About “The Inner Jihad”

I just read a very interesting article on “The True Jihad” on  the Enlightennext.org website, and here is my response. Please read the article first before reading this comment:

Key to this article is that view that the inner jihad – inner spiritual battle against evil – demands the existence of the enemy, namely the ego. Thus the current mindset that tries to look away from evil, thinking that the evil should be brought to the fold and not be discriminated against, is a total humbug. We need an evil, so that author says, in order for our struggle to be meaningful. If we lost sense of the evil, then the evil will have done away with us all.

That’s quite a nice point. But it enters into some kind of paradox that is very hard to get out of. Bear in mind that we are talking about inner spiritual battle here, the kind that Jesus went through when he was tempted by Satan, when the Buddha was tempted by Mara, and so on. And the Islamic tradition certainly has it right on the spot when it identifies that the enemy of the spiritual battle is our own selves. In the end the largest and most meaningful spiritual battle is one raging inside our minds, when we can overcome our own tendency to the ordinary ways of living and thinking, which is no different from blind people rushing about from one place to another hitting into things. Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed taught that this is only because we fall prey to our own egos; their hold on us is so strong that it takes utterly strong effort to see through.

The paradox, however, arises when the author insists that the egos are real. He is correct when he says that if we don’t take our egos seriously, or if we want to “include” the egos so that they, too, could be liberated, then the whole spiritual edifice breaks down and we will continue running around as blindly as before. But then in the zest to defeat the ego we have to be very careful not to fall prey to it yet again. So the longer the ego is needed, the further still from the eventual goal of spiritual battle we will be. In our enthusiasm to kill our egos we seem to have brought back those very same egos through the back door without our knowing through our very enthusiasm. If we are intent on destroying the ego with hatred, then not only will we not accomplish anything, we will suffer from self hatred, which is completely as bad as any form of hatred if not more. The longer we are convinced that the ego is there, existing substantially, then we cannot defeat it. We might believe we have crushed it by brute force, or sheer will power, but then the ego is a very wily enemy, one which has a way to catch us unaware at any time. So it seems that if there is no ego, then no spiritual battle is meaningful, but if there is an ego, then fighting against it just brings it back.

So what do we do? That question lies at the very heart of the spiritual battle. We realize that the so-called “ego” is ultimately speaking just a creation of our own mind. This is not the same as not engaging in the spiritual battle. The slothful who does not practice has no way of spiritual advancement because he does not make any attempt to see. For him things are just right the way they are. They are completely under the spell of their egos. But the truly spiritual also realizes that reifying the ego creates the same problem. So the way out is first to identify the enemy, which is the sense of “I” or “mine” that has gripped us for so long and is the source of all our problems. Then we see that this “I”, this ego, is no more than an illusion. At first the illusion appears real because it is the face that it is perceived to be this way that is the source of the problems, then the only way to get rid of the problems is to realize that the ego is only an illusion, and has been so all along.

Filed under: Buddhism , Buddhism, Christianity, enlightenment, evil, Islam, Jihad, Mara, Satan

How Do You Know Someone has Attained Nirvana?

This is a really big question, something that I think has persisted in the minds of Buddhists, both in the East and the West. The goal of the teaching is of course nirvana, and we are instructed to get teachings from those who have realized them. But how do we know? How can we tell whether those who are giving us the teachings and explanations of the Words of the Buddha have actually internalized them and made them part of their lives?

There is a story (and just as almost everything I know, this one is also from Deshung Rinpoche). A very learned monk was on his way to receive an honorary position at a temple. He was deeply read in all the sutras and could expound the teachings really well. However, he had not fully realized the teachings; that is, he had not become identical with the subject matter of what he was teaching. While he was traveling he met a poor peasant, and, out of kindness, he gave the peasant a tidbit of the Buddha’s teaching and told him always to keep it in mind and to practice it well. Then he left the peasant and continued his journey. He got to the temple which was his destination and stayed there as a respected abbot for many, many years. Meanwhile the poor peasant became deeply faithful in the teaching he got from the learned monk and became a monk himself.

