Like a Dream - how things are

Buddhist teachers try to find these ways of expressing "how things are" in effort to bring benefit to us stressed out folk. Often, they express these things as a dichotomy.

For example, we have the dichotomy between the path (aka method) and the goal (which in a sense is anti-method). Or expressed in another way, between insight (wisdom) and meditation (path).

There are many other dichotomies too, like that between your already present, innate enlightened nature and your attainment of (or need to attain) enlightenment itself. Or the one between your already present 'Buddha within' and the 'Buddha you will become'.

These are all expressed as dichotomies because we have a very hard time trying to understand something that has no comparison. So to explain and to understand this, we compare.

Ultimate truth has no comparison.

You can't call it a goal because it looks like a path when you view it from that angle. You can't call it a path because it looks like a goal for similar reasons. Ultimately speaking, it is not analogous to anyTHING because it is not a THING.

To make sense of all this you really have to dig into exactly "what is the nature of this experience I am having right now?" How are things?

To do this, in some schools of Buddhism [or to put it another way, at some stages of the path according to some schools] there is an emphasis put on a distinction between what is referred to as "calm abiding" meditation and what is called "insight" meditation.

Calm abiding is taught in it's initial stages as a method to develop "sustained attention" - kind of what I describe as "holding". This meditation uses an object or mental image (a concept) upon which you are to focus your attention in a sustained but relaxed manner. This is what most people think of as meditation.

Insight meditation on the other hand involves utilizing your curiosity - the bright and alert aspect of your mental process. This is the part of your mind that seeks to ascertain, clarify and "know" the object of attention. For example, when you analyze something, you want to see it clearly, you want to know it, to know it's true nature - this is insight as a meditation.

So these are often taught as two kinds of meditation. Ultimately speaking, these are not two separate THINGS. In Zen Buddhist meditation especially, these two are combined.

Now, one form of meditation I use that was taught to me as a kind of 'calm abiding' but can also have elements of 'insight meditation' is to use a candle flame as an object of focus.

You may use any type of candle, but I like to use the small "birthday cake" candles. The reason is that they last a short time (a few minutes) and then they go out on their own.

So you set yourself up - and the candle too - in a dark quiet place. Put the candle about 3 feet in front of you below eye level and then relax into the meditation.

Just allow your eyes to remain on the candle flame while you notice and re-notice your breath (the feeling) as it enters and leaves your nose.

Let go of all thoughts as you notice them, and just return over and over again to this simple experience.

Just notice.

Candle flame, breath, candle flame, breath, there's not much to it. Just notice when you stray from that and just return without judging good or bad.

Do this for a few minutes.

Now, while looking at the flame, just begin to analyze it.

This flame, is what? Is it the light? Is it the heat? What is the this THING we call flame? Is it the color? Is it the wick? Does it have a sharp edge or does it just fade into the surrounding area? What was the cause of the flame? Was it the match or lighter? What caused them? What gives it the label "candle flame"?

Now, is this flame a thing, or is it a collection of other things? What gives this flame duration, continuity? Is it the same flame from one moment to the next? Is there a single thing really there that is actually the flame?

You don't necessarily have to answer these questions conceptually to get the insight. But I'll go ahead and answer ;)

This THING we call the "flame" is a whole bunch of other things, conditions, causes, all coming together as an appearance we call "flame". But is there a single THING there that IS the actual THING called flame? No.

This flame is changing continuously from one moment to the next, yet it is giving the appearance of being a single flame. Does this remind you of any other things in life?

Our mind is a lot like a flame - always changing, never the same, yet continuous. Time is a lot like a flame for the same reasons. In fact, anything [or everything] is just like that flame!

And then the flame finally goes out. When this happens in a dark room during this meditation the effect can be quite profound. A lot of insight can come all at once.

The flame goes out and the nature of the flame is left. There is a kind of emptiness but still an awareness too. The flame now seems like a dream. How could something exist truly, and then not exist truly?

Was there ever really a flame?

It's not that Buddhism denies reality - Buddhism is NOT nihilism.

We grab at something in our experience that is not there - it is like a dream.

It's not that there is nothing, it's that there is no single thingNESS called "flame". Flame is just a name.

We go through life tying ourselves up in knots of anxiety, of wishes and fear. We treat each other like crap because we believe we are alone in our-self and that the world is something 'out there', away from us.

The Tibetan teachers advise to do a 'post meditation' meditation. When you get up from your seat, from your meditation cushion and go about your day, consider this all like a dream.

Who Am "I"? are you sure?

Who am "I"?

I have a daughter.

Am I "Dad"?

My Mother thinks of me as her child.

Am I "Son"?

I feel like the same person I was as a child.

Am I "same person"?

I drive a bus so people call me "bus driver".

Am I "bus driver"?

What about when I'm watching tv, am I "tv watcher"?

People call me Doug.

Am I "Doug"?

My Buddhist teacher gave me the name "Dorje".

Am I "Dorje"?

Sometimes I get called other names like for instance, "idiot" or "jack ass", am I "idiot"?

Am I "jack ass"?

I have climbed mountains, so am I right now "mountain climber"?

If I am any or all of these things then where are these things located?

In my body?

Hovering around my body?

Inside my brain?

Do I carry these different beings in my pocket?

One somewhat profound phenomenon I noticed about mountain climbing is that no two people on a climb are climbing the same mountain.

How so?

This really stands out in climbing. Climbing is a very individualized sport. Each climber has a completely unique view of the experience.

If you try a climb that you are not prepared for in some way, for you the whole mountain is hard, difficult. Your whole experience is one of struggle and personal challenge. This could end up being a positive life changing experience for you because you overcame so much doubt and fear, or just plain physical exhaustion. You have this experience of the mountain as being just this.

Then there is the other person. They are on the same climb, the same route. But they are prepared. They maybe have some information about the route that you don't have. They are ready and the climb presents few challenges and few surprises. For them, this same mountain is an "easy" mountain, nothing to write home about, nothing challenging at all really. In fact, this person has this experience of the mountain as being just this.

Now there is a third person. This unfortunate climber is standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets clobbered by a boulder that has fallen on him. His leg is broken and he now waits for rescue. For him the whole mountain is nothing but a cruel play of life or death. "Will I live?" "Will they get to me before I freeze to death in the dark?" "I hate this mountain, it's trying to kill me!" This unfortunate person has this experience of the mountain as being just this.

Which mountain is the true or correct mountain?

This is how it is with climbing - there is no single mountain.

Let's say all three of these climbers are asked about their opinion of the mountain by a forth climber who is planning to climb it in the future.

If you're the first climber then maybe you tell him its a hard mountain to climb but worth the challenge.

If you are the second climber then the second mountain experience reflects the "real" mountain and you tell this guy that it's an easy mountain, not really even worth climbing.

If you are the third climber, the mountain is an unpredictable and dangerous place. You might tell him to be prepared to die on this mountain because you will never know when it might turn on you.

If there was one single, real, truly existing mountain, then which one of these experiences is that true mountain?

I live not far from Mount Rainier. Everybody where I live knows this mountain by it's name. We can even point to it and say, "there is Mount Rainier."

But what is Mount Rainier really?

What are we really pointing at when we point at this THING called "Mount Rainier" ?

Are we pointing at the rock?

If so, I can find a rock just outside my door, why don't we call THAT Mount Rainier?

Are we pointing at the snow?

If so, we can find snow in Minnesota in the winter, why isn't THAT Mount Rainier?

Are we pointing at the sky and clouds that are above or around the rock and snow?

Would there even be a Mount Rainier at all if there were no sky and clouds?

