The Power of an Open Question: A Book Review.

Recently I was sent a copy of Elizabeth Mattis-Namgyel's book, "The Power of an Open Question: The Buddha's Path to Freedom" by Shambhala Publications. I must be honest and say that this book probably won't make it onto my Buddhist "classics" bookshelf but I did enjoy parts of her work.

I enjoyed the section of the book about suffering and "fixing" things. In our deluded states of mind we sometimes think we can "fix" all the worlds problems but as Buddha teaches, "suffering is inevitable." This can often lead people down one of two paths: 1). Become frustrated with the ever suffering world, disconnect from it and live a solitary existence. Or, 2). Acknowledge that no one can end all the suffering in the world but do things that reduce suffering.

In this regard Mattis-Namgyel recounts a story about a lady who devotes much of her time reducing the suffering of animals. One of her projects was to redesign stockyard and slaughterhouse facilities that reduce fear and stress in cattle. In reaction to this a radio interviewer asked her, "Why bother creating more humane conditions for animals that are about to be slaughtered anyway?" Her wise and compassionate response was, "Why else, but to reduce their suffering?"

Overall, I found the book to be a bit too elementary for my liking. That, however, doesn't mean I think it's a terrible book; because it does have some good insights. I simply think it is a book best suited for those new to Buddhism who are looking for a very basic over-view of the teachings. Although, I must say that if you're looking for a good over-view of the core basics of Buddhism I would point you in the direction of, "The Heart of the Buddhas Teachings: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy and Happiness."

~Peace to all beings~

In Defense of the Kalama Sutra.

My writings lately on the Kalama Sutra being a Buddhist version of the "scientific method" have sparked a discussion about its essence. Found here. And, so, I decided to make a new post using my comments addressing the points of the readers Dylan and Jayavara. Dylan mentioned a discourse of the Kalama Sutra by the Theravadan monk Bhikkhu Bodhi. I won't speculate on Dylan's intentions in posting that link but I do disagree slightly with the Bhikkhu's analysis on the sutra. I want to make it clear that I'm not ascribing any of the following Bhikkhu Bodhi comments as being the same of Dylan. In the discourse, the Bhikkhu seems to reject the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a guide for knowing when a teaching of Buddha's is helpful. Bhikkhu Bodhi said:

Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

James: I am not saying in my post that Buddhists should dispense with all faith and doctrine because of this sutra. I think you should be balanced with both faith and reason. As for this sutra being specifically for the Kalama people and not applying to actual Buddhists; I would disagree because many who first read the sutra are already Buddhist practitioners. Additionally, to say that certain sutras are only for Buddhists and others for non-Buddhists is a form of dividing people and denying the oneness of all beings that Buddha taught. All of us can learn from the sutras whether we are full blown, card carrying, Buddhist or just investigating Buddhism. To say some teachings are just for Buddhists seems somewhat elitist. All of us come to Buddha to dispel our doubts and answer our questions of life. Not just Kalamas. To suggest otherwise is to say that Buddhists don't need to dispel doubts or answer questions. It seems to suggest that Buddhists already have it all figured out, which clearly isn't true.

Bhikkhu Bodhi goes on to say: Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them.

James: Here the Bhikkhu seems to be saying that the four noble truths are only for Buddhists. How then do you teach someone about Buddhism (as the 4 noble truths are apart of the very foundation of Buddhism) without mentioning the four noble truths? The idea that Buddha would categorize those seeking his wisdom doesn't jive with my own experience and with other teachings of his in other sutras. And I gain that insight from using the admonitions in the Kalama sutra to use (in-part) one's own experiences and observations as a guide. Not the only guide but a necessary tool to help figure out what makes causes less harm and what doesn't. Then Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to contradict himself and agree with the line of thinking that I was expounding upon.

Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening.

James: Here he seems to be backing up the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a "control" to assess further the core of Buddha's wisdom and enlightenment. He calls it an "acid test" (which is a scientific test). Just like the idea of it being a form of the "scientific method." In the end, you have to make up your own mind about this sutra by putting it to the test. Like all of the Buddha's teachings in the Sutras. While I do put a lot of weight behind the Kalama Sutra I also advocate (as the Bhikkhu does) cultivating faith and adhering to doctrine that one finds helpful. I don't agree that the Kalama Sutra only applies to non-Buddhists. If it's not a sutra that Buddhist practitioners should listen to then why is it in the "sanctioned" Pali Canon?

