As Zen Buddhist priest and best selling author Steven Hagen writes in Buddhism Is Not What You Think, at the entrance to many Buddhist temples in Japan are the guardians of the truth, Paradox and Confusion. They are so placed because it is well understood that along the path you will encounter these two.
The learning of Buddhism does not proceed down a purely rational path. Parts of it are highly rational to be sure, but it is not entirely so. This is most obviously seen given the emphasis placed on the fact that enlightenment can only be grasped through experience, through “no-mind”. Reason is required for a part of the journey however it must be abandoned at some point to complete the journey.
Also it does not proceed in a linear manner but rather an iterative manner. Let’s call it “Learning To See The Elephant.” We are all familiar with the blindfolded men and the elephant story. Each feels a different part and so describes an elephant differently. From their individual perspectives, until they have had a chance to thoroughly examine the entire elephant, they cannot possibly know what an elephant actually looks like. Meanwhile, as they proceed from one part to another, their idea of “elephant” is constantly being revised.
Learning Buddhism is like this. Instead of an elephant, we must learn the nature of Eight Fold Path. At each step along the path, there will be times when it does not seem to make sense, just as an animal being a large flat sheet (elephant’s ear) does not make sense. Also there will be times when the blindfolded man at one end of the elephant will not agree with description of the elephant coming from the blindfolded man at the other end.
We can examine the entire elephant but we will still not fully understand until our blindfolds are removed and we “see”. Only with this “insight”, this knowing that is beyond thinking or words, do we truly come to understand just what an elephant is.
Thus we study the Eight Fold Path. Right View points the way, then we journey along the remaining seven steps and with each step our blindfold loosens until it falls away and – we see! And when we see we arrive back at Right View. Only this time instead of it being a direction it is a deep understanding. We no longer seek Right View but have Right View. Now we set out on the path again but this time with a different agenda. We are no longer seekers but lovers, happy to explore the territory again and again.
Let’s consider another reason Buddhism cannot be learned simply as a mental exercise.
In the beginning of the twentieth century, the answer to all of the following physics questions was “No”.
- Can an object exist as a particle and a wave at the same time?
- Can an object move from one place to another without any time involved?
- Can a object’s twin exhibit identical changes at the same time regardless of the distance between them?
- Can an object change its behavior or properties depending on whether it is being observed or not?
This “no” response was based on the “rigid frame” model of the physical universe, the clockwork reality of Newton and Copernicus.
Yet by the end of the twentieth century the answer to all of these questions is “Yes.” The difference is that the model of the universe as a “rigid frame” was demolished by Quantum Theory, a model of the universe as a field of potentials where the properties and behaviors of objects depend on conditions.
Richard Feynman, one of the leading researchers of Quantum Theory stated, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” The physicists knew they were involved in a process of discovery. They knew that they had to let go of the rigid frame mindset forever or they would never be able to understand what they were seeing.
Similarly, if you try to learn Buddhism with a purely Western philosophical mindset, you are using the same rigid frame approach as the physicists. You will never actually get to practicing Buddhism but instead you will forever be stuck niggling over details like two blindfolded men. A determination to fit Buddhism into a rigid frame is really a function of the ego as it finds yet another way to remain in control.
Buddhism is both an art and a science. It is therefore best learned from a perspective of a middle way, through a process of practice, discovery and experience in addition to study and reflection, without attachment to either. One must return to Shunryu Suzuki’s “Beginners Mind,” proceeding then like an archeologist, unearthing a vast city long forgotten in the jungle as it slowly reveals its marvels and majesty.
No matter how scholarly your approach to Buddhism may be, there is ultimately no final authority outside your own heart for the simple reason that the Buddha’s original words were never written down. It was 500 years after his death before his teachings were written down. To put that in perspective, consider how long ago the year 1510 was.
The teachings were originally written in Pali, Sanskrit and Prakrit. Yet according to Thich Nhat Hanh in The Heart Of Buddha’s Teaching, the Buddha spoke none of these languages but instead a local dialect called Magadhi or Ardhamagadhi.
