Essay

HUM 2633 (McMahon)

Buddhism: Overview

Buddhism is the 4th largest world religion. It has approximately 250-500 million adherents. Exact numbers are difficult to determine since the ideological nature of the Buddhist tradition is such that it does not demand exclusivity and dovetails with other similar ideologies. As such, it affords practitioners the opportunity to practice other religious traditions simultaneously (e.g., Taoism, Shinto). As we will discuss, Buddhism is a descendant of Hinduism, but also critiques its parent religion.

Buddhism was founded in the 6th century BC. The historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was its founder. Siddhartha Gautama was born a Hindu prince in the region that is now Nepal.

Though the Buddhist tradition is known for its austerity, the historical founder of Buddhism grew up in the lap of luxury. As a prince, he was raised in an opulent setting and afforded every extravagance. Indeed, his father took special care never to let Siddhartha even observe poverty or suffering for fear of the unsettling impact it might have on him.

Told upon his son’s birth that he was destined to be either a great king or a great religious leader, Siddhartha’s father steered him toward kingship and away from observing anything that might upset him or prompt philosophical reflection.

However, like most children, Siddhartha was curious. As he grew, he grew even more so. Though he took a wife and they had a child, his family responsibilities did not deter him from wanting to know what lay beyond the walls of his family’s palace and the sumptuous existence it offered. So, Siddhartha did what many young people do; he snuck out. Secretly, he left the confines of the palace. As we will see, the results of this action not only changed his life, they changed the world.

When outside the walls of the palace, Siddhartha came into contact with what are now known as the Four Sights. These sights led to him to abandon his social position and form a new religion.

Outside the palace, Siddhartha saw four things: an old man, a sick man, a corpse, and a wandering ascetic. The first three things brought three existential truths to Siddhartha’s awareness: aging, illness, and death. Because of his sheltered upbringing, Siddhartha had never before confronted these existential truths. He had never seen the devastation that aging can wreak on the body, the debilitation and suffering that illness can cause, let alone the utter ruin brought upon us by death. His comfortable understanding of things was upended. Importantly, in addition to the old man (aging), the sick man (illness) and the corpse (death), Siddhartha also saw a wandering ascetic, a mendicant, a Hindu sannyasin. This individual had abandoned the conventions of everyday living to practice the extreme methods of fasting and spiritual discipline encouraged by the Hindu tradition, disciplines assumed to lead to moksha, or spiritual liberation.

As Siddhartha pondered his vision, he came to see the old man, the sick man, and the corpse as embodiments of the inherent problems of the human condition, problems that invariably cause us to suffer. Indeed, it was the first three sights that led the historical Buddha to the discovery of the first of the Four Noble Truths (which we will look at more closely shortly), namely that life is suffering. For Siddhartha, it wasn’t simply that these conditions cause suffering; it was that knowledge of their inevitability causes suffering as well. How can I be happy when I know my happiness is imperiled, imperiled by the inevitability of aging, illness, and death? Needless to say, Siddhartha’s hope might have been dashed were it not for him also seeing the ascetic. In the ascetic he envisioned the possibility of a response to suffering, and even the possibility of overcoming it.

After encountering the Four Sights, the historical Buddha left his family, left his palace, and joined a group of wandering ascetics. For six years he engaged in the extreme asceticism characteristic of rajas yoga. He fasted until he was merely a shell of his former self. Stories and sculptures of him during period portray a profoundly gaunt and somber figure, not the round happy Buddha with which so many westerners are familiar.

Ultimately, not finding his ascetic practices helpful, the historical Buddha determined that he would determine once and for all whether his ascetic practice was sufficient to help him transcend suffering. He decided to meditate until he either got an answer or died trying. This decision set the stage for his enlightenment. Under the famed bodhi tree, the historical Buddha came to realize not only the truth that life is suffering, but that suffering has a cause, and can be overcome. He came to realize the Four Noble Truths, which remain the central tenets of Buddhism.

Just as the Ten Commandments are central to Christianity, the Four Noble Truths (or Fourfold Noble Truth) are central to Buddhism. The truths are as follows:

1.) Life is suffering (dukkha)

2.) Desire is the cause of suffering (trsna)

3.) There is an end to suffering (nirvana)

4.) The end to suffering lies in following the Eightfold Path (marga)

Of course, these truths may need some explanation. We have discussed the first truth: life is suffering. Clearly, we can see that life invariably confronts us with things that cause suffering. Not only can we suffer injury and pain from the physical deterioration that accompanies aging, we are also subject to a more subtle, but no less significant, type of suffering. This less obvious type of suffering comes from psychological injuries (e.g., personal affronts) and emotional disappointments (e.g., the betrayal of a friend) as well as the knowledge we have that we cannot escape things like aging or death. All of these things combine to cause suffering and our lives, lives that, though not without joy, are invariably colored by pain.

