Layer 17 No Magic, No Mystery. The Dalai Lama

Shakespeare’s birthday. St George’s Day. To be or not to be. Killing a dragon?

This blog consists of more quotations from the Dalai Lama. Sub-headings are my own.

Chapter Two. A Spiritual Revolution.

This is not about religions.

In calling for a spiritual revolution am I advocating a religious solution to our problems? No.

I have realised that there are other faiths and other cultures that are no less capable than mine of enabling people to lead constructive and satisfying lives. What is more I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being.

The influence of religion on people’s lives is generally marginal, especially in the developed world. No single religion satisfies all humanity. We may also conclude that we humans can live quite well without recourse to religious faith.

As a human being I have a responsibility towards the whole human family, which indeed we all have. Since the majority do not practice religion I am concerned to try to find a way to serve all humanity without appealing to religious faith.

Religions are all directed towards helping human beings achieve lasting happiness. And each of them is, in my opinion, capable of facilitating this. Under such circumstances a variety of religions (each of which promotes the same basic values) is both desirable and useful.

My concern in this book is to try to reach beyond the formal boundaries of my faith. I want to show that there are some universal ethical principles which could help everyone achieve the happiness we all aspire to.

Religion versus spirituality.

I believe there is an important distinction to be made between religion and spirituality.

Religion I take to be concerned with faith in the claims to salvation of one faith tradition or another, an aspect of which is acceptance of some form of metaphysical or supernatural reality, including perhaps the idea of some form of heaven or nirvana. Connected with this are religious teachings or dogma, rituals, prayer and so on.

Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit - such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony - which bring happiness to both self and others.

While ritual and prayer, along with the questions of nirvana and salvation, are directly connected with religious faith, these inner qualities need not be, however. There is no reason why an individual should not develop them, even to a high degree, without recourse to any religious or metaphysical belief system. This is why I sometimes say that religion is perhaps something we can do without. What we cannot do without are these basic spiritual qualities.

Concern for other’s well-being.

There is much confusion, as often among religious believers as among non-believers, concerning what spiritual practice actually consists in. The unifying characteristics of the qualities I have described as ‘spiritual’, may be said to be some level of concern for others’ well-being. In Tibetan we speak of shen-pen kyi-sem, meaning ‘the thought to be of help to others’. And when we think about them, we see that each of the qualities noted is defined by an implicit concern for the well-being of others.

Moreover, the one who is compassionate, loving, patient, tolerant, forgiving, and so on to some extent recognises the potential impact of their actions on others and orders their conduct accordingly. Thus spiritual practice involves acting out of concern for others’ well-being.

It also entails transforming ourselves so that we become more readily disposed to do so. To speak of spiritual practice in any terms other than these is meaningless.

My call for a spiritual revolution is therefore not a call for a religious revolution. Nor is it a reference to a way of life that is somehow otherworldly, still less to something magical or mysterious. Rather, it is a call for a radical reorientation away from our habitual preoccupation with self. It is a call for a turn toward the wider community of human beings with whom we are connected, and for conduct which recognises others’ interests alongside our own.

Some may object that a revolution of spirit is hardly adequate to solve the variety and magnitude of problems we face in the modern world. However, given that each problem could certainly be solved by people being more loving and compassionate toward one another - however improbable this may seem - they can also be characterised as spiritual problems susceptible to a spiritual solution.

This is not to say that all we need do is cultivate spiritual values and these problems will automatically disappear. On the contrary, each of them needs a specific solution. But we find that when this spiritual dimension is neglected, we have no hope of achieving a lasting solution.

Bad news is a fact of life. Events can be divided into two broad categories: those which have principally natural causes - earthquakes, droughts, floods and the like - and those which are of human origin. Wars, crime, violence of every sort, corruption, poverty, deception, fraud, social, political and economic injustice are each the consequence of negative human behaviour.

And who is responsible for such behaviour? We are. There is not a single class or sector of society that does not contribute to our daily diet of unhappy news. Fortunately, unlike natural disasters, about which we can do little or nothing, these human problems can be overcome because they are all essentially ethical problems.

