New Buddhist - With a Question

Ok, I haven't posted in a while... obviously.  Don't think I haven't felt guilt over it.  I feel guilty about everything!  

There are many reasons why I've been silent, other than my general malaise toward Buddhism... 

It's been a tough year of teaching, I was finishing up my Master's degree, AND I just found out that my wife and I are having twins!  

**Not an actual picture of my twins**

HUNGRY GHOST REALM, HERE I COME!

A whole bunch of people have written me over the past few months, many of whom had some nice things to say.  Thanks to the few of you who wrote all about how my views on Buddhism are distorted and are going to get me sent straight to the coldest dimension of hell!!!

 The other day, this guy Joe Ryan sent me an email that struck me as worthy for a response in a new blog post.  (Don't worry, I already asked him if it was alright if I used his name on here.)  

So here ya go, Joe:  

(Joe's words are in blue and mine are black.)

Hi, I'm Joe Ryan, and I have no idea if you ever check your email, but here we go regardless.

Hi, Joe.  Nice to meet you.  I do check my email and for all of those people who've written me over the past few months, I thank you sincerely for your input.  I've been so busy at school and with other writing, that I kinda put this blog on the back-burner for a while.  But I'm here and I've read all the messages and I thank you for all of them. 

There are a number of blogs like yours and I love reading them, the sort of deconstruction of what many people seem to believe Buddhism is. But I guess I am wondering if there is a 'short version' (so to speak) of what people who are a part of this movement believe? 

 

I can't really say that I belong to a "movement" per say.  I can in no way speak for anyone else but myself.  Like many American Buddhists, I spent years studying and practicing by following a very traditional path.  For me, it was in the Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Asian tradition of Buddhism is quite culturally specific and can be difficult to follow.  Extracting the "ideals," "philosophies," or "practices" from this tradition can be extraordinarily difficult.  Plus, I think it's in the American spirit to change whatever we encounter to suit our own needs anyway.  

 

The reason why I was drawn to "deconstruct" Buddhism is because I recognized the fact that (1) Buddhism could offer me a worthwhile focus in my life, but (2) that I first needed to adapt it to my own worldview rather than vice-versa.  I tried to force myself into the traditional mold, but I just didn't fit.  I was faced with the decision to either give up altogether or make changes that would allow myself some leeway in utilizing what Buddhism could offer me.  Remember, the "path" is a personal thing.  There is no "right way" even though the actual phrase "right" occurs frequently in the literature.  Use common sense and self-direct your path.  It's the only way.  

 

If I were to suggest some reading material for you that could somehow synthesize this idea of an individual path into something comprehensible, the list would look somewhat strange to a traditional Buddhist.  Here's a taste: 

 

Leaves of Grass - Walt Whitman 

Anything by Allen Ginsberg

The Autobiography of Malcolm X 

Einstein's theory of special and general realtivity

Gray's Anatomy - the BOOK not the SHOW

All of this literature has nothing to do with Buddhism per say, but everything to do with "finding an individual path."  After reading this stuff, you can then investigate some of the more traditional Buddhist texts.  If you read the Buddhist stuff first, you'll just end up lost in a blizzard of intellectual bullshit and you won't have time to meditate.  Find people who think differently... people who lust at life and come away with some kind of unique perspective.  Examine the paintings of Van Gogh for example, or read a biography of a famous serial killer... nothing is irrelevant.  

(DISCLAIMER: I don't know how old you are Joe, or any of my readers for that matter, but if any of the things I suggest below are illegal for minors... DON'T DO THEM!  It's important above all else to be responsible and mindful about the feelings of others.  A good piece of advice:  Do anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.) 

