Buddhism, differently
By Victor Langheld (alias Bodhangkur) There are two reasons for developing
an interest in Buddhism. The 1st is that one wishes
to become a Buddhist, that is to say, to join any one of a wide variety of Buddhist
belief systems because by doing so one hopes to reduce and then eliminate
distress (Pali: dukkha = distress).
Joining a Buddhist Path (or a tennis or darts club) and then practicing its
self-calming and self-changing exercises keeps one out of mischief and so
reduces self-harm and the distress that results therefrom. The 2nd is that one seeks
to understand whether or not the basic propositions of the Buddhist belief
system amount to a bean or a string of beans. That is to say, whether or not
Buddhist beliefs gel with observable natural facts and are not merely
socially and personally useful fictions (like the belief in Santa Claus). To join up one takes refuge in the
Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha and buys wholly into one’s Buddhist
teacher’s personal opinion, thereby becoming a Buddhist, more or less
perfect. If you just want to become a Buddhist quit this site now! In the second case one takes refuge
not in the Buddha but in Bodhi (meaning knowledge as such), as indeed the
Shakyamuni did before he achieved complete understanding (i.e.
samma-sambodhi*). Then one focusses on the discrete details of Buddhism’s
first principles so far as they can be distilled from the mountain of hearsay
opinion, and all Buddhist sutras are hearsay opinion (each sutra commencing
with the phrase ‘Thus if have heard’), that has been generated over the 2500
years since the Buddha (to wit, Sidartha, the Shakyamuni) is said to have
lived. If and when the Buddha lived is highly uncertain. Nor is it certain
where he lived and preached. That requires that one bypasses the
current set of teachers (this is what the Buddha did) and actually reads (i.e. reverts to) the most ancient available texts (or sutras), thereafter making up one’s own mind
and deciding ‘one’s own salvation’. Getting to the nub of the problem (i.e.
of distress) and its elimination and deciding the personal usefulness of the
solution was actually recommended by the Shakyamuni (= the Scythian recluse)
himself in his very down to earth sermon to the Kalamas.
By understanding and enacting Buddhism’s first principles wholly one becomes
a Buddha, more or less perfect. Saving the world was not the goal of early
Buddhism. Saving oneself (sic. by understanding the cause and ending of distress) was. If one wants to join up there are
available a wide variety of options from which one can choose one that is
suitable to one’s needs (for comfort). To become a Buddha (i.e. a
Knowledgeable One), that is to say, to unravel the mystery of life and then
accommodate oneself to it with the intention of reducing one’s distress, is
hard and unpleasant work. To do that one can either recover and so fully
comprehend the ancient Buddha’s rather naïve understanding of the problem of
life as dynamic system and its downside affects. Or one can observe nature,
i.e. the dynamism of life, directly, as he never did (i.e. he framed his belief
within some elements of Upanishad belief, such as the flaky notions of karma
and atta) and then draw one’s own conclusion. In both cases the solution, or
truth, is unpalatable, indeed, exceedingly sorrowful, at least for the
emotionally immature or those attached to life. *…. The
content of his samma sambodhi was: “All
that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.” The Buddhist foray
into the notion of the biological automaton © 2018 by
Victor Langheld |