Where ethical restraint is lacking, there can be no hope of overcoming problems like those of rising crime. What then is the relationship between spirituality and ethical practice? Since love, compassion, etc, by definition presume some level of concern for others’ well-being, they also presume ethical restraint. We cannot be loving and compassionate unless at the same time we curb our own harmful impulses and desires.

Religious belief is no guarantee of moral integrity. Looking at the history of our species, we see that among the major troublemakers - those who visited violence, brutality and destruction on their fellow human beings - there have been many who professed religious faith, often loudly. Religion can help us establish basic ethical principles. Yet we can still talk about ethics and morality without having recourse to religion.

We must be able to show that violence towards others is wrong. And yet we must find some way of doing so which avoids the extremes of crude absolutism on the one hand, and of trivial relativism on the other. Ordinary common sense should tell us that establishing binding ethical principles is possible when we take as our starting point the observation that we all desire happiness and wish to avoid suffering. We have no means of discriminating between right and wrong if we do not take into account others’ feelings, others’ suffering.

One of the things which determines whether an act is ethical or not is its effect on others’ experience or expectation of happiness. An act which harms or does violence to this is potentially an unethical act.

Emotions and motivation.

When an individual’s overall state of heart and mind is wholesome, it follows that our actions themselves will be (ethically) wholesome.

The individual’s overall state of heart and mind (or motivation) in the moment of action is the key to determining its ethical content, and this point is easily understood when we consider how our actions are affected when we are gripped with powerful negative thoughts and emotions such as hatred and anger. In that moment our mind and heart are in turmoil.

Not only does this cause us to lose our sense (!) of proportion and perspective, but we also lose sight of the likely impact of our actions on others. Indeed, we can become so distracted that we ignore the question of others, and of their right to happiness, altogether. Our actions under such circumstances - that is to say our deeds, words, thoughts, omissions and desires - will almost certainly be injurious to others’ happiness. And this in spite of what our long-term intentions towards others may be or whether our actions are consciously intended or not. The less calm we are, the more likely we are to react negatively with harsh words, and the more certain we are to say or do things which later we regret bitterly, especially if we feel deeply for that person.

When the driving force for our actions is wholesome, our actions will tend automatically to contribute to others’ well-being. They will thus automatically be ethical. Further, the more this is our habitual state, the less likely we are to react badly when provoked. And even when we do lose our temper, any outburst will be free of any sense of malice or hatred. The aim of spiritual and, therefore, ethical practice is thus to transform and perfect the individual’s kun long [spirit, disposition, motivation]. This is how we become better human beings. [Spiritual intelligence]

I trust that I have made it clear that a spiritual revolution entails an ethical revolution.

Layer 14 Zen Buddhism - Breaking The Chain

.
More quotations from Christmas Humphries.

Zen is the apotheosis of Buddhism. This direct assault upon the citadel of Truth, without reliance upon concepts (of God or soul or salvation), or the use of scripture, ritual or vow, is unique.

So fierce, indeed, is the Zen technique, and so scornful of the usual apparatus of religion, that it has been doubted whether Zen is a Buddhist School at all. The task in hand is the breaking down of the bars of the intellect that the mind may be freed for the light of Enlightenment.

In Zen the familiar props of religion are cast away. The purpose of Zen is to pass beyond the intellect. The intellect has its uses and it is an essential faculty of the human mind. But just as the emotions have their use and abuse, their range of usefulness and a limit to that range, so the intellect, by which men reach to the stars in science and philosophy, must pause and fail at the gates of spiritual knowledge. For the intellect can learn about it but can never, as the finest intellects discover, KNOW.

What KNOWS? The answer is Buddhi, the faculty of direct awareness [intuition, metaphysical or spiritual intelligence]. The intellect is itself a device or means, and Zen is the way of direct enlightenment. All must be freely abandoned before the seeker finds. Even the fact of seeking, and the will to find.

Bodhidharma, known as Daruma in Japan, expressed his teaching in four lines of verse:

A special transmission outside the Scriptures;
No dependence on words and letters;
Direct pointing to the soul of man;
Seeing into one’s own nature.

First the intellect must be transcended - for it is where the intellect pauses, baffled and at bay, that Zen begins. The intellect is a developed instrument for the use of knowledge, but only the senses and the intuition acquire knowledge at first hand. The thought-machine, therefore, too easily becomes a cage, a workshop for the handling of second-hand material.