These writings were in turn translated to English and it was not always possible to find equivalent English words. The English version of the Four Noble Truths states, “The cause of suffering is desire” yet in many other sutras The Buddha states that we should desire to be good students of the dharma and good parents, employers or governors.
In his day it is likely he would have used different words to clarify the different meanings. So when we read, “The cause of suffering is desire” we must remind ourselves that Buddha’s original choice of words would have reflected the subtle meanings of his own language, culture and time.
Thus we cannot simply accept the written teachings literally but must use the Buddhist practices of loving-kindness, compassion, mindfulness and meditation to come to understand.
For all these reasons and more, there is no final authority on the Buddha’s teachings but what we have does provide us with a sufficient map. However only our own hearts journey through the real territory will enable us to finally arrive, to ride that elephant through the gates guarded by paradox and confusion, into the marvelous and majestic city of Nirvana.
Photo Credits
“Cosmic Buddha” By Jody Brusca – All Rights Reserved
“Elephant” Wikipedia
Recent Rick Bateman Articles:
- Buddhism and Ayn Rand
- Longing for Certainty
- Buddhism And The Romantic Poet
- Buddhism and the Dragons Of Eden
- My Buddhist Practice Meets the Specter of Death by Cancer
So it is paradox, and I thought you said “pair of ducks”. I am glad we got that straightened out. Man, was I confused!
If something is not rational then it must be irrational, there is no other option, would you not agree? You say: “The learning of Buddhism does not proceed down a purely rational path.” Now, what is the source of this particular bit of wisdom? From the very book that you reference, Buddhism is Not What You Think: “The Buddha was not interested in theology or cosmology. ———. His primary concerns were psychological, moral, and highly practical ones: How can we see the world as it comes to be in each moment rather than as what we think, hope, or fear it is? How can we base our actions on Reality rather than on the longing and loathing of our hearts and minds? How can we live lives that are wise, compassionate, and in tune with Reality? What is the experience of being awake?” The Buddhists texts that I am familiar with are replete with notions such as analytic discernment, critical thinking, investigative reasoning, etc. The Buddhist epistemologist, the great Dharmakirti said something along the lines that all successful human endeavor is preceded by valid knowledge. Clearly, to my mind anyway, there is nothing in Buddhist philosophy that is irrational, so how can the “learning” of Buddhism proceed down an irrational path? I suppose you could try and “learn” Buddhism from the Pope or someone else who does not know the first thing about Buddhist philosophy. That would be irrational! The reasonable person would rather choose as a teacher one of those guys in the ochre robes with the shaved heads, would you not think? Now, I for one have never come across any of these people advocating the abandonment of reason as you seem to be doing. You should perhaps reread your Nagarjuna? If there is a lama, sage or Buddhist scholar that advocates the abandonment of reason, I would like to know who that might be. New Age gurus don’t count.
To belabor the point, Buddhists do advocate that a person must acquire an intellectual understanding of the teachings on ultimate Reality prior to gaining a direct and non-conceptual realization of the nature of this Reality. Nowhere do they say that reason must be abandoned. Accordingly, there are three categories of wisdom: 1) wisdom arising from hearing which include reading, listening to lectures, and study with a teacher. 2) wisdom arrived at by thinking, this would include a careful and systematic investigation of a particular subject while meditating. 3) wisdom arising from a deep level of concentration during insight meditation or vipasyana. It is significant that you cannot proceed to step three until you have mastered steps one and two. Sounds (reason)able to me!
I would argue that all the misery in this world is not because of too much reason, rationality, and thinking but because there is not enough of it. By the judicious use of reason and rational thinking one can easily demolish the the world views of racists, misogynists, war mongers, and climate change deniers to say nothing of the views held by Stephan Harper and the Conservative party of Canada.
What is this “no-mind”; it would have been helpful had you given us some kind of an explanation. Some time ago I had the opportunity to visit an extended care facility. What I saw there were people sitting in their wheelchairs, drool running down their chins while staring at a blank wall. An example of “no-mind”? Clearly, no reason or rationality there. I do not think that I was looking at any type of enlightenment, rather they were in a mind state that we would not wish on anyone, would you not agree?