Then, my friend Jayavara said the following when addressing my last post: I think we are in danger of over cooking the (so-called) Kālāma Sutta. Yes, it is a charter for an empirical approach, but to what?. But there are quite a number of limitations on this approach. The Buddha seems to be only talking about the moral sphere in that discourse. He is telling the Kālāmas that they should decide what is ethical on the basis of what they know to be good. There was then, as now in our societies, some doubt as to the basis of morality. Specifically moralities based on ideas of karma and rebirth of which there were a number of variations at the time.

This can be seen in the varied ways that karma is talked about in the Pāli texts themselves, and in texts which are likely to date from near that time like the early Upaniṣads, particularly the Bṛhadāranyaka. The Buddha was suggesting natural morality to the Kālāmas - i.e. that they don't go on ideology, but on "what they know to be right". But I don't think he goes beyond this into the sphere of meditation or wisdom and there we cannot use it as a measure for judging any teachings per se, but only for judging the suitability our own actions. Because of the subjective nature of Buddhist morality - it's all about what's going on your mind when you act - it makes applying the scientific method quite difficult. Science is all about repeatability and on the level of individual actions, none is ever repeatable.

So we tend to look in hindsight, and to try to assess actions collectively. At best it gives us broad brush strokes like: "refrain from acting when angry otherwise you will cause harm, or at least unhappiness." This is indeed the kind of truism that 'social scientists' come up with after years of research, which make us wonder why we fund such 'science'. I've trained in both disciplines - Science (I have a B.Sc in chemistry) and Buddhism. I do find some cross fertilisation. But it's more a spirit of enquiry and observation, than a full blown application of scientific method. And since it is all very subjective, all about knowing my own mental states, the scientific method has little to get a purchase on. In short there is nothing to measure. Learning from experience is not necessarily the scientific method - everyone does it. The only way to know if a teaching 'works' is to try it out for yourself.

James: Just because Buddha is mainly speaking to the Kalamas about karma and rebirth doesn't mean that the wisdom can't be applied to other teachings that one is doubting or investigating. For example, the heart sutra applies to many situations. As does the Diamond sutra and others. I think compartmentalizing his teachings as addressing only the people he is directly speaking to in a particular sutra; and about only that specific situation presented, is limiting the impact of the Dharma. We are limiting the Buddha's scope. Faith also requires us to have faith in ourselves that we can adapt Buddha's teachings to guide us in all situations. Otherwise, none of us should be following ANY of the sutras because they were all spoke to people that are long dead. So how can any of the sutras apply to us if we are to only look at them in the context of who he was historically addressing?

To teach otherwise seems to be focusing more on protecting a particular tradition or dogma than encouraging direct experience based on the faith in Buddha as a wise teacher. As we know, there are many varied schools of Buddhism. So, if it's possible to have such diverse styles of practicing the Dharma then surely it's possible to interpret the sutras several ways. And apply them to several time periods and situations. It feels like limiting the scope of Buddha's wisdom. I would only somewhat disagree with you that all actions aren't repeatable. If Buddha is specifically saying in the Kalama Sutra that testing his teachings will help you realize whether they help cause less harm or not then I think testing them to see if greed (for example) causes harm is pretty repeatable. As millions throughout varied ages have discovered the same reality that greed is harmful using the directions from Buddha to not accept anything that causes you harm.

I don't mean to say that the advice in the Kalama Sutra is EXACTLY like the scientific method. But that there are similarities, which would seem to be beneficial in understanding the wisdom of the Dharma to the modern mind that is so influenced by science. I agree that the only way to know if a teaching works is to try it. Just like the only way to know if a scientific hypothesis is right is to try it in a test. That's why I compared such advice to the scientific method. Again, they aren't exactly the same but both provide a way to test ideas based on direct, concrete actions. I also don't suggest that we should only follow our direct experience and intuition. Of course, faith and trust in our teachers is important as well.

~Peace to all beings~

PHOTO CREDIT: Students in the Emory Tibet Science Initiative take turns, looking through a microscope. Emory University.

Having the Kalama Sutra as a Foundation.

My last post mentioned the Kalama Sutra and a discussion in the comment section had me analyzing this fundamental sutra further. Doug commented how the Kalama Sutra hit him like a bolt and is aiding him in gaining a deeper, and wider awareness of the Dharma.