During his time in meditation, the historical Buddha also realized that we suffer for a reason. We suffer primarily because of desire. Now this may seem strange at first. When most of us think of desire we think of a feeling that moves us to get what we want, and getting what we want brings pleasure, not pain. However, the Buddha looked deeper and deeper into the structure of desire, he found something different. As the Buddha explained, the phenomenon of desire is predicated (depends) upon the notion of lack. I only want what I do not have. As the Buddha recognized, we suffer predominantly because we want things to be other than they are. He argued that we bring an end to suffering by changing our relationship to desire. While not suggesting that we can necessarily eliminate having desires (to err—and to desire—are human), we can learn to not to expect all our desires to be fulfilled, and we can learn not to nurture desire in such as way as to confuse want with need, something that breeds more despair than contentment. He argues that the Eightfold-Path is the way to maintain proper understanding, contain desire, and prevent oneself from being a cause of suffering to others.

As we will see in our study of the Dhammapada, an early Buddhist text whose title translates to The Right Path, Buddhism is a very practical and deeply psychological religion. It is anchored in a concrete problem, suffering, and it presents itself as that problem’s solution. The steps of that solution are enumerated in the text and embodied in the Eightfold Path.

1.) Right understanding (knowing the way things really are discourages suffering by ensuring that one does not have unrealistic expectations for reality; if one sees things clearly one can have proper expectations and avoid disappointment).

2.) Right thought (managing one’s thought ensures that one doesn't bring about unnecessary suffering due to undue mental preoccupation. At one time or another, most of us have made our own suffering worse by mulling over some painful event rather than letting it go).

3.) Right speech (managing speech not only helps one avoid being a cause of pain to others through the use of hurtful words, it can help us avoid suffering ourselves by saying things we should not).

4.) Right action (similarly, doing the right things, things in alignment with truth, namely knowledge of what is, and what does and does not cause suffering, helps one conduct oneself in a way that avoids causing injury to others and causing pain to the self).

5.) Right livelihood (likewise, it is clear that some occupations contribute to suffering whereas others diminish it; choosing the right occupation can help one avoid contributing to suffering).

6.) Right effort (every day we expend energy; we expend it in numerous ways, some to positive effect, some not. If we concentrate on expending effort that yields positive effects, then we will avoid causing suffering—either to others or ourselves).

7.) Right mindfulness (having the right mindset, the right attitude, can make a huge difference when it comes to one’s well-being; like right thought, right mindfulness helps ensure that we have our perception tuned to reality and are focused on the right things and setting expectation appropriately).

8.) Right concentration (most of us have been driven to distraction before. We have suffered because we have felt our attention wrenched about, and pulled this way and that. By learning to maintain focus, largely through meditative practice, we can learn to minimize the suffering caused when our minds and emotions are too easily moved by external phenomena).

While the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are the basic tenets of the Buddhism tradition, tenets enumerated by the historical Buddha, there are also several doctrines that students of the tradition must familiarize themselves with as well. These doctrines are:

1.) Impermanence (anitta)

2.) No-Self (anatman)

3.) Relational Origination (pratitya-samutpada)

4.) Emptiness (sunyata)

5.) Truth-Truths Doctrine (practical versus ultimate truth)

As we being to examine these doctrines, it is important to keep in mind that Buddhism is a historical outgrowth of Hinduism. As we have learned, the founder was a Hindu and he first used Hindu yogic practice in an effort to resolve the problem of suffering. However, the historical Buddha, Siddhartha, founded a new tradition because he determined that the Hindu method he was using (radical asceticism) increased, rather than eliminated suffering. Thus, while originating from Hinduism and retaining some of its essential structures, such as the notion of KARMA, DHARMA, and the idea of reincarnation, Buddhism is also an ideological critique of its predecessor. We will see its opposition apparent in some of its main doctrines.

