"Because we don't know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. And yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, an afternoon that is so deeply a part of your being that you can't even conceive of your life without it? Perhaps four, or five times more? Perhaps not even that. How many more times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless..."

Paul Bowles: The Sheltering Sky

Well, not really. This Sunday finds me a bit blue. Not under the table and dreaming; more like living on Gray Street. What would you say if I told you that the best of what's around is the highest good that could be achieved? And that the typical situation of "pay for what you get" is not only wrong, but always too much, no matter what the rhyme or reason?

Well, before I say goodbye, I appologise for the lameitude of this blog today; borrowed words are always weak. Maybe you'll find something to pull out of the space between...

Prez got soul. Check out the action! Nice to have a C&C who can not only bust a punching bag, but a move as well.



"It's a low bar..."

Maybe, but it's still nice to see something other than a rich, fat white guy...

Really, there's only one thing to say that can encapsulate this moment in history.

Cool...

Peace, everybody. Let's make it real, keep it real, and make it last...

How nice to have two Sundays in a row that greet me with sun. Honestly, I feel like it's spoiling me. Alas; leave it to my good friend Mpeterson to muck up my perfectly quiet Sunday with a question. Well, I did ask for it...

Buddhists spend lots of time yakking about "dharma". The origination of the word (Sanskrit: dhárma, Pāḷi dhamma) means "that which supports or upholds", and often gets translated into "law". And in this case, by "translated" I mean "dumbed-down". And by "dumbed-down" I, of course, mean "neutered".

In Buddhism, we often refer to the Dharma as a "jewel". I have always really liked this interpretation not only because it implies its preciousness, but also the multi-faceted nature of this treasure. So let's get out our magnifying glasses and have a look-see.

On one hand, we do look at the "dharma" as "law". We look at it as the laws by which reality is governed. And, as part of reality, we are governed by it as well. All the scientific and merely gross aspects of reality--from macro to micro and all points in between--are subject to the dharma, because the dharma is all that is. Essentially; "reality is the law, and the law is reality". That's pretty easy to wrap ones' head 'round. Even if we as individuals don't understand the laws of the Universe, we can sort of always feel them at work (sort of like tax law, I suppose). So, to start with, [dharma] ≈ [law]. To take it one step further to the East, it could very easily be interpreted as [dharma] ≈ [Tao].

If we turn the jewel, the next shiny side is the dharma as the cannon of teaching from Śākyamuni Buddha. In Buddhism, this is referred to as "Buddha-dharma". I won't elaborate on that too much, except to say that on the surface, this is what most people experience or think of as "dharma" at first in much the same way as a Christian employs the word "gospel" to refer to the direct and (supposed) near-literal cannon of teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded by the Fab Four (Matt, Mark, Luke and John). So [Buddha-dharma] ≈ [gospel].

Turned again, we get "Dharma" as the literal essence of truth as embodied and personified by the Buddha. This is referred to as Dharmakāya, or "the unmanifested, 'inconceivable' aspect of a Buddha" (or "self-realized enlightened Being") out of which all Buddhas and all "phenomena" arise and to which they return after their dis-integration.1 This is also analogous to "gospel" insofar as "gospel" literally translates as "the 'good news'" and means both "the saving teachings of Jesus--The Christ" as well as the concept that the physical phenomena that was Jesus the Nazarene was both the literal "good word" as well as the "'Word' of the Trinity". So [Dharmakāya] ≈ [Logos].

Flip the jewel around some more (oooo, purdy!) and we finally spot the shiny side that is the phenomenological. "Dharma" is looked at as "a phenomenon or constituent factor of human experience". So here, [dharma] ≈ [phenomena].

Finally (and absurdly briefly) "Dharma" does mean all of these things at once, and yet, at the same time, means nothing in-and-of-itself. That is because while "dharma" does in fact have implied a priori components (if I do this, that will happen, and that is obvious without the doing, also called karma) it also demands the experiential, or a posteriori, and as such brings with it the notion of qualia, which gets left in the dust with mere a priori approaches. "Dharma" does not stand outside of "us" as a self-perpetuating concept: it is never a mere construct. It is always manifest in every moment, always true, never false, and while it may often be inconceivable, is always accessible. So, essentially I'm hazarding to say that [dharma] ~ [noumena].

So, to the question:

"...is 'dharma' best said to be 'truth' or is it the "form"....which, to unenlightened consciousness seems to be the full truth, although to a more awakened consciousness comes to be understood as the form containing the emptiness which is its true 'truth'?"

Right.

First off, this question insinuates that any consciousness can be "unenlightened", or that there are states of consciousness that are lacking in direct experience. That's really walking on Jello, but whatever.

It's my understanding (and I really hesitate to use that word) that, in the context that I was employing it, "dharma" is better defined as "phenomena/nounema" I guess. Maybe "reality". Hmmm. How about "catfish"?