Rather than get bogged down on the couch under a load of books, I suggest a more "experiential" approach to Buddhism.  Here's a list of stuff you can do to give you a more accurate perspective on the spiritual path: 

1. Go on a prolonged camping trip into the wilderness.  Sit in the dark and experience nature. 

2. Get really drunk (responsibly).  See how it feels.  It's the only way to understand WHY it could be bad for you. 

3. Have lots of sex (responsibly). 

4. Meditate - don't worry about how.  Just sit there.  You'll figure it out. 

5. Cook a gourmet meal for someone and eat it together.  (Or at least try.)

6. Fall deeply in love with someone - hetero or homo!  Have fun! 

7. Write poetry. 

8. View extreme poverty first hand. 

9. Get in a fight with someone. 

10. Get scared about something... all alone. 

11. Hold hands with someone who is about to die.  (This is my personal fav...)

Some people may say that I'm being crass or irresponsible by suggesting that you do this kinda stuff.  (Trust me, I would've written a longer, more explicit list if I wasn't afraid of getting in trouble.  We should go out for a beer sometime and I can elaborate.)  

 

I'm just trying to make a point.  Buddhism is full of these lists of stuff that you "shouldn't" do.  The only way to achieve anything... not just in Buddhism, but in general... is to EXPERIENCE life - make mistakes, regret stuff, see things that disturb you.  You need to make judgements about your world and form opinions about your place in it.  If you spend your life in a cave, isolated from the real world, you won't have anything to meditate about.  Those colorful drawings of Buddhist deities get kinda boring after a while, trust me. 

 

For example, you mention that you tossed out all your Buddhist shit and gave up on " wasting my time looking for this vague concept called "enlightenment" " but many of the books that you read (The Three Pillars of Zen comes to mind) say that the enlightenment experience is basically the most important thing in Buddhism. Certainly, zazen is viewed as 'what you do' if you want to be considered a Buddhist. I'm trying to decide where you (and many others) fall on many of these things that seem like Buddhism 101. Admittedly, I haven't read through the entire blog, and I probably should because it might answer all my questions. 

 

It's like this:  If you spend your life focused on the prize, then you lose sight of the path and you'll never get there.  Enlightenment is an indescribable, non-conceptual phenomenon.  Any time spent trying to figure out what it is exactly, or what is the "best" way to get there... is time that could've been better spent living or practicing.  

 

YES enlightenment is important.  It's the supposed goal of Buddhist practice and meditation is the supposed way to get there.  What do you think is better?  To focus on the goal or on the method?  If you spend all your time worrying about enlightenment, then you won't meditate.  If you spend all your time meditating, you won't have time to live.  If you don't live... you die.  It's that simple.  You need to achieve a balance that's right for you.  No Buddhist sage can tell you how to do that.  Sure, they can give you a perspective from their own path, but let's face it... how much do you really have in common with the Dalai Lama, Joe?  

 

Read the Buddhism books.  They're good.  I've read many of them myself... but take all of what you read with a grain of salt.  If you read something, or hear something from some supposed Buddhist master, ask yourself if it makes sense to JOE.  If it does, great.  If not, forget you ever heard it.   

It seems like there are people who worship the Asian Zen masters as rockstars (you know the people...they shave their head and talk in riddles to make friends and family think they are mysterious or something), and then there are the other group of people who believe that Buddhism has to be westernized or die. Buddhism gets packaged into 'easily digestible for western audiences' boxes, or becomes hippy/beat zen, where you just get to do whatever you want and call it living in the moment. 

 

Like I said earlier... Don't worry about the Asian rock stars.  Don't worry about the losers that imitate them.  Don't get bogged down with westernizing Buddhism.  Ignore all "boxed" forms of ANYTHING.  The only person in this world (or in any of the Buddhist heavens) that can tell you what to believe or how to believe it is..... JOE.  You.  That's it.  Period.  End of story. 

It's like being at the grocery store.  Let's say you want to make a really delicious, healthy dinner.  There are aisles and aisles full of pre-packaged, pre-processed, pre-served, pre-heated crap that you can buy.  That stuff gets the job done.  You cram it down your throat and you feel full.  The problem is that it tastes terrible and destroys your body from the inside out.  Don't buy that crap.  Instead, grab some fresh vegetables, a nice piece of fish, and maybe a handful of herbs and make yourself a nice dinner.  It'll be better for you, it'll taste better, and best of all... YOU made it.  

When I imagined writing this email, it was very insightful and not nearly as rambling as it has turned out to be. Let me just break it down, and if you have the time/interest to answer these somewhat personal question, I'd appreciate it.

