Flavors of Buddhism. Buddhism has had a complicated history over the 2500 years or so since Gautama died. Over that time many schools have arisen, and appropriately enough some have passed away. For present purposes I need name only a few. The earliest separate school was called
Theravada – this is the Buddhism that spread from India to what are now Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indochina and (until it became Moslem) Indonesia. It is the old-time religion (although not of course a religion), and is considered by many to be the purest as it is closest in time and content to the Buddha’s original teachings, and least contaminated by external influences. It is the school I identify with.
For historical reasons that need not concern us here, Buddhism eventually declined in India. By the time of the Moghul conquests (13-16th centuries) there was hardly anything left of Buddhism in India; it had migrated to Tibet, Central Asia, China, and eventually Japan. Buddhism merged with local traditions in these places, changing its nature significantly. Tibetan Buddhism, the type best-known in the West, mixed the Buddha’s teachings with a highly developed local religious system. Tibetan Buddhism has countless buddhas and countless domains for them, as well as a system of gods and demons and hells, and a quasi-divine status for buddhas of many kinds. I have nothing bad to say about Tibetan Buddhism, which has helped many people to a high level of consciousness, but it doesn’t appeal to me, and so I don’t practice it, but prefer to keep it simple in the old-style Theravada way. One of the important differences between the Tibetan school, called Mahayana (meaning Greater Vehicle), and the Theravada school, called Hinayana ( Lesser Vehicle), is the question of arhats and bodhisattvas. The Hinayana emphasis is on personal purification and awakening. The Dhammapada says you cannot do the work of another – don’t even try. If you become an awakened being, an arhat, you have completed the course. The Mahayana folks say no, being an arhat is not enough – once enlightened you have to become a bodhisattva and return to save everyone else. “Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them all” is the bodhisattva vow. The Hinayana folks don’t take this vow. If I become enlightened, then maybe I’ll reconsider saving everyone else. But I have a lot of work to do first, before I have to make that decision. Meanwhile, as noted, give me that old-time religion. This may seem like a fundamentalist view, but Buddhism, unlike other spiritual paths, becomes more reasonable rather than less the more fundamental you get.
There are other schools too. There is the Vajrayana, which incorporates tantric techniques. There is the Pure Land, which concentrates on devotion to a heavenly Buddha called Amitabha who dwells in a faraway paradise. Chinese Buddhism focuses on offerings and prayers and recitation of mantras. Zen, a form of Japanese Buddhism, concentrates on austere meditation practices in order to achieve sudden illumination. In Soko Gakkai people recite the syllables nam-myoho-renge-kyo (meaning I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra) as many times as they can. Some American Buddhist churches seem almost indistinguishable from Protestant churches, down to the pews and hymnals. Since the psychedelic revolution of the 1960s there has been a flowering of distinctly American Buddhism, often with a Theravadin flavor and often led by Americans (many of them Jewish), where the focus is on mindfulness, meditation, ethical conduct, and overcoming ignorance, attachment and aversion. This is the approach I feel most comfortable with. There are more kinds of Buddhism than you can shake a stick at. As usual, I can only write here about the particular kind (Theravada, Hinayana) that works for me, without disparaging anyone else’s preferences.
Buddhism: The Way of the Awakened One
Introduction
I have a page for Buddhism here because over the past 42 years (as I write this in 2013) it has become such an important and useful part of my life that I can hardly leave it off a personal website. Also, because it has been so useful in reducing suffering and keeping me out of trouble, I would like to spread the word. I am not a professional (or even an amateur) holy man, and I am certainly not an academic expert on Buddhism, so what follows arises only from my own study and experience. No doubt others, some much better-informed than I, have different views of this ancient discipline, and they are welcome to them. But this is how I understand Buddhism, and how I use it.