Years passed. One day while he was at the temple the monk who used to be the poor peasant whom he had taught for a short while came to see him. From the look and the understandings shown through the outlook of the visiting monk, the learned abbot knew that he had really attained the Goal. He became surprised when he learned that the visiting monk was in fact the poor peasant whom he had given a short teaching while he was on the way to accept the position here. The learned monk said to himself, “I had studied all the texts. I had memorized a huge amount of the Buddha’s teachings and had taught countless number of students. Yet I had not attained the result myself. This monk who got just a short teaching from me instead had achieved it.”

So he became really subdued and asked the visiting monk for a teaching. Thus the teacher became student and vice versa. The visiting monk told him to be mindful and to practice the teaching well with no distractions. The learned abbot then followed that instruction and finally obtained Realization.

The message of the story is that it does not quite matter whom you get the teachings from. You could even get teachings from a radio or, in today’s age, from the Net, but if it is a genuine teaching and if you are persistent in practicing it, you will eventually be Realized. The point is not the actual identity of your teacher. The point is that you have unwavering faith in the teaching and in your belief that you are getting the teaching from an Enlightened One. What really matters is your mind.

So how does this story answer the topical question of this post? Maybe the story is not directly to the point. But perhaps that is the point. Sometimes we don’t really need to know that the one we are studying with is Realized or not. That would distract us from really practicing and being really mindful. It does not quite matter whether our flesh and blood teacher is Realized or not, that is in fact a matter for the teacher himself or herself to practice on his or her own. But for us students we need to look inside our own minds and practice from the insides of our hearts.

Filed under: Buddhism , attainment, Bodhisattva, Buddha, Buddhism, Deshung Rinpoche, freedom, liberation, nibbana, Nirvana

ฝันเห็นเสือ

เราต้องเข้าใจก่อนว่าสรรพสิ่งทั้งมวลเป็นเพียงภาพฉายของจิต เมื่อเราตรวจสอบลงไป เราก็จะพบว่าสรรพสิ่งที่ดูเหมือนว่าอยู่ภายนอกและเป็นจริง ล้วนแล้วแต่เป็นเหมือนกับความฝัน เป็นเพียงภาพฉายของจิตและไม่เป็นจริงในตัวเอง จากนั้นเราก็ก้าวต่อไปยังขั้นตอนของการตรวจสอบธรรมชาติของจิตนั้นเอง ด้วยเหตุนี้ขั้นตอนแรกนี้จึงได้ชื่อว่า “การรับรู้ว่าสิ่งต่างๆเป็นเพียงจิต” (snang ba sems su grub pa “snang ba” แปลว่า “ภาพ” “สิ่งปรากฏ” ส่วน “sems” แปลว่า “จิต”)

สำหรับเราแล้วการทำความเข้าใจความคิดนี้ด้วยตัวอย่างอาจจะง่ายขึ้น เมื่อพระอาจารย์ชาวอินเดียอตีศะเดินทางไปยังทิเบตเพื่อสอนธรรมะ ท่านก็ใคร่ครวญว่าจะสอนธรรมะให้แก่ชาวทิเบตอย่างไรดี เนื่องจากชาวทิเบตไม่คุ้นเคยกับคัมภีร์ทางธรรมของอินเดีย ท่านอยากจะสอนคำสอนเรื่องจิตรมาตรหรือคำสอนที่บอกว่ามีแต่จิตเท่านั้น ท่านจึงไต่ถามว่าชาวทิเบตรู้จักนักเล่นมายากลบ้างหรือไม่ และก็ได้คำตอบว่าไม่รู้จัก

