impossible to untangle politics from one's religious judgement. Their view is conditioned by the fact that they live in the West. You view is conditioned by the fact that you live in mainland China. Each party has been fed selective information. One calls the arrival of the Chinese military in Tibet 'liberation' and the other calls it 'invasion'. This is politics. This is a difference of opinion about what constitutes a 'solution for society'.

Amida Trust people generally do see Buddhism in its social as well as its personal dimension and we are interested in exploring the implications of viewing it in such a way. It is very interesting to get a sense of how it looks from your perspective. From the perspective of the Buddha, I imagine there is a desire to help us all. Namo Amida Bu. Warm wishes - D

[Zhenlian]

Dear Dharmavidya, of course all religions are solutions to society problems in one way or another, I do not deny this point, what I mean when I say that Buddhism is rather a way of living rather than a solution to Society , I put emphasize on the philiosophical aspect of Buddhism and not on its social aspect.
When I say that Buddhism is a religion of the poor, I do not mean that it is limited to the poor, I mean that such a religion is easily accepted amidst the poor, there is no limitations to any religions, like there is no limitations to any greatness of man's spirituality.
It is a truth that" Chinese liberation " is succeeded by the Chinese communists, despite this fact, there are still people (Chinese as well as foreigners) saying that China is invaded by the Chinese communists. China is still a divided country, there is Taiwan and the mainland, such arguements still continue and will continue. So there is no sense to argue whether the Chinese Communists is liberating China or invading China. But it is a very sad and tragic fact that people on this globe have burnt a lot of money in insane wars such as Vietnam and Korea. There are no truth in these wars, both sides are losing lives and shading blood, and both sides claim that they are heroes, and both sides claim that God or the truth is with them. Who can we blame? Jesus says : we want to be strong , but our will is weak, human beings are not fautless, but we must learn from stupidities, it is just insane to shade blood for different ideologies. It is stupid to say that one ideology is superior to another. All ideologies should be for the good of human beings. If all people can learn to respect each other, there should be no wars.
I am a Buddhist and I am also a Christian, I see no conflicts in the two ideologies. I pay homage to Jesus when I enter a Christian Church, and I pay homage to Buddha when I enter a Buddhist Temple.
I am rich and I am poor, some people even imagine that I am a millionaire, because in China only rich woman paints and draws, but in fact I am as poor as a Church mouse.
If people can use the money to alleviate the poverty on this globe instead of burning money in the wars, the world might have been a better world. When I say this I do not mean that I hold anybody for any responsibilty of the miseries of the world. We must agree that human beings are doing progress in our civilization, the world of today is much better than the world of old days of course, that means we are progressing, there should be no regrets, we are not born with wisdoms, but we can acquire wisdoms.

Dharmavidya said:

Dear Zhenlian, Thank you. How interesting it is to have a perspective from a different part of the world and a different political perspective. I will answer your message in three sections:

Solution for Society or Not
Do you not think that if the less privileged were to escape from their misery this would have an effect on society? I don't think you mean that they will just starve happily. If there were no wars and no revenge, international politics would be hugely different from how it is today. Most people will, I am sure, regard any prescription for ending war as a 'solution for society'.

A Religion for the Poor or Not
Perhaps Buddhism has become, in some places, as in contemporary India, the religion of the poor. Like Francis of Assisi, Gotama advocated poverty to his closest disciples. This was, in both cases, a significant up-ending of conventional values. However, in India, Buddhism is also the vehicle for social betterment for the masses throwing off the yoke of the caste system. Buddhism spread in the East when the East was rich and powerful as well as when it has been poor. Is not buddhism a religion for all? Was Gotama not able to do his work, at least in part, because of the patronage of Anatapindika and Bimbisara? I do not think Buddhism is only about poverty - it is also about the wiser deployment of riches.

The Dalai Lama and Tibet
Of course, many people in the West (including many on this network) will disagree with you about the position and work of the Dalai Lama who is widely regarded as a bodhisattva and man of peace, perhaps, even, the leading example in the world today of a man of peace in many people's eyes. This difference of perception seems to me to show rather strongly that it is impossible to untangle politics from one's religious judgement. Their view is conditioned by the fact that they live in the West. You view is conditioned by the fact that you live in mainland China. Each party has been fed selective information. One calls the arrival of the Chinese military in Tibet 'liberation' and the other calls it 'invasion'. This is politics. This is a difference of opinion about what constitutes a 'solution for society'.