I have mentioned here before that I have been (and still am) deeply influenced by science. I don't agree with some Buddhists who say the Dharma and science have nothing in common, or shouldn't in fact interact. I think the Kalama Sutra teaches otherwise. That is because it is an early form of the scientific method. It's similar in my mind to a, "scientific control" which allows one to access a particular process (Dharma practice) without too much bias from other influences. In Buddhist practice we're talking about such biases as our ego, an overly controlling teacher or peer pressure.

The Kalama Sutra gives us a framework to judge teachings by to see if they work. Including all the other sutras. In my opinion, it is the jumping off point for continued analysis of the other sutras. Others encourage starting from the Heart Sutra or the Diamond Sutra. I adore the Heart Sutra, and the others but I find that understanding the Kalama Sutra first to be a great help in understanding the others. But I digress. Do the teachings help me and the people around me suffer less? Do they help bring happiness and peace into life? The Buddha is advising us to test his teachings and those of all teachers that come after him because otherwise we are simply parroting someone else. It doesn't end suffering to simply be able to parrot someone else and recite all the teachings ever written or committed to memory. That's simple obedience and memorization. That takes you nowhere but back into the arms of the ego.

We have to experience it for ourselves. We have to let our minds marinate in their essence and observe how they affect our daily lives and interactions. If the teachings help us be nicer, happier and much more peaceful people; and if they help us suffer less than we know that what has been taught to us is beneficial and worth continuing to learn from. If, however, a teacher makes us feel worse about ourselves or contradicts our direct experience on the matter then you can know that the teacher is leading you astray.

The Buddha didn't want people to follow him or worship him but rather he wanted his fellow siblings (us) to experience the peace and relief from suffering that he experienced. Thus, because of this humble sharing of a sincere person he shows us that he is not Buddha because of some desire for self-aggrandizement or other stroking of the ego. Encouraging people to test his teachings and those who claim to follow in his tradition is the exact opposite of the blind obedience that some religious traditions engender. Where others want to tell you what to think, (and what to ignore) Buddha invites us to follow his map and see for ourselves if it leads anywhere beneficial. It's in our own hands and any teacher who won't encourage or allow for direct experience in their teachings is not one who would seem to fully understand the Buddha's invitation.

~Peace to all beings~

Guessed it in Our Imaginations. REPOST.

James: I've been reading the excellent blog, "Genkaku Again" for awhile now and always come away from reading his posts with a view of something that I hadn't noticed before. For example, I've often wondered about the authenticity of the canon's claiming to be the words of Buddha but I eventually realized that it's more important if the teachings work than who actually said them. So, when I read this post about the literal nature of Buddhist writings and teachings over at Genkaku's blog--I was riveted:

On a BBC Buddhist bulletin board, in a thread asking "what was the source of Buddha's wisdom?" one fellow, who describes himself as a "peaceful Muslim" posted this:

Do we have anything written by the Buddha himself; or you have guessed it simply in your imagination?

I purely love the question because I purely love the answer that I come up with, i.e., yes, we have simply guessed it in our imaginations. Of course there is nothing written by Gautama Buddha himself any more than there is anything written by Jesus himself or, for all I know, Mohammad himself. Everything was written after the fact, usually out of a strong oral tradition, by disciples and friends and adherents. So it's all second hand at best. And even those who get the word straight from the horse's mouth -- who heard some exalted poo-bah uttering one pearl or another ... STILL we "guessed it" in our imaginations. And so it goes in all spiritual endeavor. Anything called "authentic" is not yet authentic because the one hearing it has not yet put it to the test.

I think this small bit of information should be mandatory in all classes or temples purporting to disseminate so-called religion: The teaching may be very fine indeed, the pointers may be very fine indeed, the wisdom may be very fine indeed ... but it's all second-hand stuff in a world where people yearn to live authentic and peaceful lives ... you know, living first-hand, so to speak.

Calling teachings second-hand stuff is not an insult. It is just an observation. Second-hand stuff can have wonderful pointers and directions. But it needs to be admitted that, yes, we guessed it in our imaginations ... right up until we put it to the test. No more second-hand lifestyle! Guessed it in our imaginations ... I love that.

James: This reminds me of the Kalama Sutra, which is one of my favorite sutras and is probably the one that the foundation of my Buddhist practice is anchored upon. As you can see, Genkaku is a great blogger, and insightful Buddhist. So, you'd find great benefit in adding him to your reader list.

PHOTO: Buddha teaching, found at Dharma Folk.

~Peace to all beings~

"The Magician of Lhasa," a Book Review.