ในประเทศอินเดียนั้นมีนักเล่นมายากลที่พบเห็นได้ทั่วไป เดินทางจากหมู่บ้านหนึ่งไปยังอีกหมู่บ้านหนึ่ง เพื่อแสดงมายากลต่างๆ พระอาจารย์ในพระพุทธศาสนาในอินเดียต่างก็ใช้ตัวอย่างของนักเล่นมายากลนี้ เนื่องจากชาวพุทธมักอ้างตัวอย่างที่พบเห็นได้ทั่วไปในแต่ละท้องที่มาสนับสนุนประเด็นที่ต้องการจะสอน การสอนธรรมะให้แก่ชาวบ้านในอินเดียว่าสิ่งต่างๆล้วนแล้วแต่เป็นของว่าง และภาพปรากฏของสิ่งเหล่านี้ไม่มีความจริงในตัวเอง พระอาจารย์มักจะอ้างการเล่นกลของนักมายากลเหล่านี้ เพื่อแสดงว่าสรรพสิ่งล้วนแต่เหมือนกับมายากล เมื่อนักเล่นมายากลแสดงให้เราเห็นว่าเกิดมีมายาที่เราเห็นเป็นจริงเป็นจังอย่างนั้นอย่างนี้ ซึ่งในความเป็นจริงแล้วมันมิได้เป็นเช่นนั้น เช่นมายากลที่แสดงว่ามีผู้หญิงที่ถูกเลื่อยออกเป็นสองท่อน ฯลฯ ภาพที่เราเห็นไม่ใช่ความจริง แต่เป็นเพียงการเข้าใจผิดของจิตที่ทำให้เราคิดไปว่ามันเป็นจริง ชาวอินเดียก็จะสามารถเข้าใจประเด็นนี้ได้โดยง่ายโดยเปรียบกับตัวอย่างเช่นนี้

ดังนั้นเมื่อพระอาจารย์อตีศะรู้ว่าชาวทิเบตไม่มีนักมายากลที่ท่องเที่ยวไปตามที่ต่างๆ ก็ถามว่าชาวทิเบตรู้จักฝันหรือเปล่า เมื่อท่านทราบว่าชาวทิเบตก็ฝันเหมือนกัน ท่านก็ตกลงจะเปรียบเทียบกับความฝัน ทุกคนที่เคยฝันจะเข้าใจว่าในขณะที่ฝันอยู่นั้น เรารู้ตัวอยู่ว่ามีสิ่งต่างๆอยู่มากมายที่ดูราวกับเป็นจริง ความดูเหมือนจริงนี้มีมากจนกระทั่งว่าเรามีปฏิกิริยาตอบสนองด้วยอารมณ์ต่างๆราวกับว่ามันเป็นจริงจริงๆ ราวกับว่าภาพที่เราเห็นในความฝันนั้นดำรงอยู่ภายนอกตัวเรา และดูราวกับว่าตัวเรานั้นขึ้นอยู่กับภาพในฝันที่เราเห็นอยู่นั้นเอง เช่นเราฝันเห็นเสือวิ่งมาหาเรา เราก็ตอบสนองด้วยความกลัวและความปรารถนาจะหนี แต่เมื่อเราตื่นขึ้น เราก็รู้ว่าเพียงแค่ฝันไป และเสือนั้นก็ไม่เคยมีอยู่จริง เสือนั้นเป็นเพียงภาพฉายของจิตในฝันเท่านั้น ปฏิกิริยาของเราต่อภาพในความฝันนั้นเป็นความผิดพลาด จิตไม่ได้รับรู้ว่าจริงๆแล้วเป็นเพียงแค่ความฝัน คือเป็นเพียงภาพของเสือที่จิตปรุงแต่งขึ้นมาเองในความฝัน

