Thus the finite being, neither existing primarily in itself, nor acting solely by itself, cannot return completely upon itself, but always needs some external complements.
—Vladimir Solovyov, Russia and the Universal Church, Part III, Chapter I.
Central to Mahayana Buddhism is the belief that all phenomena are empty. This means, among other things, that no phenomenon self-subsists. All phenomena are contingent and change over time. Because of this, what we impute to phenomena might be adequate, conventional declarations of their essence, but such imputations do not actually present the phenomena themselves. Their concrete forms will differ over time; our attempt to define and regulate phenomena do not meet their historical reality, and so, in this way, what we declare to be, actually is not, although there should not be taken to mean there is no phenomena which present themselves to us. Phenomena are given form by other phenomena; they do not contain within themselves the source of their own existence. None are known to produce themselves. Nothing comes out of nothing. Every phenomena comes from at least one other phenomenon, and come to their own, to be themselves, only in relation to other phenomena. This is what it means to say that all phenomena are empty – they do not have an eternal, unchanging, independent self-existence. For any phenomenon we examine, we find out that this is true. Not only does analyzing the relationship of all phenomena with each other provide for us an insight into their contingent nature, but, upon further reflection, show the contingent foundation of all creation. What might at first seem to be a nihilistic is not. There is no denial of the experience phenomena. Buddhism denies all forms of nihilism, and sees nihilism to be one of the grave errors. What is denied is a false predication to those phenomena, where one confuses one’s imputation as the precise, eternal definition of their essence.
At one time, many Western scholars confused Buddhism with nihilism. Since this was the first major representation of Buddhism in the West, this misunderstanding continued to persist, despite how easily it could be, and has been, repudiated by Buddhist doctrine. Part of the problem was that the West was not used to the methodology and terminology employed by Buddhists. An improper hermeneutic allowed for eisigesis, reading Western nihilism into Buddhism instead of reading Buddhism within its own context. Of course, one must be sure, it wasn’t only Westerners who believed Buddhism to be nihilistic: their Hindu opponents consistently made that claim as well.
Buddhism offers a comprehensive picture of the world based upon the relative, non-absolute qualities of phenomena. When they say a phenomenon does not exist, they mean it does not have an independent, uncaused, self-contained existence. To truly exist would require that existence to be essential and non-accidental to the phenomenon; if something is not inherently existent, it does not possess real existence. For a phenomenon to truly exist, and therefore, not be empty, it cannot have the possibility of non-existence. As we observe the phenomena around us, we notice they come and cease to be. As they arise, we see that they were once not, and as they cease to be, it becomes quite clear they are not self-subsistent. In both activities, we are shown that the possibility of their non-existence is a part of the phenomena itself. Being brought into being or losing it is a change which takes place. And this change can be found on many different levels. Obvious, gross phenomena coming to be and then ceasing to be is of one kind; but what happens on the macrocosm is still happening in the microcosm. Anything that is subject to change must be subject to the law of contingent existence. Indeed, change, in a way, must be said to create something new out of some older, now no-longer existent, phenomenon (even if that new phenomenon is quite similar to the old one).
What has been said is just as true in relation to our interior life as it is the world around us. We must realize that it is true even when talking about the self. When we examine our self, we find that we not posses an inherent, or independent, existence. We did not always exist. The person we are today is different from the person we were yesterday. Our personality is constantly changing. Our life is an ongoing process. Our life keeps on changing and showing new twists and turns that we could not have predicted. Our conception of the self, and who we think we are, and where we think our life is going, changes through all we do and experience. While our life is leading towards a final end, whatever it is, it is an end that we cannot see. But we know that it will be reached. By understanding that our personality, our very own self, is subject to change, to becoming different from what we are right now, we can see that we do not possess that independent, inherent existence which our ego would like us to have. Like all other phenomena we can observe, we are dependent upon what is happening around us, and who and what we are, who and what we become, is determined by factors outside of ourselves.
This is an old essay I wrote around 2001, which I am editing and will be putting online during the holidays.
Henry,
Sounds interesting, but an introduction explaining what your ultimate goal is would be helpful. I’m having difficulty seeing where you wish to take this line of thought.
