Book Review: Living as a River

*For full disclosure I’ll mention that Bodhipaksa was my first meditation teacher, “way back in the day,” as they say (in the fall of 2000 in Missoula, MT). However, since he got his business degree and his website became wildly successful, he’s managed to avoid me well for quite some time and even waited for me to be safely in India before returning to Missoula on his recent book tour.

That said, his recent book, “Living As a River: Finding Fearlessness in the Face of Change,” is a marvelous piece of work. It is, in essence, a call to reflection for each of us, to reflect on our lives and our potential, and to reflect on the fact that we too often (nearly always) squander that potential by seeking happiness in all the wrong places.

The book unfolds as an offering (dāna). What is offered is an alternative to our unhappiness, our mere fleeting happiness, and our chasing of ever more happiness. The alternative is framed around the Buddhist Six Element Practice. But as Bodhipaksa says, this is not “a ‘Buddhist book.’” While the traditional Buddhist Six Element Practice forms the spine of the book, the heart is as fresh and modern as the many psychology experiments and quantum physics theories you will read about in its pages. It consists of fifteen chapters, plus an introduction, filled with philosophy, mythology, science, poetry, and the author’s own experiences, all winding a common path toward the destruction of our habitual, and false, idea that we have an unchanging self.

In fact “Living Like a River” begins with a psychology experiement in which a professor asked subjects to imagine the death of their partner. The result? The subjects, “reported feeling more positive about their relationships and less troubled by their significant others’ annoying quirks.” This makes the point that, more often than not, the things that we think will make us happy, do not – and the things that we think might make us unhappy – or be simply morbid, like imagining death – can actually improve our lives.

For the Buddhist, this can be an obvious fact. Most philosophers as well, East and West, have noted that human suffering is rooted in our incorrect understanding of ourselves and the world. But these days, neither Buddhist teachings nor philosophy have managed to penetrate deeply into the Western psyche. That is why Bodhipaksa’s use of psychology and other sciences so important. Science, especially the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology (all discussed in the book), has a special place in the minds of educated Westeners as the major, if not final, arbiter of truth. So if science can “catch up,” so to speak, with these important truths of the Buddha and certain other philosophers, there’s a chance that the rest of us also might get it.

And so the book marches forth, beginning at times with a bit of poetry, a story from Bodhipaksa’s life, or an interesting fact from recent scientific research, all woven together around the key insights first elucidated by the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, some 2500 years ago. The purpose of the book isn’t to be “about Buddhism” as the quote mentioned above makes clear. It is about a way of thinking, a way of seeing clearly (or cultivating “insight” as the Buddhist meditation vipassanā is commonly translated) ourselves and the world. For all readers, it should be a joyful jorney through a hand-picked series of scientific articles and discoveries, poetry, and anecdotes. It is lucidly written, and even consistently funny (a nice change of pace for some of us!).

As I re-skim it now to write this, I find quote after quote and story after story that I’d love to recount for their simple and direct teaching power. But alas, I’ll spare you all of that and just suggest you get the book yourself. You’ll be glad you did. (available at Soundstrue or Amazon)

Cross-posted at American Buddhist Perspective.

Zen Noir: A Review

This film requires patience. Some experience of long retreats or sesshins wouldn't hurt either for fully understanding the complex emotions of the characters.

If you have both of these, it's a pretty good film. Not great, but good.

According to the trailer page on youtube:

http://www.zenmovie.com If David Lynch, the Buddha and Woody Allen all took acid and made a surrealist mystery, this would be it! ZEN NOIR is a brilliantly funny, award-winning independent film that explores zen buddhism, meditation, life, death and spiritual enlightenment.

I think that sums it up well enough. I'm not sure about you, but I have to be in a particular kind of mood for a Woody Allen movie, and a very different mood for a David Lynch movie, and a different mood altogether for something on Buddhism. So mixing the three together didn't set very well.

The high point, the moment where it all pays off, is a monologue by the aged Zen monk about an experience long ago with his teacher, an orange, and an ominous phone call. Until then the mix of Lynch and Woody Allen styles made it difficult to get into the movie. But if you've managed to get into it even just a tiny bit, to empathize with our main character, to see his suffering as one with your own, this monologue will make it all worth it.

If not,you've just watched a very weird movie. Lynch's haunting and confusing style isn't there enough for you to feel it like you do with "Mulholland Dr." or "Lost Highway," and the wit of Woody Allen, while there at times for a good, if awkward, laugh, doesn't sustain the movie.

Practitioners of Zen might even be more annoyed by the odd portrayals of life in a Zen Temple, the blending of surrealism and actual practices leading more to confusion than "spiritual enlightenment."

This film does deserve our attention, though, as an example of the emerging genre of Buddhist fiction in the West. It will be, whether we like it or not, the first taste of Zen Buddhism for many viewers and I can't help but cringe a bit at that. For instance, I'm not sure if lines like:

"[I'm] just a very dedicated layperson."
"What's a layperson?"
"A person who can still get laid."

give a very good impression of Zen life. But then this is surrealism and the Buddha on acid, isn't it?