Like other Buddhists concepts, impermanence, no-self, relational origination, and emptiness, cannot be adequately explained independently of one another. Nonetheless, we will take on at a time and try to show their relation as we go.[endnoteRef:-1] [-1: Material in this section of the notes is adapted from, “Momentarily Lost: Finding the Moment in Lost in Translation.” Buddhism and America Cinema. Eds. Gary Storhoff and John Whalen-Bridge. Albany: SUNY Press, 2014, an essay that I co-authored with Dr. B. Steve Csaki.]

I. Impermanence is not a complex notion. To assert impermanence is to say that everything is subject to change. Nothing lasts forever. Observation informs us that all physical entities are subject to decay and cease to exist over time. Given the ubiquity of change, it is not difficult to see why Buddhism “den[ies] that anything substantive or unchanging exists at all; [instead asserts that] everything is impermanent”(Kasulis 26). Though the phenomenon of change is readily observable, many philosophies deny impermanence, including Hinduism. While Hinduism admits that change is a feature of the material world, it argues that behind that changing play of appearances resides the eternal Brahman.

Though impermanence is a central tenet of Buddhism, most people actively or passively resist accepting the impermanent nature of reality.[endnoteRef:0] One of the main reasons that people resist accepting the fact of impermanence is that impermanence reminds them that they will not exist forever.[endnoteRef:1] Accepting impermanence is difficult because admitting it implies not only that things in the external world change, but also that nonexistence, in the form of death, is an unavoidable fact of our lives too. This admission is painful. Few people want to be reminded of their mortality. Most of us would prefer to deny it. However, Buddhists argue

that to deny one’s own impermanence is to live in delusion of one’s true nature. Such delusion precludes enlightenment and causes suffering. They argue we suffer death more because we do not accept it as a natural part of life. Enlightenment involves seeing all things, including the self, as they are. From a Buddhist perspective, this also means seeing that there is no self. [0: For example, as Raud Rein states, “Western philosophy has traditionally postulated a continuous identity of things…and thus preferred the durational mode of being to the momentary, while most Buddhists philosophers have stubbornly refused to give up [the primacy of] immediate existence”(154). See “The Existential Moment: Rereading Dogen’s Theory of Time,” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 62, No. 2, April 2012, 153-173. Print.] [1: It is worth mentioning that many forms of religion (including certain schools of Buddhism such as Pure Land) rely on the resistance that people have to impermanence. Both in the east and the west, the promise of an after-life has provided a perfect solution to impermanence and the anxiety it generates. Insofar as it implies that impermanence is apparent but not absolute, impermanence is defeated, or simply denied, depending on your point of view. Notably, social psychologist, Ernest Becker (1924-1974), and contemporary Terror Management theorists such as Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon, and Tom Pyszczynski examine this phenomenon in detail. Articles outlining Terror Management Theory include “Evidence for Terror Management Theory I: The Effects of Mortality Salience on reactions to Those Who Violate or Uphold Cultural Values.” Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Lyon, D. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989, Vol. 57, No. 4, 681-690; “Evidence for Terror Management Theory II: The Effects of Mortality Salience on Reactions to Those Who Threaten or Bolster the Cultural Worldview.” Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., Lyon, D. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, Vol. 58, No. 2, 308-318; “Why Do We Need What We Need?: A Terror Management Theory Perspective on the Roots of Human Social Motivation.” Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S. Psychological Inquiry, 1997, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1-20.]

II. According to Buddhism, by virtue of the fact that all things are impermanent, they lack essential self-nature or essence. This is true not only of inanimate things, but also animate ones, such as persons. Rather than endorse the notion of an eternal self or soul, such as the atman, Buddhists deny the existence of essential personhood. They assert there is No-Self. Buddhists use the term anatman, or no-self, to convey this point. For Buddhism, seeing one’s self clearly would involve seeing that that there is no enduring self. While any serious thought about the true nature of life ought to result in the conclusion that things are impermanent, Buddhists recognize that individuals all too often resist coming to grips with impermanence at a general and personal level because of the psychological discomfort it generates. Whereas Hinduism supports the atman doctrine, the notion that there is an immortal soul, Buddhism denies it (an-atman), denying not only the existence of an eternal soul, but also the existence of an abiding material identity. We are impermanent, and we embody change through and through, with our “selves” changing, often quite dramatically, throughout the course of our lives.