This is a very interesting post. In the 19th century, this wrong idea of Buddhism (itself a problematic term) someone like Schopenhauer misunderstood it – on the basis of others’ poor scholarship. Today, it is still gravely misunderstood and trivialized – and dramatized. Enlightenment’s not some ohohohoh trancelike state but merely (hah!) awareness. After enlightenment, the laundry.
I’ve been peeking into Zen of late (with a guest appearance by Tao) and love it. It feels like the culmination of all streams within my sane mind (granted, it’s not a high percentage). The very state of fluxus is both intimidating and exciting – like surfing a big wave. Above one’s head not a tile, below one’s feet not an inch of ground. When I first visited Buddhism in 2000, I didn’t get around to Zen – which I find more stimulating and quirky. In addition, my unrealistic self wanted definitive answers and complete packages.
The 10 indeterminate questions of Gautama Buddha are the ones I wanted answered. Now I try to be content to leave them alone. Going beyond dualism is rather unWestern, not to mention for someone with compulsive tendencies. But, better living through chemistry. Doesn’t carry you along the path (which doesn’t pre-exist anyway) – neither do Buddha’s ideas, but it makes it possible to get going. Not that I know all that much about them. Nor do I think that one school is mandatory – a million ways, question everything including the Buddha.
I like the practical, witty, kick-butt nature of Zen. Monks stubs his toe, cries in agony – But I read that pain is void, how the hell is it this hurts so much !? He concludes, I shall not be deceived by others”
As far as nihilism goes, what a silly view – it is the emptiness from which things grow, the rock from which a statue springs, it is music that’s in between the silence.
Needless to say, encountering oneself without pretensions is neither easy nor pretty. But, in my case, I’ve lost my “American weight” – no way of denying what’s too much. I’m lifting weights, have returned to doing Yoga daily andhave returned to being a vegetarian. I used to eat meat that didn’t look like an animal, since I felt guilty. But, I could not deny it any longer. A whole roasted piglet I saw at a buffet also helped a lot. In a way Buddhist thought is like glasses – “oh, so this is what I/this look(s) like.”
Gerald
This is a question which is very important to a book you might find interesting: The Silence of God, The Answer of the Buddha, by Panikkar. I don’t agree with all of his positions in it, but he is trying to grasp Buddhism from a Christian perspective, especially when dealing with the intedeterminate questions. Obviously later Buddhists approach those questions from various perspectives, some to even answer them (in a way), being careful to explain why they think Siddhartha did answer them, but not to everyone.
Zen is interesting — and the Koans can be quite amusing, though (as current research in them has also shown), like the nihilistic interpretation of Buddhism in the 19th century, 20th century interpretations of Koans have been done via misunderstanding as well. It’s not my specialty here — but much of what appears to be a riddle to us, in the West, was not to the Buddhists themselves — because the terms used had cultural significance and were not mysterious to them at all. Of course, Zen also has a different understanding for me, because I see its roots in Yogacara, and I understand the frustrations which were had studying Yogacara leading to this new form of Buddhadharma.
LCB
The title expresses where things are going, as does the quote from Solovyov.
Still on a plane, just made an intermediate stop. As far as various forms of Buddhism are concerned, I’m very Cafeteria ;-) it just doesn’t serve meat anymore. One thing I do know is that I’m not starting a blog railing against improper forms of zazen. Heh!
As it happens, my former writings – not to mention supporting Bush and his war – does prove the notion of no-self – I wouldn’t want to hang out with 2004 me :)
I just read Alan Watts’ classic The Way of Zen, very interesting, how accurate it is, no idea. Well we’re ready for takeoff.
How many Zen masters does it take to change a lightbulb ? The plum tree in the garden.
Nice post. Looking forward to part 2.
God Bless
I would imagine that Solovyov, as a Christian, would lead one from thinking he is independent to understanding that he is entirely dependent on the Eternal Trinity. I can’t see buddhism leading in the same direction.
henry– as someone who studied and practiced zen buddhism before being received into the russian catholic church, i am doubly eager to read the rest of your essay.
