Goodbye… actually, not really :P

This is a note to say that my online presence is STILL… well, present. But probably not at Buddha Warrior anymore. I’m doing a fresh start on my new blog, Rockmelon Pie, which is more streamlined and focused on my progress in academics and religion. I still have a very catholic interest in the issues of the world, including media, society, music, etc., but in a way I want to focus on what I love most. UNLESS there is something I feel that MUST be said, I will leave it to better qualified people to do so.

If you were a reader of this blog, please update your links to http://rockmelonpie.wordpress.com.

No need to say goodbye, because I’m just over at another WordPress blog. And unless someone contacts me for the blog address of “buddhawarrior”, I don’t intend to shut down this blog.

Blessings!

Ray

The Progressive Faith Book Group

Beginning Wednesday night, the 10th June, the Progressive Faith Book Group has, as its mission, the breaking down of barriers between people of different faiths and different belief systems. In a respectful environment where understanding and tolerance is the ultimate goal, those books looking at issues in a multi-faith and inclusive way will be the priority of this group.

Do you want to break through the parameters of a narrow interpretation of faith? Do you want to seek common ground, and not demonization? Do you want to join other like-minded individuals in robust discussion and book analysis? Are you not afraid of being challenged in your faith, and seeing how others see and interpret your beliefs?

Then this is the group for you!

DATE: Wednesday 10th June, 2009, and every second Wednesday of the month thereafter.
TIME: 6.30pm to 8.30pm
VENUE: 127 Kennedy Terrace, Paddington

If you are interested please contact:

Emanuele: nexuslets1144@gmail.com
Adrian: adirong@yahoo.com

Relational Buddhism 3

I’ve decided to term this existential/relational Buddhism as “Relational and vocational Buddhism.” I think those two words contain in essence the relationality, creativity and proactivity of the Buddhism I’m trying to express.

I align myself to Buddhism, say, because of three reasons. My journey of spirituality is obviously complex – most people’s are. But as Lord Buddha might put it in modern words, direct experience of the inexpressible Reality really dismantles the need for any kind of apologetics or flowery expressions of faith. Perhaps it’s at this point when contemplation becomes surprisingly simple. Here are the reasons in descending importance.

1. The Avatamsaka Sutra. Yes, a single Sutra converted me to Mahayana Buddhism. In this Sutra all my doubts about Buddhism were answered and even transmuted into reasons for Buddhism. In it all my questions of the cosmos were answered, beyond my expectations. For the Sutra is indeed a book(s) of science, the science of liberation in the interconnected multiverse, in the relationship between form and emptiness, in the relative and the Absolute. I needed no heavy philosophical argument for “proof” of a religion’s truth, although some prefer that. I needed no charismatic preacher. Looking back, the Avatamsaka alone would have been enough to convince me of the Mahayana truth.

2. The embrace of non-human sentients – as long as they’re living, they can know Buddhahood – it’s that simple. Of course, I hold the beliefs of traditional Chinese Buddhism dear to me, and in a way I wish to see the Buddhist phenomenon survive and prosper authentically for as long as the law of impermanence allows – but the Buddhas are able to see totality from an all-encompassing perspective. In the end, the Four Noble Truths are always taught, dependent origination always preached. In all lands, in the hearts of all beings, the light of Buddhahood is already there. This is the most beautiful and “independent” reality in the world.

3. The deepest meaning of the Buddhist tradition is not found in its mythological portraits. Certainly, it is unfair to say that the romance of Siddartha and Yasodhara, the childlike compassion of Sujata that sustained the prince throughout his ascetic ordeal, and the myriad of thousands upon thousands of tapestries woven around the Buddhist narratives in Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana are gobbledegook in today’s secular, scientifically minded society. They are not. However, they do not constitute the only component of religious orientation, or else the deeper meanings of religion would be trivialized into something that’s not even historical. Rather, the myths are transhistorical, along with the fundamental tenets of the Buddha. They are mathematically infinite in value, just as the light of Amitabha is literally infinite.

