Well, it’s happened again— yet another deranged person, full of suffering, rage and despair, has gunned down a classroom full of innocents using modern military weaponry. Last week this all-too-familiar story played out at Northern Illinois University. Several months ago, it happened at Virginia Tech. Before that, it was the one-room schoolhouse in Pennsylvania and the slain were Amish children. Before that, it was grade-school students in Conyers Georgia… before that, in Nashville Tennessee… Santee California… the Texas Tech tower gunman… oh yeah, don’t forget Columbine too. The list of school shootings is now so long that it would fill this whole column were I to list them all. Grade school, High School, College, Kindergarten, it doesn’t matter— it seems that children and students of all ages are the easy targets of rage and despair.
As the saying goes, “What we have here, is a pattern.”
There is obviously enormous suffering associated with these events, not just with the innocent victims, but also with (and originating from) the suffering of the gunmen themselves. The Buddha-Dharma has a great deal to say about human suffering; the first of the Four Noble Truths is that Life is Suffering. Moreover, not only is life full of suffering, but the nature of suffering is that it tends to radiate outwards to affect others, like the ripples that radiate outward from the proverbial pebble dropped into a pond of still water. What all of these horrible events have in common, is that the suffering always originates with one person or perhaps two people, who then export their inner hell to others.
Modern psychology is trying to understand this violent phenomenon. In the online Crime Library website (www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/kids1/cats_4.html), I found the following quote, about one of these child-gunmen who murdered his classmates:
“While many people believed there was no motive, students who knew him disagreed.''He was picked on all the time,'' said one. ''He was picked on because he was one of the scrawniest guys. People called him freak, dork, nerd, stuff like that.''
Bullying by peers can be brutal, it's true, but what's wrong with these kids? Lots of people get picked on, but don't reach for guns and bombs as the appropriate response. Is there something that makes these kids different?
Some are just angry and may have been influenced by violence in games, movies, or on television shows. However, there does appear to be a group of children that is set apart: those with "rejection sensitivity."
According to this article, the essence of this “rejection sensitivity” is two-part: (1) that these kids (and those who reach adulthood) are thin-skinned by nature, and thus more likely to perceive hostility from others and be hurt by it; and (2) they subsequently tend to easily de-humanize their tormentors and other people generally, as a defensive mechanism to protect their psyche from the pain and suffering. Once others have been de-humanized, some of these kids and adults then act out on their suffering, with horrible results.
I am not a credentialed psychologist and so I can’t say how valid this thesis is. But I am a Buddhist and a novice priest, and my tradition has something to say about this sort of human pain and suffering. And it has to do with clinging and attachments, which the Buddha taught us will always generate suffering. In these instances, it is not only the perpetrators whose inner pain generates these horrible events. It is also our society at large which enables them as well. How so? Simply, our society is deeply attached to firearms.
Buddhism teaches us, that we are all in this together, and thus we, too, are complicit in these horrible events, to the extent that we tolerate the proliferation of weaponry. It is a kind of mass clinging, rooted in the national myth of rugged frontier individualism. We even have a popular saying for it— “Stick to your guns,” meaning someone who stands by an opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. With more than 200 million guns in circulation (!) (see www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt), and a typical life-span of about 50 years for each well-maintained firearm, it’s clear that even if all gun sales ended immediately (which they won’t), we are going to have a problem here for a long, long time. No matter where you live in America, it’s easy to get guns, legally or illegally. Based on the regular outbreak of school shootings nationwide, this obviously applies to children as well.
What can be said about this horrible situation, from a Buddhist perspective? First, it is clear that weaponry and the Dharma simply don’t mix very well. The first of the Ten Precepts is to Not Kill Living Beings, and the tenth of the so-called “minor precepts” prohibits an ordained Buddhist from storing or owning weapons. So, as Buddhists, we can repudiate our insane national obsession with firearms by simply observing the precepts.
But that is not all we can do. We can live our lives with the kind of compassion that notices the pain and suffering of other people. We can refrain from ridicule, and we can teach this to our children. By living this way, just maybe we can help the troubled person who is prone to “rejection sensitivity”— or at the very least, we can notice their dysfunction, and flag their suffering to the attention of professionals whose intervention may prevent a catastrophe. This is how compassion can save lives, by not being always self-absorbed and instead, being attuned to the suffering of others.
And of course, we can support ideas that will reduce our insane, insecure and dysfunctional national obsession. Although it is not a Buddhist text, the Tao Te Ching has a passage which perfectly coincides with the Buddhist perspective on this problem: “Weapons are instruments of ill-omen, therefore followers of the Way never own them or have anything to do with them.”