Buddhism Is Not a Religion
Americans tend to group Buddhism with the so-called “Eastern religions,” and there are places where Buddhism is treated like a religion, with temples and idols and prayers and sacrifices and incense. But at its core Buddhism is not a religion, but a psychology for reducing (or even eliminating) one’s own suffering. Buddhism developed from the radical insights of one historical figure, Gautama Siddhartha, who was born in what is now Nepal sometime in the 5th century BCE. For more on his life, look here. Here are some ways Buddhism is different from a religion.
The Life of the Buddha
Before going into the core of the teaching in more detail, this seems like a good place for a quick overview of the Life of the Buddha. Of course his life was not written down until centuries later, and the tradition may not be precisely accurate in every detail. But because the Buddha was a real person, his teaching has always been understood within the context of his life, and it does not matter all that much if the details are historical or legendary. So this is the story as it has come to be accepted.
The Four Noble Truths
Almost all our suffering can be traced to these cravings. Longing to get what we want it the most easily recognizable source of suffering. This means not only objects and specific pleasures, like money or sex or victory or pie, but all the ways we want to make the world suit our preferences. The world is big, and not likely to remake itself to suit us. The discontinuity between what we want and what we have can be small-scale and personal – wishing not to have to commute every day on the bus – or large-scale and altruistic – wishing people didn’t have to endure war and starvation. It all comes down to the same thing – being bummed out because things are not different.
An important special case of longing for what we want is the longing to become what we want to be. Whether or not the ambition is a creditable one doesn’t matter much. Wanting to become a saint or a bodhisattva or a benefactor of humanity can be just as damaging and painful as wanting to become a millionaire. Both involve us in grasping and striving, in ego-centricity, in commitment to unstable structures, in living for the future. Fearing to get what we don’t want is a complementary form of suffering. Fearing rejection is the flip side of longing for acceptance. Just as longing is the characteristic form of the first kind of suffering, anxiety is the characteristic form of the second kind.
As with craving, almost all anxiety can be traced to fear of not getting what we want, or of getting what we don’t want, or of losing what we have. I don’t want to miss my flight, so it makes sense to do what I can about it and move quickly toward the gate, but worrying about it brings on anxiety, and so I suffer. This anxiety doesn’t make it any more likely that I will get there in time – by moving quickly I am already doing what I can about that – but it adds a needless burden of suffering.
Fearing to lose what we have is the most subtle and pervasive form of craving, because it extends beyond our obvious longings and anxieties to a more basic one – fear of change. One of the core insights of the Buddha was impermanence – everything changes. Things arise and pass away – this is true of everything from our thoughts to the objective conditions of life at the moment, to our very selves. Nothing is permanent; even we are not permanent. All sense pleasures fade. All structures are unstable. Trying to hold on to what we have is a doomed effort – everything changes, eventually we lose all we have (even our lives) – and there is no way to keep anything as it is. Therefore attachment to existing structures is a potent cause of suffering, because we are grasping at what cannot be held. Attachment is a good synonym for suffering here – it is our attachment to having things be as we want them that causes us to suffer.
These ideas are summed up by what classical Buddhism calls the three poisons: attachment, aversion and ignorance. Attachment leads us to long for what we want and to cling to what we have; aversion leads us to fear what we don’t want and try to flee from it; and ignorance keeps us from seeing that that is what we are doing, and from seeing that all phenomena, including our experience, arise and fall away.
The method of defeating desire – of outwitting it, as the Dhammapada so elegantly puts it – is set out in the Eightfold Path. Three insights are important here. The first is that most of our suffering takes place when our minds are dwelling in the past or in the future. We replay that awful moment, or pine for the lost love, or regret our poor choice, and we suffer mightily. When we remember that all of that is in the past, and over with, while we are now in the present, it is possible for us to stop hurting ourselves with the memory. Likewise when we grow anxious over what we hope to have – the boon we hope is coming, the victory we hope to achieve, the pleasure we hope to experience – we are living in the future, which is not only not here, but may never come as we imagine it will. So here too, if we can return our minds from the future to the present, we can abate the suffering from anxiety, and anticipation, and insecurity, and any of the dozens of future-based pains.