What is this “rigid frame model of the physical universe”? If there was such a thing, it would be going back to the ideas of Ptolemy, ideas which were pretty well demolished by Copernicus, no need for quantum theory. And then there is poor old Newton and his “clockwork” reality”; perhaps you do not realize but we still use his ideas to build skyscrapers and send rockets to the moon. No need for quantum theory in these endeavors either!
What does quantum theory have to do with Buddhism? It sounds impressive; oooh, quantum theory, this guy must be smart, everyone should be impressed! You make reference to Richard Feynman as saying that nobody understands quantum mechanics; so I say, why bring it up? You don’t understand it, I don’t understand it; why bother even bringing it up?
Now, what is a “western philosophical mindset”? Presumably there is an eastern philosophical mindset and maybe even a northern and southern one as well. What characterizes one from the other? An elaboration on your part would have been helpful, to me anyway.
You are talking about Buddhism, “——–there is ultimately no final authority outside your own heart for the simple reason that the Buddha’s original words were never written down.” Now, is there not just the slightest danger that we are going to end up with everyone’s own private version of Buddhism? I think the Buddha would be turning over in his grave about now had he not been cremated. What would have been the point of him teaching if everyone was just going to go on his own merry way? The Buddha did say that we were all delusional; given that, I think we should be at least a little bit wary about following our “own heart”, would you not think?
I suspect that you might be referring to the Buddha’s admonition not to accept what he teaches on faith alone but to test those teachings in our own experiences of the world. This of course requires reason and rationality; nothing to do with the preferences or biases that we have in our “own hearts” and minds. Even though nothing was written down for nearly 500 years, I for one think that even if the Buddha’s original words have not come down to us, his ideas have! In the final analysis, it is the Dharma that provides the reference point for that which we call Buddhism and not our”own heart”.
“—–the Buddha spoke none of these languages (Pali, Sanskrit, and Pakrit)”. Given that Siddhartha Gautama was being groomed to be the future ruler of the Shakya kingdom, he would have received the best education available at that time which would have involved the learning of other languages, especially Sanskrit, I would think. After becoming the Buddha this would have stood him in good stead when arguing with scholars and Bhramins. When talking to common people he would have used whatever local dialect was appropriate. That’s my take on it anyway.
“The cause of suffering is desire.” I think you are using a lousy translation, more properly: The cause of suffering is craving and attachment which according to Tsongkhapa are to be regarded as derivative of the most fundamental mental affliction; ignorance. So the cause of suffering really boils down to ignorance. Kind of screws up your argument does it not?
In which of the sutras does the Buddha say “that we should desire to be good students of the Dharma and good parents , employees or governors”? I would think that he would have admonished us to be good students etc., not merely desire to be.
You say that “—–we cannot simply accept the written teachings literally—–“. No one has ever advocated that we should. The four reliances give us a set of criteria to use when we study: 1) Rely on the dharma, not the person. 2) Rely on the meaning, not on the letter. 3) Rely on the definitive meaning, not the provisional meaning. 4) Rely on knowledge, not on consciousness.
Finally, I am rather dubious about referring to Nirvana as a place, especially as a “marvelous and majestic city”. Is this anything like the Christian idea of the New Jerusalem, a cube 2200km on each side, suspended in the heavens, the streets paved with gold. I thought that what you advocated was a “secular” Buddhism and now you lapse into New Age mumbo jumbo, majestic city indeed?
Ahmed
Your reference regarding Buddhism as an art and a science strikes a chord with me.
Being a creative seeker who dabbles in painting photography and several other arts , I find that I approach much of life in an artistic manner.
The concept of, less is more, has resonated with me with increasing clarity recently, both in my photography and lifestyle, and your statement suggests to me that the Dharma can be approached as an art form. I find that the Buddhist path is filled with subtleties, and delicate strokes of wisdom, not unlike fine art.
Thank you Christoph. This thread needed that humanistic diversion.