Do you believe that enlightenment through meditation (or at all) is crucial, unimportant, or impossible?

 

None of the above.  Enlightenment is not an event.  You don't just turn a corner one day and run smack into the brick wall of enlightenment.  "Enlightenment" in the conservative Buddhist sense is just a vague concept that aims to articulate a goal that supposedly lies at the end of the spiritual path.  There have been centuries of scholarly and meditative inquiry directed at the task of quantifying this goal and an equal amount of speculation about how best to reach it.  The volume of commentary on the subject is staggering.

 

In my opinion, the idea that enlightenment should be set in the cross-hairs of our practice as a goal that is to be aimed for creates a dichotomy between the PERSON WHO WE ARE TODAY, IN THE PRESENT MOMENT - and - THE PERSON WE HOPE TO BECOME SOMEDAY THROUGH INTENSIVE PRACTICE.  

 

This is an unfair interpretation.  It simplifies the whole process of spiritual growth and realization that a person goes through in life and distills it into a neat little package:  

 

If you be good and work hard 

 

you will get a really cool reward!  

 

How can we possibly stay focused on living in the present moment, mindful of the million miracles that occur in our daily lives, when there is the constant distraction of what could happen tomorrow or the next day, when we finally become a buddha?  

That's a huge burden to carry.  I refuse to do it.  

 

Besides setting yourself up for certain disappointment, this kind of thinking defies logic.  To assume that the mind and the physics of our very universe operate in such a manner is just as foolish as the supposition or belief that a divine creator-god watches over us like we're his children - punishing us for being bad and rewarding us for being good.  

 

If that's what we're doing as Buddhists, then I don't want any part in it.  I don't care what terminology you use.  I have no interest whatsoever in sitting at the right hand of the Lord OR becoming a golden, omniscient buddha with droopy earlobes who has the power to save humankind.  

 

Thanks, but no thanks.  I don't need that to be happy.   

 

Enlightenment in this sense is not possible.  At least, that's my belief.  Please understand, I don't suggest that I have any great understanding of a universal spiritual principle.  I do know what feels right to ME.  I have been able to figure out (to an extent) what I need to believe in order to wake up in the morning, put my feet on the floor, and live another day.  

This is life - it's a constant challenge.  The game is figuring out how to make it through  without irreparably hurting yourself or others and managing to maintain an acceptable level of happiness.  

 

Not a single one of us has a leg up or a special understanding of what it takes to deconstruct existence and solve the eternal questions in life.  Not Buddha, not Mohammed, not Jesus, and certainly not Harold Camping.  I believe that each and every one of us has everything we could possibly need, already inside of us.  It's just a matter of opening the mind to it all.  

 

(For those of you who require a Buddhist reference for this belief, check out the writings of Longchenpa or the concept of tathagatagarbha.  I suggest reading the original texts without commentary first.  Go with your gut.  Don't forget that all this shit was written by people just like you and me!)  

 

We live, we learn along the way, and we get by.  There are certain undeniable truths to this existence which puzzle us and which we try to understand.  The irony is, for all of our similarities as human beings, there is no universal path for us to follow.  Nor is there a universal goal.  You can investigate any religion or philosophical dogma and you'll find the same thing: suggestions.  The challenge is to go beyond the suggested reading list and figure it out for yourself!

 

For me, enlightenment is something unique to my perspective.  For you, it's something entirely different.  There are some commonalities, to be sure, but you can chalk them up to the beauty of life.  Don't forget that something like 98% of our DNA is identical to that of a chimpanzee... would you ask a chimp how to realize emptiness?

 

Joe, you have your enlightenment already.  It's just a matter of embracing it.  If you figure out the secret on just how to do that... let us know.  We're waiting.   

 

If I had to choose one word to describe enlightenment, it would be: dream.  

 

Where would you say your beliefs lie, on a scale of Tibetan Buddhism to Alan Watts-style Beat Zen? (Might not be the best scale, but I hope you get what I mean.)

Do you think a Buddhist is REQUIRED to believe in things like rebirth, Karma, etc?

