Being Buddhist

 What makes these people 'Buddhist'  - their clothes?

What is it to be Buddhist? Obvious answers might include specific activities such as taking refuge in the Triple Gem, meditating, and visiting temples; alternatively, one might see certain beliefs as being indicative of being Buddhist, examples being convinced of the Four Noble truths, the Three Characteristics, Emptiness, or Dependent Arising. Such activities and beliefs differ from culture to culture and person to person, however, making it very difficult to pin down in any general sense what a Buddhist actually is. For example, if we define a Buddhist as someone who meditates to realize Awakening, we are excluding most of the world's Buddhist from being classified as such, for meditation is not among the most common practices of the average Buddhist.

Even if we say that at the most essential level, to be Buddhist involves belief in the Buddha as the enlightened teacher of our age, which Buddha are we referring to - Shakyamuni, Amitabha, Vairochana, or some other embodiment of Nirvana? If we insist that the historical Buddha Shakyamuni is the only 'real' Buddha, then this not only discounts the small number of followers of Vairochana Buddha, but also the millions and millions of devotees of Amitabha Buddha, the most popular Enlightened One in the Far East. By this criteria, those that devote themselves to Amitabha and Vairochana are at risk of being seen as heretics, worshiping not false gods, but false Buddhas. Perhaps, if we see Buddha as that part of us all that is inherently enlightened, unlike these egos, then we may begin to find a way to describe all those people that consider themselves as Buddhists as being so. But then, every single being on this planet (and on any other planet for that matter) posseses an innate 'Buddha Nature', so in this sense we are all Buddhists, including Christians, Muslims, atheists, dogs, and mosquitoes!

Maybe it is in the way of life that we live that we might be considered Buddhist, for to live with mindfulness regarding body, speech, and mind is surely a basic foundation of being Buddhist. But then again, are the majority of potential Buddhists in the world actually living mindful lives, heedful of their actions, words, and thoughts? To some extent, any system of thought that encourages a moral outlook on life requires a minimal level of mindfulness to maintain such ethical standards, but there's a difference in being heedful of certain moral guidelines and being awake to minutiae of everything we do, which Buddhist mindfulness practice requires.

It's not only mindfulness that sums up a Buddhist way of life, however. Compassion and kindness are central elements to living in a way recognizably Buddhist in flavor. Insight without these finer emotions is an imperfect insight, and a life bereft of such qualities is surely one that is barely worthy of the description Buddhist. Compassion and kindness are not peculiar to Buddhism, however. Jews, Hindus, and probably aliens for that matter are equally capable of relating to the world in compassionate and kind ways as Buddhists. So, again, if we use these qualities as ways to define what it is to be Buddhist, we will end up classifying any decent human being as being so. But, then, perhaps this isn't so terrible...

This investigation into what it is to be Buddhist seems to be leading nowhere; but this isn't really so, for it keeps bringing us back to our basic humanity, to the ability at heart that we all have to develop generosity, morality, mindfulness, and wisdom. That these qualities are not solely associated with the label 'Buddhist' is not only obvious but also uplifting. In a nutshell, being Buddhist is being human. We are all, in some ways, 'Buddhist' whether we use such a title or not, and whether we attach to certain doctrines or not; equally,we are all innate Buddhas, waiting to explode our compassionate wisdom into the world at the appropriate moment. And that moment is always now. Being Buddhist is being Buddha, and here the teachings of that old Zen master Huang Po come to mind; all sentient beings are Buddha. As previously explored in Buddha Space, there is no 'us' and 'them' in being Buddhist, nor being Buddha, for that matter.

May all beings be happy!

Buddha Space Meditation

Whatever your mudra...meditate!

Meditating on a daily basis can be a wonderful thing to do. It helps the mind to let go of its pet likes and hates and open up to the way things are right now. It enables awareness to see thoughts as thoughts, emotions as emotions, opinions as opinions, memories as memories, and sensations as sensations. In this plain knowing, identification with these various stimuli is loosened, even completely abandoned, and then the bright nature of the mind - 'Buddha Space' - comes to the fore, lighting up experience with a calm gaze:

Each moment merges into the next,

falling out of a nothingness

that cannot be grasped

between the whistle of birdsong

and the wind gushing from a fan

that tickles against the skin.

Thoughts are born into clarity,
then pop like mental bubbles
dissipating into the void of now
which is the very Wisdom Eye 
of Buddha, forever awakened.