I'm very curious about what others thought of it, especially given their backgrounds. I'm no stranger to Zen, but my practice has mainly been in Tibetan and Theravadin traditions. Perhaps insiders will have very different impressions of Zen Noir.

What, if anything, is Buddhism?

This title comes from a fascinating somewhat recent paper by UCLA's Jonathan Silk, one of the great Buddhologists of our time. That paper is titled, "What, If Anything, Is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications" (Numen, Vol. 49, No. 4 (2002), pp. 355-405).

It brings to light the issue of defining our subject area and the amazing difficulties therein. One of my great pleasures over the last three years has been serving on the committee for an American Academy of Religion group looking at "Buddhism in the West." Each year we receive a slew of presentation proposals and choose some to be presented at the annual AAR meeting. Here a consistent theme has come up in the discussion of Buddhism in the West: the so-called "Two Buddhisms" model.

This model divides Buddhists in the West into two groups: immigrant Buddhists and convert Buddhists. The immigrant Buddhists generally try to maintain the type of Buddhism they practiced before, preserving ritual, language, and other elements from their home country. Converts pick and choose aspects they find most helpful, often searching for the "true Buddhism" to be found when "cultural accretions" are stripped away. What you end up with is two quite remarkably different kinds of Buddhism. The immigrant laypeople rarely, if ever, meditate, they donate regularly to temples and monastics, believe in ghosts and take part in (to Western eyes) strange rituals. Western converts meditate a lot, spend more on books about Buddhism than at their local meditation center, and avoid anything looking "superstitious."

On the one hand, this model looks good and may make good intuitive sense. But for those who have studied Buddhism in the West, and for many simply experiencing it, these categories fall apart pretty fast. We find plenty of converts chanting dutifully in languages they don't understand, immigrants meditating assiduously, and so on. Those who cling fast to the model say that this is simply the "Westernization" of immigrants and the "cultural appropriation" of some converts, thus showing the model's continued usefulness, albeit growingly muddled.

Detractors of the model focus on its flaws, sometimes to the point of no longer seeing its usefulness. When I taught Intro to Buddhism to college students, I used this model - basically. For two days I described the "Two Buddhisms" as relatively separate and determinable categories, and then on the third day I showed the problem with the model. It was a very useful tool for introducing Buddhism in the West to new students.

If a better way of classifying Buddhism in the West comes along, a way that first year students can easily comprehend, I'm sure I will adopt it. But what Silk's article brilliantly shows (here in regard to Mahayana Buddhism vs Mainstream or Theravada or Hinayana Buddhism) is that sometimes the old yet flawed schema is the best we've got. Silk's article draws us through a great historical survey and a dazzling assortment of conceptual tools that can be used to determine just what is Mahayana Buddhism. In the end though the answer seems to be that, even with all this work, we still don't have an answer.

The same questions and analysis can arise when we ask, "what, if anything, is Buddhism?" and (for me especially), "what counts as Buddhist Ethics?"

In the end we find that attempts to draw a firm line around our concepts (i.e. to define them) are always doomed to failure. Either our method is flawed, or new evidence (counterexamples to our 'rules') will arise to force revision. We tell our first-year students that, "Buddhism radically downplays the role of gods (devas)." But then we introduce them to Tibetan Buddhism, where the gods - as benevolent deities, malevolent protectors, and archetypal bodhisattvas - play an overwhelming role. Or we tell them that meditation plays a central role in the Buddhist path and then later introduce them to Jodo Shinshu, where meditation as we know it is virtually absent.

It all serves to validate the Buddhist notions of selflessness/emptiness (that no person or thing has intrinsic existence or characteristics) and impermanence (our definitions, whatever they may be, are not going to last forever). It also highlights the failing nature of language itself to grasp reality. If we are wise we see that our labels are just useful designations and do not refer to any inherently existing thing. A good textual demonstration of this is in the Questions of King Milinda (Menander).

In the end we can see the whole exercise in trying to find a 'definition' as either foolish eel-wriggling (a term the Buddha used for the spiritual used-car salesmen of his day) or a skillful way of digging into the rich history and many 'structures' of Buddhism. An answer or answers may be found to our questions, but remember to hold the answers lightly, not clinging to them so that if they no longer serve us one day, we can let them go.

That, I must say, is Buddhism. -- Your comments, either eel-wriggling or otherwise, are most welcome. (cross posted at American Buddhist Perspective, but please comment here)

Why Buddhism, why now?

I sit at my desk day after day, head swirling with thoughts, randomly strewn about like dirty clothes on a child’s room. I have bills to pay when I get home. My coworker is humming again! What am I going to have for lunch? Is tonight my kid’s baseball game? Endlessly, all day, these thoughts invade my mind. How can I or anyone ever find peace!

