The 6 Assertions (for extreme Buddhist junkies)

This little Opus was my answer to the final essay of the last module of the class I am taking regarding Tsongkhapa's Great Treatise.  It is a refutation of the 6 assertions implied by other Buddhist masters  as they challenge the Madyamika Prasongika's school of thought regarding Emptiness.  Specifically the 6 assertions are attempts to challenge the idea that things either exist intrinsically (meaning they have a definable, certain, concrete essence) or not at all.   Kay (my tutor of this course and the prior course Foundations of Buddhist Thought) liked everything but thought my example of Happiness as an example of production was a bit abstract.  

The 6 Assertions

This has been the most difficult part of the course so far and I’m not sure that the content is exactly the reason.  The hard part is really narrowing down the 6 assertions because they are not listed as such in the text and Geshe Tashi doesn’t exactly state them as 1,2,3 etc...  So I took rather drastic measures by emailing Guy Newland, reading his book almost entirely again, reading parts of the Emptiness book by Geshe Tashi and speaking to Geshe Jampa.  I listened to Geshe Tashi’s teachings over and over ... and over.  Oh and of course LTK’s Great Treatise.  So I’m sitting here on Christmas eve with the book and Geshe Tashi going through them! 

1. The first assertion is that everything from form through omniscient consciousness is refuted by rational analysis.  Nothing can stand up against rational analysis.   This type of analysis is specifically whether things and events have intrinsic reality.  They are correct in one sense that nothing can withstand this type of rational analysis.  However, things are not “refuted” in the sense that refuted would mean that they do not exist.    This assertion then refutes too much.  

I’ll use this one example and refer back to it as we go along.  We take the object of analysis as a car.  When we begin through rational analysis to challenge the idea of the car by repeatedly asking ourselves questions such as “Is the color the car?  Is the metal body the car?  Is the engine the car?  Is the spark plug the car?  Is the steering wheel the car?  ad absurdum (as the method is known as) we will never find a single element that can be attributed to as the intrinsic nature that IS the car.  The “car” cannot withstand rational analysis.  However to refute to much is undone by taking the example that you walk up and and we decide to go for ride in the car.  If the car didn’t exist even conventionally (ie not at all) then we certainly could not go for a ride in the car.  In fact, we couldn’t reference the car at all because it would not exist.  

1. A noble being’s sublime wisdom which perceives reality (and realizes emptiness directly) would not perceive conventional reality.   While a noble being sublime wisdom does in fact perceive emptiness directly, that doesn’t mean that this same wisdom would refute conventional reality.  If we take the Buddha as a noble being who perceived emptiness directly as our example then we know that he did in fact interact with conventional reality.  He taught others.  He walked long distances.  He meditated under the bodhi tree.  Production existed obviously or he would have never been able to complete any of those task - including awakening.

This assertion deals with production - which is phenomena arising from causes and conditions. The argument is made that production cannot withstand the same rational analysis as assertion one.  If so then production would be truly existent or if not production would not exist.  If we take an emotion as our example - say happiness, which is produced then our opponents would ask if under analysis does happiness exist.  Happiness appears to us in that one moment I am not happy, then I am happy, and then I am not happy again.  If using rational analysis, I would concede that I am unable to pin point the intrinsic nature of happiness.  But that does not refute it because I certainly experience happiness and the rise and fall of happiness as stated earlier.  Happiness also is evidenced by temporary physical changes such as a smile or laughter.  Happiness is produced and also serves as a continuation of the chain of production.

1. The 4th assertion states that production cannot be established using conventional consciousnesses only by noble beings sublime wisdom.  If conventional consciousnesses were valid then why do we even need noble beings?  This is taken from the King of the Concentration Sutra.  But the meaning of the sutra states that these conventionally valid consciousnesses, eye, ear, nose, sense consciousnesses etc..., simply do not the capacity to realize emptiness.  My eye can see a table lamp on my desk.  But the eye consciousness can only relay the information to my mental consciousness for processing.  The eye consciousness itself does not have any way to recognize and analyze the nature of the lamp.  It has no conceptual ability.  However, my eye does relate valuable information to me by showing me the table lamp.  I then can reach and turn on the lamp when it begins to get dark so that I can finish writing this paper.