III. In addition to resisting impermanence, the western position differs from the eastern one in that it tends to privilege entities over the relations that exist between them.[endnoteRef:2] Individuals are essential, whereas relations are secondary. In contrast, the Buddhist notion of relational origination suggests the relations between things are primary when it comes to defining what any given thing actually is.[endnoteRef:3] The doctrine of relational origination goes hand in hand with impermanence. The doctrine of relational origination holds that things do not exist, and never have existed (or will exist for that matter) independently of one another. Kasulis states that in Zen Buddhism, “the context is given primacy over the individual; the context defines and elaborates the individual rather than vice versa”(Kasulis 8). In effect, Buddhism reverses the traditional western philosophical position, a position that locates absolute “being” in entities, and tends to see individual substances as the primary building blocks of experience.[endnoteRef:4] [2: Indeed, not only do Buddhists reject the primacy of entities or substances, but also their existence. As Rita Gupta asserts, Buddhist philosophers “have almost unanimously rejected concepts like substances…on the contrary, [they] have tried to explain the whole stream of phenomenal existence in terms of impersonal factors and relations of conditionality” “Twelve-Membered Dependent Origination: An Attempted Reappraisal,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 5, 1977, 178. Contrary to the Buddhist position, Kenneth K. Inada states that most individuals “falsely adhe[re] to [the appearance of] permanent characteristics in the experiential dynamics and…the presence of these characteristics not only impedes [understanding] but drastically distorts the natural holistic flow of experience”(117). “A Theory of Oriental Aesthetics: A Prolegomenon,” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No. 2, April 1997, 117-131. Accessed 06/13/13 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399872.] [3: Jay L. Garfield states, “[w]hat we are…confronted with in nature is a vast network of interdependent and continuous processes, and carving out particular phenomena…depends more on our explanatory interests than on joints which nature presents to us.” “Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness: Why Did Nagarjuna Start with Causation?” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 44, April 1994, 223. Garma C.C. Chang confirms this interpretation stating, “the so-called single object…is actually only an expedient way of expressing something for a practical purpose. In reality, each and every one of these things is an operational complex and a relative structure brought into being by the coordination and mutual dependence of various factors. Things do not exist; only events exist momentarily under relative conditions.” The Buddhist Teaching of Totality (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989), 81.] [4: Atomistic models are particularly illustrative of the traditional western view. Admittedly, while atomistic models vary, to the extent they contend that all existing things are comprised of, and can be reduced to, particles of discreet types (particles which are themselves irreducible), these models maintain that there are essential substances that are the foundation of reality. ]

An example illustrates the difference between the western and eastern view nicely. A traditional western philosophical approach to defining a person would likely begin with a physical description of the body of an individual. Personality traits and mental characteristics might then be added to complete the description. Together these details would serve to identify the person as unique from others.[endnoteRef:5] While the Buddhist recognizes uniqueness, the Buddhist approach emphasizes the relations a person has and defines the person primarily through those relations. In other words, Buddhists assert that we are who we are because of the connections that exist between us and by virtue of relations including, but by no means limited to, our parents, spouses, friends, and environment. If these relations were altered, quite literally a different person would exist as a result of these changes. [5: We realize that this is an oversimplification of extremely complex processes that occur in various western philosophical traditions. We are also aware that there are exceptions to this “rule,” process philosophy and some schools of feminism come to mind. We simply want to point out that the orientation in terms of a both the starting point and emphasis is quite different with respect to a western versus a Buddhist approach.]

If one accepts the notion of relational origination then a significant shift occurs with respect to understanding what a thing is. Suddenly the notion of a thing must be understood as one that is extremely fluid.[endnoteRef:6] Keeping with the example used previously, rather than assert that individual identity remains constant, a Buddhist would instead argue that who and what a person is changes constantly. Granted, many of these changes are imperceptible and it often takes a great many changes for them to be noticeable, but sometimes (say for example in the case of divorce or a death) just one change in relations can have devastating (or equally positive) effects on who someone is, or will become. At this point it should be easy to see how impermanence is unequivocally tied to relational origination. Impermanence is a necessary consequence of relational origination. If the “essence” of a thing is truly fluid, then it cannot remain in stasis. If it cannot remain the same, then it cannot exist in any permanent way, and thus we return to the Buddhist notion of impermanence. [6: It is worth noting that Heraclitus recognized this fact long ago “It is not possible to step twice into the same river” (91; F), but it never became a prominent feature of western thought.]

