The Zennist

Batchelor's crazy understanding of nirvana

According to Stephen Batchelor, "Samsara and nirvana are two antithetical conditions of existence both of which hinder the fullest possible actualization of human potential" (Batchelor, Alone With Others, pp. 119-20).  

Batchelor’s words may sound nice to some ears but they are out of kilter for those who are familiar with the Buddhist canon and Buddhist ideas.  His words belie the fact that he believes, as far as human potential goes, there is something higher than nirvana!  Such an opinion coming from a Westerner like Batchelor who claims to be a Buddhist, however, contradicts the Dhammapada in which it is said: 

“Patience and forgiveness is the highest ascetic practice. The Buddhas declare Nirvana to be highest (paramam)” (184).

What the Buddha is saying is that nirvana is the fullest actualization of the human potential; there is none higher.  Looking at the matter from Batchelor’s position, one has to wonder what could be higher than nirvana?  Does Batchelor know?  So we read more, but find no answer.  Batchelor can only manage to be diffuse.  Where concision is called for, he backs away from it.   

The Buddha, on the other hand, is just the opposite of Batchelor.  The meaning of nirvana and liberation (vimutti) are inextricably linked (cp. S. iii. 189).  In this regard, nirvana is liberation from the travails of the conditioned, phenomenal world.  It is also within the human potential to accomplish nirvana. One sees, for the first time, the way things really are free from delusion.  What can be wrong with that?  Apparently, there is something wrong with that, according to Batchelor, but he never goes on to explain.

The real three marks of conditioned existence

Are impermanence (annica/anitya), suffering (dukkha/duhkha), and nonself (anattâ/anâtman) the real three marks of conditioned existence?  I would have to say for now, no.  So far, I have not found a complete passage in the canon where impermanence, suffering and nonself are specified to be the three marks of conditioned existence.  What we find, instead, is from the Dhammapada: “All created things are impermanent” (277).  “All created things are suffering” (278). and lastly, “All things (sabbe dhammâ) are nonself” (279).  These are three separate verses.  

Whoever came up with the three marks of conditioned existence, using impermanence, suffering and nonself, apparently cobbled them together; who may have been unaware of the Anguttara-Nikaya’s Sankhattalakkhana Sutta, from The Book of Threes, which is clearly about the three conditioned marks.

“Monks, there are these three condition-marks of that which is conditioned.  What three?  Its genesis is apparent, its passing away is apparent, its changeability while it persists is apparent.  These are the three condition-marks” (AN 3:47 ).

Looking at the Pali of this Sutta, anicca, dukkha, and anattâ are not found.  Instead, we find origin (S., utpâda), passing away (S., vyaya) and change of state (S., sthity anyathâtvam).

This same Sutta continues and ends with the following:

“Monks, there are these three non-condition marks of that which is unconditioned.  What three?  Its genesis is not apparent, its passing is not apparent, its changeability while it persists in not apparent.  These are the three.”

Whatever is the reason for creating a new three marks of that which is conditioned, we can only speculate.  Still, it is interesting to observe that our thoughts, since they arise (utpâda) pass away and change, are conditioned (S., samskrita) whereas pure Mind is unconditioned (asamskrita), not being readily perceptible as to arising, passing away and change.  To borrow a line from Plato, the conditioned is the moving image of the unconditioned which is the One Mind (ekacitta) which is absolute.

What secular Buddhism should do but ain't doing

Speaking in general, to secularize Buddhism means that Buddhism needs to focus more on the problems human beings face on a day to day level.  However, this is not necessarily a call for reforming Buddhism calling into question its main tenets.  To secularize Buddhism may only mean having a hospice or running a shelter for abandoned or hurt animals.  Environmental concerns are not outside of secular Buddhism, either, as are many other things.  This includes even economics.

To secularize Buddhism need not abandon Buddhism's traditional tenets and practices such as karma, rebirth, and striving for nirvana.  It should be obvious, that secularists have no warrant to secularize Buddhism's core religious teachings; to modify them in such a way that Buddhism is in name only which acts to hide materialism or some other narrow modern -ism that is antithetical to Buddhism.