This on a side note is why Mindfulness and the practices associated with it fall short over all because simply being present (however profound and unusual in today’s society) will not ultimately free us from suffering.  Holding the mind in a nonconceptual state and allowing our sense consciousnesses a more expansive view really brings a wonderful poetic view of the world.  But, it doesn’t bring much understanding of our situation over all.  We just experience it differently.

1. This assertion is in regards to Candrakirti’s Clear Words.   Production is untenable in both the context of ultimate reality as well as conventional reality.  The real dilemma is because we are not given the answer to the question.  “What argument will demonstrate the production you believe in?”  The answer is further along in the course!  Again this actually follows along with the first assertion because even though conventional production is being held as lacking intrinsic existence, it is not being refuted.  It is like the 1st assertion in that regard and reminds me of the 2nd because the critics are taking a slice of scripture and using it to validate their points without giving regards to the meaning of the scriptures.  (Sounds like modern day society)

1. The 6th assertion uses the diamond sliver reasoning to refute all four modes of production.  1) Production must be produced by themselves, 2) Must be produced by Other, 3) Must be produced by neither, or 4) Must be produced by both.  In my example for the question for class, I discussed my confusion here because I thought that we were trying to use the 4 corner idea to prove that production was produced by Others.  Which it seems to - by causes and conditions.  However if you add “intrinsic” to the 4 corners the logic clearly shows that production cannot occur from intrinsically existing others.  An intrinsic Other would never be a result because since it exist intrinsically it would have no causal factor.  Conventionally, if I had the same car from assertion 1 and I ran off the road into a stop sign leaving a large dent in the sign, could you prove the “car” caused the “dent”.  First we already have proven that there is no intrinsically existing car (iec) so this iec could not be responsible for the intrinsically existing dent in the sign.  Furthermore under analysis of the production of the dent, it also could not be proven that the car was the cause of the dent which was the result.  Conventionally then it also shows that it fails the second logic as being produced by others.  Under further analysis could you even show that the car and the dent exist as separate entities?

Again the large difficulty here is because the answer to Candrakirti’s question would seem to be Dependent Arising.  Which is the actual way that production occurs.  Cause and effect is representative of dependent arising but seems to be a grosser level or an over simplification.  In the car/dent scenario above we could not exactly prove that the car is the cause of the dent.  In fact, the car, the sign, the dent, and the other 10,000 things that arose together to create that moment and situation all contributed to the dent.  All things arise together, influence each other and are influenced by each other simultaneously.  (I think)

Chad

The Yogi from Oklahoma

I was somewhere in my late teens when I read Autobiography of a Yogi by Parmahansa Yogananda. (Wow I can still spell it correctly!)  I actually wanna read it again some day soon.   That book taught this skinny farm boy who lived in no where Oklahoma how to meditate.  A practice I continued ever since.  Chakras, colors, light, visualizations all began with this book.

Before Buddhism I spent about 10 years in the New Age movement.  It was the "very strong glue" I used to put my personality back together after almost committing suicide in 1985.  I honestly could never believe much of it.  Although I do know that it is possible to cultivate such a very acute sensitivity to people that you can almost 'read' them.  That comes with a significant price of being way overly sensitive to people!  But metaphysical?  I have no idea.   My larger focus continued to be meditation.  I became pretty good at the whole kriya yoga thing. (Good being a word that really has no definition since I have no idea how one becomes good at kriya yoga).  It was Oklahoma and there really wasn't many meditation masters running around so I studied everything from Shirley MacLain to the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh.

After a few years of daily practice and focus you can began to feel the chakras.  Its difficult to describe.  Whether its just sensory awareness of the area in your body or are they really lighting up?  I would spend hours just learning to focus on my solar plexus chakra (central sternum area at the xyphoid process) until I could feel it.  Or just a certain spot on your scalp.  You hear of similar concentration exercises still being taught.  I had a book by the Bagwan Rajneesh that was a great meditation manual with a good number of visualization exercises working with chakras.  I did them everyday.