IV. The concept of emptiness is tied both to the doctrine of impermanence and linked to another necessary consequence of relational origination. From a Buddhist perspective, emptiness refers to the “substance” of things. Contrary to the western approach, this doctrine suggests that things have no inherent substance, and that, in essence, is what we mean when we call things empty. Emptiness is often explained as the “flip-side” of relational origination because by claiming that relations are the primary aspect(s) of a thing, the substantive elements are removed, or more accurately, cease to exist. Thus, even though something appears to have real substance (a substance that superficially appears to endure) the actual state of affairs is that there is nothing constant there at all.[endnoteRef:7] There exist only relations that when dissected emerge as emptiness or nothingness.[endnoteRef:8] This reversal of the common western perception is what helps produce the cryptic view that for Buddhists, emptiness is fullness. [7: As Francis Cook states, if we “scrutinize this apparently really existent thing, we will discover that it is completely lacking in any nature of its own. In Buddhist terminology, it lacks svabhava, which can be translated as ‘own-being’ or ‘self-nature.’” “The Meaning of Vairocana in Hua Yen Buddhism,” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 22, October 1972, 406. Similarly, Garma C.C. Chang states, “although things in the phenomenal world appear to be real and substantial outside, they are actually tenuous and empty.” Buddhist Teaching of Totality, 60.] [8: It is worth noting here that in Japanese the same character mu, (無) is often used to refer to both emptiness and nothingness.]

To put this in less abstract terms, we can turn once again to the nature of the self. Certainly, myriad relations merge to make us who we are. From the Buddhist perspective, these relations should take precedence in terms of defining individuals. Though we might like to think that there is something inherent in our being, some essential core that sits independently of the contingencies of experience, Buddhists remind us that if we could somehow sequentially strip each relation[endnoteRef:9] from the individual, at the end we would be left with nothing, or emptiness.[endnoteRef:10] For Buddhists, the individual is nothing other than the sum of a continually changing set of relations. The same is true of reality. It has no inherent nature, no pre-determined end toward which it strives. It is a complex totality, an intricate collection of mutually influential, and inherently fluid, processes.[endnoteRef:11] [9: Obviously we are back in the realm of the abstract here. This is probably possible only on a theoretical level.] [10: At this point we must mention another Buddhist notion that we have chosen not to deal with in depth. For Zen Buddhism it is extremely important to note that nothingness or emptiness extends to all things especially the self. No-self or no-mind is an idea central to Buddhism, but particularly to Zen. As Tom Kasulis points out (Zen Action Zen Person, 40-46) when one enters the monastery the self is stripped away and that is a first step in recognizing that selfhood is, in actuality, and insubstantial aspect of existence. The further goal is to act and think in a manner that belies a more profound understanding of this fact. This is to act and think without conceptual thought, without interference from one’s self. Momentariness is an aspect of this type of thought.] [11: Rein Raud offers an engaging account of this complexity in “The Existential Moment: Rereading Dogen’s Theory of Time,” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 62, No. 2, April 2012, 153-173. Print.]

As we discuss emptiness, a convenient set of analogies can be used to connect this theory to the theory of no-self and illustrate the difference between the Hindu concept of self and the Buddhist concept. Compare a baseball with a tennis ball. The baseball represents the Hindu understanding of the self. The cover of the ball is the material body. Though we don’t tend to do so with baseballs, it can be replaced; one old leather cover could be replaced with a new one, and another new one, and another new one. What’s essential to the baseball is not the changing cover, but the CORE, the solid, and enduring core. This is true of the self for Hinduism; its core is the eternal atman, and that atman is one with God. Things couldn’t be more different with the tennis ball. What lies at its center? Nothing. Literally nothing. Space. It is defined by that emptiness; and its “substance” is limited to the outer shell. This is true in Buddhism too; we do no exist apart from our material condition. What we “are” is this changing “thing” that will eventually not be, just like the tennis ball that won’t last forever either.

V. The Truth Truths Doctrine recognizes that the world of discrete entities that we assume on a day-to-day basis, and indeed need to assume in order to act relative to one another in a meaningful way is merely a provisional truth, and not the way things ultimately are. This bears similarity to the understanding of solids provided by physics. Consider the chair upon which you are sitting. It is solid, right? However, physics informs us that even the most solid solids are comprised more of space than substance. There is simply more space in the swirl of electrons around the nucleus of every atom in the construct than there is stuff. If you really embraced that understanding on a practical level you couldn’t sit on the chair. You’d worry incessantly about floors, even the Earth’s surface, and whether it would hold you up (of course, you needn’t worry, there’s no you to hold up and your body is also just as much space as the chair). Simply put, we already know how to see reality in two ways. Buddhism reminds us we need to as well.