In other words, we seek a vision as well as a non-vision. They both possess interplay in our relation to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, for that is why we take refuge. This is the fundamental essence of relationship in Buddhism, to take refuge in the arms of the Lord, the Teaching, and our Community, our Order, our Friends and our Companions on the path.

As far as I can see, there are four dynamics of relating. The first is Buddha-human. The second is individual-individual, or one-on-one. The third is person-community. The fourth encompasses all mankind and eventually all sentience.

“The Great Practice is to utter the name of the Tathagata of Unhindered Light. This practice embodies all good and contains all virtues. It enables sentient beings to attain the supreme and consummate virtues very quickly. It is the treasure-sea of the virtues of True Thusness and the One Reality. Hence, it is called the Great Practice.” (Shinran, Senjaku hongaku nembutsu shu. T. 83. p 590)

Relational Buddhism 2

Carried on from last post, let’s begin with a meditation from Shantideva in his Way of the Bodhisattva, in the Chapter of Vigilant Introspection: “The Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas both / Possess unclouded vision, seeing everything: / All lies open to their gaze, / And likewise I am always in their presence.” (5: 31)

Confession of one’s sins and wrongdoings is essential in Mahayana Buddhism. It is a crucial relational quality that is “in presence” of the Lords and their children, the Bodhisattvas. This can be seen to be a crucial element in Tibetan Buddhism, but East Asian Buddhism also maintains an intense emphasis on relationality, which is paradoxically based on the “Otherness” or Other-Power of Amitabha Buddha. Other-Power is the salvific power of the Bhagavan of Infinite Light, the Buddha of Infinite Light and Life. His relation to us, His love for we deluded sentient beings is expounded to us by Shakyamuni Buddha in the Amitabha Sutra. Yet His Otherness, His Other-Power is maintained precisely because such is his radical transcendence that it is Lord Shakyamuni, the Nirmanakaya/Sambhogakaya proxy, that reveals the Pure Land and Amitabha’s intentions to us.

“The light of Amitayus shines brilliantly, illuminating all the Buddha lands of the ten directions. There is no place where it is not perceived. I am not the only one who now praises his light. All the Buddhas, sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas praise and glorify it in the same way.” (Larger Sutra, 270b)

So whilst Shakyamuni acts as the transmitter of Amitabha’s Other-Power through this Sutra, Amitabha’s light still shines throughout the cosmos, permeating everything. In this passage, His transcendence and immanence is maintained. This leads me to question the literal interpretation of some passages within the Mahayana scriptures. Referring back to my post about Rita Gross’s book, I tend to agree with a sociological interpretation of Vow 30, whilst also allowing for the fact that Amitabha is beyond all conception and that visualization of Amitabha is a raft with which to reach Amitabha. Visualization in itself is not enough, even with contemplation of the cosmic body of the Buddha. Realization is the true goal.

“Now,” Shinran goes on, “Buddha is formless, and because of his formlessness he is known all by himself.” … when Buddhists say “formlessness”, they mean neither physical form nor intellectualization; rather, they refer to a formlessness which goes beyond the materiality of things and our habits of intellectualizing… And this formlessness, jinen, means “all by himselfness,” or “being by itselfness.” If Amida had a form, he would not be called the Supreme Tathagata, Nyorai. As an indication of his formlessness, he is called Amida. (Suzuki, 1970, pg. 58 – 9)

So not only is Amitabha Other-Power, He is also within us. The story of Dharmakara bodhisattva is our story. Once we realize Amitabha, we realize our own heart’s potential. Once we realize our own heart’s potential, we recognize ourselves as Amitabha. The invisible glory is the real thing. The infinite light of Amitabha can’t be seen where the mirage and obsession of “forms” and “visions” and “results” misdirects our gaze away from the indivisible Suchness of Amitabha.

But what is He, and who is Shakyamuni, other than being One in themselves (Tathagata) and within us? (Buddha Nature) They are literally good friends, intimate friends whose teachings we should strive to realize. (Larger Sutra, 273b, 29) This is Buddhist relationality in regards to Shakyamuni and Amitabha.