I don't do much of that kind of meditation practice now since I really tend to favor mindfulness/awareness practice.  But that sensitivity to the chakras is still very much there.   And then here comes Tantra.  The extremely mysterious and beautiful practices of Tibetan Buddhism bringing the focus back to the chakras.  Clearing them and undoing the knots in our central channel to allow a more fluid movement of energy is part of the practice known as Highest Yoga Tantra.  (There is a great deal more to it than that!)

The visualizations and such are different than my prior experience.  But much of the theory is the same.  So why am I so unexcited when most Tibetan Buddhist fall all over themselves to get "empowered" to practice these mysteries?  Been there done that?  Or what it a lack of tangible evidence that being able to light up these supposed energy centers did anything?

I'm still here and alive and that is (to quote Gandalf who I always quote.. who doesn't?) "an encouraging thought."  Whether my chakras had anything to do with it is a question.  But meditation absolutely had something to do with it.  It both has AND had everything to do with.  I can't recommend it strongly enough.  And if you can't trust a yogi from Oklahoma (I was actually born in California) who can you trust?


Chad

Christmas day

Its Christmas day 2011.  Jonathan and I have the whole day to ourselves.  Just us and the dogs.  In 17 years we have never had this day to ourselves.  In Dallas we would part going to our respective relatives mine in Oklahoma and his in Louisiana.  Here in Scottsdale we always had family visiting.  But this year its quiet.

Its a beautiful day and I got to meditate outside in the garden.  Just 20 minutes and just sitting in awareness.  Its my favorite meditation practice.  The air has a very slight chill so small breezes took on an additional intensity.  A humming bird was flying near enough I could hear the low buzz of his tiny wings.  The dogs often come sit with me or brush up against me and they try to get buy on the pathway.  The fountain provides a steady roar in the background that fades in and out of my noticing.   And always the Buddha sits there in stillness.

Lightly touching the breath with my attention I would just sit and notice.  Feel the sun.  Hear the sounds.  Notice the thoughts.  Sometimes get drawn into some little story.  Eventually I would notice I was gone and come back to that small attention on the breath.  Occasionally I would allow a small contemplation on Emptiness but only for a second or two.  Almost like the koan mu.  Just bring it up and then let it sit there without the need to mentally tinker with it.

This simple and profound practice can really show us how spacious we are.   All those things you think. All those cherished beliefs.  All those emotions you feel.  All that chatter.  Stop and bring your attention back to reality.  Wake up.

Chickenless Chicken Soup

In dharma circles there is always talk about the developing "western" dharma.  How we are not Japanese, Chinese, or Tibetan and therefore we need to forge our own way in the Great Way.  Western practioners need to learn not to rely on cultural forms that have naturally fused their imprint into the Practice.  Buddhism is unique in its ability to subsume entire cultures as it advances across their lands.

In China, it digested Taoism and Confucianism.  Then it jumped the sea and swallowed Shintoism and even the samurai culture of Japan (sesshins are painful thats the only explanation!).  When Buddhism finally moved over the snowy passes to plant itself in Tibet, it could not do so without incorporating the mystical and sometimes fierce deities of the Bon religion.  Each culture provided a unique offering that not only enhanced Buddhism itself but made it part of the cultural identity of the country.

Now it comes to the West and America.  Jack Kornfield stated that he thought that Psychology would be the West's great contribution to Buddhism.   I would also like to think that western pragmatism would be a great gift to the Buddha Dharma.  

Ponlop Rinpoche's excellent Rebel Buddha discusses this conundrum of what to keep and what to set aside.  Reggie Ray talked about going to a large Buddhist teachers gathering in his jeans and t-shirt when most others were wearing robes.  Each of these teachers as well as many others are learning to work with forms more representative of our society.