When pointing at the mountain, are we pointing at the height?

If so, I can point at the sky and show height, why isn't THAT Mount Rainier?

Why isn't the figure of 14,411 feet simply called Mount Rainier?

Are we pointing at the steepness?

If so, I can show an angle of steepness with my arm, why isn't THAT angle or my arm Mount Rainier?

Is it the direction that we are pointing in that is Mount Rainier?

There are any number of directions, and any number of things in that particular direction, why arn't all those other things also Mount Rainier?

Big mountains like Rainier are such massively large things to experience that when you get near one, you can't possibly take it all in at one time. Even your visual perspective is skewed and unreliable because of the distances and angles involved. It's kind of an illusion no matter how you view it, no matter from what angle, no matter how close or far, none of these present the "true" mountain.

Why?

Because we are making something that isn't containable, isn't isolatable as a concept into a conceptualized "THING".

The fact is, none of those things I just mentioned are a single THING identifiable as "Mount Rainier". When you look for Mount Rainier in any of those conditions, you won't find it. What you'll find is just conditions - conditions we label as "Mount Rainier".

And when you look at those supporting conditions and try to identify those as some THING, you will only find more conditions as well.

In fact, when you look at any THING what so ever, all you really see are conditions. There IS no THING BUT conditions!

'Who I am' is just conditions.

Who you are is just conditions.

A mountain is just conditions.

All of these THINGS are just conditions.

We name them, we lable them, we designate them, we conceptualize certain conditions into solid THINGS.

But really, there are no solid THINGS - and not even existing "condition THINGS".

There are conditions that we experience, and our experience has qualities. But those qualities are also just conditions - not condition THINGS.

Reality is just THIS, ineffable, unspeakable, non-conceptual interdependence.

And by the way, have you ever seen a condition that was forever? That was unchanging? Such a thing does not exist.

When Buddhism says that something is "unidentifiable as a THING" what it is saying is that a THING is void or empty of being any THING. This experience that is "unidentifiable as a THING" is interdependence or voidness itself. There are no THINGS!

To try to identify "who I am" is futile because you are trying to identify reality.

Reality cannot be identified, cannot be conceptualized because conceptualizing means comparing, designating, making distinction. You can't make distinction in an interdependence!

You can't even say "reality" because that in itself is distinction.

A Buddhist view is a non-view.

Meditation isn't a THING that you do.

Meditation is just realization itself minus the concept of.

If I was really a "jack ass", then every person in the world would equally identify me as "jack ass" - and every climber would climb the same mountain.

But mountains are many things. They are in fact impossible to wrap your mind around, impossible to contain in one single view.

A Mountain is everything.

The earth and sky are integral to the mountain. You are integral to me. This is voidness, this is interdependence. Just SEE who I am. Bring clarity - the identity of clarity-emptiness.

That's all.

The Pinnacle of All Religion - the viewless view

Nirvana is not a thing

Nirvana is the release of "thingness"

Within the pantheon of Buddhist teachings there are various views concerning just what the best approach to the goal is. But these differences should not be viewed as ultimate differences. We don't need to fight wars over Buddhist doctrine as this is proof in itself of a failed view - a view that has fail to release.

Is the correct view a THING to be attained?

Nirvana is release. It is also called "liberation". Nirvana is the realistic experiencing of reality. It is the experiencing of voidness.

But nirvana itself, does not exist as some "THING" to be gotten or grabbed.

Elsewhere in this blog you can find what is meant here by the term "release". In short, it means to stop grabbing, to release the tension that is balled up as your so-called-life that is based upon an unrealistic experiencing of reality.

To "stop grabbing" then has a very specific meaning within a certain context. This context is the mind or "the experiencing of.."

Our "experiencing of" is in a sense defined by our view.

If the view we have is not a THING that we can grab onto then it is a self-liberated view - a realistic view.

If the view is a THING that we can grab onto then we have an unrealistic view - a fantasized view.

In either case, the view does not exist as a THING.

The view is voidness

The view is release

Some of us Buddhists make vows to reach nirvana and set out to thoroughly attain the "bliss of release" or liberation that is promised in the experiencing of nirvana. That's good, and this benefits all people because we (they) get inspired and educated, and the world is positively influenced by these examples and by the clarity of experience that gets shared.

Others make vows to not "disappear" into their own experiencing of the "bliss of release" (aka "personal benefit") until they have brought ALL others to that experience ahead of them fist.

That's good too - and according to this teaching, the actual "bliss of release" that is experienced by these "bodhisattvas" turned "Buddhas" will be even more profound and thorough because of their vow.

If you look closely at even this (my own) interpretation of these differing approaches to the goal within Buddhism, and then, if you expand that out and begin to include other ways to approach what is called "ultimate truth" you find very little (if any) grounds for conflict - and especially religious wars.

Religious wars are not the failing of religion or of any particular religion[s], religious war -like any war- is a failing of human understanding. It is proof of an unrealistic "view" [a view as a THING] of reality.

We Buddhists, do not posit the existence of an ultimate, super natural, divine intelligence aka "God", but do we even know [thoroughly understand] what is meant by someone else when THEY use the term "God"?

When I was young, I very quickly discounted the conception of God as being "like a person, only with super natural powers". My view of God was more expansive then that. In fact, it eventually became so expansive that it took on very "Buddhist like" qualities - more along the lines of an "absolute" or an "ineffable ultimate perfection".

I know many people who are Christians, who as we speak have a very similar view of God - as being "ineffable" etc.. Other people have other [maybe even more profound] views of the term "God" as well. Some might even view God as "ineffable interdependence" - a term I myself have used on this blog to describe the ultimate mode of reality. Others may even understand God as being exactly that," the ultimate mode of reality". We don't know an others experience!

The conflicts that we produce are a result of the grabbing that we do. Some of the worst conflicts result from the grabbing at our own view of ultimate truth. Is that the fault of ultimate truth or is that the fault of our grabbing?

On the other hand, when we have an unrealistic view that posits a THING that is ultimate, we then posit that this view of the THING needs to be defended and THAT leads an even deeper grabbing - THAT leads to war.

What is unique about Buddhism is it's simple and direct pointing out of the fact that we don't need to grab. We don't need to defend a view. Views are THINGS and THINGS don't exist.

The problem with God is not with God, it is with US, We are the ones who make God into "our view", into our THING. God is not a thing!

Our "view" of the ultimate is not the ultimate mode of reality itself - which is voidness. In reality, and yes, in the experiencing of the REALISTIC view of things, there is nothing to defend because there are no THINGS that are there TO defend. This is not nothingness, this is clarity.

This is why Buddhism can legitimately be called NOT a "religion", but the very PINNACLE OF ALL RELIGION. Of coarse when I say that [especially the context of what I just said] - there is big time objection and a religious war is begun.

But that is due to this grabbing and Buddhism is about NOT grabbing - that is it's view. That is it's viewless view, "thingLESS" view or "non-view".

The failure of all religions is not the failure of the religion, nor of religion in general, it is the failure of not removing a very subtle level of ignorance from our mind. That means the failure of not removing the THING that appears as a real, a solid, a self standing ultimacy - a THING that is independent of our experiencing of it - or what is called "something outside of ourselves" in modern terminology.

We view a THING that does not exist. This is an unrealistic view. This doesn't mean that "God does not exist", it means that God is not a THING.

In other words, the ultimate truth you seek is within you. Not only "within you" it is THIS VERY EXPERIENCE YOU ARE HAVING RIGHT NOW.

Although this will [I know] make people pause I must say it anyway, This - what I have just stated in the previous sentence - is the goal of every religion, the goal of all religions and is the pinnacle of all religion. This doesn't make Buddhism the "superior religion" it simply puts it into a different context.