 

Ask yourself this:  Who makes this requirement?  The Buddha?  Impossible.  He's dead.  He can't tell you to do ANYTHING!  Is it the institution or dogma of the Buddhist religion?  Can't be... neither of those are sentient beings with the ability to ask anyone anything.  

 

Think about it like this: 

 

Take any one of those supposedly "Buddhist" concepts like reincarnation or karma.  Do your research.  Read all about them and talk to people who claim to believe in them.  Ask questions.  Then, go for a long walk by yourself on the beach or something and think about them for yourself.  Does the idea of karma make sense to you?  Is it something that you think will help you understand yourself or the nature of existence?  Investigate it... test it out... dare I say, MEDITATE on it.  If in the end, you feel like it makes sense and it's something you'd like to lay claim to... then go ahead.  If not, walk away.  Just be careful, as this whole process might just take your entire life.  

 

Don't forget that many of the dogmatic concepts which serve as cornerstones to the institution of Buddhism came from social constructs that evolved over the course of thousands of years.  In the end, human beings are really only concerned with one thing: finding happiness.  For one person, like Adolf Hitler for example, that quest might involve the genocide of millions... for another person, it could be as simple as a ham sandwich.  When you stop to think about it all, this whole thing called "life" is completely fucking insane.  

 

If I had to "scale" my own belief system, I'd say it's probably most similar to the life of an ant.  They're more Buddhist than anyone I've ever met.  

And finally, if what many people think of modern western Buddhism is just a group of people who may or may not meditate, may or may not believe in Buddhist things like reincarnation and Karma, and think you should live for the moment and try to do right by other people, where's the difference between modern Buddhism and Secular Humanism?

 

Again... it doesn't matter what other people think.  What's most important is what YOU think.  If you want to call yourself a Secular Humanist, a Buddhist, or an asshole, then that's your reality.  No one else can change that.  

 

Yes, Buddhism has a lot in common with humanism, transcendentalism, Hinduism, and Taoism... just to name a few other "isms."  But think about this.  It also has a lot in common with Nazi-ism.  Where else can you find a group of people who all look exactly alike, have the same haircuts, wear the same clothes, chant the same words, and think the same thoughts? 

 

Trip to Jonestown anyone?

 

There is an innate danger in labeling our belief systems and trying to quantify the non-conceptual forces that govern our minds.  Before you know it, you've built yourself a tiny, windowless prison cell.  Sure, you can go inside, close the door, and lock yourself away forever... but who would want that?     

Thanks in advance for reading, whether or not you have time or interest enough to respond.

-Joe Ryan

 

Thank you for writing, Joe.  Thank you for challenging me to get inside myself and try to articulate the things that drive me mad on a daily basis.  Good luck, godspeed, and don't forget to say your prayers before bed... or you'll probably go to hell. 

 

 

The REBEL Buddha

Review of Rebel Buddha 

                I used to be the type of “Buddhist” guy that bought EVERY new book released by Snow Lion and Wisdom.  At one point, I think I probably had like two-hundred books on my shelf.  That was bullshit.  A few years ago, I came to my senses, went through all my books, and probably got rid of 90% of them by putting them in boxes and setting them out in the lobby of my apartment building.  The last thing I need in my life is a bookcase full of books that I’m never going to read again; even if they just so happen to be about Buddhism.  I mean, who the hell am I trying to impress here?

                Ever since then, I’m very careful about what books I keep and which ones I leave on the seat when I’m riding the subway.  (Most get left on the seat, honestly.)  I don’t usually use the library because I like to mark my books up and generally abuse them.  So, I end up spending a ton of money on books.  On the plus side, there are a lot of people in NYC that probably pick up the books I leave on the subway… so good for them.

                Before I start my review, I’d like to say that I’m KEEPING Rebel Buddha.  Yep, that’s right.  It’s not totally horrible.  Dzogchen Ponlop has definitely taken a step in the right direction with this book.  He comes from a very traditional Tibetan background… and we all know how crotchety those old Tibetans can be, right? 

She's yelling at a guy who hasn't realized emptiness yet!