Amida Trust people generally do see Buddhism in its social as well as its personal dimension and we are interested in exploring the implications of viewing it in such a way. It is very interesting to get a sense of how it looks from your perspective. From the perspective of the Buddha, I imagine there is a desire to help us all. Namo Amida Bu. Warm wishes - D

[Ratnacitta]

I would like to raise a practical question........

When faced with Dukkha, do we:

a) Decide to 'lean' into it, feel its usually uncomfortable textures and vibrations......? ie, not run away....(Pema Chodron cited the example of watching a mosquito land on you, fill up with blood, then fly away, without reacting......)

OR

b) Take on the mantle of a Buddha....visualise ourselves as Amida/Tara/Amoghassiddhi.... or whatever Buddha inspires us, and through our enlightened imagination (however ripe that may or may not be) deal with the Dukkha through Wisdom......

Maybe either approach can be helpful, depending on the situation.....

[Kaspalita]

What's the difference?

Perhaps the response of a Buddha is to engage with the Dukkha. In fact I'm sure it is - to treat the situation with the best compassion and wisdom at our disposal, with an open hand. I think it's Rev'd Sato who uses the word 'encounter' to translate nembutsu - and this might be the quality of our practice, of encountering the Buddha, of encountering our karma, and so on in an open handed way, without clinging to outcomes. This is the meaning of faith, I think.

Of course, the methods you cite are different and each has it's own spiritual danger. The practice of self-generation can lead to spiritual materialism, for example.

I think of the two, the first has a more Pureland nature, particularly examining oneself as the cause of Dukkha....we are often the mosquito...


PETER CAMPBELL-KELLY said:

I would like to raise a practical question........
When faced with Dukkha, do we:
a) Decide to 'lean' into it, feel its usually uncomfortable textures and vibrations......? ie, not run away....(Pema Chodron cited the example of watching a mosquito land on you, fill up with blood, then fly away, without reacting......)

OR

b) Take on the mantle of a Buddha....visualise ourselves as Amida/Tara/Amoghassiddhi.... or whatever Buddha inspires us, and through our enlightened imagination (however ripe that may or may not be) deal with the Dukkha through Wisdom......

Maybe either approach can be helpful, depending on the situation.....

[Dharmavidya]

The question of 'leaning into' is interesting. My reading of the Four Noble Truths suggests not so much that we engage with the affliction as we engage with the provocation. Affliction as such is not a motivator for the awakened - it is information. What matters is spiritual danger and liberation therefrom. The goal of bhikshu is to not be defeated. We are not asked, therefore, to 'sit with the pain' but to (a) unhook from whatever distractive activity we have been tempted into and (b) engage with the objective situation that has given rise to the disturbance. When we have the faith to do so we shall find ourselves upon the wholesome path that Shakyamuni pointed out.

In passing, we can note that this is contrary to much contemporary lore on mindfulness. in fact, there would seem to be a particular danger in the kind of practice in which one takes one's mind off the provocation in order to dwell upon one's own pain since the (mental) pain is conditioned by the object of attention. This means that such a move has a superficial appearance of effectiveness since attending to one's pain is not attending to the pain's cause and the pain only continues while one attends to that cause. Mindfulness of one's pain is, therefore, a distractive technique that does commonly reduce the symptom. However, such reduction is not necessarily benign. The pain is important information and having it taken away is not always wise or compassionate. The experience of mental pain is an indicator that some action other than self-anaesthesia is required. What seems like enhanced awareness may therefore actually be merely a move into passivity. If something is wrong, awareness of one's inner turmoil and the stilling of that turmoil will not necessarily always contribute to one doing something positive about the conditions that have brought the turmoil about.

Example: Person X sees a starving person. Person X feels distress. X turns mindfulness toward the distress. After a short time X no longer feels distress. X thinks, 'How well mindfulness works!' The starving person, however, is still not fed.

This is rather extreme example in order to bring out the point. We should not think that Buddhism is a species of quietism in which what matters primarily is having the techniques to bring our own mind under control and ignore the world around us. That would be to succumb to spiritual danger and fail to act in a noble way. We would not then be practising right outlook, right thoughts, right words, right deeds, right livelihood, right application, right remembrance or right vision.