Gerald,
As one who academically studies the Buddhadharma, I try to keep the proper distinctions in mind — though, as a Christian who learns from it (like St Thomas Aquinas did with Aristotle, and the Fathers from Plato), I too have to be “cafeteria” like when engaging the whole system. What, btw, is your take on Stephen Batchelor?
Chris and Ben Mann: since I am slowly editing it and putting up a short fragment each time, the next one (today) will continue with the Buddhism, but I hope some people can see where it is going.
Ben: Vladimir Solovyov considered Buddhism and important part of the development of humanity. He explored it and showed in many of his essays how he thought it was a needed “no” to some of the excessive “yeses” preceding it, though he thought the “no” went too far.
Everyone: did you know our Pope (Benedict XVI) thinks much could be had from a Buddhist-Christian engagement? Balthasar saw Buddhism as possibly becoming for the modern age what Platonism was for the Patristics. I suspect Benedict got his enthusiasm from Balthasar (though he has always been interested in inter-religious issues.
[...] Interdependence, Not Indepedence Part II Part I [...]
I haven’t read books by Batchelor yet. As far as psychology and Buddhism goes, I have 3 interesting books by Dr. Mark Epstein (“Thoughts without a thinker”, eg).
As far as dialogue with Catholicism is concerned – the “we’re the one true religion” thing does get in the way just a bit :) Although, a Buddhist master may well just smile at that without being offended. The current pope is basically a very nice, let alone erudite, man – except when it comes to particular issues, like the two letters on gays that were the last straw for me. This is common in people of course. Most love their family but if they have an ideological reason to be against something, watch out. Insofar, the pope might profit from a little non-dual thinking =)
One can certainly read “more abstract” Catholic authors (ie, not Karl Keating :P) as an agnostic, Buddhist etc. and profit from it – and vice versa. Openness toward all sources is a good thing. Heck, I’m reading Howard Zinn now.
One can admire Jesus after having jumped the “bark of Peter”, maybe more so – not so much the ground crew (or the Old Testament god). In particular since it seems that the ‘harsher’ statements may well not have been his. The ginormous edifice of intricate rules that the Catholic church came up with aren’t exactly his fault :) I blame OCD people who kept asking “Well, what about that, Father ? And this ? Let’s suppose that… What if this… ? How bad of a sin is this ?”
The whole drop-your-illusions thing has been interesting. Buddhism fits in really well with psychology/psychiatry. As someone who’s certifiable, I can attest to that. i think what I especially like about the process is that neither Buddhism nor shrink have a guilt-inducing effect. You haven’t “sinned”, you’ve screwed yourself by virtue of your delusions. You got yourself into it, you gotta get yourself out of it. It doesn’t provide a roadmap, but rather travel rations. I’ve never liked authority, except when I thought I could bolster myself via having an authority – ie the church – behind me. Until that became untenable.
It became clear via sitting down and shutting up, so to speak, that I am not Catholic on a faith level – since “belief” is entirely foreign to me, but, ironically, that I now agree with a lot more Catholic social positions (except for the notorious sex-related things, of course). So, in a way, I am a better Catholic without being Catholic :P Compassion for all creatures, well except the Bush administration, that is. I’ll never live down my support for those $#&!#$, esp. not with myself.
It’s hard to relate the Buddhist (and medication) inspired thought processes. They’re not entirely new, but channeled. Grasping on to things becomes more and more silly, esp. grasping on to self-views one fancies. I’m not an American by birth, I’m European and use the metric system, Celsius and eat food that’s not $%#!. My whole rabble-rousing-right-wing-Catholic thing was just trying to fit in (and a result of lacking medication). This leads me to an interesting theory – if right-wingers were medicated, they’d cease to be.
More so than others perhaps I liked to create personae, I call it method acting. “I wonder what it’s like to be…” It surely helps to elude one’s lesser qualities via delusion. I’m sure zazen has commonalities with prayer, except that it’s not “outsourced”. Well, at least prayer that’s not a wish/shopping list.