Notwithstanding, DP makes a sincere effort to step away from the traditional formula of Tibetan-inspired literature.  There’s no text translation, no thangka painting on the cover, and not one single mention of the word TANTRA!  As a matter of fact, DP strays away from using any so-called “Dharma-Speak” in this book whatsoever, which is a big RELIEF!

HOWEVER…

                 

     There are a few problems.  Why is it that in the world of American Buddhist literature it seems like the majority of “books” out there are not really books, but talks that have been typed out by a faithful follower?  I really hate that.  Not that there’s no merit in transcribed lectures, but there’s really something to be said for authors who actually WRITE their books rather than just stick their name on the cover of some transcribed compilation of talks that they gave sometime last decade. 

What ends up happening to the literature is terrible.  All these “talk-books” end up sounding just a little bit off somehow, right?  The tone is weird.  I always feel like I’m being lulled into a stupor by someone who likes to hear themselves speak at length. 

As stated in the Editors Note in the back of the book, “Rebel Buddha is the result of the coming together of two lecture series on dharma and culture presented almost ten years apart.”  I think this book would have been FAR better had Dzogchen Ponlop actually sat down and written it.  I know that some of the accolades given to American Buddhist literature speak to how “conversational” and “straight forward” the reading is, but I’d like to suggest some phrases that are more appropriate:

“John Doe Rinpoche shatters old myths and sweeps away cultural baggage, but also repeats himself often, chooses poor adjectives when describing things, and pads his chapters with unnecessary paragraphs.”                   

 --John Harrison, author of Buddhism Sucks

“Generic Buddha Book is a seminal work for the growth of Buddhism in contemporary society; especially for those who don’t value well written literature.  Be prepared to skim.”                                                                                          

-John Harrison, asshole on the street who happens to spend all his time at Barnes and Noble reading Buddhist books

You see, one of the advantages of writing something over SPEAKING it, is that you can have the chance to revise and refine your ideas before you send it to press.  Although DP most certainly spent time editing and revising the text that his devotee, Cindy Shelton transcribed, it would’ve been nice to have him actually take the time to WRITE the book.  As Buddhists, whenever a new dharma book hits the shelves, we ingest the message and ignore the writing.  Is it too much to ask that our authors write well? 

Yes, DP’s message is fairly strong and somewhat refreshing, but if I had to analyze his writing, I’d probably say that it was “average”, “repetitive”, and “toneless” rather than “accessible”, “profound” or “thoroughly modern.”

TOO HARSH? 

Rebel Buddha is refreshing in the sense that the book is almost wholly absent of typical Buddhist anecdotes and tiresome Buddhist terminology.  That’s nice.  Even though I consider myself fairly well-versed in the whole Buddho-speak thing, it’s nice to read a book in my own language.  DP has a thorough knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism and a sincerity to impart this knowledge to the reader; so from that perspective, it’s a good book.  Not REALLY, REALLY good, but good.  I think he was going for something similar to what Stephen Batchelor did in Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.

There seems to be a growing demand for books like this, written BY and FOR Western Buddhists.  Several have tried, but few have won a prize.  I really enjoyed Batchelor’s work.  The difference with “Confession” though is that Batchelor is a very strong writer.  Plus, he’s a westerner.  DP was totally trying to jump on that bandwagon with Rebel Buddha.  He succeeded… in part. 

(Just wait till I write my book.  Then you’re brains will really bleed.)

here’s the breakdown:

The GOOD The BAD and The BULLSHIT:

Not that I’m trying to rip the guy a new asshole or anything, but a lot of the book (as a lot of many Buddhist books are) is just a fluffy, Buddhist, spiritual pep-talk. 

There is some real meat is found though. 

Dharma-Meat

DP does a good job explaining the Buddhist conception of mind.  He uses the typical Tibetan construct of the “Two Truths”; Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth, although he doesn’t use that exact terminology.  As he states, “Another way to describe the mind is to talk about its relative and ultimate aspects.  The relative aspect refers to confused mind; the ultimate aspect is its enlightened nature.”  This is not a new construct, but DP explains it in with such nonchalance that he demystifies the concept of enlightened mind and makes it seem more approachable and attainable by us lowly Americans. 

Probably the best thing about DP is that he brings Buddhism down from the pedestal that we’ve put it on. 