What seems to be happening with secular Buddhism is that secularizing it has for its target the main tenets of Buddhism.  Anyone who has seriously read Stephen Batchelor's book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, who has a knowledge of the Buddhist canon, could make a serious argument that Batchelor's little book has little or nothing to do with Buddhism.  

For secular Buddhists, trying to make Buddhism more accessible to the general public by creating various kinds of charitable institutions which are for the general benefit of the public, seems not to be as exciting as reforming and changing the very core of Buddhism.

The meaning of faith

Speaking of faith, unlike with Buddhism I have always seen Christianity to be in a crisis of faith.  And because this crisis became so severe during the 20th century what emerged from it was another kind of faith: faith in blind belief.

It needs to be acknowledged that there is a clear distinction between faith in Christianity and faith in Buddhism.  The two are not at all the same.  Buddhist who are trying to take ‘faith’ out of Buddhism like Stephen Batchelor are making a huge mistake as well as those who are confused as to the difference between genuine faith and faith in blind belief.

As for faith in Buddhism, it is an initial connection with the absolute which is a kind of super inference or introduction.  Said again, this faith depends on establishing an initial congruence with the absolute in such examples as sotapanna (current winner) or bodhicittotpada (manifesting the mind that is bodhi). 

Buddhism can make a claim to genuine faith because Buddhism is primarily about the purification and subsequent awaking of our mind to its own innate truth and substance which turns out to be universal and transcendent. There is no need for God, that is, there is no need for man to abandon himself for something alien.

So, friend, in this very fathom-long body, endowed with perception and mind, I declare the world, the arising of the world, the ending of the world, and the way leading to the ending of the world" (S. i. 62).

Slouching towards materialism

Is Western Buddhism that is being disseminated to the public, otherwise called pop Buddhism, really disguised materialism?  I would have to say that it is.  Much of the emphasis on this kind of Buddhism revolves around conditionality.

"Monks, there are these three condition-marks of that which is conditioned (sankhata).  What three?  Its genesis (uppada) is apparent, its passing away is apparent, its changeability while it persists is apparent.  These are the three condition-marks” (AN 3:47 ).

But laying out conditionality is not the whole enchilada of Buddhism!  Far from it. There is something more fundamental to Buddhism.  It is unconditionality, that is, nirvana.  This is the part of Buddhism, to be blunt, the Buddhist materialists hate.  In every way possible, they try to get around the  inconvenient truth of nirvana, for example, that nirvana is deathless, or if you prefer, it is immortality.

Buddhism has had to deal with materialism for a long time.  Materialism goes back a long ways in India.  Some of the tenets of materialism in early India include disbelief in awakened persons, karma, rebirth, and the self or âtman.  A materialist's only means of knowledge was by way of sensory evidence (pratyaksa).  Materialists were sometimes called Lokâytikas whose knowledge was based on worldly (loka) empiricism.

Important to Indian materialism, and to a large extent Western materialism the kind we see emerging in Buddhism, is the belief that we have only one life in which death is final.  In other words, there is no reincarnation or rebirth.  But more importantly, Indian materialism and Western materialism do not believe in transcendence.  There are no higher worlds; there is no real enlightenment or awakening, either. In addition, the lifestyle of a typical materialist was live for the moment (Richard King, Indian Philosophy, 18) which is not unlike the lifestyle of a typical Western Buddhist who are trying to live in the now. 

My guess, it is only a matter of time before materialist Buddhism is driven out the temple of true Buddhism by good scholarship and dedicated Buddhists who scripturally challenge the tenets of Western Buddhism which is slouching towards materialism.

Thoughts about emptiness

 It almost goes with saying, but the notion of emptiness is one of the most difficult words in Buddhist philosophy to understand.