The pinnacle of all religion is factual because all religion aims at the ultimate truth - this is a fact. They differ in their views on and in their approaches to that and they differ in how those views are grasped by the adherents to the particular religion. So understand, the aim is there in ALL religions. What Buddhism does is take the aim to it's ultimate conclusion.

THAT is what the teaching of voidness is about.

Voidness as a teaching separates grabbing from the view by showing that the view is not a THING to be grabbed. The view is - as usual - tainted by the grabbing of it as a THING.

God is not a thing.

Nirvana is not a thing.

The view is not a THING.

Reality is not a THING.

In fact, the view is not "A" VIEW.

And in regards to the Buddhist teachings themselves, I want to point out this:

Voidness is not -as often interpreted in Buddhism today- the "voidness of inherent existence". That thinking leaves something there still, as a REAL THING that is a "not inherently" existing THING.

Voidness is also not "the voidness of impossible ways of existing" [something you can find elsewhere on prominent Buddhist websites] because that also leaves some THING really existing as a "non-voidness of impossible ways of existing" THING.

Of coarse these are just words and the difference may just be in the semantics.

The point here is simply this

THINGS don't exist. Why?

Because THINGS are caused and conditionally dependent, voidness is EXACTLY causation and conditional dependence - period. There is nothing further to qualify.

And that means there is nothing further to "conflict".

This is realization. This is experience.

This is not a THING. This is release.

And, of vital importance as well, this is why we ALL have to realize voidness AS OUR own experience. What ever the religion or non-religion we practice, whatever sect, clan or doctrine we follow within any religion or path of living, we have to realize voidness because our suvival, our salvation, our release and benefit depend on its realization.

Don't make this a THING. Don't make it a view in terms of a THING-view to attain, to grab. Buddhism is not in that context. Buddhism is always about release and benefit.

Meditation - the path of holding

Strange isn't it. Buddhism is about release in it's ultimate sense, but you can't get even there without effort.

"Holding" is in reference to this 'illusion' of effort. I say illusion because there is really is no place we need get to so no effort to be made. Holding also has the implied meaning of a sustained experience as opposed to a single moments "flash" of insight.

Effort is something pretty difficult to talk about in regards to 'release', but I have to "make the effort" to talk about it anyway - pun intended.

Because of where we are starting out, because we are already in a condition of intending, of acting, of grabbing onto, because we are already in the condition of tension, because of this, in order to release we will have to make an effort.

Ultimately speaking, there is no effort to be made, but if you think you understand that point already as being your present experience then you will just continue to do as you have been doing - namely grabbing and stressing.

So conventionally speaking, we have to make an effort. We try to make it small, try to minimize the tension required, but none the less there is effort. And please understand that within effort, there is no inherent thing that is really there as "effort". Effort is self liberating.

In this case, the effort is called 'meditation', in particular Buddhist meditation.

This word 'meditation' has vast and numerous meanings - even just within the context of Buddhism itself.

In the case of this blog, practically every time you are reading this you are in a sense 'meditating'. It may be a type of analytical-conceptual meditation but it is still meditation.

Then there is the 'higher' meanings of the word which imply a kind of innate state of 'present awareness' or an 'awakened-ness'. This is also included in the various meanings of the word 'meditation'.

There are also non-Buddhist forms of meditation which are not about ultimate release, but are about union or a kind of joining - 'merging with the absolute' and such.

There are types of meditation which are called "formless meditation" and there are types of meditation which rely on images or concepts - both external and internal constructs. Some people call these "props" LOL.

These are all only a fraction of the practices that fall under the heading of "meditation".

What makes meditation a "Buddhist" meditation?

Well, first of all, a "Buddhist" meditation is always ultimately pointed toward the goal of release and benefit, this is what Buddhism is about.

Now, within that goal, that context, there are most of those methodologies or meditative practices that I just mentioned. But Buddhist meditation is always pointed toward the goal of release and benefit. And you don't really know what that means -in it's ultimate sense- until you arrive at that goal.

So, lets make the effort to get there.

Im not sure how I will proceed with this particular topic as it appears on this blog. I may eventually put all the various types of meditation I am familiar with in this single posting. I may spread them out in different posts. Im just not sure at this point so we'll see.

So, Im now going to describe a pretty simple and straight forward meditative practice that is Buddhist in nature and yet still involves some effort.

The trap that is always lurking in Buddhist meditation is that it has the potential to become the opposite of Buddhism. In other words, meditation could become for you like a drug that you end up grabbing. This is a very subtle problem. Sometimes we don't even see this happening for a while.

The thing to always recall however is that Buddhism is about release. If you become addicted to meditation that is a sure sign that you have strayed from the goal. Buddhist meditation should bring benefit through release, and too much meditating leads to the opposite of that - it leads to over reliance on method at the expense of the goal.

So, meditate a little, some each day is good, but not too much. It should serve your insight, should bring you closer to release, but it should never become an end in itself.

Try to find a quiet place. If you can't, don't fret, go with what you've got.

Sit up if you can - straight but not fighting it. In a chair is fine.

If you sit cross legged this is good - please use a soft, tall cushion under your butt to gain a comfortable posture.

Facing a blank wall can be good or you can face out into open space if you prefer.

Hands can be whatever position you like, or you can use a "mudra" so maybe do a web search of that term if you like.

Now relax.

Let your eyes fall unfocused on nothing in particular.

Relax into your posture but don't slouch.

Keep a slight slight bit of effort in your posture because this can help you notice when you've drifted out of meditation.

Relax your body and your mind.

Mouth can be open or closed.

Notice your breathing and allow it to naturally settle - maybe take 3 deep slow breaths at the beginning.

Relax.

With each out breath, for three breaths, say the word "relax" in your mind.

Relax

Relax

Relax

After three breaths of relaxing, just let that word go and just relax without really trying to relax.

Relax

Relax

Slowly now, ever so gently, on the quiet out breath think to yourself "allow".

For three breaths, on each out breath, just 'allow' yourself hear that word in your mind.

Allow

Allow

Allow

After three breaths of allowing, just let go of that word "allow" and allow whatever you experience to arise and go away, arise, maybe stay for a bit and then fade, or disperse.

For this particular meditation, there are no more rules than this:

Relax

Allow

Observe

Notice when you have gotten entangled in conceptual thinking.

And also, notice when you've gotten tied up in an emotion.

Simply notice this.

Notice.

Just notice when you've drifted away from relaxing and allowing and observing.

Notice when you are no longer aware that you are simply observing.

There is nothing more you need to do in this meditation.

Just notice your experience whether you are distracted or not, troubled or not.

Just be present - not the concept of "being present", rather, just be present and notice.

You will find on occasion that you are entangled in conceptualizing. The point is to notice this, not to correct it. There is nothing to correct.

There is nothing inherent in concepts that is in need of correction. Their nature is the same nature as any phenomena. In Buddhist terms, concepts are "self liberating" or "self liberATED".

In fact, these various conceptual and emotional appearances during meditation do not have the power to be distracting because their very appearance is proof of their non-existence. ***

Void are all things because things are voidness.

Relax

Allow

Observe

Watch all thoughts, feelings, experiences just come and go.

For now that's it. Thanks and good luck till next post..

PS - Feel free to post questions about this meditation, I'll try to answer if I can.

The Benefit of Release - noticing my life

Im not a selfless person.

In fact Im pretty damned selfish as people go. Im a lot closer to a thug than to Mother Theresa.