Fail.

The Buddha said: "All dharmas are marked by emptiness; they neither arise nor cease, are neither defiled nor pure, neither increase nor decrease."

So, saying "the form containing the emptiness which is its true 'truth'" is like saying "the form containing the emptiness that is the form that is the emptiness..." [+ ad infinitum]. I suppose that it is also akin to saying "the cup that contains the emptiness that together equals 'cup-ness'." Once more, with Kantian feeling: the phenomena containing the noumena. But of course, in Kant's world, a phenomena can't contain a noumena, or it would be like saying "the merely noumenal", and as we know, Kant's "categories of understanding" could never get the noumena and the phenomena in the same room experientially, so where we're headed must be rather un-Kantian. Smell the whiff of set theory in the air?

That which one can "know" -vs- that which one can "experience" may be vastly different, but they are not in full opposition, and are by no means antithetical (and to a Buddhist, quite the contrary), and therein lies the friction. Kant was still operating (mired?) in the Cartesian paradigm of dichotomy; of duality, of "this" versus "that". Ontologically, this started to fall apart when Schopenhauer started picking on him for being too quick and loose in redefining "noumena" to fit his model of experience as he went along, while at the same time still allowing the "Cartesian other" to keep drawing breath. Later, George Herbert Mead started steering dangerously towards Buddhism with his critique of the "other", saying "we do not assume there is a self to begin with. Self is not presupposed as a stuff out of which the world arises. Rather the self arises in the world." Woo! Goosebumps!

Buddhists don't see a separation between "this" and "that". We have just "this", over and over and over. There is no duality. There is no dichotomy. There is no "mind -vs- body" because you can't separate the two no matter how hard you try and at the same time be experiential as the "one" trying to do the separating, and we are, at our base, nothing if not experiential. ("Nothing" if not experiential! I kill me sometimes...) Anyways, one cannot get a distance between the two in order for one to objectify the other. All we "are" is reoccurring experience. All we are is Pǔ. All we are is Tao. All that is is Tao. If you try and take the Tao apart, you have nothing. Yet the Tao is always empty. Yet everything is held within it. It is a perpetual vessel that in its emptiness holds everything. Again, pǔ.

So, honestly, set theory is probably the realm that can put this on paper best.

Form IS Emptiness. Emptiness IS Form. Phenomena IS Noumena. Noumena IS Phenomena. Neither term is antithetical. Neither term is in opposition. And while is is most likely safe to interpret "dharma" as "phenomena" for the sake of argument, in doing so, one MUST also interpret it as "noumena" at the same time for the sake of a complete representation of the paradigm, or else you break the Tao and are just left with nothing.

So, [dharma] = {}.

I got nuthin'...

My crack at an interpretation of the Heart of Great Perfect Wisdom Sutra*...

The great and selfless teacher holding the lotus, while directly and simultaneously experiencing both Being and non-Being**, clearly and unmistakably comprehended that all sensations of mind and body are inherently empty, and through that realization, extinguished all suffering. (1)

The teacher aided the student, saying “Being and non-Being** are exactly one and the same. All that can be experienced is just so.” (2)

The teacher continued, saying “All truths are defined by their inherently empty nature; they are outside of linear time, cannot be sullied or made more holy, nor grow nor shrink away. They are just so.” (3)

The teacher elaborated; “So, appreciating this inherent emptiness, there is no compound or composite thing that is perceivable with the senses, nor anything imaginable by the mind, that is not inherently empty as well. Further, because these senses are themselves composite and dependent things, they too are empty. So, nothing perceivable with the body or the mind has any nature in-and-of itself. All within and without is inherently empty. But because this is so, a personal understanding and appreciation of this fact means that knowing and not knowing are one and the same thing as well, as are life and death, suffering and not-suffering, starting and stopping, Being and non-Being. There is no path to knowledge, because their is no knowledge. There is no attaining because there is nothing to attain. Because of the selfless nature of reality, a fully awakened being relies upon the direct, continuing experience of inherent emptiness moment to moment as a way of removing all impediments to a direct experience of that selfless nature. With nothing impeding them, there is no fear of the falling away of the ego, because the ego is itself empty. When this is mastered, and all incorrect views are eliminated, enlightenment is achieved.” (4)

The teacher clarified; “This mastery of the direct experience of emptiness defines all enlightened beings, as only those who depend on and continually practice this experiential realization achieve this unending and perpetual state of perfect enlightenment.” (5)

The teacher summarized; “Because of our exposure to this great, unarguable truth, we know that a first-hand experience of the empty nature of all things is the universal truth of reality, the light that illuminates all things yet casts no shadows, the supreme song of the Universe, the chant of all chants that eliminates suffering by reminding us that suffering is merely a sensation that is empty. Therefore, we insist that this song of songs is the guide to the direct experience of emptiness, the song whose lyrics state;

‘Gone. Gone beyond. Entirely gone beyond duality. This is Enlightenment...’” (6)

--------------------

*= As is used by my sangha, (ZCO)...