The doctrines of impermanence, relational origination, and emptiness also all relate to the idea of momentariness, which is a critical concept in Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is originated in China (where it is known as Ch’an) and is now practiced predominantly in Japan. Zen Buddhism is Mahayana School of Buddhism. There are two basic schools of Buddhism, Theravada and Mahayana.

Theravada Buddhism originated with the work of the historical Buddha, and is the older, original school. Mahayana Buddhism is the younger school, and it branched off from the original school due to its differing interpretation of the historical Buddha’s doctrine. (One can see a parallel in the way in which the Reformation prompted the distinction between the earlier Catholic form of Christianity and later Protestant forms). Theravada schools focus on individual effort and deny that an individual can achieve salvation, nirvana, through anything outside his or her own effort. This school elevates the figure of the ARHAT, who single-mindedly cultivates right understanding, as the moral exemplar.

The Mahayana school begins by taking relational origination to its logical conclusion. It argues that if we are all connected, then no person could ever be completely released from suffering as long as any one other sentient being is still enduring it. Thus, the Mahayana school elevates the figure of the BODHISATTVA, the figure who, out of both understanding AND compassion for the suffering of others, foregoes liberation from material embodiment (implied by nirvana; ni=no, vana=breathing), in order to be reborn and help those others. In his classic book, The World’s Religions, Huston Smith uses the analogy of an oasis. The arhat crosses the desert of suffering to climb the wall entering the oasis of nirvana. The bodhisattva crosses the desert of suffering, climbs the walls, spies the bliss of the oasis (nirvana) then climbs back down, goes back into the desert, and finds people to help over the wall and into the oasis.

Unlike Hinduism, according to Zen Buddhism, enlightenment, or salvation, is not marked by spiritual transport out of this reality. Instead, it is the achievement of a sustained and lived awareness of the true nature of reality while living in it. Like Hinduism, Buddhism embraces the notion of karma. Though some schools emphasize the idea of reincarnation more than others (Zen does not focus on it), it is assumed that there is a connection between karma and desire, and a similar emphasis on detachment from desire as a means to loosening karmic bonds. Both see overcoming attachment to desire as key to achieving salvation; however, only Hinduism envisions salvation as entailing transcendence of the material world.

My former professor, Dr. Inada used a wonderful analogy to help his students understand detaching from desire. One day in class, after reading the section in the Dhammapada that calls us to root out desire, we asked, incredulously, “How can we eliminate desire, Dr. Inada?”

He laughed and shook his head. He said, “You cannot really eliminate desire.”

He followed, cryptically, “You just have to be the beach.”

We cried, “Be the beach? You need to help us Dr. Inada.”

He said” “Imagine.” “Imagine the beach.”

“The ocean comes right up to the beach, right?”

“Yes,” we said.

“It even comes over it, right?”

“Yes,” we said again.

“The ocean is wide and deep, correct?”

“Yes,” we said.

“The ocean is like desire,” he followed.

“It is wide, even boundless. It comes in waves. And sometimes it overwhelms us.”

We all nodded.

“But does the beach try to hold the waves?” he asked.

We shook our heads.

“Does it try to run away from the big waves that come?”

We shook our heads again.

“No, it doesn’t. It just sits. It takes what comes. It neither holds nor refuses. It is the beach. You just need to be the beach.” That was a light bulb moment for all of us.

I don’t think any one thing or any one person in my life helped me understand Buddhism more than Dr. Inada did that day. And while I think I understand now, to this day, I am still working on being the beach. And I am so grateful to have had Dr. Inada as my teacher.

Being the beach requires being in the moment. The Buddhist term momentariness[endnoteRef:12] refers to being focused on the moment at hand. In order to be in the moment, conceptualization must be put away. As Buddhist practitioners assert, conceptualization (over-thinking) reinforces the erroneous view that the world is made up of discrete substances, permanence, etc. Conceptualization is also often associated with thoughts of the future and past. Buddhists are clear that these too must not take precedence over the immediate moment as they are concepts themselves.[endnoteRef:13] [12: Admittedly, while there is general agreement among scholars regarding the significance of the moment in Buddhism, there is ongoing debate concerning the precise nature of the moment. Clearly, it is outside the scope of this discussion to offer a sustained account of the divergent historical and contemporary positions on the nature of the moment. Instead, we will focus on what seem to be points of agreement between primary texts, historical sources, and contemporary scholarship on the subject. ] [13: As Kenneth K. Inada states, “the neat division [of time] into past, present, and future…is a mental construction, a fiction as well as a hindrance, in the final analysis, when it comes to grasping the dynamic nature of being”(173). “Time and Temporality: A Buddhist Approach,” Philosophy East and West, Vol. 24, No. 2, April 1974, 171-179. Accessed 06/12/2013 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1398020.]