First, we have to understand that conditioned genesis or dependent origination means that all phenomena (i.e., the originated) are arisen like an illusion; they are empty of substance or essence (svabhâva).  Also, to be empty of essence (svabhâva-shunya) means that phenomena are conditioned—not unconditioned.  They lack real being.  

Turning to this essence, the Buddha taught that the essence (svabhâva) of nirvana is unconditioned which is empty of any trace of the conditioned.  In light of this, only the unconditioned is real (svabhâva) like the clay of a pot, for example, whereas the originated, conditioned pot, itself, being dependent upon the clay, is subject to destruction.

So how should we consider emptiness?  Generally speaking, there appears to be two kinds.  First, emptiness can refer to the lack of substance or essence (svabhâva-shunya), or the same, a lack of the unconditioned.  Second, emptiness can also refer to the unconditioned's lack of conditionality.  For example, nirvana is completely empty of conditionality.  A conditioned nirvana is absurd.  Using the analogy of water, its waviness is empty of svabhâva.  On the other hand, the svabhâva of water, H2O, is empty of waviness.  A further example will be useful.  In the case of Zen, "empty mind" or wu-shin, means that defilements or klesha have been emptied from mind so that only the purified mind or mind-essence remains which is naturally luminous.

There is also an ontological sense to emptiness which we find in Mahayana, especially in Sutras like the Lankavatara.  We also find the ontological sense in the Pali canon. 

“Ananda, through abiding in (the concept of emptiness), I am now abiding in the fulness thereof”  (ananda, etarahipi [etarahi ca (sabbattha)] suññatâvihârena bahulam viharâmi) (M. iii.1 04).  (trans. I.B. Horner, PTS.  Italics are mine.) 

All of this can get quite confusing if one has not had a deep and penetrating insight into pure Mind which is absolutely empty of conditionality. 

Coffee shop satori

The true dharma or religion (saddharma) teaches us how to approach and to behold the animative power which, while vitalizing our corporeal body, is intrinsically free of the fate of the corporeal body which ends in death.  Short of realizing this animative power which, incidentally, is the condition of ignorance (avidya), we remain endlessly bound to being reborn into alien bodies, all of which, end in death. 

True religion is very difficult for the modern mind to grasp since, from birth, it has been taught that the body’s movements are due to biological causes as if to suggest life, itself, depends on a deep structured cellular mechanism and chemistry.

Buddhism doesn’t bother itself with debating this matter.  In goes to the very heart of the matter by demanding that we make direct contact with the animative power by means of meditation.  This means this animative power is present right now for us to experience, face to face. 

Switching gears, the reason for posting this particular blog had to do with meeting a person today, at my local coffee shop, who was discussing yoga postures.  I pointed out to her that the posture, itself, is to be filled with Mind (citta) which first requires that we actually awaken, somewhat, to this Mind.  While I was explaining the animative nature of this Mind to her, I could sense that she was directly experiencing it.  She had a startled look on her face, then smiled in amazement.  Needless to say, she was astonished and remained in a state of light-bliss for a while(that is the only way I can explain it for now). 

This, I can say, is more than likely the way the Buddha’s true religion was transmitted.  Some people who met him felt the presence of Mind animating them, becoming in sync with him, so to speak; others did not.  It is quite an event, needless to say.  It goes to prove what I said earlier about true religion which is not, incidentally, about acquiring a new belief, but about directly experiencing the animative power of life itself which, intrinsically, we are. 

Being a rebel

In today’s world, people are taught to be obedient and respect authority for its own sake, not because the authority is wise, but because it is the authority.  The bulk of Buddhist devotees and practitioners are by no means free from this; they never seriously question their teachers just as they have not seriously questioned their society and its values and beliefs, for example, the belief in materialism which comes by way of the physical sciences.  

Learning to be obedient and respect authority for its own sake is unhealthy, psychologically, if we wish to maximize our spiritual intelligence to win enlightenment.  