ผู้ที่ปฏิบัติสมาธิกรรมฐานจะต้องเรียนรู้ที่จะมองสรรพสิ่งทั้งมวลในขณะที่ตื่นอยู่ ว่าเป็นเหมือนกับภาพฉายของจิตที่เห็นในความฝัน แม้ว่าภาพปรากฏในขณะที่ตื่นอยู่จะดูเป็นจริงเป็นจังในสายตาของผู้ที่ไม่ได้ปฏิบัติสมาธิ หรือผู้ที่ยังไม่ตรัสรู้ แต่ในสายตาของผู้ปฏิบัติสมาธิแล้วทั้งหมดไม่ต่างอะไรจากภาพในฝัน ผู้ปฏิบัติธรรมจะรับรู้ภาพเหล่านี้ว่าเป็นเพียงการที่จิตแสดงตัวออกมาแล้วก็เข้าไปยังขั้นตอนต่อไป ดังนั้นเราจึงรับรู้จิตว่าเป็นต้นกำเนิดของประสบการณ์ของทุกสิ่งทุกอย่างในขณะที่รู้สำนึก แล้วก็เข้าใจความสำคัญของการรับรู้ธรรมชาติที่แท้จริงของจิต

(จาก “การเห็นทางธรรมสามระดับ” ของเตชุง ริมโปเช)

Filed under: Buddhism , Atisha, ความจริง, ความฝัน, เตชุง ริมโปเช, Deshung Rinpoche

Buddhism in the Age of Technology

The following video is a lecture by Lewis Lancaster on “Buddhism in the Global Age of Technology” which is part of the Burke lecture at the University of California:

Filed under: Buddhism , Berkeley, Buddhism, lecture, Lewis Lancaster, technology

Maitreya Mantra

I found this very interesting video on YouTube. It’s a modern singer singing the mantra of Maitreya Buddha. What is amazing to me is how the music is in some way still traditional, but the video is really modern. I have written an earlier post on Buddhism and music. Perhaps this one is a very good example.

Filed under: chant, music , Buddha, chant, Maitreya, mantra, music, song

His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the Four Noble Truths

Here is a video of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s talk in 1996 on the Four Noble Truths. This is a long video, more than an hour, and it’s only the first part. So set up some time for yourself and enjoy His Holiness’ teaching.

The Four Noble Truths is the essence of Buddhism. It’s the first thing the Buddha taught to his future students after having attained Enlightenment.

Each video is about one hour and a half long. So be prepared.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Filed under: Buddhism , Buddha, Four Noble Truths, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana

Luang Pu Doon’s Teachings

I have finally finished translating all of Luang Pu Doon Atulo’s teachings into English. The whole text is published online here. This will be published in book form later on. My special thanks to Don Sandage who has donated his time and effort into looking over the English language and clearing up a lot of mistakes. Thanks a lot, Don.

Filed under: Buddhism , arhat, Buddhism, Luang Pu Doon, teaching, Theravada

Malcolm David Eckel on “Learning from Bhavaviveka”

The Center for Ethics of Science and Technology, Chulalongkorn University, will organize a public talk by Malcolm David Eckel from Boston University on “Learning from Bhavaviveka: A Sixth-Century Buddhist Rationalist” at Room 608, Boromratchakumari Bldg., Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, 1 – 3 pm, Friday, December 26, 2008.

All are welcome.

*

The following is some biodata of David Eckel from Wikipedia:

Malcolm David Eckel is the current Associate Professor of Religion at Boston University. He earned two bachelors degrees: one in English at Harvard University and another in Theology at Oxford University. Eckel received his masters in Theology at Oxford and his PhD at Harvard in Comparative Religion.

Eckel has held positions at Ohio Wesleyan University, Middlebury College in Vermont, and later at the Harvard Divinity School as the Acting Director of the Center for the Study of World Religions. He now teaches courses specializing in eastern religions. Eckel is also the head of Boston University’s Core Curriculum, a groundbreaking program for the development of the humanities. The Core Curriculum challenges its students with a rigorous course load while allowing students to explore the multifarious concepts of worldly philosophies.

The Metcalf Award for Teaching Excellence, Boston University’s highest award for teaching, was awarded to Eckel in 1998.

He is currently the director of The Institute for Philosophy and Religion Lecture Series, an educational forum on various philosophical and religious ideas and their application in contemporary society.