To reach enlightenment, one must become mindful of existence and live in the present. Zen monks often take part in a very orderly and mundane routine that does not vary in order to help them become attuned to momentariness. Because their routine is repetitive, novel activity does not become a source of mental distraction. Rather, monks are free to develop an appreciation for each individual moment, particularly moments that might normally pass unnoticed because they are seen as mundane. The monk’s goal is to perform each task with absolute attention and in doing so to give each moment full regard. The idea behind this type of behavior is that it is the first necessary and essential step toward enlightenment, namely, seeing reality as it is. As my former professor, Kenneth K. Inada states, when we achieve an appreciation of momentariness, our “perception of things has fuller, wider, and deeper dimensions than norma[l],” revealing life’s “natural fullness and completeness at all times,” and affording the individual the opportunity to “be in rhythm with it”(“A Theory of Oriental Aesthetics: A Prolegomenon,” 122-123)

It is important to understand momentariness is a first step on the road to enlightenment, not by any means an end point. By embracing the “mundane” and recognizing that life is comprised of moments that are “necessarily unique [and] unrepeatable”(Raud 157), it is possible to get a glimpse of the true nature of reality. Indeed, by virtue of each moment’s connection to every other, Buddhism emphasizes that in discovering the primacy of the moment, the individual connects to the totality of experience insofar as “the totality of time is…accessible from within each single moment”(Raud 162). Moreover, Buddhist theorists emphasize the realization of the moment restores “fluidity [to] experience…because…moments have no intervals….[and] each moment is an entire existence for the observer”(Brown 270).

Though suspicious of conceptualization, Zen Buddhists are clear that being in the moment does involve being mindful of one’s actions. Being mindful involves being focused on the activity at hand without being lost in the idea of the activity. For example, a person who is mindful should not walk into a room only to stand wondering why he went in to it. Indeed, this mode of behavior might be seen as the antithesis of mindfulness. This usually happens because the mind is so full of other thoughts that what is actually being done is momentarily forgotten, or the person is so ahead of herself that she has forgotten what she’s actually gone into that room to get. Zen Buddhists recognize that people are very rarely truly focused on the moment at hand.[endnoteRef:14] Focusing on the task of the moment, or momentariness, is a good starting point towards enlightenment and often a better way to get things done. [14: Some might argue that the reason that professional sports are so popular (on a worldwide level) is that in order to compete at the highest possible level an athlete must have more than ability and talent. To perform at the highest level of competition in the world an athlete must be able to focus completely on the task at hand. Perhaps spectators are more fascinated by this ability, than the sport itself and that explains the appeal of sports at large.]

Review

Metaphysics:

Buddhism is an atheistic tradition. Though some Buddhists talk of gods, the tradition does not endorse believe in a creator, nor does its understanding of the universe depend on one. All is change. Reality is fluid. There is no immortal soul or even an unchanging material self. Existing things are secondary phenomenon. Emptiness (which is fullness) is primary, therefore, existence is holistic as opposed to dualistic (spirit/matter).

Soteriology:

Buddhism also presents a unique view on salvation. Rather than require transcendence of material existence or require the judgment or action of God; it is available here and now simply by coming to a correct understanding of things and by relinquishing attachment. Salvation is not a supernatural state or spiritual phenomenon, it is a psychological one.

Eschatology:

Like Hinduism, it is fair to say that Buddhism proposes no end state for the universe; however, it does present nirvana, literally the cessation of suffering, as a goal for the individual. Nirvana can be achieved here and now through right understanding and disciplined effort.

Ethics:

Buddhism, like its parent religion, Hinduism, encourages non-violence (ahimsa) and compassion. Indeed, mindfulness and compassion are the cardinal virtues of this tradition. The eightfold path represents a set of ethical guidelines for the individual to follow.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Unless otherwise indicated, the images contained in this lesson are public domain material and do not require attribution.