Silence washes everything clean,
an endless ocean of serenity
upon which each mind ship bobs,
before sinking into the depths
of this glorious flowing expanse.
Happily submerged in the deep.

Buddhism & Ritual

 Lovely Lion: Bye bye, beautiful boy!

Today, my wife and I held a brief funeral service for one of our dogs that died earlier this week. His name was Lion - because of his lion-like appearance - and he was not quite a year old when he died of unknown causes. After several days of intermittent grief, we went to his graveside, burned incense, offered ice, a dog treat, and I recited the following Buddhist verse which is commonly heard at funerals here in Thailand:

Anicca vata sankhara

Uppada vaya dhammino

Uppajjitva nirujjhanti

Tesam vupasamo sukho.

All things are impermanent,

Arising and passing away.

Being born, they must cease;

Their calming is happiness.

Both my wife and I were deeply affected by this little hound's demise, perhaps especially myself as I spent the most time with him, writing many of the Buddha Space articles on this blog while he sat by my chair. He even used to lie down next to me every morning when I meditated. Anyway, despite my Buddhist understanding and practice, Lion's death was a blow out of the blue that triggered some serious suffering in this mind. And, alongside associating with awareness rather than the painful memories arising in it, it seemed appropriate and therapeutic to have a small ritual to mark Lion's life and death.

 Daily rituals, which are very common in the Buddhist temples here in Thailand have never appealed to me much. Sometimes I use them, or truncated versions of them, and sometimes not, for attachment to rules and rituals is said to be one of the initial impediments to enlightenment, after all. But, in dealing with the complicated and powerful emotions associated with the loss of a loved one - and we did love this dog - a ritual marking the ending of a life and the continuance of the lives of those left behind seemed a wise thing to do. It is both an act of closure and a moving on. Done with awareness of the moment, it can be an intense way to focus on the perfectness of the present, perfect in the sense of being just the way it is, and reflective of the clear knowing that lies at the heart of being.

So, Lion is gone, remaining as memories and images (like the one above), and in being thankful for the short nine months that he was with us, and all the lessons we learned and failed to learn in his presence, my wife and I are truly grateful. For, the Dharma is expressed in a multitude of ways, much of which passes us human beings by without us ever noticing, but once in a while we are presented with events that are so earth-shatteringly attention-demanding that we are driven back towards the innate wisdom that we all posses - if we can wake up to it. Reflecting on suffering and its origin in our attachments is a lesson never more obvious and potentially inspiring as when we're really hurting inside. And little Lion has given us this opportunity by giving up his life.

By marking this important event in our lives with an albeit brief but heartfelt ceremony, my wife and I have turned suffering into the basis for awakening to the way-things-are (the Dharma). It has been brought back into sharp focus, and in the glare of awareness is seen for what it is: a conditioned process arising in unconditioned knowing. The latter is dubbed 'Buddha Space' on these pages, and rituals can be used to highlight this liberating peacefulness that is so easily overlooked. Whilst it's unlikely that either of us will take up daily rituals as a result of this experience, it has given us some insight into the skillful use of such activities, as opposed to the blind attachment to ceremonies. What is your experience of rituals? If you have anything to share on this, or anything else in this article, please click on the comments link below and leave your thoughts for reflection. May all beings be happy!

Buddhism & Free Speech

 Jetsun Pema: A threat to Thailand?

This weekend Jetsun Pema, the younger sister of the Dalai Lama, was due to give a speech at the Festival of Tibetan Spirituality, Arts, and Culture in Bangkok, Thailand. Although giving visas to another thirty-odd Tibetans, she was denied a visa request by the Thai Foreign Ministry. She was due to give a talk provisionally entitled 'Tibet: My Story.' The reason given by the Ministry for turning down the visa request was that her presence in the Thai capital might be seen as a political statement by the Thai government with regards the situation in Tibet. This, it feared, might offend the Chinese government, which could affect relations between the countries, including the growing trade between them.

It seems that the Thai government values its friendship with a tyrannical communist dictatorship (and the money that comes from this relationship) over allowing a Buddhist woman from telling her life story. In holding such a position, the Thai government is not unique of course, but the Thais do claim to be 'the most Buddhist nation on Earth,' citing ninety-five per cent of Thailand's population as followers of Buddhism. This claim seems an empty boast when someone like Jetsun Pema is turned away because her older brother is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, a Buddhist people cruelly subjugated by the atheist regime of the People's Republic.