For example:

I sometimes wonder why some of you are still at it [US, the American Buddhists], because I see so little confidence in the possibility of waking up now… It’s not the message of the Buddha or the intention of Buddhism to provide a partial recovery from confusion.  The message of the Buddha is that you’re awake now and that you can, if you apply yourself, realize it.

Tell that to all the “scholars” working in the Buddhist academic field. 

When you compare your cultural upbringing to that of Asian teachers or historical figures of the past, you usually don’t see any chance of achieving a realization like theirs.  You probably think of yourself as an ordinary, confused person who’s a product of a materialistic, dualistic culture, while they have the advantage of being raised from birth under special, even mystical circumstances.  Such ideas don’t help you; they actually undermine the path.

I’ve always thought it to be pretty ridiculous how we idolize Asian Buddhist teachers. 

The whole idea behind this book is that it’s supposed to appeal to people like ME!  People who are either (1) not Buddhist, but want to learn a little bit without first becoming familiar with a whole list of new Buddhist vocabulary or (2) are already “Buddhist” but are sick of all the dogma surrounding it.  As “new” Buddhists, DP suggests that we need to reinvent the way we choose to practice and study – rather than just follow in the footsteps of our Asian forbearers:

Just as it makes no sense to hang on to the countercultural forms of the sixties, it is senseless to hang on the forms of a traditional, Asian Buddhist culture and pretend we can fully inhabit that experience in a meaningful way… these forms and activities are simply the means to enter the open dimension of our own mind.

The only problem though is that DP doesn’t really explain HOW to make the transition away from traditional, Asian Buddhism into a newly reinvented Buddhism for today.  He does give some advice though, with regard to how our “practice” should be individualized and tailored to our own personal experiences: 

There is an aspect of traditional study, working with teachers and so on, but the most crucial aspect of the path is the “hands-on” part, where you work directly with your own mind and experience.

Before doing anything else, you must first connect with all your heart to your desire to be free.  Then you can begin to learn the most effective methods for fulfilling your desire.  This means that your individual path must be connected to your own unique experience of life.

The point is that, spiritually, we’re responsible for ourselves.

Perhaps the greatest strength of Rebel Buddha is DP’s explanation of meditation.  As I’ve highlighted in my earlier posts, meditation can be a breeding ground for confusion.  What the Buddhist community so desperately needs are teachers who are willing to demystify meditation and instruct students using practical advice rather than haughty explanations that make little practical sense.

DP includes a great description of meditation in Appendix 1 and goes into great detail on the nuts and bolts of what you’re actually DOING when you’re meditating: 

It’s not about meditating “on” something or getting into a zone where you’re blissfully removed from your mind’s contents.  Instead, the actual meaning of meditation is more like getting used to being with your own mind.

First, we gain intellectual knowledge, then we personalize it through reflecting on it, and then we go beyond that to a whole new state of knowing.

When it comes to the pièce de résistance of Buddhist meditation – MEDITATION ON EMPTINESS – DP does an excellent job of making it sound less formidable than other authors do. 

Scary meditation book

Meditation on emptiness is probably the most confusing, most often misunderstood aspect of Buddhist practice.  Whenever I attend a teaching or read a book on the subject, I usually find myself feeling frustrated.  Of course, to discuss or write about a concept such as emptiness is a difficult task.  DP’s presentation is both heartfelt and simplistic.  The result is that after reading, the concept of emptiness begins to feel a bit easier to understand.  He begins his discussion with a general presentation of Vipassana: 

The tradition of analytical meditation [vipassana] includes a number of logical reasonings that can lead us through a profound analysis of the self and the concepts that sustain our belief in it.

Although he doesn’t venture into the “deep waters” of these logical reasonings, he does leave the reader feeling that meditation on emptiness is a practice that can be done without frustration; that it’s not as hard as it is made out to be.  I believe that he accomplishes this by encouraging the reader to PERSONALIZE their practice:  

If you don’t analyze emptiness, however, if you just take as fact what the “experts” say, then it’s not personal, and it’s difficult to understand or bring into your experience.

