[Buddha-l] Core teachings

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 16:03 -0500, Jamie Hubbard wrote:

> Ah, Richard, methinks you underestimate the degree of the good Bhante's 
> disagreement. I believe that his point is, in fact, not unlike Vincente, 
> that without rebirth (and therefore the cessation of rebirth) the goal 
> becomes "merely" the cessation of suffering. And that "merely," I 
> believe, is a slippery slope that many Buddhists do not wish to get 
> near.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith once observed that there is no greater sign of
pettiness than using the word "mere" as an adjective to describe
another's view. It has never been entirely clear to me why anyone would
regard the cessation of suffering (dukkha-nirodha) as a trifling
achievement, saturated with "mereness", but clearly some do. May they be
happy. May they be at peace.

> Indeed, as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thurman, and others have made clear, 
> they think it leads to the end of Buddhism. I think that they are right. 

If by Buddhism they mean attachment to a view that has very little
relevance to people living and suffering in the world today, I hope they
are right. It would be lovely to see that sort of rigidity disappear
eventually from the face of the earth. 

> I mean really-- why spend all of that time and money or retreats when a 
> shot of bourbon and a nap will suffice?

There is, I confess, not much excuse for going to retreats, unless one
is in need of getting rid of the burden of too much money. As Shunryu
Suzuki says, it is quite enough to spend about half an hour a week doing
zazen. Retreats are for those who have lost all perspective, such as
adolescents. 

As for the shot of bourbon and the nap, we all know that when the nap is
over, the problems remain. It has been the experience of many of us, I
think, that meditation is far more effective than bourbon and naps at
reducing the kinds of thinking and expectations that lead to many of the
problems of life.

> As Steve Collins felicitously put it, "It is patently false, for
> Buddhists as for everyone except the pathologically depressed, that
> everything in life is suffering." 

But then Buddhism has never taught (so far as I now) that everything in
life is suffering. As far as I know, it teaches only that there is such
a thing as suffering. One need not be depressed, or even in a crabby
mood, to acknowledge that. And Buddhism goes on to teach that suffering
arises when one has unrealistic desires that cannot be fulfilled. That
suggests that the more unrealistic desires one can jettison, the less
suffering one will experience. Everything I have ever seen of life so
far suggests that that is indeed the case. 

> As you note elsewhere, however, the promise of totally and forever
> eliminating all afflictions can lead to big headaches, that is, the
> fires of samsaric dukkha.

Hosea Ballou (the great Universalist teacher who turned his polemic wit
against Jonathan Edwards, who holed up, as I recall, in some
insignificant village called Northampton, Massachusetts) once said that
the Calvinist doctrine of predestination was the most evil doctrine ever
devised by any man. I think he got that about right. A close second, I
would suggest, is the doctrine that one can totally eliminate all
dukkha. (Alas, pretty much everyone in India fell for that one, except
for the Carvakas. They were just about the only Indians with any real
sense, which is probably why everyone else felt it necessary to stamp
them out of existence. No society can long tolerate those who make
sense.)

> Without rebirth to worry about ... I think that we get to the
> interesting part of the Buddhist path that remains: ethical action and
> compassionate efforts to help others.

Jesus, Jamie, that could lead to Buddhists becoming mere Unitarians, or
(even worse) mere followers of the European Enlightenment. Get a grip
there, lad!

> Maybe I'll start ranting about Republicans.

No doubt you have heard that when George W. Bush was in England, he
asked Queen Elizabeth what the best way to have a stable and secure
government is. She replied that the secret is to surround oneself with
intelligent people. Bush asked her how to do that. She suggested giving
people a little test, and she offered to demonstrate.

The Queen called Tony Blair into the room and said "Mr Blair, suppose
your parents had a child, but this child was neither your brother nor
your sister. Who would that chlid be?" Mr Blair immediately responded
"That's easy, Your Majesty. The child would be me."

President Bush was deeply impressed with this dazzling show of
intelligence. When he returned to Washington, he called Dick Cheney into
his office and said "Dick, suppose your parents had a child, but this
child was neither your brother nor your sister. Who would that child
be?" Cheney hemmed and hawed and finally said "Let me get back to you on
that one."

Cheney quickly looked up Don Rumsfeld, Condy Rice, Alberto Gonzales,
John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and all the other bright
stars in the Republican firmament, but no one could answer him.

Then, quite by chance, Dick ran into Colin Powell. He was pretty sure
Powell was too liberal to give an intelligent answer, but he posed the
question anyway: "Colin, suppose your parents had a child, but this
child was neither your brother nor your sister. Who would that child
be?" Without hesitation, Colin Powell said, "That's easy, Dick. The
child would be me."

Dick Cheney ran as fast as his coronary condition would allow back to
the White House. he dashed into the Oval Office and said "I've got it,
Mr President! If my parents had a child, but this child was neither my
brother nor my sister, that child would be Colin Powell!"

"No, you idiot!" screamed the President. "It would be Tony Blair."

> Jamie Hubbard

Give my love to all the folks in that insignificant village in
Massachusetts you live in. And if you see Bhikkhu Bodhi, please give him
my best regards. He's a lovely man. A little narrow, I think, but lovely
all the same.

-- 
Richard Hayes
***
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human
soul."
  -- Mark Twain