Just as the senses acquire direct experience by touch and taste and the like [what I would call feelings], so Buddhi, intuition, acquires direct experience [often through those ‘feelings’ - often through feeling awe and wonder in response to sensory stimulus] and KNOWS.

In the ideal process of development, this higher faculty [Buddhi] increasingly illumines the thinking mind; in usual practice the intellect claims a final validity and closes its doors to direct experience. Hence Zen is largely a breaking into the closed doors of the human mind to let the light without flood in, and any and every process that will shock the mind into such an opening is useful and may be used.

Zen has produced its own techniques for the sudden path to Satori, the Zen name for Enlightenment. The two most famous devices of Rinzai Zen (less used in the Soto branch) are the MONDO, a form of rapid question and answer between Master and pupil, and the KOAN, a compressed form of mondo - a question, word or phrase that is insoluble by or unintelligible to the intellect. [e.g. What’s the sound of one hand clapping? Most of the questions we ask ourselves are pretty stupid. ‘Why am I here?’ Duh! ‘What is God?’]

‘How shall I escape from the wheel of birth and death?’ asked a pupil? The Master asked in reply, ‘Who puts you under restraint?’ A laugh, an oath, a shout, a shaking, even a blow may do what years of ‘meditation’ have failed to achieve.

Asked why he meditated all day long, a pupil replied that he desired to become a Buddha. The Master picked up a brick and began to rub it. Asked what he was doing he explained that he wished to make a mirror. ‘But no amount of polishing will make a mirror!’ ‘If so, no amount of sitting cross-legged will make thee a Buddha’, was the deep reply.

[Mondos and Koans tend to produce dialogue or interactions that appear to be basically nonsense - that is non-sense - which is the essence of Zen. Intuition and direct experience - metaphysical intelligence - are ways of directly KNOWING that don’t require mediation by ‘sense’ - meaning intellectual or verbal or conceptual or analytical means.]

Sense is the product of reasoning and logic, of the laws of thought; Zen roars with laughter at all of them. Zen is the joke in a joke, and cannot, like a joke, be ‘explained’. It is the life within the form; it is that which reasoning tries to enshrine and frequently strangles. It is the river of life that cares not for the palaces of thought, the dictionaries and definitions, the understanding or the decisions of those upon its banks.

Zen technique, therefore, is like an explosive, designed to break the log-jam in the river, to let the waters flow freely, and all who flow with them ride free.

Theravada Buddhist philosophy is all arranged in three of this and four of that with a twelve-fold Chain of Causation. Very neat, says the Zen practitioner, but as Dr Suzuki says, ‘The Buddha was not the mere discoverer of the Twelvefold Chain of Causation: he took the chain in his hands and broke it into pieces, so that it would never again bind him to slavery’. In Zen the emphasis is on the breaking and not on the chain.

All objects, of thought or emotion, whether things we touch or the things that stand in our mental way, must sooner or later be smashed and removed. As the Master Rinzai himself proclaimed, ‘Do not get yourself entangled with any object, but stand above, pass on, and be free’. All phrases, dogmas, formulas; all schools and codes; all systems of thought and philosophy, all ‘isms’ including Buddhism, all these are means to the end of KNOWING, and easily become [though are not easily perceived as] obstacles in the way.

Zen technique is designed to develop the mind to the limits of thought and then to drive it to the verge of the precipice, where thought can go no further. Why not go over? For only then can WE go on, and progress is a walking on and on to the Goal.

It is true that at a later stage one learns that there is no walking and no Goal, but that is Zen . . . . Meanwhile, until we achieve the goal of purposelessness, let us have this purpose: Said the Master Ummon to his monks, ‘If you walk, just walk; if you sit, just sit. But don’t wobble!’

[The Zen attitude is that we need to focus in the Now, and give our full attention to whatever we are doing, so as to do it, whatever it is, properly. The assumption is that we only choose to do the things in life that are important and necessary to us at a given time, and we should cease to endlessly worry about things we’ve done in the past, or may do in the future. ‘By our actions you shall know us’, and we should ensure that our actions are proper and good, even if they are only walking or sitting. We can’t change the past, we can’t control the future, but we can be mindful of ourselves from moment to moment, and ensure that our lives are well lived in the present.]