Rebel Buddha is a good book.  There are some weak points, but overall I think it met its intended goal: to reach out to curious practitioners who are sick and tired of the same old Buddhist bullshit. 

Research on Meditation

I know I'm behind on my next meditation post... and I promised a review of REBEL BUDDHA! 

I should be done with the review by the middle of the week... and then onto the next meditation installment.  In the meantime, here's a PDF of a research paper I just wrote on meditation for a graduate class that I am currently taking at St. John's University.  I'm finishing up my masters in the spring and I'll be doing an experiment on how meditation affects the students in my class... this paper is a precursor to that experiment.  You certainly don't have to read it, but I thought some of you might find it interesting.  The tone is pretty academic and thus, totally DIFFERENT from how I write on here. 

Enjoy: 

Meditation Research

New Post on Progressive Buddhism

I just posted something as a collaborator on Progressive Buddhism.  It's about teaching kids how to meditate. 
 Check it out! 

Also, I just finished Rebel Buddha.  I'm gonna post a review this week, along with Meditation Part 4.

Don't know what the lady with the "World's Largest Augmented Breasts" has to do with meditation?  Read my post on Progressive Buddhism to find out!!!

Are you excited?

Hilarious Shit on The Reformed Buddhist

I read about the "real" Jesus at my desk in school this morning and nearly fell off my chair laughing. 
Check it out:  Crazy Jesus

Meditation - Part 3 - "What do I meditate ABOUT?"

First let’s recap (without as much humor and sarcasm):

1.      For those new to meditation (and Buddhism), the process of discovery can be long, lonely, confusing, and frustrating.  (See Meditation Part 1)  Since the practice of meditation isn’t common to Western traditions, we have to do a bit of detective work first.  Since we (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) live in a time where meditation (and Buddhism) is considered to be a “cool” activity, there are a ton of people out there claiming to be able to teach you how to do it… usually for a price.  Be careful, stay true to yourself, and keep it simple.  Don’t sign up for anything or subscribe to a particular belief structure before you do some solid experimentation on your own!

2.      Once you get informed and motivated enough to actually DO meditation, there’s a period of time where it really sucks, so prepare yourself.  Since meditation really is an individual, solitary pursuit, when you actually start taking the time to sit down and do it, there’s a lot of shit that comes floating to the surface of the mind/consciousness that can be discouraging and unexpected for a newbie.                          

       

       It's kind of like starting a new job at the bottom of the corporate ladder.  

      You have to go through all the shit jobs before you can work your way up to something better.  My last post about discovering your true “ugliness” was an exaggeration on this idea.  The first thing that usually happens to a new meditator is that they encounter a whole slew of negative emotions, physical discomforts, boredom, and psychological insight.  It is not uncommon to get “sick of yourself” before you even really get started.

             This feeling of self-loathing is due to the fact that the process of meditation subjects you to a whole new method of introspection.  Think about it - when else do you just sit around doing absolutely nothing?  Sleep maybe?  Since you’re (supposed to be) conscious during meditation, it’s common sense to assume that you’re gonna do some thinking about who the hell you are and what the hell you’re doing.  

       Thoughts about your life and the fact that you’re just sitting here breathing make you question the validity of the practice.  You begin to see just how stupid meditation is and these thoughts could force you to walk away from the practice before you even really get started. 

             Although you will eventually transition away from this self-introspective perspective and move onto more “important” Buddhist practices, in the beginning, meditation is all about getting a handle on yourself.  Think about it, how can you hope to transcend the “self” if you don’t even fully know what it is yet? 

 That brings me to my next topic:  What do I meditate “about?”

 Although Buddhism is a religion that seems to be particularly well suited to “converts,” once you’re knee deep in it, its hidden philosophical complexities can be confusing.  Sure, Buddhism does have a degree of “science” to it and it can certainly hold up pretty well to our “modern” Western logic.  But we cannot forget the cultural baggage that Buddhism carries with it and the vast multitude of philosophical perspectives within the many schools of Buddhism that influence it.  The diversity of these philosophical perspectives is particularly evident when you look at how many “kinds” of meditation there are.  This is particularly true with regard to some of the more “dogmatic” schools of Buddhism – i.e., Tibetan Gelug-pa.  (What's the deal with those hats anyway?)