A Zen master asks us what it is we seek.

Lama Gyurme once said that Buddhism is part Religion, part philosophy and partly a way of life. It is a Religion in the sense that it is important that the original message of the Buddha stays undiluted, a philosophy in the sense that Buddhism is a broad school of philosophical and conceptual thought and a way of life in the sense that it is meant to help right here and right now in each and every one of our lives.

I am not interested so much in the first two but I am very interested in the latter. It does not matter what beliefs you have or what religion you are. This is not about belief or even about God, but rather seeing the world and ourselves with a very honest and keen, almost scientific eye.

But why, what's in it for me?

Well, you can begin to go through life fearless; Fearless in the face of change, in the face of others aggression and yes, fearless in the face of death. We can learn to smile at those that harm us, extend a hand to those that lash out at us and learn to walk this earth with a compassionate heart.

How?

Not by belief in any ideal or teaching, but with an open heart and open mind, begin to see the true nature of our existence. See for yourself life is change and recognize our minds reaction to this change. All suffering arises with in us, all turmoil is based on the inimitable truth that everything changes and nothing can be grasped. With kindness and compassion to yourself, you can learn to become unattached to these material things that will never persist, and simply begin to watch how this ride we call life unfold.

What it is we seek? Perhaps we can find out together.

The Buddha once said, “You are strong, you are young. It is time to arise.” In our modern world, it is rare that one follows the path of the awakened.....but it is no less true today then it was 2,500 years ago. "So....Arise!"

(A thank you to the webmaster of this blog for allowing me to be a contributor!)

A 21st Century Sangha

Half a decade ago, as an undergraduate studying Philosophy at The University of Montana and a newly enthralled Buddhist practitioner, I started the "UM Campus Sangha." It quickly grew to two people, sometimes three, but then petered out. I was a bit of a geek, with little personal charisma and even less in organizing skills, but I tried it again the following year, and the year after.

Nothing really stuck. Then last year, returning to UM as a graduate student in Philosophy and given the chance of a lifetime to teach a 150+ student Intro to Buddhism course, I gave the sangha another try. This time I had the help of some highly motivated students (my students!?) and the sangha was reborn.

Over the year we did a variety of meditations, concentrating on the two I knew best from the FWBO, the Mindfulness of Breathing and Development of Loving-kindness (Metta Bhavana). For over a month we closely studied and discussed the metta sutta. We even capped off last spring with a short retreat outside of town.

But now I have left UM for studies in London and need advice: what should the sangha do now? What ideas or projects could help maintain this now entirely student-led group? What is the key, if there is one, to a successful young sangha in the 21st century?

I will say that they are off to a great start, contacting area sanghas:
Osel Shen Pen Ling, Ewam, Open Way, Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, and Vipassana MT to bring in experienced meditators each month as well as to take 'field trips.' They also have done their bit for outreach, holding a booth at the back-to-school "welcome feast" on the first Friday of classes.

But what now? Looking forward to your comments and advice.

About this blog

Purpose:
The purpose of this blog is that it will be a group-blog on the topic of progressive, modern Buddhism with the following aims :

• looking at Buddhism in the light of modern knowledge, free from over-attachment to ancient dogmas,
• looking at the best ways to integrate Buddhism into Modern/Western societies
• discussing and encouraging an empirical or scientific approach
• Seeing insight and awakening as a living tradition

We could review articles, research, books and publish our own thoughts (and non-thoughts). If we get a bit of momentum I'd like to perhaps invite guest contributions from authors, academics or Buddhist teachers.

The style I would hope for would be middle-brow - with informal blog entries and perhaps more academically rigorous for anyone who has time to write a proper article.

Attitudes:
I don't think it's at essential that all contributors have the same attitudes, but it helps if they at least harmonious. Here's an outline of mine:

• Gautama Buddha is a greatly respected teacher of dharma teachers
• He was an awakened human, not omniscient, nor an absolute authority
• He also represents an ideal or principle of awakening
• Although faith in the sense of confidence is important in the practice, blind faith is not
• The principles of empiricism apply to Buddhist practice as they do to all pragmatic ways of knowing
• This means humility to reality, established through experience and evidence, rather than domination of personal belief
• Whatever our opinion of the received teachings, we should strive to represent them truthfully, and not misrepresent them
• We should conduct ourselves in a way which is respectful to each other and to the Buddha-dharma
• There is only one Buddha-dharma, and a number of expressions or understandings of it. We should be able to express our understanding freely, but in a way that is respectful of different sectarian understandings and customs.

Contributing:
Anyone who is interested in being a regular, occasional or guest contributor leave a comment below. I would want regular contributors to regard themselves as equal partners and decision-making would be done on group consensus.

Blog Style and location:
We may opt to make changes to both the style of the blog (I might have a go at this later) and to the web address if we want something more unique and repectable looking than a blogger address. (To be discussed)