Monday, February 18, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
(Almost) Everything Zoopaya
In the Lotus Sutra, which is the principal (but not the only) Sutra of the Tendai school, there is a concept set forth which is called “Upaya.” Sometimes translated as “Expedient Means,” and sometimes (more accurately) translated as “Skillful Means,” the essence of this concept is that the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and those who are on the Bodhisattva Path, will skillfully employ parables, analogies, explanations and other useful ways of teaching Buddhism that help mortal sentient beings understand and take up the practice of the Dharma. Sometimes Upaya takes the form of a “provisional” teaching which sets forth ideas that are later superseded by deeper concepts, depending upon the readiness of the hearer to grasp difficult truths. Sometimes it takes the form of “tough love,” like a parent who “grounds” an unruly child for their own good. And in Buddhist iconography, sometimes it takes the form of the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who manifest themselves as the archetypal energies which most appeal to mortal humans. But in all cases, the motivating spirit of Upaya is compassion for human suffering, and a desire to help them grasp and practice the Dharma which leads to Liberation.
The more I contemplate the principle of Upaya, the more it seems to me that almost everything can be understood as an expedient to help people understand the Dharma. For example, if a person is prone to anger, then any situation which focuses their mind on the negative effect their anger has on other people, can be understood as Upaya. Without explicitly using Buddhist labels and terminology, the “Cause and Effect” relationship between their behavior and their outcome (i.e. “Karma”), is thus Upaya in action— Buddhism without orange robes, so to speak. And so forth— the possibilities for the application of Upaya are endless.
Of course, there are some people who, for various reasons related to their own suffering, seek to defame the Buddha-Dharma by denouncing the principle of Upaya as “the end justifies the means,” implying that Buddhists are encouraged by this concept to do anything to “convert” other people to Buddhism. But this is clearly a misunderstanding of the Dharma, and perhaps an intentional defamation to mislead others about the real nature of Buddhism. The principle of Upaya does not extend to acts of immorality or unethical behavior. For example, the use of coercion or violence to spread the Dharma is NOT an acceptable form of Upaya; the Buddha clearly rejected the idea of a “Holy War,” and Buddhists regard these two words as mutually exclusive. Likewise, lying, cheating, stealing, and other forms of immorality can never be misconstrued as forms of Upaya.
So, not everything is Upaya. But within the bounds of morality and ethical behavior, the possibilities for using the everyday circumstances of life to teach Buddhism are almost endless. It is the ideas which are important, and not the specifically Buddhist words and labels associated with them.
The concept of Upaya can also be understood as a means of comprehending the proliferation of world religions. Buddhism is NOT a possessive or triumphalist faith— there is no doctrine which says that “unless you believe XYZ, you are doomed,” or any similar kind of thinking. Indeed, Buddhism generally regards any belief system which helps people build good Karma (and thus enhance their chances for a rebirth under circumstances favorable for the attainment of Enlightenment), as something which is generally positive. Consider this passage from the Lotus Sutra, in which Shakyamuni Buddha explains the many Buddha-manifestations:
“Good man, if there are living beings in the land who need someone in the body of a Buddha to be saved, Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World’s Sounds immediately manifests himself in a Buddha body and preaches the Law for them… If they need a voice-hearer to be saved, he immediately becomes a voice-hearer and preaches the law to them… If they need King Brahma to be saved, immediately he becomes King Brahma and preaches the law to them… If they need a rich man to be saved, immediately he becomes a rich man and preaches the Law to them… If they need a monk, nun, layman believer or laywoman believer in order to be saved, immediately he becomes a monk, nun, layman believer or laywoman believer and preaches the Law to them…. If they need a vajra-bearing god to be saved, immediately he becomes a vajra-bearing god and preaches the Law to them.”
You get the idea. In this wide world of many religious faiths, it is unreasonable to expect that the whole human race will one day subscribe to a single belief system, and perhaps it is totalitarian to work for such an outcome. But through a deep understanding of the principles of Upaya, Karma, and Samsara (rebirth), the Buddha-Dharma provides us with a profound way of understanding not only Buddhism, but also how ALL of the worlds faith traditions, participate in the work of helping sentient beings attain Liberation from suffering.
Almost everything is Upaya. Like this web site, for example.
The more I contemplate the principle of Upaya, the more it seems to me that almost everything can be understood as an expedient to help people understand the Dharma. For example, if a person is prone to anger, then any situation which focuses their mind on the negative effect their anger has on other people, can be understood as Upaya. Without explicitly using Buddhist labels and terminology, the “Cause and Effect” relationship between their behavior and their outcome (i.e. “Karma”), is thus Upaya in action— Buddhism without orange robes, so to speak. And so forth— the possibilities for the application of Upaya are endless.