It is rare to find a book of fiction based on Buddhism and even rarer still to find one worthy of reading. Well, "The Magician of Lhasa" by David Michie. The first 50 pages are kind of slow but keep reading because after that the story explodes into an exciting, fascinating, mysterious, suspenseful literary ride. Upon receiving the book I was dreading to hear how Buddhism would be presented and used in a novel as in the past many fiction writers have badly misrepresented Buddhist philosophy.

However, this books does a pretty good job of staying true to the teachings while offering up just enough mystery to keep you turning the pages. The book not only does a good job of explaining the Dharma it also teaches actual, helpful, applicable lessons mixed in with a entertaining story. What more could you want in a book? I don't want to say much more for fear of spoiling the secrets and plot of the book but It's a very fun book to read and suggest it highly. It is as good as any Dan Brown novel and I'd say is actually better than Brown's current book, "The Lost Symbol." I give "The Magician of Lhasa" a 9 out of 10 stars -- 10 being best.

~Peace to all beings~

Why I Chose Zen Buddhism.

When we practice zazen [Zen Meditation] our mind always follows our breathing. When we inhale, the air comes into the inner world. When we exhale, the air goes to the outer world. The inner world is limitless, and the outer world is also limitless. We say "inner world" or "outer world," but actually there is just one whole world. In this limitless world, our throat is like a swinging door.

The air comes in and goes out like someone passing through a swinging door. If you think, "I breathe," the "I" is extra. There is no you to say "I." What we call "I" is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and when we exhale. It just moves; that is all. When your mind is pure and calm enough to follow this movement, there is nothing: no "I," no world, no mind nor body; just a swinging door.

--Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind.

James: I often am asked why I chose Zen Buddhism over the other Buddhist traditions. I have written about this before but I'd like to write about it again, however, hopefully from a bit of a different angle. I respond well to the stripped down nature of Zen Buddhism as seen in this quote by the Zen legend Suzuki. I was raised in a very dogmatic religion and found it to be less helpful and I think that past experience led me in part to Zen, which (in my view) the least complicated form of Buddhism. For me it demystifies Buddhism and does a great job of focusing on the basics of Buddha's Dharma.

As well as the focus on Zazen (meditation) because that is something that I can easily understand and implement. I continue to study the sutras and canons and I certainly do not want my readers to think that I don't value them at all nor think them necessary to understanding Dharma because they do overall offer essential wisdom. That said, I find it more valuable in my personal practice to spend more time meditating than doing rituals (thought I find some ritual to beneficial) and keeping track of deities except as archetypes. I also like that Zen (in my view) is a bit more flexible in regards to dogma.

I find great success in Thich Nhat Hanh's style of Zen, which gets back to the very basic teachings of Buddha such as focusing on one's breath (as mentioned by Suzuki) while meditating and extending that formal meditation practice to everything that I do. So that mindfulness is the center of my practice, which cuts through the fat so to speak to better enable self-awakening. In my practice I have found that focusing on living in the present moment is where the essence of Buddhism flowers like a lotus.

I like that Buddhism has many flavors because it is more proof to me that karma is indeed apart of our lives. I believe it is this varied karma that, in part directs us toward one school of Buddhism over another. I'm currently reading the new book by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "Becoming Enlightened" for a review and he speaks about these different variations in Buddhism.

When teachings at particular students are examined as a body of work, it is possible for their surface of literal meanings not to be in agreement, since their purpose is to help in ways appropriate to a student's current situation. Buddha himself sometimes taught this way, based on a trainee's need.

He also has some real gems of wisdom in warning against a stubborn, strict adherenace to dogma:

For a teaching to be a suitable source of refuge, it must pass the scrutiny of reasoned reflection and must be highly beneficial. A famous Chilean scientist told me that a scientific researcher should not be attached to science, and I believe that in much the same way a Buddhist should not be attached to Buddhist doctrine as such, but instead should value teachings and teachers that can bear investigation into their validity. The scientific attitude and the Buddhist approach are the same in this case.

Now, of course some dogma is essential to maintaining a religion but I have personally found that a little goes a long way. Remember though that this is my personal experience, I'm not a sanctioned teacher nor a Buddhist scholar but have seen the damaging effects of a heavy handed dogma.

So while I am a Zen student I find much to agree with in these two quotes from the Dalai Lama as well as from many of the great Theravadan teachers. I think all traditions of Buddhism have something essential to offer the others. I don't think that there is one form that is "superior" to any other but again that the variations are there to take into account our different karma, life experiences and socio-economic-cultural differences.