This is the general meaning behind the The Kalama Sutta:  that we should not trust what we see or read, even if what we read seems authoritative, otherwise we can be deceived. In today’s world this is a call to be distrustful of even scientific claims and authority which is just a disguised form of materialism.  Instead, we should rely on self-knowing (atma-jñana) which begins at the deepest part of our being which is transcendent.  It is that part of our being which is naturally liberated, although we are unable to connect with it fully because we are still under the heavy veil of the conditioned world and its values which we still prize too much.  In a way, we have to become rebels, keeping in mind that Siddhartha, before he became a Buddha, was also a rebel.

 

Transcending the plural veil

To assume that the first person/observer is identical with their mentations, of which they are mindful of, is not without its problems.  This, by the way, is the general assumption of neuroscience which is based on the West’s longstanding love affair with materialism.  

One problem worth noting, is the first person/observer is thus assumed to be a fictional construct which is never other than his mental states.  Said differently, there is no real first person or self.  There are only a kaleidoscope of mental states.  E.g, I am the going to work self,  the angry self, the lustful self, the funny self, the greedy self, the sleeping self and so on.   Such a view doesn’t rest well with Buddhism.  If this is what the Buddha taught, as far as ‘no self’ is generally understood,  I find it odd that the Buddhist practitioner Mahamoggallana would say:

“Those who see the five aggregates of existence as different (from the self) and not as the self, pierce the fine thing as a tip of hair with an arrow” (Theragâthâ 1160).

It is also odd that the Buddha would say of the aggregates of the psycho-physical body many times over:

“This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ)” (S. iii. 45).

Both passages clearly show that Buddhism makes a clear distinction between the human body with its mental life, and the first person.  Given this fact, it is useless to argue with those who try to find in Buddhism support for dismissing a witnessing self or an authentic first person.  

What any intelligent person should see in Buddhism is the limit of mental states ends with the first person and arises from the first person which means the first person or self is substance and mental states are its compositions.  This also means that the difference between substance and mentation is like the difference between water (substance) and its waves (attribute).  This is neither, strictly identity, nor is it difference.  This further suggests the first person, or self is never other than singular (eka) whereas mentation is never other than plural or composite.  

This tells us something rather amazing about Buddhist meditation if not its secret.  With the greatest of focus and concentration we should be able to penetrate through the plural, veiling power of mentation and non-conceptually see our singular, first person self or Buddha-nature.  It does us no good just to assume its presence on a practical, everyday level or deny it, which is materialism.  To actually realize the self, luminous Mind, Buddha-nature, etc., is the main objective of Buddhism.

The real four noble truths

The first Noble Truth is about suffering.  But his doesn’t tell us much.  So we look through the canon.  As luck would have it, we find this which explains just what is actually suffering.

“And what , bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering? It should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging; that is, the form aggregate subject to clinging [all the way to] the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.  This is called the noble truth of suffering” (S. v. 425).

The suffering aggregates begin with birth and continue through sickness, old age, death, etc.  So now we know that our psychophysical body is the basis of our suffering which consists of material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness. 

The second Noble Truth is about the etiology of suffering, that is, the cause or origin of suffering.  Although desire or thirst is the origin, we need more specific information.  The origin of suffering, which is desire, has to be connected with our psychophysical body.  Again we search through the canon and find this:

"And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origination of suffering” (M. i. 191). (Emphasis added.)

Not only are the Five Aggregates suffering, but now we learn the Five Aggregates are connected with the origin of suffering insofar we cling to them because of our desire for them.

The third Noble Truth has to do with the stopping or transcendence of suffering.  In connection with the Five Aggregates, we find this passage which explains the stopping of suffering.

“The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the stopping of suffering” (M. i. 191).

As for the path, itself, the fourth Noble Truth is completed with right samadhi (samyak samadhi) and with the tenfold path of the Arhat, is completed with right liberation (samyak vimukta).  Both are spiritual, non-physical accomplishments that don’t rely on the aggregates.  Also, the eightfold and tenfold paths are not moral paths but ones that help to insure spiritual liberation from the carnal body or the same, the Five Aggregates.