Existential Buddhism

When I speak of existential Buddhism, I’m not offering any coherent form of philosophy or a systematic way of interpreting the tradition. But I am suggesting different ways of reading and absorbing the wisdom of the Buddhist scriptures and responding in kind.

Most sutras begin with the words, “Thus I have heard.” Many commentators and masters have highlighted the deep significance and manifold meanings of these four words, and it would be above me to presume to be able to draw out anything too original from this profound proclamation of “Thus I have heard.” At its most basic, however, the four words really mean that the transmitter of knowledge is addressing you – you, the reader, the recipient, the student, the partner in teaching and dialogue. Unlike other religious texts, which begin with a hymn or praise, or perhaps launch into the main body directly, the prelude of Buddhist sutras is the most systematic, first proclaiming “Thus I have heard,” before going on to specify where and when the Buddha was, engaging in what samadhi, how many people were in the assembly, what sutra was spoken, and other defining characteristics of the event, before the primary message of the scripture is expounded. So when you read “Thus I have heard,” remember that the sutra compiler has many purposes in doing what he does, but his main purpose is to transmit the text to you. His recitation is, in essence, his gift to you, and how you hear it and respond to it is a paramount question.

It’s no surprise that the Buddhist sutras take place in a congregational setting, whether it be in a heavenly realm or simply in the Deer Park. A congregational setting, especially in the tradition of Theravada and Mahayana, consists of a student/master/bodhisattva asking the Lord a question, and the Lord answers accordingly. In some cases in the Avatamsaka Sutra, members of the congregation take turns in proclaiming blessed verses to their listeners, and these gathas constitute teachings in themselves. It is a setting of dialogue and trusting, intimate communication, and this is a crucial theme of sutras: a member of the congregation asks the Buddha a question, and the Buddha praises the member for his question and proceeds to give His answer. This calls into the question the importance of titles and epithets for the Buddha. He is honoured with some of the highest and most devotional titles, such as Blessed One (Bhagavan/Lord), and World-Honoured One (or Conqueror in many Tibetan sastras). He will commonly refer to Himself as “the Tathagata.” This may come across as a surprise to some, but the very notion of bhakti, or devotion, harks back to early Buddhism itself. So by addressing the Buddha as World-Honoured One, or Blessed One, this dialogue establishes itself as more than “Hey you, what’s the meaning of this scripture?” or “I need some answers, can you give them to me?” and puts it on the level of, to borrow existentialist Christian Paul Tillich’s words, “ultimate concern.”

But this exchange is not one-way. The Buddha is (always) filled with compassion and love and is pleased that His sons and daughters are so curious and seek the deeper meaning behind things. No matter what question is asked and in what context, the Buddha praises the questioner and hence enters into the dialogue of interrelation. Taking an example from Ananda’s very first question of contemplation in the Larger Pure Land Sutra, the Buddha responds, “Well said, Ananda. I am very pleased with your question. You have shown profound wisdom and subtle insight in asking me this wise question out of compassion for sentient beings.” (3 266c) His teachings are in many different forms: literal words, allegory, metaphor, parables, and reflections of His own wisdom. To see His preaching as a dialogue in which unenlightened existence becomes enlightened interrelation, therefore, is to see His preaching of the sutra in question as a complex transmission of knowledge in which the  intelligence and aspiration of the receiver is presupposed; that is, the Buddha acknowledges you to be the agent in which the teachings must be realized.

I think there’s much to be said for reading the Buddha’s word in this way. Remember that the Buddha is reflected in all other Buddhas, and vice versa. This is the essential truth of the Dharmakaya, the Body of Truth that all Buddhas share. Truth is meaning, and meaning is what the question of “existence” and “existentialism” is all about. The meaning of the sutras are all there, within the text. The Buddha’s communication to the individual is the fundamental reality of the sutra, spoken either in response or in initiation, and this is where the spiritual basis of the scripture lies.

