Emptiness misconceived
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 4 minute read This excerpt is from Chapter 4: ‘Postmodernism and the academic mindset.’ Sunyata Those casually or more deeply involved with Buddhism often bandy around the word Sunyata (pronounced shun-yata) or Emptiness, without necessarily comprehending—or even getting very close to—its true meaning: they assume it means something like ‘nothing is real.’ The truth is that the ‘mother of all (Buddhist) doctrines’—and the basis for sunyata—is praticca-samutpada or Dependent Arising: in short, Conditionality. This doctrine expresses the Buddha’s central insight that ‘all phenomena are dependently or conditionally arisen,’ thus they have no ‘own-nature / inherent-existence (svabhava).’ Nothing is self-supporting; nothing exists independent of (other) conditions. Sagaramati: ‘Sunyata means that some “X” is “empty [sunya] of inherent existence,” that’s all. As we have said, sunyata and praticca-samutpada are the self-same doctrine seen in two ways. Therefore the doctrine of sunyata does not negate phenomena, but only negates that which has never existed, i.e. the illusion of “self-nature” that we attribute to phenomena. After insight into the emptiness of phenomena, the “same” phenomena are leftover: pots still carry on being pots; They don’t suddenly disappear into some fictitious emptiness. Fire still produces heat to keep us warm, etc. All that changes is our deep seated attitude to things: the way we are attached and dependent on them, the way we see and relate to them and cling to them for a sense of who we are, a sense of identity.’[1] In fact, according to Nagarjuna, sunyata, praticca-samutpada and the Middle Way are coterminous in meaning: ‘Whatever is dependently arisen (praticca-samutpada) That is explained to be emptiness (sunyata,) That, being a dependent designation (prajnapati,) Is itself the Middle Way[2] Non-self The Middle Way is the path between the two extreme views of ‘Eternalism’ and ‘Annihilationism,’ where Eternalism is the belief in fixed unchanging essences, such as an eternal creator God or an unchanging fixed self. Annihilationism is the belief that at death nothing of the person continues. These two views lead to the corresponding extreme religious outlooks of puritanical theistic religion in the former case and laissez faire hedonism in the latter. As with most things, the helpful option is somewhere in the middle: that is, acknowledging that there is some moral structure to the Universe, but approaching that humanely: in a way that is based in awareness and experience rather than dogma and religious doctrine. There is a self, an agent, but that self can be changed, for better or worse (ethically) moment-to-moment. The reaction of Lauren...
Insight on the Spiral Path
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 7 minute read This excerpt is from Chapter 10 and follows on from The Fourth Dhyana. Vipassana meditation In general, vipassana meditation takes place on a firm foundation of samatha meditation. ‘Vipasyana, the insight method of meditation, reveals our self and our world as they are beyond our assumptions and self-referencing emotions. It is direct experience, not abstract understanding, and contrasts with samatha methods such as mindfulness of breathing that prepare the mind for vipasyana by cultivating profound concentration and strong, positive emotional integration. Vipasyana is generally preceded by samatha practice, because if concentration is wavering, the mind will be unable to rest in the special object of vipasyana meditation. And when insight comes, a stock of calm, strength and happiness is needed in order to absorb its revelatory, visionary impact.’[1] Hence: In dependence on concentration there arises knowledge and vision of things as they really are (yathabhutajnanadarshana) Knowledge and vision of things as they really are On the basis of the fourth dhyana, the monk is now ready to reflect on the nature of reality. ‘Then with the mind composed, quite purified, quite clarified, without blemish, without defilement, grown pliant and workable, fixed, immovable, he directs his mind to …’[2] To some extent we have already been reflecting on the way that things are; in the sense of understanding that the bottom line for all sentient beings is that they desire happiness and do not want to suffer, and that the way that happiness is brought about is through wanting it for all beings—in the cultivation of metta towards them—and in bringing mindfulness to the situation to see precisely what needs to happen in order to bring it about. And we saw that we needed to understand how the mechanism of Conditionality pervaded all aspects of that process, so that a constructive approach to overcoming suffering could be followed, as represented by the dhyanas. With insight—or wisdom—practice, we now come to explore the more destructive aspect of Conditionality; the fact that whatever we possess; create; love; are attached to, to the extent that it exists in Samsara; Unenlightened Conditioned Existence, will eventually fall apart. This truth is expressed in the three laksanas (Sanskrit: trilakshana; Pali: tilakkhana), or marks of Conditioned Existence; that all such phenomena are impermanent (anicca), insubstantial (anatta) and thus unsatisfactory (dukkha). To understand how the former fits in with the latter, it will be useful to consider a metaphor. The Anatta Doctrine and the potential hill[3] The Buddha was born 2,500 years ago in India, into a...