Of course, there are some people who, for various reasons related to their own suffering, seek to defame the Buddha-Dharma by denouncing the principle of Upaya as “the end justifies the means,” implying that Buddhists are encouraged by this concept to do anything to “convert” other people to Buddhism. But this is clearly a misunderstanding of the Dharma, and perhaps an intentional defamation to mislead others about the real nature of Buddhism. The principle of Upaya does not extend to acts of immorality or unethical behavior. For example, the use of coercion or violence to spread the Dharma is NOT an acceptable form of Upaya; the Buddha clearly rejected the idea of a “Holy War,” and Buddhists regard these two words as mutually exclusive. Likewise, lying, cheating, stealing, and other forms of immorality can never be misconstrued as forms of Upaya.
So, not everything is Upaya. But within the bounds of morality and ethical behavior, the possibilities for using the everyday circumstances of life to teach Buddhism are almost endless. It is the ideas which are important, and not the specifically Buddhist words and labels associated with them.
The concept of Upaya can also be understood as a means of comprehending the proliferation of world religions. Buddhism is NOT a possessive or triumphalist faith— there is no doctrine which says that “unless you believe XYZ, you are doomed,” or any similar kind of thinking. Indeed, Buddhism generally regards any belief system which helps people build good Karma (and thus enhance their chances for a rebirth under circumstances favorable for the attainment of Enlightenment), as something which is generally positive. Consider this passage from the Lotus Sutra, in which Shakyamuni Buddha explains the many Buddha-manifestations:
“Good man, if there are living beings in the land who need someone in the body of a Buddha to be saved, Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World’s Sounds immediately manifests himself in a Buddha body and preaches the Law for them… If they need a voice-hearer to be saved, he immediately becomes a voice-hearer and preaches the law to them… If they need King Brahma to be saved, immediately he becomes King Brahma and preaches the law to them… If they need a rich man to be saved, immediately he becomes a rich man and preaches the Law to them… If they need a monk, nun, layman believer or laywoman believer in order to be saved, immediately he becomes a monk, nun, layman believer or laywoman believer and preaches the Law to them…. If they need a vajra-bearing god to be saved, immediately he becomes a vajra-bearing god and preaches the Law to them.”
You get the idea. In this wide world of many religious faiths, it is unreasonable to expect that the whole human race will one day subscribe to a single belief system, and perhaps it is totalitarian to work for such an outcome. But through a deep understanding of the principles of Upaya, Karma, and Samsara (rebirth), the Buddha-Dharma provides us with a profound way of understanding not only Buddhism, but also how ALL of the worlds faith traditions, participate in the work of helping sentient beings attain Liberation from suffering.
Almost everything is Upaya. Like this web site, for example.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Giving Up on People
There is a member of our Sangha here in Washington— lets call him “Mark,” not his real name— with whom I have an ongoing dialogue about human nature and compassion and the Bodhisattva path. Mark is a pretty neat guy. He is a professional Biologist, and has first-hand experience working with and handling animal species from all over the world. In his long career, he has travelled all over the world in order to study and work with wildlife. In this capacity, Mark has seen first-hand the gradual and callous degradation of wildlife habitat and its effect on the animal species he has devoted his career to. He knows, better than most people, that it is humans who are responsible for the destruction of the natural world he loves so much. Returning home to Washington, Mark has witnessed the selfish and cruel ways in which people behave towards one another, whether it is bad behavior in heavy traffic on the Interstate, or the back-stabbing office politics that seem to universally plague every workplace. Or almost any news story on the evening news—war in Iraq, famine and genocide in Africa, predatory corporate greed, and so forth. It is safe to say, that Mark is pretty disgusted with the human species right now.
Mark and I share something in common: we are both very close to giving up on the human race. In my case, the revulsion I feel towards the behavior of our species, has been reinforced by the time I have spent with the books of Kurt Vonnegut, one of my favorite writers. However, unlike Mark and I, Kurt Vonnegut— who only recently passed away— actually crossed the line from almost giving up on the human race, to actively turning has back on our species. In his last book, “A Man Without a Country,” Vonnegut wrote this:
“Albert Einstein and Mark Twain gave up on the human race at the end of their lives, even though Twain hadn’t even seen the First World War… Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now give up on people too. I am a veteran of the Second World War and I have to say this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine. My last words? ‘Life is no way to treat an animal, not even a mouse.”
The revulsion I feel towards human behavior, as a whole, is the central conundrum I face in my practice of the Dharma and the Bodhisattva path. I have discussed this many times with Monshin Sensei. Our conversation usually goes back and forth around the Bodhisattva Vows (“Sentient Beings are numberless, I vow to save them,” etc.), eventually reaching the central question that reflects my true feelings: “But Sensei, how can I save them when I'm constantly outraged by people?”