But what I believe is not needed is a hasty re-invention of the Dharma itself.    The teachings of the Dharma began with the 4 Noble Truths and it is this profound teaching that is at the center of all dharmic teachings.  It could be said that if it doesn't somehow relate to the ideas presented in the 4 Noble Truths it isn't dharma.  It may be wisdom but it isn't dharma to quote a friend of mine.  From the small scope of the prateyakabuddha's all the way to the most profound tantra, these fundamental questions are being addressed.

  Concerning "teachings," the scriptures of the Bhagavan accurately teach that which is to be thoroughly

  known, that which is to be eliminated, that which is to be manifested, and that which is to cultivated...

Avalokitavrata's Commentary on the "Lamp for Wisdom"

I hear so many "Buddhist" teachers today that talk about everything from basic goodness, to we are in pain because we concretize the world, groundlessness, awareness wisdom, blah blah blah.  Its all good stuff.  But its chickenless chicken soup.  Its warm and comforting but without the real meat of the dharma its ultimately unsatisfying.

Chad

Religiousity

I'm not a religious person.  And then again I'm very religious in a sense of the word.  I'm a devout Buddhist and I go through periods of being a religious Buddhist and a non-religious Buddhist.  Right now the pendulum swings to the second part.

Some Buddhist, like monks, are very religious.  Rebirth, karma, tantric deities, etc.. can be approached from a very religious outlook.  Now, there is a great deal right with that.  Our Minds, when focusing on a religious object, takes on a very specific texture for lack of a better word.  You can understand the feeling if you've ever been in awe of a particular church or sculpture or religious scripture.  This aspect of Mind can be used and focused toward a specific goal such as "enlightenment."  (Which means more to me when I'm in a religious Buddhist phase vs non religious Buddhist phase).   Keeping various commitments with this religious Mind also gives those commitments a more particular meaning to the individual.  Which in turn enhance the religious framework that the commitments are based upon.   Saying, "I'm not going to eat meat because its harmful to sentient beings!" is a whole different enchilada than saying "I'm not going to eat meat because my cholesterol is too high."  The religious Mind is a powerful tool on the spiritual path.

But!  The same quality of Mind can be found when you are  being inspired by a great art work or the wonders of nature.  In Shambhala Buddhism we talk about Drala principle.  Drala is that specific energy that we find in those instances when we are inspired by the world around us.  Living here in the desert I am very often in awe of the amazing environment I am surrounded by.  Just as monks do with their religious convictions, we can use those inspirations to drive our spiritual journey.  Religious artifacts are only inspiring to the Minds that are inspired by them.  The same is so for the Earth and even your own lucky existence on it.  A giant saguaro or even drainage ditch can have the same awe inspiring spiritual inspiration as the holiest religious object when we learn to see and cultivate that texture of Mind.  

The sacredness of the entire world can be framed in a religious context.  Or it can simply be sacred.



Chad

Hot for Teacher

Ok.. so the title is a bit misleading and titillating. (Marketing!) Its not HOT in a sexual sense but in the sense of looking for one's teacher can become HOT boredom to use the Shambhala lingo - a type of restless bored impatience.

The Shambhala center in Dallas I attended years ago had no teacher.  There were senior students but they were not in the position to teach.  The Marion Kanon Zen Center in Dallas I attended had a PhD teacher that was there but I rarely saw him (went to Wednesday night sitting) and there was no resonating vibe when I did meet with him.

Roshi Joan Halifax is the closest person I've come to as a teacher and the words she said on the few retreats I attended there resonate with me to this day.  Roshi is based at Upaya in Santa Fe (LOVE IT).  One night she was giving a talk during sesshin, (week long sitting, 5:30 AM to 10 PM, work practice a few hours, eating, a small break was all you got... lots of sitting).  She gave a talk on the Muji koan.

A monk asked Chao-Chou, "Does a dog have buddha nature or not"
Chao-Chou replies, "Mu"

Without going into the 10,000 things about koans and buddha nature the answer Mu is the koan.  Roshi Joan stated the answer as "Not that."  Whatever you think it is, about ANYTHING, ... its not that.  It cuts through all our conceptual ideas and opinions and views.  Not that.  A large bow to Roshi.