 This situation leaves many new practitioners wondering, “What do I meditate about?”  Usually, when a teacher is present, he/she can provide guidance with this… but what if you don’t have a teacher?  Or what if (like me) you don’t want to enter into a strictly traditional teacher/student approach to meditation? 

 Here is a taste (by no means comprehensive) of what you (as a card-carrying Buddhist) can choose to meditate about:

           Suffering or the Four Noble Truths

2.                           Impermanence

3.                          This Precious Human Rebirth

4.                           Compassion

5.                          Anger

6.                          Emptiness

7.                          Dependent Origination

8.                          Karma

9.

Then there are various “purification” practices you can do where you recite mantras to particular deities, do prostrations, and confess your "sins" to multi-colored Buddhas.  There is the whole realm of Guru Yoga practices, Tantric Practices, and other devotional, cult-like meditational rituals.  

All kinds of questions begin to pop up in your mind... Where do the prayers fit in?  Should I say them in English, Tibetan, Sanskrit, Japanese, or Pali?  Should I learn to chant?  What about the deities?  Which one should I worship?  Isn’t there some kind of sex involved? 

 You could meditate on a different topic, using a different text, focusing on a different deity, every single day for the rest of your life and never get anywhere with any of them. 

 So, what do you do?  Where do you start?

 Relax, I’m gonna explain: 

 It's good to understand how meditation works conceptually before jumping into it.  I find it helpful to understand that all forms of Buddhist meditation can basically be broken down into two categories.  Now, before all you “purists” out there start telling me that I’m wrong to break meditation down into these categories, let me offer this:  Take this categorization with a grain of salt.  Not all forms of meditation fit neatly into this distinction and some forms can be considered to belong to both categories.  This is merely to simplify meditation into something easy to understand. 

 There.

 Meditation can be broadly broken into two “kinds” or "types":

1.      Samantha - (Pronounced Sha-ma-tha) although there is a long, technical definition for this word, all you need to know right now is that it basically means "Concentration" meditation.  For this kind of meditation, you choose an "object" to focus your attention on and you simply hold it there with all your energy and focus.  A lot of stuff ends up happening to you when you get good at this kind of meditation.  For example, usually you feel a sense of calm and relaxation.  Also, your attention span increases and you are able to bring your mind to a place of intense focus that you've never experienced before.  

2.      Vipassana - (Pronounced Vip-ah-sha-na) in this kind of meditation, you use the mind to analyze various topics to understand what makes them tick.  Usually, Vipassana is done after a sufficient amount of Samantha has been accomplished because in order to focus on complex topics like "impermanence" or "dependent origination," you need to be able to focus your mind and concentrate on one object without getting distracted.  

A    A good way to understand the difference between Samantha and Vipassana is to look at it like this:  

       Let's say you've just been given a really nice looking Christmas present from your Uncle Bob.  He hands it to you all wrapped up in a pretty box with a big, red bow.  You rip it open.  It's a really cool hunting knife!

           "Holy shit, Uncle Bob," you say.  "Thanks!" 

           "Take 'er easy there, little fella," says Uncle Bob with a grin.  

"         "This knife is very old and very dull.  You gotta sharpen it before         you can run out and start huntin' with it."   

           "Geez Louise, Uncle Bob," you say.  "I'm just a little piss-ant.  What do I use to sharpen it?"

           "That's easy.  You just use a little Samantha, little buddy," he says.  "Samantha will get the knife good and sharp for you and then you can take it out there into the woods and slaughter any beast that gets in your way." 

           "Samantha?  That's great!" you reply, enthusiastically.  "I can do that.  I'll get started right away!"   

          This knife is your mind:

The holes in the handle are for your brain fingers!!!

        Use Samantha meditation to sharpen that shit and then you can go out and do some Vipassana!

       

          Wait, Wait, Wait!!! 

       

       How do you do Samantha meditation, you ask?  Well... you'll be pleased to know that this is the very subject of my next post!  

       Tune in next time for Meditation Part 4... "How to do Samantha meditation"