I used to think that I couldn't talk about any of this because I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world. But if I wait to become totally selfless before I talk about this I will be waiting a very very long time.

The things I now know in my heart about this are all that I can say - this is my experience.

Consider for a moment how much stress you carry with you every day. How much anxiety and worry about self protection in so many forms. About how much you wish for some good fortune to happen to you. How much you wish to avoid trouble of all kinds be it health or financially, or with school or friends, or your career or within your family - how much you worry about someone you love maybe, or how much you can't let go of some wrong that was done to you. Maybe you're rapped up in a particular political outlook or a religion or an ideology, whatever is eating you up inside.

Now consider how much time and physical energy those kinds of thoughts and all that emotional stress and worry consume.

I'm not talking about what most people think of as stress - the obvious stuff that gets you into drug rehab for instance. No, Im talking about what most people would consider "normal" everyday life or living.

You know, the kind of "living" where people are murdered by the dozens every single day. Where kids are abused or neglected because we just don't have the time or care. Where we eventually devastate the planet in order to fulfill our biggest dreams and deepest personal ambitions. The kind of "living" where people will do almost anything to get ahead, to get theirs, or to get their fifteen minutes of fame and profit or to get there fix - whatever that fix is.

Ive lived in the inner city my entire life, I have known and seen stress. Ive been in life or death encounters, Ive seen people killed, Ive come upon people who were so far gone that they could just as soon kill you as look at you - and without batting an eye.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum. Maybe someone along the lines of Mother Theresa. I'll use her behavior as an example here, not necessarily her mental outlook. Perhaps the Dalai Lama would be a more appropriate example given the context here, but Im trying to make a larger point. Someone who shows such a lack of self protective impulse and complete "at-ease-ness" among even the worst conditions of human experience that you can't help but wonder, are they something other than human?

Clearly, most of us fall somewhere between these two ends of the stress spectrum. We just might not decide to 'wipe out our family' one day because we lost our job and things have become too much to handle. And the odds are equally 'not so good' that one day, people will consider us as saints and pray to us because of our - utterly selfless yet immense - dedication to easing the suffering of others.

So, even though we fall between these two -lets say extreme examples - still, there is a lot to be gained by examining the role that self preoccupation plays in our lives. It is this thing we each call "my self" that is exactly 'energy bound-up.' It is freedom relinquished and constrained.

Without knowing it, without being aware of it, the problems that are present in our lives which arise from the preoccupation with self are almost incalculable. Im not going to claim that ALL our problems arise from our 'present' attitude, many of them were a long time in the making. But understand this, we are stressed! In fact when you really think about it, it's hard to find a single negative factor in our society that doesn't arise in some way due to the preoccupation with self.

Ideological wars, domestic violence, most types of crime, corporate greed, drug abuse, over consumption, obsession with fame and power and control, even down to things like urban sprawl, environmental degradation, heart disease and road rage.

Nearly everything (or maybe everything) is effected by the urge to satisfy and protect the self! We are egomaniacs all of us, and in great irony, this preoccupation we have with self inflation, self obsession, self protection, is actually killing us sooner and one could say "un-naturally". And it's killing our environment as well.

'How' it is killing us is that when we self obsess - as we in fact are - this action of "self" (and that is what self is, it is an action or process) contains (blocks) tremendous amounts of energy within both our bodies and minds. This energy gets "contained" in the form of ignorance, narrow ideology and views, destructive habits, physical dis-ease, tension, stress, anxiety, depression and other mental afflictions, muscle pain, neurological blockages and physical ailments and destructive behaviors of all kinds.

We don't (or maybe can't) even see this. We are so busy in our lives that we just don't see what we do, why we do it, or what the effects of our actions are. We don't see that we are in fact completely crazy and acting completely crazy. We don't see how we are killing ourselves - we allow no time to see. We are 'too busy' to see.

I believe we all DID once see this though.

As children, we have very big dreams and are pretty open and much more stress free than adults. I believe that at a certain stage children can really see the possibilities - the widest potential of what they could become.

But then we raise them to copy our own example and they become successful crazy people and fail to reach their potential for release and saneness. We beat them down with our own crazed anxiety. We turn them into victims "just like the rest of us" and condition them to "survive in the real world".

In this way, little if anything actually changes in the way of society. Children eventually lose their sense of possibility and take on all the habits that we happily pass along to them.

We forget what it is to be child like - or more accurately, we suppress it. We forget or suppress the child that is still within us (as cliche as that sounds).

So look at the world for a moment. Look at your life. Notice the problems and negatives - not to become depressed or to dwell on the negativity, but just to note that there is a possibility that things could improve.

It's strange really, that all this begins with a simple -but hard to detect- error of perception. That's really what Buddhism is pointing out - a simple mental error - an erroneous concept is a more apt description.

The erroneous mental factor that leads to (has and will always lead us to) the experience of being on the brink of catastrophe is this: We take the idea or concept of "my self" and believe it is a valid and truly existing reality - it isn't. That's the real tragedy.

It is such a small error, but it leads to this, just look at the wreckage. Look around you at the stress, at the greed and deceptive lengths people go to disguise it, and then look at the suffering that this stress produces on us, on our families, on our society, on our planet.

As I said, I am not one to really talk. I am not a selfless person. I am mostly part of the problem. But although I am just beginning to see, I have to express my experience of seeing. I can't advocate anything really. I can't say that we all should go out tomorrow and begin helping the homeless, or volunteering for community service - in my case THAT WOULD BE hypocrisy and that just adds to the anxiety. Also, that may be personally the wrong approach for you or for me - sort of putting the cart before the horse.

We really need to look to what is happening closer to home. We really need to treat the root cause in order to cure the dis-ease - not just address the symptoms. Why am I like this? Why is life slipping away from what it was (or once had the potential to be) when I was a child? Im just saying to who ever wants to listen that there is an alternative to the craziness around you - or in you.

THAT is what this is about. THAT is why I write these things.

One final note on this topic: Perhaps the greater irony in this regard is that what is really needed here is not to "view the world as a dark, dangerous and crazy, out of balance place", in fact, it's almost the complete opposite of that.

What Im saying is that children DON'T view the world that way - as dark, dangerous, out of balance. They view the world as "anything is possible so lets actualize those possibilities!" This is pure joy, pure release. What I'm pointing out is THAT view.

In turn, when we have that view, that open or 'released' view, not only does this change our immediate experience into something positive, it positively changes how we effect the world itself.

Touching the Voidness - using the tool of intellect

Buddhism isn't only about quietly sitting in meditation. If it was only about that then the outcome of the Buddhist path would be like the
effects from taking a drug to numb some pain - you could get some relief temporarily but the cause of the pain would still be present.

So Buddhism is also about insight and then finally acting (taking action, living) based on that insight. This is another way of saying 'release and benefit'.

Note again here that in Buddhism, 'mind' is the primary focus. We work on the mind because that is how we experience. Change the how and you change the experience. What follows below will challenge you to change that 'how'.

Where there is insight there is release

Where there is insight into the true nature of THIS experience right now, there is release of tension, release from the grabbing that is 'the fear of..' and the grabbing that is 'the wishing for..'

Where there is release there is benefit

When you are released from your own problems truly, you naturally want to share this benefit with others because, well.. for you, there's not much else that is meaningful.

One particular method that Buddhism uses to gain insight is logic and reasoning.

Madhyamaka (mod-JA-mah-kuh) is a philosophically based path of Buddhist practice. It relies on reasoning and logic (which are conceptual processes) to lead one to a non-conceptual (direct) insight into - or the correct view of - reality.

Madhyamaka means "middle way school" and it rose out of the Buddhist teachings on "emptiness" known as the "prajna paramita" (perfection of wisdom) scriptures .