Traditional questions in theology that must be studied

I’m a fan of Paul Tillich and his work in Systematic Theology. The fact that he rejects the idea of “either total salvation or total damnation” (the idea that only a tiny fraction of human beings will reach salvation is the contention of fundamentalism and conservative Catholicism) as “absurd and demonic” is enough to convince me of his thoughtfulness and commonsense as a Christian. As an existentialist, nay, one of its pioneers, he also criticizes the traditional “split” of Christ’s salvific role as prophet, priest, and king, saying that while they’re liturgically useful, the true signficance of Jesus Christ is his being, and the prophetic, priestly and kingly elements within it are immediate consequences of his being, not special offices connected with his work. Surely this conception of the Christian saviour will generate much discussion amongst classical theologians and existentialists alike.

I disagree with his distinction between historical and non-historical religions, because Garma Chang astutely brings in a third conception of religious history: “trans-historical,” which is unique to the Mahayana Buddhism of Hua-Yen (and by implication, much of Chinese Buddhism) and I would suspect several schools of Hinduism as well. Tillich’s idea of historical religions as superior to non-historical ones is fair enough since it’s more of an academic and spiritual opinion, whilst his classification of Buddhism as a non-historical religion is not very fair IF one takes into account Chang’s classification of it as a trans-historical religion. Tillich unwittingly alludes to this on pg. 110 of his Systematic Theology II when he notes that in discussing Christ, “a question arises which has been carefully avoided by many traditional theologians,” and this is how the meaning of the symbol “Christ” can be understood amidst the immensity of the cosmos, the tiny part of the universe that man and his history make up, and the possibility of other worlds in which divine revelations may appear.

The answer was given long ago in the grand Avatamsaka Sutra. Indeed, I would not have advocated Mahayana Buddhism if nothing in it addressed this issue of “other worlds” and “the vastness of empty space,” which are undeniable scientific truths and must be incorporated into religious worldviews if the latter are to remain profound and true (perhaps truer than older religious interpretations – science can prove to be an ally in this case). Tillich can only answer this issue by restricting the revelation of Christ to historical mankind: as its central event, he creates the meaning of human history. The eternal relation of God to man is manifest in Christ, and this basic answer leaves the universe open for possible divine manifestations in other areas/periods of being. In Tillich’s words, “Incarnation is unique for the special group in which it happens, but it is not unique in the sense that other singular incarnations for other unique worlds are excluded… Man cannot claim to occupy the only possible place for Incarnation.” (1957, pg. 111)

Surely, for some absolutist Christians, Tillich represents a big, humbling slap to the face. At the same time, I appreciate his authentically Christian humility, although personally I would say that this answer has been answered adequately already by Mahayana Buddhism, due to its Dharmic heritage of compassion for all sentient beings (”sentientism”). But anyway, either way you take Tillich, he certainly generates much fruitful discussion amongst everyone, which is typical of many existentialists.

Book Review: Buddhism after Patriarchy

I was doing research for my thesis but got distracted by this book by Rita Gross, called Buddhism after Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis and Reconstruction of Buddhism. I’ve been reading it all day. I would say I have two complaints about the book: firstly, it’s got a relatively large number of typos. Secondly, there was little analysis on Chinese Buddhism.

The rest of the book was extremely informative and important.

I would say it’s central message is the necessity of a “prophetic” dimension to Buddhist ethics – something that is distinctly lacking in Dharmic religions. And honestly, I would agree. The heritage of the prophets is a distinctly Middle Eastern concept, now surviving in the forms of socially engaged Christianity and traditional Judaism. In her feminist critique of Buddhism, Gross rightly acknowledges that Buddhism, doctrinally, acknowledges male and female as co-equal. Therefore, it is of particular concern for her that in practice and in history, there is such a strong patriarchal streak in Buddhist institutions. Bhikkuni orders were allowed to die out, women were discouraged from the spiritual life, Asanga even noted that a Buddha does not appear in the form of a woman. At least the Abrahamic religions have an excuse – they can attribute their patriarchy to divine mandate! But if emptiness pervades everything, how can one justify gender privilege?