(1) "Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when deeply practicing Prajna Paramita, clearly saw that all five aggregates are empty and thus relieved all suffering."

(2) "Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form. Sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness are also like this."

(3) "Shariputra, all dharmas are marked by emptiness; they neither arise nor cease, are neither defiled nor pure, neither increase nor decrease."

(4) "Therefore, given emptiness, there is no form, no sensation, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no sight, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind; no realm of sight… no realm of mind consciousness. There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance… neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death; no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path; no knowledge and no attainment. With nothing to attain, a bodhisattva relies on Prajna Paramita, and thus the mind is without hindrance. Without hindrance, there is no fear. Far beyond all inverted views one realizes nirvana."

(5) "All Buddhas of past, present and future rely on Prajna Paramita and thereby attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment."

(6) "Therefore, we know the Prajna Paramita as the great miraculous mantra, the great bright mantra, the supreme manta, the incomparable mantra, which removes all suffering and is true, not false. Therefore we proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra, the mantra that says:

'Gate Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!'"

**=was "existence and non-existence".

Brad Warner just posted his most recent SuicideGirls.com piece: Buddhism is not Spirituality, with a bit of an add-on in his personal blog. As usual, he sums up things in pretty tidy fashion, as is his way. But I'd like to take a moment to expand on this idea a bit.

One of the problems with defining "buddhism" is that we are using words. I know that sounds rather dumb. If we don't use words, how do we "define" anything? Decent point. But as is the case with the old carpentry adage: "A new carpenter will only start out as good as their father ever was, because they are stuck using the tools their father left them". These "tools" are meant to be understood as both literal and metaphorical. And so it is with us and language. We have words that we use to convey concepts and bring understanding to issues both broad and specific--overt and subtle. We didn't invent these words, we inherited them. And in the truest "telephone"-game fashion, they often don't mean now what they once did back in the day. Moreover, they often get misused (not unlike my dad's screwdrivers that I re-purposed into chissels, mauls, awls, ninja sais and throwing darts. Sorry, Pa!) So, many words no longer mean what they used to, or convey what they initially intended to. Case in point: "religion".

When we call-up Webster, we get the following:

re·li·gion

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely.

Date: 13th century

So, the Webster says that the word has something to do with tying, apparently. Kinky. If you look at the word, and use some smartness, you start to understand (as a philosophy professor and mentor once taught me). The prefex "re" means "again" or "do over". "Ligio" means "to attach", and is the same root as the common anatomical term "ligament" (the thing that attaches your muscles to your bones). So, what we really have etymologically is "to re-attach". That of course begs two questions; firstly, "Reattach to what, exactly?" The best I can state this is as my former professor taught me, and is the definition I use, because I believe it encapsulates the entire concept in the most full fashion. "Religion" is a practice that re-attaches you to the ground of your Being; that is, it is a practice that brings you back into connection with the most fundamental, itrinsic and important aspect of your existence.

What about that other begged question? Well, it has to do with the "re" portion of "re-attach". RE-attach implies that we are or have been separated (in our case, from the ground of our Being), and in order to be integrated and whole, a re-attachment is needed. Now, in the case of a diestic belief system, that reattachment is to the god-head. You, through ritual and meditation (prayer), reintegrate with the god-head, and re-attach yourself to the ground of your Being, (which is "god"--the basis of all reality). Makes sense.

But what happens when this is viewed through the lens of the Dharma? Well, in my opinion this still stands up. A Buddhist is most certainly trying to reintegrate and re-connect with the ground of their Being. However, in their case, instead of some anthropomorphized deity, the ground of their Being happens to be nibanna--the understanding, comprehension and direct experience of the mind and body as one thing, in the same way as the consciousness and the rest of the Universe are one and the same. So, in that sense, Buddhism is--indeed--a religion.

But at this point in the understanding, many people miss seeing something else that is implied as well, just one step further back.

Having to re-attach due to separation also implies (insists, actually) that at one time in the history of the Universe and all of reality, we were integrated with the Ultimate. We were perfect. We were attached to the ground of our Being. We experienced no suffering, and were completely and utterly at peace, and one with all of reality. What separated us is beyond the scope of what I want to discuss here, but suffice it to say that a true appreciation of the fact that at one point in time, you were in Nibbana is a pretty stunning revelation. I digress, but only into song...

We are stardust; we are golden. We are billion-year-old carbon. And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.

Damn hippies...

[added:]

And if I told you "spirituality" actually had to do with your breath...?