Emptiness aka "voidness" is the ultimate existential mode of all phenomena and is a term which is interchangeable with the term "interdependence".

The middle way path is designed to free you from the commonly held but extreme views of (a) eternalism - the view that "things are inherently real", (b) nihilism - the view that "things are inherently NOT real".

As Buddhists, we seek release, and a big part of that is to relax our conceptual grip on things as being 'absolutely solid and utterly real', or 'absolutely an illusion'.

We need this release, but we need it through insight and not through false conceptual experiences such as conceiving of an 'eternal heavenly afterlife' or idealizing that 'nothing is real or meaningful' in any way.

To get a taste of the Madhyamaka method, try to follow me for a while in analyzing these short statements below.

Please remember, according to Buddhism, "things" are "knowable things" - they are things that appear as knowable experiences in our mind. There are no unknowable things. There are things that we might not have discovered yet (unknown things), but there are no things possible that are unknowable once we discover them.

Because there is anything
Everything is ultimately void

Because nothing can exist ultimately
All things prove their ultimate voidness

Because of something's voidness
There is something to be void

Because everything is ultimately void
Voidness and anything are the same

Lets break this down..

"Because there is anything
Everything is ultimately void"

Just the mere fact that we experience anything at all, or that anything appears to our mind at all, just this mere appearance means that this appearance had to be produced from conditions and causes. If it was not produced from causes and conditions then it would not be anything - it would not appear in our experience as anything.

But because it IS produced from causes and conditions, because it IS "anything at all", when we see it (when anything appears as "there, thing!") we are not seeing IT, we are actually seeing it's causes and conditions. This means that "it" (aka "anything" and by default, everything) is void of itself, or just plain void.

But why is EVERYthing void?

Everything is void because not only is the single thing that we are focused on void (as if there could be any "single" things anyway) but void also are all the causes and all the conditions that produce any thing as well - stretching out infinitely, endlessly.

Because the appearance of anything is 'causally produced from' and 'conditionally dependent upon' everything, a thing's appearance can only mean one thing, "Everything is ultimately void".

"Because nothing can exist ultimately
All things prove their ultimate voidness"

No thing anywhere, at any time or in any place what so ever, can exist independently or ultimately - as it's own thing. Why not?

Because it is produced. If it is produced it is constructed from causes and conditions that are NOT it's self, NOT it's own being. Therefore, this thing does not exist ultimately, as it's own independently self standing thing.

In other words, it does not and cannot exist ultimately.

And so, because this is the case, because no thing can actually exist in an ultimate, absolute sense, on it's own, this mere fact that there is a thing at all appearing in our experience proves that it is void of being it's own isolated being. In other words, just by mere fact that something appears at all, proves conclusively that the thing is void.

So, it follows that based on the fact that 'nothing can exist ultimately', when we have an appearing 'thing' this mere appearance of the thing proves it's own voidness of ultimacy, proves it's absence of being it's own thing. This then in turn applies to all things.

"Because of something's voidness
There is something to be void"

This is easy, trust me. Can you see the pattern emerging? Because a thing is not made of it's self, because a thing is void of being it's own self standing being, because of this, a thing is able to be produced, is able to be there as something appearing. Why?

Because if a thing were not void, were not empty of self, it could never be produced from causes and conditions, it could never arise as an experience. How could something get produced from causes and conditions if it was already an ultimately existing thing?

And so, the reason we can experience this 'something' as an experience of 'somethingness' is on account of it's being void of itself, or because of it's voidness.

"Because everything is ultimately void
Voidness and anything are the same"

We are beginning to approach a non-conceptual mental process here.

You can't really get your mind around this idea of "everything". Maybe a Buddha can, but you or I probably can't in our present state of mind. So lets take this one one line (or even one word) at a time.

"Because" means that if this happens, that results. This is a fundamental law of reality and a basic tenet and teaching of Buddhism. Causation or cause and effect.

"Everything" means every conceivable AND inconcievable aspect of reality - what a Buddhist would call "experience". No matter where you turn, no matter what you experience, this, is included in the term "everything".

"Is ultimately void" means as we have been pointing out already, a thing is causally produced and conditionally appearing, so that means it is void of self. In other words, it is "ultimately void" (aka empty of ultimacy or ultimately existing).

And so, where ever we look, whatever the experience, it is ultimately lacking of an ultimately self-real presence - NO MATTER WHAT IT IS!

So we have this basic truth that is embodied by the statement "Because everything is ultimately void"

Now moving on to the final line here, "Voidness and anything are the same"- what does this mean?

Remember, voidness is the reason that anything can be, can appear, can be experienced. But if we stop at that we still have apparently real "things" that have voidness as a quality. There is still a perceived ultimacy to "things" but we have just added that quality called "voidness" to something real.

Said in another way, we may understand that this narrowly defined 'thing' we are focusing on is in fact, not existing on it's own, but we still think it's causes and conditions are inherently real.

We need to expand our minds here and really consider the wider implications of all this.

Not only is a thing void of itself, but it's causes and conditions are also void of "their" selves. A thing is not just made of other things, there are no inherently real things to be the cause of something! A thing does not exist as a thing! All things do not exist as things!

Can you see that, on account of universal causation, there is no thing to be the cause of anything. No thing to act as a condition. There -in fact- are no things existing as things! But where does that leave us?

Well, you have to be careful here, not to slip into nothingness, and yet, still allow release [truth] to occur.

And that leaves us with that final line:

"Voidness and anything are the same"

There is only voidness. Really... Im not joking.

But because NO THING exists in and of itself, ultimately, unconditionally, nonrelationally, independently, because of this universal fact, and because this universal fact ALSO APPLIES TO voidness (as a conceptual 'thing'), VOIDNESS (true voidness) is EXACTLY the very appearance of ANY THING. ANY THING and VOIDNESS are the same.

But we usually don't see this. And because we don't see this we grab and we hurt.

The goal is to KNOW, to thoroughly KNOW that all this, all experience is exactly interdependence - aka voidness. Once you glimpse it, you've just begun. You have to go back and go back, again and again to deepen this glimpse until it becomes your living truth.

Of coarse I don't mean you "have to", but at that point, you will really have found some degree of release and benefit and Buddhism will not be just a head game.

For now, there is just one more thing in this regard that I wanted to mention:

Emptiness and appearance are one - interdependence

Where there is appearance there is emptiness

Where there is emptiness there is appearance

This simply expressed "formula" is valid for all levels of the Buddhist path - even the highest (aka most subtle) whereby the appearance is the minds clarity itself.

Finally putting it all in summation:

Where there is insight
There is release

Where there is release
There is benefit

Because there is anything
Everything is ultimately void

Because nothing can exist ultimately
All things prove their ultimate voidness

Because of something's voidness
There is something to be void

Because everything is ultimately void
Voidness and anything are the same

Emptiness and appearance are one
Interdependence

Where there is appearance
There is emptiness

Where there is emptiness
There is appearance

This
Tathata, Dharmata
Absolute reality

A Science of the Mind

I think that is what the Dalai Lama called it - not so much a religion as a "science of the mind."

But, what is the mind?

Well one explanation of the mind is that it is "experience", or "to experience", or better yet "experiencing of...(fill in the blank)". If you let this explanation sink in it really makes a lot of sense.

Lets put it this way, you can only experience life through your mind. Life happens as an experience, and experience happens AS your mind. Nothing can happen as an 'experience of..' without a mental process to cognize it as an experience of.

So lets go with that for now. And lets also define these terms as follows:

Mind is "to knowably experience.."