Among his publications are To See the Buddha: A Philosopher’s Quest for the Meaning of Emptiness (1994); Buddhism: Origins, Beliefs, Practices, Holy Texts, Sacred Places (2002); and Jnanagarbha’s Commentary on the Distinction Between the Two Truths (1987).

*

Here is the abstract of the talk on the 26th:

Bhavaviveka (ca 500-560 CE) lived in a time of unusual ferment in the history of Indian Buddhist thought.  The Mahayana was developing as a vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force, while the traditions of the eighteen schools (nikaya) continued to resist the innovations of the Mahayana.  Bhaviveka’s “Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way,” along with their commentary, give a detailed and lively account of the controversies that shaped Buddhist thought in this period.  They illuminate aspects of Buddhist thought that, until now, have been poorly understood, and they challenge us to think of Buddhist philosophy in innovative ways.

(For further info about his book on “To See the Buddha” please visit the following blog post – http://soraj.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/malcolm-david-eckel-and-to-see-the-buddha/ )

Filed under: Buddhism , Bhavaviveka, Buddhism, David Eckel, lecture, Mahayana, nikaya, philosophy, talk, Theravada

The Buddha’s Silence

Browsing the web and wordpress blogs (especially this one) I came across this Sutta translated by Ven Thanissaro. This is a very deep Sutta on emptiness and the self. Since this is about silence, I’ll say no more…

***

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

“Then is there no self?”

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, “Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?”

“Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?”

“No, lord.”

“And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?’”

(Ananda Sutta, translated by Ven. Thanissaro)

Filed under: Buddhism , Ananda, anatta, atta, Buddha, Buddhism, emptiness, no-self, philosophy, self, silence

Malcolm David Eckel and “To See the Buddha”

This December Malcome David Eckel, noted scholar of Mahayana Buddhism, will travel to Thailand and give a lecture at the Department of Philosophy, Chulalongkorn University. This is a very welcome occasion as Buddhist scholars in Thailand do not have much chance to listen to and interact with scholars who work in other traditions of Buddhism. Eckel is known for his work on lesser known Indian masters. His book, To See the Buddha: A Philosopher’s Quest for the Meaning of Emptiness, is a study of the work of Bhavaviveka, one of the greatest masters of Indian Mahayana Buddhism. This is a translation and study of Bhavaviveka’s main work, Tarkajvāla (The Flame of Reason), and is filled with his interpretations. The theme of the book is on the various dimensions of “seeing the Buddha.” By doing so one gains an insight into the nature of the Dharma and thereby moving further along in the path toward Liberation.

“Seeing the Buddha” has been a problem for Buddhists ever since the Buddha himself entered parinirvana. What does it actually mean for one to “see the Buddha”? Surely just seeing the Buddha himself before he entered parinirvana (before he died) was not enough, because that would mean seeing him is not different from seeing any normal, sentient being in samsara. But there is something very special in seeing the Buddha. Is it the same as seeing a statue of the Buddha, as in Buddhist temples? That will come back to the same question. Seeing the Buddha is not the same as seeing you or me. But then what is so special with seeing the Buddha?

Eckel subtitled the book “A Philosopher’s Quest for the Meaning of Emptiness.” The ‘philosopher’ in question could be Bhavaviveka, who is after all the subject matter of the study in the book. Or it could mean Eckel himself. So by reflecting on what it means by seeing the Buddha, one enters on a quest for the maning of emptiness. But how are the two related? Is seeing the Buddha the sme as seeing emptiness?

Many Buddhists, Theravada and Mahayana alike, know the famous sentence from one of the Sutras where the Buddha said, “Those who see the Dharma, see me; those who see me, see the Dharma.” This is considered to be the standard way of the Buddha’s own idea about seeing him. Stricken with terminal illness and lying on his bed, the Buddha was asked who should succeed him as the Teacher and Leader of the Order. The Buddha, as is well known, did not name any successor. Instead he enjoined his students to take up the teaching itself, the Dharma, as their guide and their leader. The important thing is not that there be any leader of the Order, or any living supreme teacher or authority, but the Dharma itself. It is the task of the Buddha’s students to study, understand and take up the Dharma in their practices to eliminate suffering. So those who really see the Dharma see the Buddha because they really follow the Buddhist path.