Second, part of the technique of doing this is to learn to observe our thoughts as they arise, and notice when they lead us into future-tripping, or past-tripping, or clinging or attachment or greed or anxiety or any of the countless states of mind other than a calm presence in the present. This is not easy to do either, because we are not used to doing it. But just the awareness that our thoughts, like everything else, arise and pass away, are transient and impermanent, and are only thoughts rather than actualities, helps us not let them lead us into familiar painful paths. Once we recognize our thoughts for what they are, they lose a lot of their power. They only have the power we give them, and we give them power only through ignorance.
Third, despite tales of instant enlightenment, none of this is the work of a day. Even the Buddha, after six years of preparation, took 49 days to awaken. We will take longer than that. But the good news is that it doesn’t all have to be done at once. We get better bit by bit, the Dhammapada says, like water filling a bucket a drop at a time. Even a little awareness helps a little. Every time we catch ourselves clinging, and let go, we burst one little balloon of suffering, and we get better at the process. It can be done – that is the Third Noble Truth.
The first two elements prepare the seeker for the work.
The next three elements are basic standards of ethical conduct. These are a practical necessity because it is not really possible to purify yourself while taking advantage of other people, or treating them dishonestly or unethically. Lying or cheating or stealing or offering violence to other people means you are putting your own desires first – but those are the very desires you are trying to master! Moreover, dishonest or unethical conduct blocks your path to enlightenment because it entrenches you in the illusion of your own centrality, forecloses compassion, obscures your understanding of your transience and that of your desires, and enmeshes you further in the complications of karma.
The final three elements apply to the work itself.
A Buddhist sage compared our thoughts to a puppy. The puppy jumps on the couch. He is not allowed on the couch, so we pick him up and lay him back on the floor. The puppy isn’t bad – he is just being a puppy – of course he wants to be on the couch. And we don’t hate the puppy, or blame him, or beat him – we just patiently continue to pick him up and move him back to the floor, until finally he learns his place. Being angry at our thoughts will not help, and being angry at ourselves won’t help either. Just keep recognizing thoughts and desires as they arise, and keep setting them down again. It is astonishing, once we begin to notice it, how our thoughts hijack our minds. How many times have we suddenly awakened from a daydream, to realize that we have been somewhere else, in the past or in the future, or planning or rehearsing or replying or comparing or analyzing or judging or commenting or humming a song? The sudden realization of where our thoughts have taken our mind does feel like awakening from a dream. And we remain awake for a moment or two, and then drop off again, and awaken again later. When we notice our thoughts arising and passing away, we are not asleep. We are awake as long as we can keep this up, although we will certainly drop off again, and awaken again. The aim is to stay awake as long as we can, or even stay continually awake. That is why Gautama was called the Awakened One. The goal of meditation is just to stay awake.3
The breath is a good tool for staying awake. It is always there, and it is not a thought. So when we awaken from the dream in which we are judging or analyzing things and concepts, rehearsing what we will say to someone tomorrow, replaying what went wrong (or right) at that meeting fifteen years (or minutes) ago, doing what the learned and ironic sage Alan Watts called talking to ourselves in our heads, then in order to stay awake we can return our concentration to our breath. In, out; in; out. It’s not a thought! And it’s always available; it’s happening right now.
Some other concepts
Taking refuge in the Buddha means, among other things, realizing that enlightenment and purification are not impossible. Gautama, the Awakened One, not a god but a person like us (only somewhat cooler), proved that by doing it, by sitting down under the bo-tree and vowing not to stir until he was enlightened. I think the Life of the Buddha is the most inspiring story in all human civilization. Taking refuge in the Dharma means realizing that there is a coherent theory of life and mind, on the human level anyway, and an accessible way to live mindfully and serenely. Tell the truth. Don’t hurt people. Remember everything changes. Stay calm. Pay attention. Desire is suffering. Beware of attachment. This is a refuge because it makes life easier and less chaotic, and protects us from illusion, and gives us a context for understanding what we see and feel, and provides an unchanging anchor in a ceaselessly changing world. The Sangha, originally the body of monks, is often understood as other people on more or less the same path. We take refuge in the Sangha when we help each other, or accept help, or just recognize that we are not alone on this path.