To experience is "to have a knowable experience of.."

An "appearance" (in the mind) is any knowable experience of mind - something (anything) appears in the mind, this is an experience of mentation or mind.

BTW, in Buddhism emotions are included in (or as aspects of) the mind as well.

What I'm going to talk about here is how our mind works when it experiences something. In other words, how our mind works.

A moment of mind is a moment of experience or experiencing.

There are five general factors that make up each and any moment of our experience:

1.> INTERDEPENDENT BASIS - There is the ineffable [unspeakable], interdependent basis of all appearance. One could tentatively [not absolutely] correlate this to the outside "objective" world although it equally applies to internal subjective experiences as well.

2.> APPEARANCE - There is the mere appearance itself as a perception. The mere appearance is a "valid arising" based on it's interdependent nature.

3.> ELABORATED APPEARANCE - There is the elaborated appearance as a conception.

4.> HABITUALLY CONDITIONED ELABORATED APPEARANCE - There is the habitually conditioned, elaborated appearance as a reception.

5.> PRESENT KNOWING - There is the present knowing factor of "awareness", aka "a knowing presence".

Example - a "dog"

Taking this somewhat out of the abstract, lets use the example of a person encountering a dog. Considering these five aspects of our experience by analogy, this experience (of encountering a dog) might unfold as follows:

1. INTERDEPENDENT BASIS - This would be the interdependent basis for the appearance of a dog [it's various body parts, it's mother and father, it's mind stream, and every other "thing" that goes into the making of the dog [except any independent thing that we might try to identify as being the dog itself]. Ultimately, this basis is voidness itself or inexpressible interdependence - it is ineffable.

2. APPEARANCE - This would be the mere appearance of some 'thing' appearing to us as distinct from [but validly arisen based on] the "background" interdependent basis. In this example, it would be an apparently isolatable "object" that is a distinct form appearing, but is not yet identified as a "dog". In other words, "Something is there".

3. ELABORATED APPEARANCE - This would be the appearance now as an identifiable, conceptual moment of perception - ie, a 'concept' or an idea. In this case, we would now identify the appearing form as "dog". Dog is a concept, an organized elaboration on an appearance that produces the resulting experience of..."There is a dog!"

4. HABITUALLY CONDITIONED ELABORATED APPEARANCE - This would be the conceptual appearance or "dog" now appearing as a familiar experience imbued with emotion. This factor is founded on any of our past experience with "Fluffy" as well as everything experientially connected with Fluffy. "Oh that's Fluffy! I love Fluffy the dog.."

5. PRESENT KNOWING is the non-conceptual present awareness that is the "immediate knowing of.." all other factors of experience. In this example, this [present knowing] is not the "I", nor the "love of Fluffy", nor is it "Fluffy the dog". Rather, it is the awareness that is exactly the present knowing of the experience "I love Fluffy the dog". Importantly, one must not mis-take this 'present knowing' to be a self or a soul, rather, it is simply a designation for a mental process of awareness (present knowing experience). Mostly, awareness is entangled with conceptual elaboration (thinking) and is thus "hidden" from our experience.

To understand all this it is necessary to understand the following:

Awareness [present knowing] can be directed outwardly or inwardly.

Directed outwardly [the usual case], our experience is of distinct, isolated,'object' appearances which are conceptually elaborated on and habitually conditioned to appear as though solid, inherently existing and independent from the awareness that is knowing them. This is the usual mental practice of non-meditation (also called ignorance or non-awareness).

Directed inwardly, awareness gradually deconstructs all appearances at each level of experience until 'experiencing' itself becomes the appearing object of awareness (becomes the experience).

In turn, when even this experience is deconstructed, it is found to be [it is an 'experience of..'] ineffable [unspeakable] interdependence. This is the mental practice of meditation (aka, wisdom or 'awareness').

So, when something appears in our experience [as an experience] the usual way we experience it is as a conceptually constructed, habitually conditioned real object, thought or being. This is when an experience is not analyzed or deconstructed at all by a directed awareness.

In the Yogacara-Madhymaka school of Buddhism this is called a things "imaginary nature". This school posits that any and all phenomena have 3 natures - (1) an imaginary appearance nature, (2) an interdependently conditioned nature, and (3) a true or transcendent nature.

So in this case, the "dog" appearing as a distinct (objective) individual being with an enduring familiar history and known to the observer as "Fluffy the dog" is an imaginary experience. The dog is completely imaginary!

Why is the dog imaginary?

Because it is really not a distinct and objectively self-real being - THAT is all conceptual. "Dog" is in fact a caused and conditioned phenomenon that appears on the basis of its causes and conditions. This is it's interdependently conditioned nature.

This interdependently conditioned nature becomes apparent to our experience [as an experience] only when we become aware of it. In other words, when we deconstruct or analyze the imaginary nature of "dog" we find it's interdependently conditioned nature.

Now, when we deeply analyze the experience of the interdependently conditioned nature of any thing, what we find is something ineffable, inexpressible. In other words, what we find is ultimately, voidness itself, or inexpressible interdependence. This is the dogs [or the experience of "dog"] true or transcendent nature. It is a completely non-conceptual experience.

And so, in the context of the "three natures" explanation of 'things', we have the situation of no analysis which corresponds to a HABITUALLY CONDITIONED ELABORATED APPEARANCE which is our usual (imaginary) way of experiencing.

We then have a situation of slightly analyzing (or simply, a deeper understanding) in which something validly appears - as a mere APPEARANCE - but is not real in it's own being based on the fact that it is relationally or interdependently caused and conditioned. This how a thing is experienced at the level of slight analysis.

Finally, at the level of ultimate truth, or thorough analysis a thing is experienced as it is in it's transcendent nature. It is not imaginary, and it is not a thing that is relative or relationally dependent. Rather, it is ineffable INTERDEPENDENCE or voidness itself. This is not a conceptual experience at all.

In comparison to the five factors of experience, analyzing in terms of the "three natures" then is like directing your awareness in reverse order to how an ordinary experience unfolds.

First deconstructing the HABITUALLY CONDITIONED ELABORATED APPEARANCE into it's basis of a mere APPEARANCE, then deconstructing that (with a non-conceptual awareness) into it's basis of ineffable INTERDEPENDENCE.

Through these explanations and methods then, we can get to a truer experience of reality. By having a truer experience, we deal with things in a more realistic way which helps release our bound up energy and anxiety. This brings benefit not just to you or me, but to everyone we relate with.

The Great Equalizer - a meditaion on death

My old coworker Pat is very conscious of con men, greed in general and classism in our society. He refers to death as the "great equalizer". "Doug", he says, "Someday these bastards are going to be laying there, helpless as the rest of us, taking their last breaths, and then they might be wondering, was it all worth it?"

I have to admit I enjoy that thought a little.

I had this zen teacher. This zen teacher was a Japanese gentleman who although small in physical stature, almost always had a big smile on his face when I was around him. He was kind of a caricature to me at that time.

On this occasion he had just visited a dying friend in the hospital and was now giving a talk about this experience.

It was very quiet in the lecture room. His usual smile was gone. Then, out of the silence he uttered a pretty serious question.

"When are you going to die?"

The room stayed silent. The question was a shot that went directly into the hearts of everyone there.

This teacher who was usually such a joy, such a gas to be around, was not there at that moment to play around - and we all could feel it. Quietly, calmly, seriously, almost sternly he said:

"When are you going to die?"

He then seemed to correct himself with a follow up statement:

"Not when, but NOW. Probably NOW."

He wasn't correcting himself. He was stating the fact that death is not only 'on the way to you' from some seemingly distant future moment, it is something you will experience as a NOW moment.