Monshin says that the way people behave towards one another, is a reflection of their own suffering. Reading between the lines, I understand that this means that the way I feel about the human race— and thus the way Mark or Einstein or Twain or Vonnegut also feel, or felt— is therefore a reflection of our own suffering as well. This is not a very comforting insight, but at least intellectually, I accept the truth of it.
Monshin Sensei clearly shares much of the revulsion concerning human behavior which Mark and I experience. Unlike us, however, he is much better at cultivating patience and compassion towards human folly, than we are. And that is really what it means, to be on the Bodhisattva path. The Buddha-Dharma is nothing if not a systematic and logical response to human suffering and discontent. Moreover, compassion without patience is not really compassion, it is merely low-level tolerance— a grudging attitude which lacks empathy.
And so I actively resist my natural tendency towards nihilism, and I do my best to transmit the Bodhisattva perspective not only to Mark, but also to the other members of our Sangha as well. However imperfectly, we practice the Bodhisattva Path, and thus must not surrender to despair. We must resist the temptation to give up on people; we must pause and breathe deeply when confronted with human stupidity and cruelty, and then go to work for the salvation of humanity, and all sentient beings, and help them attain Liberation from the suffering and discontent that we humans multiply for ourselves.
So, despite my admiration for Vonnegut, I pity his ultimate rejection of the human race. In spite of everything, I choose not to give up on people, even when I wrestle with the almost-overwhelming temptation to do so. But I still admire his writing, and the deeply human sentiments which motivated his perspectives. And so I will now give Kurt Vonnegut the last word, with this Requiem from his final book, which I know Mark will appreciate:
“When the last living thing
has died on account of us
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps,
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
“It is done.”
People did not like it here.”
Mark and I share something in common: we are both very close to giving up on the human race. In my case, the revulsion I feel towards the behavior of our species, has been reinforced by the time I have spent with the books of Kurt Vonnegut, one of my favorite writers. However, unlike Mark and I, Kurt Vonnegut— who only recently passed away— actually crossed the line from almost giving up on the human race, to actively turning has back on our species. In his last book, “A Man Without a Country,” Vonnegut wrote this:
“Albert Einstein and Mark Twain gave up on the human race at the end of their lives, even though Twain hadn’t even seen the First World War… Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now give up on people too. I am a veteran of the Second World War and I have to say this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine. My last words? ‘Life is no way to treat an animal, not even a mouse.”
The revulsion I feel towards human behavior, as a whole, is the central conundrum I face in my practice of the Dharma and the Bodhisattva path. I have discussed this many times with Monshin Sensei. Our conversation usually goes back and forth around the Bodhisattva Vows (“Sentient Beings are numberless, I vow to save them,” etc.), eventually reaching the central question that reflects my true feelings: “But Sensei, how can I save them when I'm constantly outraged by people?”
Monshin says that the way people behave towards one another, is a reflection of their own suffering. Reading between the lines, I understand that this means that the way I feel about the human race— and thus the way Mark or Einstein or Twain or Vonnegut also feel, or felt— is therefore a reflection of our own suffering as well. This is not a very comforting insight, but at least intellectually, I accept the truth of it.
Monshin Sensei clearly shares much of the revulsion concerning human behavior which Mark and I experience. Unlike us, however, he is much better at cultivating patience and compassion towards human folly, than we are. And that is really what it means, to be on the Bodhisattva path. The Buddha-Dharma is nothing if not a systematic and logical response to human suffering and discontent. Moreover, compassion without patience is not really compassion, it is merely low-level tolerance— a grudging attitude which lacks empathy.
And so I actively resist my natural tendency towards nihilism, and I do my best to transmit the Bodhisattva perspective not only to Mark, but also to the other members of our Sangha as well. However imperfectly, we practice the Bodhisattva Path, and thus must not surrender to despair. We must resist the temptation to give up on people; we must pause and breathe deeply when confronted with human stupidity and cruelty, and then go to work for the salvation of humanity, and all sentient beings, and help them attain Liberation from the suffering and discontent that we humans multiply for ourselves.
So, despite my admiration for Vonnegut, I pity his ultimate rejection of the human race. In spite of everything, I choose not to give up on people, even when I wrestle with the almost-overwhelming temptation to do so. But I still admire his writing, and the deeply human sentiments which motivated his perspectives. And so I will now give Kurt Vonnegut the last word, with this Requiem from his final book, which I know Mark will appreciate:
“When the last living thing
has died on account of us
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps,
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
“It is done.”
People did not like it here.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)