Once we internalize this viewpoint it becomes a lot easier to let go of the illusions we cling to, almost all of which depend on a view of ourselves as unique, separate, central and unchanging. We are really none of those things. If we are not unique, separate, central and unchanging, probably no one else is either. Look around you: are all these people really separate? Or are we more usefully thought of as a colonial organism, separate on top like mushroom spores, but connected at the bottom?5 This idea of connection may be more powerful than just a metaphor. What is the point of one spore feuding with another, or imagining itself a sporier spore, or stealing its lunch?
Professor Robert Thurman, the distinguished scholar of Tibetan Buddhism, points out that the illusion of centrality is the main impediment to enlightenment. We are all accustomed to thinking of ourselves as the center of everything, because that’s how it looks to us from where we are. With that orientation, no wonder there is greed and grasping, and dominance games, and striving and conflict. But gather 200 people in room, and it becomes obvious that we can’t all be at the center – in fact none of us is. Thurman says that the main insight of Buddhism is not that none of us is here, but that all of us are here, in relation to each other. Really understanding this clears up a lot of confusion, and this understanding, rather than a high-minded indulgence of the other due to our own ineffable nobility, is the basis of useful compassion.
Yogic meditation leads the adept through increasingly advanced meditative states, aiming for transcendent awareness of identity with the Divine. Buddhist meditation has a similarly elaborate series of meditative states, and meditation has been considered an essential element of Buddhist practice from the founder on down. I am ill-equipped to distinguish Buddhist from yogic meditation – I am not a very accomplished meditator myself, and have found it possible to gain if not all then most of the benefits of Buddhist principles just by understanding them intellectually and working them into my life. The only useful point I can make here, in distinguishing Buddhism from Yoga, is that achieving advanced meditative states, however beneficial, is not the goal of Buddhist practice. The goal is to avoid suffering by freeing oneself from ignorance, attachment and aversion. To do this we need to quiet our minds, recognize our thoughts for the transient recurring distracting misleading phenomena they are, disentangle their demands and enticements from our perception of reality, and maintain a consistent mindfulness. Whatever helps, helps. But meditation is a tool in Buddhism, not the main event. Buddhist meditation has nothing to do with yogic breath control, or supposed health benefits, or stress reduction. Of course reducing the suffering and anxiety caused by longing, and grasping, and clinging, will also reduce stress, but this is the result of the insight and its application, not of the meditation itself.
For historical reasons that need not concern us here, Buddhism eventually declined in India. By the time of the Moghul conquests (13-16th centuries) there was hardly anything left of Buddhism in India; it had migrated to Tibet, Central Asia, China, and eventually Japan. Buddhism merged with local traditions in these places, changing its nature significantly. Tibetan Buddhism, the type best-known in the West, mixed the Buddha’s teachings with a highly developed local religious system. Tibetan Buddhism has countless buddhas and countless domains for them, as well as a system of gods and demons and hells, and a quasi-divine status for buddhas of many kinds. I have nothing bad to say about Tibetan Buddhism, which has helped many people to a high level of consciousness, but it doesn’t appeal to me, and so I don’t practice it, but prefer to keep it simple in the old-style Theravada way. One of the important differences between the Tibetan school, called Mahayana (meaning Greater Vehicle), and the Theravada school, called Hinayana ( Lesser Vehicle), is the question of arhats and bodhisattvas. The Hinayana emphasis is on personal purification and awakening. The Dhammapada says you cannot do the work of another – don’t even try. If you become an awakened being, an arhat, you have completed the course.8 The Mahayana folks say no, being an arhat is not enough – once enlightened you have to become a bodhisattva and return to save everyone else. “Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them all” is the bodhisattva vow. The Hinayana folks don’t take this vow. If I become enlightened, then maybe I’ll reconsider saving everyone else. But I have a lot of work to do first, before I have to make that decision. Meanwhile, as noted, give me that old-time religion. This may seem like a fundamentalist view, but Buddhism, unlike other spiritual paths, becomes more reasonable rather than less the more fundamental you get.