Death is not an abstraction. It is real. Trying to delay it, or put it off is like trying to never let the next moment of time happen. When you experience death it will happen as your present moment, as your present experience - not at all like in the movies, or in a video game, or in any other abstract manner. Death is real and it is NOW.

People often think of death as a "morbid" or depressing subject. It's never really been that way for me. I've always kinda had this outlook that death is a big challenge that I'm really gonna have to face. This outlook I now think is equally misconceived.

It is death 'as a concept' that terrorizes us. If death is 'right now' then life (which is also 'right now') and death are not that far apart are they?

In order to dissect and release the tension that the concept of death brings to my mind I have repeatedly used a method of visualizing myself as well, being dead.

WARNING:

This 'death meditation' is not for everyone. Many people have been brought up to avoid these thoughts or view them as something akin to evil. Some people just freak out when they consider the death of someone they love.

If you are such a person then what follows below is probably not something for you to read. This meditation CAN be very powerful and moving - it has brought me to tears. It is meant to be powerful and moving in order to bring home the reality of our grabbing at what isn't real.

A MEDITATION ON DEATH AND IMPERMANENCE

In a quiet dark place, sit upright with eyes slightly open - eyes may be closed at times.

Relax.

At first, just recognize that mind is experience. Mind is "to experience". Mind is "the experiencing of.."

Now again relax and settle in and imagine this:

The mind is a field.

This field contains and is made of all of our, perceptions, all of our thoughts, all of our experiences, all of our emotions, history and possibilities.

All of our hopes, dreams, fears and realities.

Everything possible and actual - both known and unknown.

All phenomena and all potential phenomena.

A vast field extending from horizon to horizon.

From beginningless time to endless time, the store of all experience, all knowledge, all times, everything - the entire universe is nothing other than this field.

Hold this image for a time.

Within a portion of this field is all you have experienced personally, as the life you have known.

All you have known and done, all you've dreamed of, hoped for and feared.

In seeing this portion of the field, you notice the remains of a life that has now passed.

Looking closer, you see that it is your own life that you are seeing.

This vision becomes clearer with time.

With attention drawn close, you are shocked to see your own corpse.

Jaw fixed open, eyes dark and void, teeth missing, skin rotten, maggot infested.

You recognize your own torn and filthy clothing on the corpse.

Dwell on this image - your death is inevitable. Feel this experience, let it become clear. Let it penitrate your core, and in quietude, dwell there for a time.

Scattered about in the field among the dirt and grass you see your once valued possessions - now broken down and degrading. You see these clearly and even feel the sense of loss.

Don't think that this is "only a vision". Think that this experience is actually the case at hand.

This experience is not fantasy, these things will come to pass.

You look further and notice the remains of your loved ones, your family, your siblings, your children - their bodies are contorted, decomposed and have become merely bones and rotten flesh.

You know it is the very people you once loved, your closest friends and relatives.

Now you can actually see and feel that they are gone. You know and really feel the loss.

Dwell on this.

This is the loss that all living beings will feel without exception.

Multiply this loss, this experience, by the billions of beings that have lived in this world.

Think this, "My own suffering is unbearable, but it is small when compared to the many beings who are suffering."

All who live will someday die, time will not change the moment of death, the agony of being torn apart from what we cherish.

All who live will suffer the loss of everything.

Think on this for a moment, it will happen, it has happened from time immemorial.

Gazing at the field again, you see the home you grew up in, but now it is collapsed, charred and tattered.

You see all of your possessions scattered, broken down, rusting, decomposed. There is little left of any of it, and what is left is merely refuse.

You clearly recognize all this.

In the field you go over a small rise and there find more destruction and rotting relics from your past.

Even your precious thoughts, your desires and aims are strewn about, detached, pointless and fading.

All the things you once knew, all you once valued and were attached to, all you once considered important, your inner values themselves, your hopes, your dreams, your job, your school, your neighborhood, your country, all these things are now gone or laying before you in utter ruin.

All of this is in the field before you and this is happening now as your present experience.

All of these things, all those you have attached to and regarded closely, all of this has crumbled to dust - mere scattered worthless relics - you see this, you feel the wind, you feel the chill.

This vision you're now having is both sacred and true - do not diminish it, do not turn in fear. Dwell upon it - your only salvation.

Considering all this in totality, you see now all at once, the vast sea of suffering, the vast sea of beings who have lost, and who have now perished.

If at least, their cries of suffering could be heard there would be something - now not even their cries remain, not even their legacy.

Your heart weeps.

The amount of loss is beyond calculation.

Beyond calculation.

And yet nothing was truly lost from the beginning.

You gaze out from one horizon to the other, in every direction and see only this field of change, of impermanence, the passing of time and of all that time contains.

The infinite sky merges with the edge of an endless ground - without distinction.

All of this is impermanence.

All of this passing ever away.

Now meditate like this for a time.

Before you conclude and rise from the meditation, dissolve this vision into pure light at your heart. Let this light then spontaneously radiate outward to benefit all beings.

The point of this meditation is not to be morbid and dwell on the misery of death. We create the "misery" of death by keeping it away from us, from our experience. Out of sight, out of mind.

But in life (and in death) you can never really get away from this present moment. And this moment - right now - is the ONLY place where experience happens. That is why this very moment - right now - contains every other moment you will ever experience. That is why we should consider death. Because life and death are the same moment.

Can you see this?

If you can see this, you will not be so afraid. That tension that is there, that fear, that gets released. When that release happens it's a kind of blissful experience, not a morbid one at all.

D

The Way Things Aren't - identifying what is to be rejected

What Im going to talk about now is a core Buddhist principle sometimes called (especially in Madhaymaka Buddhist teachings as presented in the Tibetan traditions) THE OBJECT OF REFUTATION - aka the object of negation.

This (OBJECT OF REFUTATION) refers to the thing that ISN"T real in things - even though we mostly assume it IS real. The OBJECT OF REFUTATION is the way things aren't.

Because this thing isn't real (it only 'appears' to be real in our cognitive experience) it is this very thing, this very appearance that we need to remove from our cognitive experience.

But why? Why do we need to remove something from our mind?

The short answer (for now) is that you experience life through your mind. Life happens as an experience, and experience happens as your mind. Nothing can happen as an 'experience of..' without a mental process to cognize it as an experience.

When we experience or 'cognize' anything we commonly relate to that cognition by 'grabbing' at it - figuratively speaking. We develop an intention toward how we are going to relate to this experience, to this object.

Buddhism says, that because we do not cognize (or 'experience') things the way they actually are, we relate to life in an unrealistic way. This unrealistic way of relating causes much stress within, and ultimately, leads to the misery that we observe and experience in our lives and in the lives we see around us.

When you grab at something, there is tension. When you grab at something that is not there, you have developed unrealistic expectations and needless tension.

The fundamental cause of this painful situation is this "thing" (actually non-existent) called the OBJECT OF REFUTATION. If we can identify it, dissect it and remove it from our experience there is a good chance that our experience will improve.

So, to remove a thing we have to first identify it.

The following analytical exercise helps us to identify, dissect and advance toward the removal of the root of our dis-ease.

Lets start this analysis by using the simple example of an object like a table. In this case it's a wooden table with four legs and a top. We look at the object and believe that we see something very clearly that appears to be 'table'. But lets look a bit closer at this simple experience.

When we view a thing like a table, the thing we call 'table' - the thing we THINK OF, that we are referring to when we use the name or label "table" - if that truly exists, it can really only be found in one of 2 possible modes or places.

