Some thoughts on Buddhism and studying Buddhism.
Is there a difference between studying Buddhism and practising Buddhism?
Yes. It is a bit like the difference between reading a menu or recipe and tasting the food! We can learn a lot from studying Buddhism and comparing it to other religions and philosophies, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Isn't meditation selfish?
The practise of setting some time aside to sit alone or practice with friends, might seem to be a selfish activity. But the 'results' one can get from it, by becoming a calmer, wider person can benefit everyone around you!
What are we reading and studying?
The earliest Buddhist Scriptures were not written down until 500 years after the life of the Buddha. We do not know what language the Buddha spoke. So we are unlikely to be reading his exact words. But some parts, particularly the numbered lists, are likely to be very close to the original teachings. These have then been translated into Pali or Sanskrit, and later into other languages. The scriptures we read in English may have been translated many times before the reach us. There is the added complication of different conventions of transliteration from some languages (e.g. Wade-Giles or Pin Yin from Chinese). Also, some words cannot be adequately translated into English, or the translation may carry a different meaning (e.g. 'suffering' as the translation of Dukkha), or there may be a subtly different meaning of the word already in general public usage (e.g. Karma). The English translator may choose a several styles of writing (literal, poetic, modern usage) and may cut out repetitions in the original or bits that may be unacceptable to Western sensitivities (e.g. not P.C., descriptions of the body, sex). And then the editor or teacher may select the bits that they think are important. Just look how many translations there are of the Dhammapada or Heart Sutra ….. So we should be aware of all the influences and sources of bias when we read about Buddhism, but most were written with the good intention to be of help to others who wish to follow the Buddha's Path.
Do Buddhists agree on "Buddhism"?
Not always. I often suspect that the different Schools of Buddhism put a slightly different meaning on key aspects of Buddhism and the associated jargon words. Soto Zen Buddhists say that one has to keep practising after 'enlightenment', whereas a Tibetan Buddhist would say that once enlightened one cannot slip backwards into non-enlightenment. The biggest difference in opinions that I have noticed in discussions is over the meaning of rebirth. Some Buddhists would argue that there is no 'I' to be reborn just karmic tendencies that are passed on to new lives, but this seems to be totally different to the Tibetan belief in the re-incarnation of lamas. The understanding of the law of Karma has an equally wide range of interpretation, linked to one's understanding of re-birth.
What is the best sort of Buddhism?
The one that you like the most. There are lots of different schools and different practices within them, so we should all be able to find something that suits our needs. It is said that the Buddha gave 84000 teachings [i.e. an infinite number], each suitable for a different situation or question.
Is there such a thing as a "perfect" Buddhist?
No, Buddhists are human too! Buddhism is not free from controversy, in the past and more recently. There have always been stories of drunken and womanising priests. When Buddhism came to the West it was first seen as being above worldly problems by those looking through idealistic eyes. The pages of Tricycle magazine document the role of enlightened Zen masters such as Yasutani Roshi in W.W.II, the dispute between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Dalai Lama which culminated in the picketing of his Holiness's visit to London and the allegations about the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order.
We must also keep in mind the cultures in which Buddhism has developed. Most of the ancient eastern cultures were not 'politically correct'!
Is 'Enlightenment' or Sartori different from other mystical experiences?
Perhaps not. Descriptions of other religious or non-religious mystical experiences do sound rather similar. Some writers imply that descriptions of the experience are coloured by the particular beliefs of the person. But, on the other hand Buddhist practices do provide a proven path to enlightenment, which is freely available to those who wish to try it.
If there is 'No Self' (anicca) who gets enlightened, and why do we have to practice to get there?
Buddhism points towards something that Buddhists call Buddha Nature which it tends not define. The Buddha said when he became enlightened "how wonderful, all beings are enlightened from birth, but because of their delusions they cannot see it". By sitting quietly in meditation our minds become calm and stop chasing after pleasures, fame and fortune; we then start to 'see' things clearly. But, we must also check what we 'see' with the precepts and our teachers, in case we are looking at another delusion.
It is said that nothing is lost and nothing is gained.
These are some questions (or koans) that have come up in my Buddhist practice over the years; the answers are my own personal opinions and are thus subject to change and development. You are welcome to e-mail me with your thoughts on these matters.
Yours in the Dharma,
Mike.