Now, the Thai authorities are presumably not claiming that their decision regarding Jetsun Pema was taken from a Buddhist point of view; it was influenced by political and economical factors. But, as most (if not all) of the present administration would claim to be Buddhist, this ruthless attitude towards the Dalai Lama's sister doesn't come across as particularly compassionate. The thought arises as to what would happen if the Dalai Lama was somehow to make his way to Thailand - would he be arrested as an enemy of Thailand's big pal China? In contrast to 'Buddhist' Thailand, the US recently welcomed the Dalai Lama to the White House, albeit in as hush-hush a manner as was possible, so's not to offend the Chinese dictatorship. Nevertheless, by allowing the Dalai Lama to visit the US at all, the American authorities were surely braver and more highly principled than their Thai counterparts.

As Buddhists, albeit from a different branch than the Dalai Lama and his sister, presumably most Thais would see themselves as having much in common with them, not least shared values based on goodwill, peace, compassion, and wisdom. Where are such values when Jetsun Pema is barred from sharing what happened to her and her homeland? It does appear that modern Thailand holds more in common with a violently repressive regime like the Chinese People's Republic than with the Buddhist-centered Tibetan Government in Exile, its leader, and his sister. (The former advocates and uses lethal force to suppress the Tibetan population, whilst the latter is wholly peaceful in its aims and actions.) So, was Thailand correct to bar Jetsun Pema from the country? And, furthermore, what do you think should be the Buddhist response to a dictatorship like China's? Please leave your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below.

Monkey Mind & Buddha Mind

 Monkey Mind & Buddha Mind become one...

The breath slowly flows in and out, the sounds of birds, neighbors, and a fan fading into a quiet joy that engulfs the mind, thoughts dissolving into nothingness. In this peace, the restless 'monkey mind' has ceased to chatter, and no longer swings from branch to branch, but instead merges into the serene inner forest of the silent mind. Such is the psychological state that meditation can bring, freeing oneself from, well, one's self. It is such experiences of a rested mind that give a glimpse of the fruits of meditation, and show us that beneath the mad monkey mind that leaps about frantically looking for next tasty nut or banana there is the serene simian called 'Buddha Mind.'

Often in meditation, that monkey mind doesn't transform into a peaceable primate, but continues to scurry about, distracting attention. Indeed, it is common for thoughts to appear to increase in intensity during concentrated meditation practice. This is either because whilst in the confines of the practice the monkey mind reacts with increased activity, or because in focused meditation thoughts are 'lit up' and are noticed more than they normally are. Despite these apparent setbacks to cultivating meditative practice, they are in fact signs that the mind is becoming clearer to us, and the answer is not to get caught up in thoughts nor to resist or suppress them, but simply to watch. If we have the patience, and any longtime meditator will tell you of the importance of being patient, thoughts will dissipate by themselves; the mind will cease all its monkey business by itself, and reveal the ever-present Buddha Mind out of which all comes.

Buddha Mind is our real nature, the unconditioned 'Mind' - and words are metaphors here, remember - that lies beneath the conditioned monkey mind that is interdependent with the world with which it interacts. Moreover, the monkey mind, our everyday mind, is conditioned by our genes, our upbringing, our subconscious, our memories, fears and loves - no wonder it dances about so madly if allowed to, for this is its natural response to so many complicated and contradictory conditioning factors. At some point in meditation, however, the mental monkey gives way to Buddha Mind, and this naked awareness is free from the clinging that causes so much suffering in our lives. It is also often called 'No Mind', because it is so different to the usual mind that we identify with, and because it is without particular features, unlike the everyday mind (and universe) that we usually experience.

If this Buddha Mind remains clear of any monkeying around, it can transform the very same everyday lives that are usually so full of stress and strains. To experience this moment as a confined mind with all kinds of pressures and predispositions is to live under the canopy of a threatening forest where the monkey in us can be attacked and injured any moment. Alternatively, to experience this moment as No Mind or Buddha Mind without any pressures and predispositions is to live freely, spontaneously interacting with a world that goes far beyond the limits of the monkey's threatening forest. Firstly, however, it will help the transformation from monkey to Buddha by practicing meditation in order to quieten the chattering of the distracted and distracting monkey, so that when this monkey-infested world is encountered, it is the serenity of the Buddha Mind that experiences it, and not the agitated simian soul that sees everything as a threat.