Obviously, I can’t agree with everything in there (her critique of Pure Land Buddhism, I would say, is unfair). But she makes an excellent point that if Buddhists are all about challenging superficial reality and penetrating into thusness, why hasn’t the same been applied to their institutions, where it’s so obvious that there is an element of sidelining, even denial against women’s potential? This is when the prophetic dimension comes in – an energetic, passionate call to social change and justice, one which rings more with Jesus than with someone like Asanga. But the best thing is that the “prophets”, thanks to insight and calming meditation, won’t burn out so badly like they’ve done throughout history.

8.5/10

Apologies

My apologies for not having updated for such a long time. Things have been quite busy, even at the beginning of the Honours year. I have a research proposal to write as well as an independent study unit of a 10000 word paper. But this academic year may well turn out to be the most meaningful yet.

It’s interesting… change. So much has changed, and many things will continue to change. It’s a slightly melancholy thing, thinking about all the people that have come and the people that have gone. The chances you missed, and the chances you seized. Even the sweetest victories feel pensive, wistful. Like love. Love is never just “one thing” – it is more complex than what we would like to tell ourselves. I don’t think a human never knows what it’s truly like to live until he or she falls in love – whether with another human being, or with the Buddha, or with God. Love is our true purpose and is the ultimate key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe.

Does the human condition possess more drives than that which flies towards food, sex, and survival? I think it does. I think there is the drive, the flight to meaning. To be capable of relating to and talking about the world with true meaning, means you are living the life of the masters. There is no room for tripe references to God or to righteousness. You already embody it – or attempt to. The attempt is already admirable.

Enough ranting. Research goes on. Life goes on. Love goes on. I’ll be back.

The best way to worship the Buddha

Tradition often gets confused with convention, in Merton’s words. Merton distinguishes between tradition, which is participation in an ancient, ever-evolving, majestic life, and convention, which is stale repetition of words and hollow gestures that can barely maintain someone’s attention for more than five minutes. Many traditions of Buddhism fall into this trap. A few bows here, a few sympathetic (more like simpering) words there, paid lip service and this constitutes certain habits of Buddhism, along with superficial meditation and little true study.

Let us reclarify what is most important in the canonical Buddhist doctrine. Venerable Master Chin Kung says, “Nowadays, most people enshrine and worship him [the Buddha], making daily offerings to his image on an altar. Is this the right way to repay him? No. These are only rituals to remind us not to forget the Buddha’s kindness. The Buddha’s wish is for all sentient beings to hear the truth, practice accordingly and receive the benefits to attain Buddhahood. The only way we can repay him is to take his heart as our own.”

And from the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, the renowned Chatral Rinpoche says: “There is no better prayer or worship we can offer to Lord Buddha than being thoughtful, kind, compassionate and abstaining from taking the life of any fellow human being, animal, bird, fish or insect… The virtue of compassion is the principal foundation stone of Mahayana Buddhism.”

This is the tradition. Living and alive, it is not cheap convention. It is a constantly evolving, ebbing, and advancing entity. And it is composed of disciples that have shaken off the shackles of worldly convention, because convention, in Merton’s words, is sterility and death.

Fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity: mere superstition

There are certain brands of religion which are really just very rich institutions of superstition, fearmongering, and guilt and self-deception. I am, of course, referring to fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity, or the vociferous minority of Christians that drown out the majority of reasonable and placid voices within the nation. The Venerable Sharvasti Dhammika is particularly good at rooting out at the ad hominem, poorly researched, and often outright false and misinforming works of writers like Steve Cioccolanti and calling them for what they really are: “confused, dishonest and hardly worth the paper it is printed on.”

Link here. Indeed, much of the charges levelled against Buddhism, I have never even heard of (as I hail from the Chinese Mahayana tradition, not the Thai Theravada tradition. But it’s quite typical of Ciocollanti not to know the difference).

To my shame, Cioccolanti is based in Australia. There is religion… and then there is mere superstitions and lies, backwater heresies that should have died out long ago. But human delusion is still around, hence there will always be lies.