There are other schools too. There is the Vajrayana, which incorporates tantric techniques. There is the Pure Land, which concentrates on devotion to a heavenly Buddha called Amitabha who dwells in a faraway paradise. Chinese Buddhism focuses on offerings and prayers and recitation of mantras. Zen, a form of Japanese Buddhism, concentrates on austere meditation practices in order to achieve sudden illumination. In Soko Gakkai people recite the syllables nam-myoho-renge-kyo (meaning I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra) as many times as they can. Some American Buddhist churches seem almost indistinguishable from Protestant churches, down to the pews and hymnals. Since the psychedelic revolution of the 1960s there has been a flowering of distinctly American Buddhism, often with a Theravadin flavor and often led by Americans (many of them Jewish), where the focus is on mindfulness, meditation, ethical conduct, and overcoming ignorance, attachment and aversion. This is the approach I feel most comfortable with. There are more kinds of Buddhism than you can shake a stick at. As usual, I can only write here about the particular kind (Theravada, Hinayana) that works for me, without disparaging anyone else’s preferences.
The Dhammapada
The Dhammapada (Pali for Dharma-path) is the oldest Buddhist scripture, the original collection of the Buddha’s sayings first written down centuries after his death. It collects the sayings of the Buddha in their least corrupted form. It is like a red-letter Bible, except the Buddha is not a god (neither was Jesus, of course). It is short, having 26 chapters, each the size of a middle-sized poem, 423 verses in all.9
There are many English translations of the Dhammapada, but I favor two of them. For people new to the book, and to Buddhism generally, I recommend the translation by Eknath Easwaran (1910-1999) (pronounced Esh-waran). Easwaran was a Hindu from Kerala who became a professor of English at the University of California at Berkeley. He originally became interested in the Buddhist and Hindu scriptures as literary texts, but ended up a sage with an ashram in Marin County (north of San Francisco). I favor this translation for newcomers because it has a superb Introduction that lays out the Life of the Buddha and the basic concepts of Buddhism in an exceptionally clear and accessible way. In his translation each chapter is given in free verse, and each pair of chapters has a matching commentary.
The best practice is to read the Introduction first, and then afterward read a pair of chapters, then the commentary, then the chapters again, and then stop until the next day and think about what you have read. The reason for stopping is that the Dhammapada is so rich that reading more than that at one sitting would be too much, and it would all blend into one big indigestible lump of good advice. That is not the way to get the best out of this text. It is more than good advice – it is a way to radical rethinking. Plus you probably don’t have time to read more than a pair at a time.
For my own use I prefer the brilliantly concise translation by Thomas Byrom. I carry the tiny Shambhala Pocket Classic edition around with me and read a chapter every so often, like a breviary. It is a very telegraphic version more suitable for people already familiar with the book, but I find that when I think of a line from the Dhammapada it is almost always from this translation. Here too the best plan is: read two chapters, then read them again, then stop. I buy both versions in quantity to give away. Both are available quite cheaply at www.bookfinder.com. There is no hurry. If you read one pair of chapters a day you will be done in less than two weeks. Resist the impulse to keep going. When you finish all the chapters, start again. It is inexhaustible.
Resources
Remember!
The Buddha said:
Impermanence Buddha
[An image by Adam Phillips, from Ayuthaya in Thailand. Reproduced with permission.]