Any interesting experiences and insights regarding the monkey mind or Buddha Mind? 
If you do, why not share them by clicking on the comments link below?

Buddha & Science: A Buddhist Post-Mortem

 To die or not die, that is the question...

Death is coming! There is no evidence to suggest that anyone who has lived, is living, or will live, will not die: we are all subject to a death sentence awarded us the moment we were conceived. This transient nature of our existence is, of course, a natural one. Although some religious traditions may ascribe our mortality to some ancient event such as 'the fall of man', there is no scientific evidence to back such tales up. Furthermore, all living creatures will eventually die, both fauna and flora. Even the Earth is not eternal, according to scientists, along with the Sun and all the other stars in this universe. Death is coming!

Looking a little more closely at our own human demise, what does science tell us? Well, when someone stops breathing and the heart ceases to beat, that person is a 'goner.' This demise may be caused by natural causes such as illness or aging, but also accidents, war, murder, manslaughter, and suicide are also potential reasons for someone dying. And, after death, the body (if it is still intact) will decompose, eventually ending up as a bunch of crumbling bones. But, where is the mind of the dead human being, according to the boffins? Well, in a word, nowhere. The mind, being the result of complicated processes in the brain, ceases upon death. (Most) in the scientific community declare that it vanishes in an existential 'poof' at the end of life.

Now, in traditional Buddhism, along with the belief systems of many cultures around the world, death is indeed the end of the physical body as scientists claim. (At least for now - some religions such as Christianity do teach of a literal bodily resurrection at some point in the future.) As to the mind, most religions teach that there is an eternal aspect to it called the soul that transcends physical death, whilst in Buddhism we find the more complicated idea that some aspects of the mind continue from birth to birth, but not an intact and eternal soul or mind, as such. Either way, there's a departure here from the modern scientific position that nothing survives death, either physical, mental, or 'spiritual.'

As Twenty-First Century Buddhists, what are we to make of these differences between science and the traditional Buddhist conceptions of death and the afterlife? For, the only afterlife accepted by the modern scientific understanding of the term is in the passing on of our genes, or in making a lasting impact on the people or society with which we have interacted whilst alive. This is very different to Buddhist understandings of this topic, where the rebirth of people's mind-continuum from to life to life is not only believed in, but allegedly documented. (See the reincarnation histories of the Dalai Lamas for examples of the latter.) Moreover, as in most traditional cultures, Buddhism attests to the existence of ghosts and spirits, phenomena that the far mass of Thai Buddhists believe in, for example.

Within Buddhism there is another attitude towards death which takes a much more immediate and, it must be noted, scientific approach, and that is to use our mortality as a subject for meditative reflection. Here, we are not dealing with beliefs or cultural assumptions pertaining to mortality, but in looking death in the eye and seeing what effects this process creates in us. It is a way to not only to come to terms with our own human mortality, but to actually psychologically transcend it, letting go of the fear that normally accompanies such considerations, and 'dying' into the present moment.

What is the focus of this fear that usually infects our contemplation of death? Essentially, it is the fear of losing one's self, that sense and idea of being this particular person in a world of separate individuals. We fear death because we fear the non-existence of the self. But, according to both science and Buddhism - though in slightly different ways, it must be noted - the self is an impermanent collection of elements that will not only eventually dissolve away, but are constantly changing throughout our lives. Both the idea of self and the feeling of being a self are themselves ephemeral processes in the human mind that will one day cease.

Wisely reflecting upon death, with a mind already pacified by meditative practice, can bring about a radical alteration in our understanding of ourselves and in our experience of our lives. When we are able to calmly consider that death is all-inclusive, and that no part of the self will escape its clutches, then we are able to accept death, and live life with the full appreciation that the present moment deserves. Paradoxically, in this acceptance, we are ripe to realize that all that is to die is not my self, anyway, taking us to another level of realization on the Buddhist Path. For, whether we take the scientific view of death, or whether we cling to a particular set of afterlife beliefs, or simply keep an open mind on the subject, as individuals our mortality is a fact, and yet, seeing beyond the ego is seeing beyond death, for there is no one to die! With this insight, our understanding of death is transformed: Death is coming? There's no such thing!