Here in Phoenix I went on a sesshin with Roshi John Tarrant.  Brilliant and charismatic, Roshi John is an excellent teacher and his book Bring me the Rhinoceros is an absolute delight.  But his focus is koan practice, like Mu, more than sitting and I'm honestly terrible at koans.   They're not solvable by scientific method!

The course I'm taking, Lamrim Chenmo, is taught by Geshe Tashi.  Well, his commentary on Lam Rim is what we listen to along with the reading of Tsongkhapa's epic.   There is some interaction with him because once per module you can submit questions and watch of video of his answers.  I have a wonderful tutor, Kay, who is the one who actually guides us and helps us along those steep mountain peaks of Tsongkhapa's logic.  But neither Kay or Geshe Tashi are really set up to be our "teacher."

Phoenix Shambhala Center also has no resident teacher.  We do have teachers that come in semi-regularly, but they are under the Sakyong, so they are not really set up to be the "teacher."  Its the Sakyong who is the head and hence head teacher of Shambhala.  But the teachers that come in have been lovely and have a good deal of wisdom.  But they are more friends that someone that you could say is my "teacher."

Being this dharma mutt with so many lineages flowing in my karmic brain (wow that was obtuse) its difficult to find any one teacher that I can say - YES.  There are many virtual teachers I love but none that is there to answer questions or debate me when I get off on some tangent.  I'm really spiritually commitment phobic.  Its an issue.  And then again.. its not that.

Gasho

Chad

Partisanship and Purity

I hear all the time that THIS particular teachings is of the HIGHEST in Buddhism.  THIS teaching is the PUREST.  Whether it is Madyamika Prasangika, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, or some off branch of Tibetan Buddhism that no one recognizes but their own followers.

We have all the innate desire to be a part of the best.  When discussing the GIANT path of Shambhala Buddhism with Acharya Adam Lobel I tried to question him about this.  Is this truly a path or is it mankind's need for a map to enlightenment that really doesn't exist (the map doesn't exist I have no idea about enlightenment).  If you compare Shambhala's path to Scientology's path to Operating Thetan.. it doesn't look much different.

Shambhala, like Scientology, is full of reverence for these people that "achieve" these higher levels yet maintain an enforced secrecy about what exactly these people are doing thats so special.  In Shambhala they are referred to "tantrikas."  As if this is really all that.  Tantra is a essential part of Tibetan Buddhism practiced by all schools.  I have a couple of "empowerments."  Without going into the esoteric details I can't really say I always find it so special.  I go through periods where its interesting and periods where it isn't.  Google Tantra if this peaks your curiosity.  I'm certainly not dissing it.  I'm the first to admit perhaps I just don't get the profundity of tantra yet.  Like I said at times its more interesting than others.

And perhaps... its because Tantra is considered the HIGHEST path in Tibetan (not necessarily with other factions) Buddhism that the mystiq is there?

The other question that arises is Partisanship.  There is a lojong (mind training) saying that "All dharma's agree at one point."  Pretty self explanatory.  However there are still those that say, "My dharma is better than yours.  Ours contains the HIGHEST/PUREST teachings."  This is usually followed by something like, "of course my mind is different than your mind..."  Which is a safeguard to disallow the charge of partisanship.  But more justification will always follow with the implication that their's is still better.

I'm actually only interested in what works.  I really don't think the Buddha set out to find the HIGHEST teachings as much as he sought an actual solution to the human condition of suffering.   I look for what works in my day to day life.  What helps me walk more gently in the world and with others.  What inspires me to shift the focus of all about me to others.  Because it truly is only through others that we find happiness.  Self absorption is rapidly dull and and a sure road to self destruction.  Buddhism's teachings on Emptiness is clearest description of reality I've ever found.

I'm sure reading this there will be those that think I haven't achieved a high enough rebirth to understand their HIGHER/PURER teachings.    Perhaps not.  But I don't think you have clue either.

Chad