Either it's an entity (thing) that is inherent to (within) the various parts of the table (ie, the "collective basis of designation") or it is an entity that is inherently separate or independent from the parts of the table. There is no third possibility.

Personally, it took me some time to understand and finally accept this - but then, I'm not very bright.

So, if we look for this thing we call "table" within its parts, instead of finding the thing called "table" we in fact find it's absence.

A leg is not the table, table is not within the leg.

Top is not the table, table is not within the top.

The varnish is not the table, table is not within the varnish.

A table maker is not the table, table is not inside the maker.

Etc, etc, etc....

Also, if we look for this thing we call "table" outside of its parts, we again -instead of finding the thing called table- find it's absence.

There is no ghostly floating presence of "table", no "table spirit" or "table soul" that is findable, lurking on the outside of the various parts appearing before us.

We must now conclude that there is in fact NO inherently existing entity, no real 'thing' that we can actually point at as the essential and independently self standing object called "table". "Table" in fact, is a mere designation.

This "no inherently existing entity that we can actually point to.." is what is sometimes called "the object to be adopted"[in meditation, the object to meditate on]. More on this aspect later..

Now, the 'object of refutation' is the exact opposite of the object to be adopted. The object to be refuted is an inherently existing phenomenon, an inherently existing table. We 'refute' this thing because it does not exist.

In this case, the object to be refuted is the non-existing phenomenon that we conceive of as "the table" which is something more than, something beyond a mere designation, something more than mere convention or name. This is the object to be refuted.

Thus, the thing we conceive of as being "table" does not exist at all, even in the slightest. This is hard to understand I know, but what DOES exist is utterly unspeakable in that it is void of being a pointable particular thing.

Well, you might ask, "what the hell is the table then?" My answer is that you can't say what the table is. You can KNOW it -which is what the Buddhist message of "release" is about- but you can't contain or grab it as a concept. [I'll go into this more in other posts]

The 'reality' of the table is that it's appearing in our experience is simply a collection (coming together) of relative conditions - with each relative condition itself being merely conditional. In other words, "table's" reality is beyond any analytical description.

To see table correctly is to see that the term "table" is mere convention, a convenient way of referring to this appearance of conditions. The table's mode of existence (how it exists) is only as real as that.

What the table "isn't" then, is simply anything more than what it truly (or ultimately) is. The table we usually see is something more 'solid', more individual, more independent than what it really (ultimately) is. This 'solidness', this in-dividable independence is what is to be rejected.


D

The Buddhist Message - 'Release and Benefit'

I will always struggle with finding the right terminology to convey my ideas here, and in particular (especially) on this topic. People of coarse, have different experiences with the various meanings of words.

What do I mean by the Buddhist message being "Release and Benefit"?

Well, yes, there is the historical doctrinal rendering of release or 'liberation' as being the true and absolute ending of reoccurring rebirth and deaths, but that's kind of abstract to most of us. What I'm trying to describe here is more so about the robust core of what Buddhism has to offer you in your life as you know it today.

I don't discount the more profound and traditional renderings at all, it's just not how the average person will experience the results of Buddhist practice in the short term.

How the principle of "Buddhist liberation" has come to reveal itself to me personally (in the short term) is more accurately described as an experience of "release".

Release from what?

Release from stress, from the balled up anxiety within, from the (very real but subtle) immanent terror that lurks in the back of my mind - as the ground of an experience that is not well understood.

We are all terrified on a deep level and this effects not only our own experience, but how we relate to others and our environment.

What are we terrified of?

Loss.

We fear loss and we fear it in a very big way! The fear we carry makes us grab at something, anything. Look at your hands when you grab and grab hard. There is tension there - big time tension!

The thing to always remember about Buddhism and Buddhist practice is that it is really and truly always ultimately about release - never ultimately about tension. This is true on many and various levels.

What about benefit?

The teachings didn't really start to sink in for me until I noticed that in my real life experience (as opposed to my ideas about my life) I did have moments where it -Buddhist practice- actually provided noticeable relief (liberation) from a state of pain, stress or suffering of some kind.

This is very important, and it's not really talked about all that often among Buddhists themselves except in the abstract. Buddhism SHOULD bring a noticeable benefit to you in some way - and I don't mean 'only in a future life' etc..

This could be something like when dealing with a loss of some kind. Recognizing (noticing) where you have become tied up in a "no win" situation (like loving someone or something that cannot fulfill you ) can bring very "real world" benefits to you here and now. Being "tied up" is a state of tension. Releasing that tension (in a healthy and sustainable way) brings benefit. And when that benefit happens it confirms that you are on the right track.

So one thing to look for in Buddhist practice is that - given time, at some point - it should pay off to some degree in this life, in the present. It should bring a noticeable benefit to you and in your personal outlook on things. You should feel it. You may not reach the farthest shore YET, but you should eventually feel something of what that might be like.

Not every Buddhist agrees with me on this. I have had one practitioner even tell me, "In this life you are stuck. You only get benefit from Buddhist practice in your next lives." That - ladies and gentlemen - is a bunch of crap!

Inside each one of us is the potential to fully realize our destiny - and realize it right now. I firmly believe that. Yes, we have particular circumstances and challenges, but it is only ourselves that stand in the way of seeing circumstance as opportunity. There is a path, a method, a way out. There is hope - all is not lost. We are not "stuck".

But without some tangible benefit -even if its relatively small- it's hard to sustain the reasoning to persevere on this or any sort of path. So look for that, demand a robust Buddhism. Demand that it bring a real sense of benefit to you in this very moment.

Why Buddha U ?

The "why?" is to help you see. See what? See that things do not have to be so stressful, so complicated, so fearful, so ominous and imposing, so dreadful.

Among many other things, I am a Buddhist. I "officially" became one a few years back in a Tibetan Buddhist ceremony and got the Buddhist name "Dorje" (door-jay) at that time. My original and you could call it my "heart" practice is "zazen" or sitting meditation as widely practiced in Japan in the "Soto Zen" school of Buddhism. I have now expanded into other forms Buddhist practice as well.

Having studied Buddhism for many years and having practiced many of the methods of Buddhism during that time, I must today admit that for me, there is something there, something to it. I'm not actually "there" yet however - you know what I mean, I'm not "enlightened" or awakened or any of that - but I cannot deny the place that Buddhism has found and repeatedly found in my life. I have left Buddhism behind (tried to) several times since I discovered it, but I've always returned. Maybe "why" I returned will become evident as this blog progresses - I hope so.

Because I have found benefit in Buddhism I feel a genuine sense of wanting to share that. I do NOT want to proselytize or convert anyone - that is exactly NOT the purpose of this site! It's just that for me, there seems to be a bit of a need to clarify my experience or experience in general and to share that clarification for YOUR benefit.

If you find no benefit here, please accept my apology and continue to seek and question in whatever way you see fit.

What I get out of this is number one, a centralized place to store and organize information that benefits me. I know that sounds selfish given the context and given what I just stated, but it's the honest truth.

Also there is this, the older I get (maybe the farther along I go) the more I seem to feel that there is really not much to accomplish in this life outside of maybe trying to help out a bit. Maybe help someone figure out that they are probably carrying a valuable jewel with them although they might not even know it.

It did occur to me that most Buddhist web sites are pretty much meant for well "Buddhists". What I mean is that they often invite you to mostly come into 'their view' of things.

What I hope to do here instead is to sort of go out and meet you on your terms - that will be a difficult challenge, and I can't promise that I wont get preachy or technical at times. But I'm writing this now as a personal reminder to try to do just that - ie, meet you on your own terms.

At any rate, please feel free to consider and respond to whatever you find here.

D