The theme of ‘Change’ in Postmodernism
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 8 minute read This excerpt is from the chapter ‘Postmodernism and the academic mindset’ and follows the section on Postmodernism. The theme of ‘Change’ [Mathew] Mullins gives an example of the ‘change theme’ from postmodern fiction: ‘Perhaps the best illustration of this notion of change comes from Octavia Butler’s unfinished Parable Trilogy. In the two completed novels, Parable of the Sower[1] and Parable of the Talents, Butler’s protagonist and primary narrator Lauren Olamina records her experiences in a not-so-distant apocalyptic future where the infrastructure of the US government has withered, and the rule of law has become legend. After her walled neighborhood is attacked and burned by local drug addicts, Lauren leaves her hometown and her father’s orthodox Christian religion behind and strikes out with two other survivors on a northbound journey in search of jobs and safety.’[2] Image by qimono on Pixabay. Earthseed ‘Along the way she develops the religion she had begun to craft for herself as an alternative to her father’s faith, a set of verses she calls Earthseed. The God of Earthseed is change: All that you touch You Change. All that you Change Changes you. The only lasting truth Is Change. God Is Change. ‘God is change, and change is also God. Each of the Earthseed verses either directly or obliquely speaks to the nature of change, and the most important aspect of change is its ubiquity, its atmospheric, foundational, state-of-things, all-encompassing nature. …’ ‘As Lauren develops her religion, she retains the language of “God” to talk about change. Various characters question this approach: “But it’s not a god. It’s not a person or an intelligence or even a thing. It’s just … I don’t know an idea,” says a young man named Travis. ‘Her new religion changes traditional Christianity by reimagining God as an impersonal force rather than a personal being. When Travis points out that no one worships impersonal forces such as change or the second law of thermodynamics, Lauren responds, “I hope not […] Earthseed deals with ongoing reality not with supernatural authority figures.”[3] Here we are in the realm of secular religion: ‘Most of Butler’s characters do not struggle with Earthseed as a practice. They struggle with changing their minds about who or what God is. They struggle with “ongoing reality.” Postmodernism deals with ongoing reality.’[4] In other words, they struggle to accept a religion whose concern is not with discerning an ethical structure to the Universe and aligning oneself with it, but: ‘with the processual nature of...
The political bias potential hill
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 3 minute read Diving into the Preface of ‘The Buddhas and Global Governance,’ this excerpt explores the way that going to extremes can be the way of things in politics. It follows on from ‘Compassion and its enemies’ and is part of the larger post ‘The Twitter Files.’ The Middle Way Carroll spoke of a middle way between the extremes of too much and too little compassion; in fact, the Buddha expressed his teaching as ‘the Middle Way’ between extremes: one needed to avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism: that either all phenomena are underpinned by a fixed unchanging essence (eternalism,) or that nothing continues after death (annihilationism.) It is human nature to go to one extreme or another: either retrenching into dogma, in the former case; or giving up, thinking: ‘What is the point of building anything anyway: everything is going to come to an end?’ in the latter. And we not only see these tendencies in religious life, we see it everywhere: including in politics: where the harder thing is to ‘stay in the middle:’ marrying the opposites. Ricky Gervais’s ‘centrist coward’ is therefore doing the harder thing: by trying to occupy the middle ground. The ‘political bias potential hill’ This difficulty illustrated by an analogy: suppose we take a bowl and place a marble inside the edge: when we let go of the marble, under gravity it will move towards the centre, then will oscillate back and forth until it comes to rest in the middle; in physics, this shape is called a potential well. But suppose we now turn the bowl upside down and create what could be called a potential hill: this time, when we place the marble on the top of the hill, at first it will slowly move away from the centre, and then pick up speed as it accelerates down the hill. Staying in the middle ground requires effort! Those who call their mild political opponents ‘Trotsky’ or ‘Hitler’ are not really making that effort: they are taking the easy path: of polarization, and now there are many things about their opponent that they just do not have to think about. I am reminded of a passage from John Cleese and Robin Skynner ‘s book Families And How To Survive Them: ‘What’s so funny about really extreme political sects is their inability to get on with each other. They’re always splitting up and forming separate groups, which then split up after a time. We had a lot of fun with this in Monty...
The Twitter Files
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 30 minute read This excerpt is from the Preface and goes into political developments over the last 15 months, since Elon Musk bought Twitter (now ‘X’) and invited independent journalists such as Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger to share what they found there. Included is a section on the Trusted News Initiative, a global media monopoly instigated by large legacy media outlets such as the BBC. As a religious minister working within a western Buddhist tradition[1] and thus committed to the Buddha’s non-partisan teaching of the Middle Way, I find myself in a strange situation. We do indeed live in ‘interesting times.’ The Western world is enmeshed in the Culture Wars, seemingly chasing its tail/ fighting itself over ideology when under the surface essential resources are dwindling in a declining empire, causing people to fear for their future and that of their children and grandchildren. The world we inhabit is increasingly one in which people live their lives in information silos: only hearing the message designed to justify power to their particular group, and otherwise blithely getting on with life, oblivious to what is going on elsewhere. Scientia potentia est: ‘Knowledge is power’ as Francis Bacon said in 1597. Little did he know that this would play out by said knowledge acting as a reason for people to isolate themselves in their self-sustaining silos, fearing and balking from encounters with people holding different viewpoints. If a news source from across the cultural divide is encountered, it is typically regarded with suspicion and mistrust, even though it may be the only source of an alternative viewpoint. People obey the group’s social mores: adopting its lifestyle choices and assumptions in line with the others on their radar, which often remain unchallenged, whilst in the silo on the other side of the political spectrum, the exact same thing is happening. God forbid anyone should attempt to occupy a middle ground or offer a balanced opinion. Ricky Gervais: ‘Social media amplifies everything. If you’re mildly left-wing on Twitter you’re suddenly Trotsky. If you’re mildly conservative you’re Hitler, and if you’re centrist and you look at both arguments, you’re a coward and they both hate you.’[2] The two silos, as of 2022, consist of a) left-wing mainstream ‘The Trusted News Initiative (TNI), a self-described “industry partnership” launched by several of the world’s largest news outlets—including the BBC, The Associated Press (AP), Reuters, The Washington Post, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter—in March of 2020.’[3] and b) conservative social media a more conservative-leaning silo/ camp that consists of independent YouTube content creators—a high...
Visitors since 20 March 2024
Users Today : 32
Users Yesterday : 23
This Month : 490
Total Users : 13917Subscribe via Patreon
Subscribe to my YouTube channel