To see the dharma comes in very different levels. It also includes seeing what Emptiness is, seeing Emptiness directly, coming face to face with it. So in a way the Buddha himself and Emptiness is one and the same. That is why Eckel’s and Bhavaviveka’s quest to see the Buddha is also their quest to “see” the nature of Emptiness.

*

Now let us consider some passages from Bhavaviveka himself as translated by Eckel in the book. The interpretations given here are entirely my own, not Eckel’s or Bhavaviveka’s. This is my own engagement with the text. You call it my own personal meditation of the meanings of the text — perhaps my own quest for the meaning of “Emptiness”:

269-270. Without apprehending [equality as an object], [the Buddha] understands the equality of different dharmas, because [dharmas] are equal in the sense that they do not arise or cease. Or [the Buddha] understands the equality of self and other. Therefore [the Buddha] is called Sambuddha among gods and human beings because [the Buddha] understands the equality without understanding equality.

Thoroughly understanding the ultimate nature of things as empty of their inherent characteristics, the Buddha sees everything to be the same. This is seeing without any conceptualization. The Buddha just “sees”. He sees everything as equal; none has any special feature that sets it apart from any other thing. In fact the word “thing” itself is inappropriate because the Buddha’s seeing does not differentiate one thing from another at all. This is why he does not see any differences in self and others. There is no self; there is no other. However, he sees all this without engaging in the conception of “being equal” for that would be just another conceptualization. Hence he “understands the equality without understanding equality.”

So this is how the Buddha sees the world. With neither self nor other, the Buddha does not distinguish himself (or herself) from what he (or she) sees. Hence the Buddha and reality is one and the same. So in the context what does it mean to see the Buddha? It is to see him or her as he or she sees the world. So in a way we become a Buddha ourselves. The dichotomy between subject (one who sees) and object (things seen) completely break down. To see the Buddha is to see things as the Buddha himself sees them.

Bhavaviveka goes on:

273. [The Buddha] is immeasurable because he understands the immeasurable. [The Buddha] is incalculable because he cannot be grasped. [The Buddha] is unthinkable because he cannot be an object of thought. [The Buddha] is incomparable because he cannot be compared.

The Buddha cannot be measured because any act of measurement presupposes dividing reality into parts, but since the Buddha does not see things to be composed of parts, and since there is nothing that divides subject from object, any act of measuring the Buddha fails to see the Buddha from the beginning. Likewise, he is not able to be calculated or thought of. The Buddha cannot be an object of thought, because being an object of though requires one to be engaged in a system of linguistic categorization and conceptualization. But the Buddha does not see things divided into concepts. He just “sees.”

So the Buddha herself is coextensive with the whole of reality. All that is, is the Buddha, and the Buddha is all that is. I am a Buddha; you are a Buddha. And in the same vein Bhavaviveka goes on:

274ab. [The Buddha] is indefinable because it is utterly impossible to specify that he is one thing rather than another.

Eckel emphasizes that Buddhist texts such as Bhavaviveka’s exists primarily to facilitate meditation of the meaning of reality as a means toward gaining Liberation. These are religious texts and one fails to grasp their true meanings if one overlooks these practical purposes for which the texts were written. So one practicies the Dharma by closely reading these texts and reflect on the meaning. One also does this in the context of meditation.

*

I will give the details of Eckel’s talk at Chulalongkorn University later on here in this blog. Please stay tuned.

Filed under: Buddhism , Bhavaviveka, Buddha, Buddhism, dharma, emptiness, Mahayana, Malcolm David Eckel, seeing the Buddha, Sunyata, teaching, Theravada