So, what do you make of death? Do you ascribe to a traditional understanding that something in us survives our physical demise? Or, do you take the modern scientific view of death that indicates nothing of our individuality transcends the cessation of our vital signs? And what of the notion that in truth there's no one here to die, anyway, and that if we can realize this fact wholeheartedly, we will have no need to fear that which cannot touch us? Please jot down your thoughts via the comments section below...before it's too late!

Is Buddhism a Religion?

 Are these monks praying, and does it matter?

When filling in a census form, under the section 'Religion', I write 'Buddhism.' This may not, to the general reader, be much of a surprise, considering the fact that I am a Buddhist, and yet, many Buddhists would themselves feel uncomfortable with classifying Buddhism as a religion. Why? Well, if we take a typical dictionary definition of religion, we usually come up with something like the following (taken from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, in this case): 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods/a particular system of faith and worship.' If we examine this description of what religion is, and then compare it to our own understanding of Buddhism, do we find that the former sums up the latter or not?

First of all, is Buddhism 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power?' If we define the law of karma as such, then the 'superhuman controlling power' bit works, albeit loosely. However, look at those two words 'faith' and 'worship' - is Buddhism primarily a form of faith and worship? I've certainly never read of Buddhists having faith in or worshiping karma! However, for many Buddhists around the world, of whatever sect, faith in the Buddha, his disciples, the Teachings, gurus and teachers is an important aspect of Buddhism, expressed in acts of worship. And yet, others - in my opinion a small minority - would balk at the suggestion that they either have faith in the Buddha or worship him, let alone any of the other aforementioned objects of devotion.

This minority does appear to be predominant amongst Western Buddhists, not surprisingly given their rejection of faith-based religions such as Christianity and Judaism, along with the anti-superstitious feeling that the sciences promote in the Occident. In the Orient, where Buddhism has been practiced for the past two-and-a-half thousand years, such rejection of faith and worship is much rarer, although it is widely documented, due to the high-profile academic positions held by many of its proponents. In Japan, for example, the famous writer on Zen Buddhism D. T. Suzuki presented Buddhism as a fusion of spirituality and psychology, whilst his compatriots in the 'Kyoto School' of philosophy, including Nishida Kitaro and Nishitani Keiji, also described Buddhism in rationalistic and scientific ways.

But what of the second part of that Dictionary entry on religion above? It defined 'superhuman controlling power' not as the Buddhist notion of karma, but as 'especially a personal God or gods.' Even if we allow for faith and worship to be considered 'genuine' Buddhist practice, surely neither a god nor gods would be the object of such devotion? Well, again, the way that Amitabha Buddha is viewed and worshiped seems little different to a god, and even in the Pali Canon we find the Buddha acknowledging the existence, and sometimes the contemplation, of gods (although not the adoration of them). Again, modern-minded Buddhists might interpret the various non-historical buddhas, bodhisattvas, gods, and spirits described in traditional Buddhist circles in mythological or psychological ways, but for most Buddhists such beings are believed in literally, making their experience of Buddhism very much a religion, not a philosophy or 'way of life.'

In the last part of the dictionary definition of religion cited above, we find 'a particular system of faith and worship.' We've already examined the use of the words 'faith' and 'worship' in relation to Buddhism, but what of the idea of it being a system? Well, this would appear to fit in with the philosophy and practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, with a fair definition of it as 'a system of spiritual/psychological liberation.' This would appear to offend few modern-minded Buddhists, but doesn't really begin to acknowledge the other more religious beliefs and practices found within Buddhist communities. We seem split between very different interpretations of what Buddhism is, all rooted in long-established scriptures and traditions, but diverging dramatically when present practices are examined.

So, is Buddhism a religion? Or, is it a 'system of liberation from suffering', or a complex set of philosophies, or a set of cultural practices? Maybe it's all of the above, and more. Perhaps this is the beauty of Buddhism, that we can experience it in the way that suits us best, depending on cultural, individual, and temporal conditions. The Buddha is seen to teach different 'levels' of Buddhism to different people in both the Theravada and Mahayana scriptures, and within the living traditions of both major branches of Buddhism we find multiple forms of belief and practice. It is the conclusion of this writer - for the time being at least, for all things are impermanent - that Buddhism can be described as a religion, with some reservations regarding theistic terminology, as well as a branch of philosophy, and, most crucially, a way of life intended to end suffering. What do you think, dear reader?