I love the book subtitle “An ongoing lesson in the extent of my own stupidity”. (“Novice to Master” by Soko Morinaga). That’s really what it comes down to when you “sit down”. I just listened to all 6 Lewis Black albums in chronological order, and it summarized the Bush years. Every lie, every insanity, every despicable thing. And then I’m basically begging to be whacked over the head by a Zen master. In 2000, I was much smarter when I disliked the bastard. So, Buddhist thought is a nice barrier against self-congratulation. I’ve been “repenting” for quite some time now, mostly in the manner of “How could I have been this f***ing stupid”. (rather than “so sinful”)
If you know the blog “Creative Minority Report”, you’ll understand why I read it once in a while. As a reminder of my own idiocy. It’s quite a bit like the Cafeteria, isn’t it.
I know of Epstein’s stuff, but have not got into them (there is quite a bit of work out there examining Buddhism in relation to modern science and modern psychology- of course, the Buddhists do have criticism with modern psychology, since they think modern psychology is about changing one delusion with another, but they still see similarities, and understand how it has helped the West to address questions not previously asked).
I do think you would like Batchelor’s work — you can see some of the talks he gave here: http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/online%20articles.html one of the things he is known for is being the “agnostic Buddhist.”
You probably can understand that many of us talk about your blog, from time to time, and try to figure things out – trying to fit in makes some sense to me. But if you think Creative Minority Report is crazy, look further to “Coalation of the Fog” and you will find something which makes CMR look sane.
There are some good Buddhist-Christian resources; there are even Jesuit Zen Masters (confirmed Zen Masters, not self-made ones). Of course, there will be differences between Buddhism and Christianity — things which one must follow one direction or another, but beyond those answers to the big questions, I think Buddhism provides a good framework, esp, in the post-modern world – from which one can engage society at large (and really address questions the West has yet to engage).
Yeah, I looked at his books on Amazon, definitely seems interesting. There is such a thing as a “Western school of Buddhism”, and of course why not. Christian stuff gets inculturated as well. As far as my old blog goes, let it be a cautionary tale to all of you who go unmedicated. The mentality behind its general tenor was the exact opposite of Buddhism. To be sure, Catholicism didn’t “make me do it”, but there are certainly qualities in Catholicism that appeal to the obsessive compulsive :-P To agree with every rule, or every facet of something is of course nuts. To relish in it, even worse. “Oo look, here’s something where I can always be right as long as I agree with all the rules. No one can question me. Woohoo, a rule for EVERYthang ! I think I’m gonna cry.” (But the Bible says ! (substitute whatever)). I think 9/11 caused a psychotic break – I mean, I even shared conservatives’ dislike of soccer :) It’s not that I am ‘a liberal’ now – been there, done that as well. One thing is clear, had I been on what I am on now, that blog would never have been born. If you have friends or family behaving similarly, do send them to me, heh.
Yesterday, trying to measure some godforsaken American units ( a thimbleful and three pigs’ mouths full of water, add 3 ounces and 2 butt-pinches, put into a pan 5 1/2 spans wide or some crap like that), I yelled over to my wife (in my stand-up mode), “See this is what’s wrong with this f***ing country, it won’t accept the metric system, nooo that’d be SOCIALIST! AND – the terrists – who hate us because we’re free – would win. 100 degrees boiling, 0 freezing ? Hah! We can do BETTER than that. Here’s a disproportionate scale for ya !”
In college, I wrote a paper “Nietzsche never made it to America” :) Apparently, neither did healthy food, sane politics, distrust of the military, sex ed and evolution. The comfort I find when pondering the “the extend of my own stupidity” is that it’s still nothing compared to red-state-
America’s.
Now if I received Dharma transmission, that’d be an interesting thing to post on the internet. My shrink’s already fascinated by my fast rise and public “#&@! this” in the Catholic blog world :o) He’s Polish, recovering Catholic. It really is different talking to a European, btw. My family and friends mostly say “Well, we knew this wouldn’t last forever. Welcome back”.
[...] Not Independence Part III Part I Part II Like many in the Western tradition, Buddhists understood that our primary understanding of [...]
[...] Not Independence Part IV Part I Part II Part [...]
[...] Not Independence Part V Part I Part II Part III Part [...]
[...] Not Independence Part VI Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part [...]
[...] Not Independence Part VII Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part [...]
[...] Not Independence Part VIII Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part [...]
[...] Not Independence Conclusion Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part VII Part [...]