Fresh
Breeze of Buddhism
Buddhism,
as a religion and philosophy, has been around for 2500 years, since
the time of Shakyamuni Buddha. Prior to Shakyamuni and after him,
there has been many other buddhas in human form. There has not been
only one single buddha, but many. That there are many buddhas, can
also be seen in the rich array of buddhist paths that teach the core
principles of buddhism from their own unique perspectives. Also
according to buddhism, there are buddhas and bodhisattvas in
nonphysical form.
During
the history of buddhism, there has been many phases in its expansion
to new areas and lands, integration to new cultures, blossoming of
the teaching, inevitable decomposition and again spreading to new
areas. Many places where buddhism has once blossomed, have become
deserted of the real meaning of dharma, leaving behind only its outer
shell. This has been seen in Asian countries such as India, China,
Tibet and Japan, where for one reason or the other, buddhism has lost
its vitality. Nothing in this world lasts but having said that if old
forms of buddhism lose their attraction and disappear, the core
teachings need to be and are being revitalised so that dharma can
keep benefiting sentient beings.
Buddhism
has always been organic. It has been like a forest where new
seedlings grow next to already grown trees, with natural expansion.
Buddhism itself grew next to its elder sibling, hinduism, and both of
them took influences from each other. Buddhism has renewed and
remodeled itself throughout the history of buddhism and this, I feel,
is one of the reasons it has survived over 2000 years. If these
renewals hadn't been done over the centuries when buddhism has spread
to new areas, it is likely that it wouldn't have succeeded.
To
me personally, buddhism has never been a religious practice. To me,
buddhism has never been a belief-based faith but rather a reasonable
philosophical hypothesis that is and needs to be supported by various
yogic practices, such as sitting and chanting of mantras and prayers.
I was raised in Finland which is one of the most secular cultures in
the world and was baptized in Eastern orthodox church. I never felt
that belief-based religion had much to offer to me and honestly have
hard time understanding why people choose faith-based religion
because this seems to add to peoples' confusion, inequality and
narrow-mindedness, rather than bringing about open-mindedness and
harmony among people.
When
I lived in temples in Japan, in 2004-2005, I was astonished to find
out that some Japanese people practice buddhism in as religious way
as christians do in my native country. Prior to meeting such people,
it had never occurred to me that buddhism could also be seen that
way. Later, I find out that this is actually very common all over
Asia. Religious buddhists, knowingly or unknowingly, look at buddhism
as a set of beliefs and rituals, rather than as a method that is used
to illuminate one's minds. As old and deflated forms of Asian
buddhism have spread to Western world, it is not uncommon to see
Westerners who don't realise that the form of buddhism they exercise
doesn't actually accumulate wisdom, or does so in minimal degree.
I
think that one common problem why buddhist cultures are eventually
destined to disintegrate, is that when the doctrine becomes too fixed
in its ways and forms, distance is created between the followers and
the teaching. Even texts, that over time become considered as root
texts and classics, gather unnecessary baggage. (See Ken
McLeod's article). When that happens, the teaching cannot be
understood, the dharma cannot be realised and embodied. In other
words, the meaning of dharma is lost.
If
we look at the biographies of the great masters of buddhism, we can
see that they all took up buddhist study and practice because they
were existentialy confused. They took up buddhism to solve their
problems and used it practically to transform their self-based
confusion. Could they have accomplished that if they were taught
religious beliefs and merely followed external forms? If the masters
of the old had seen buddhist teaching as something high and holy, as
something external and distant from them, they would have never
become embodiments of wisdom and compassion, and beacons for other
sentient beings.
Vast
emptiness, nothing holy
(廓然無聖,
Kakunen
musho, from Bodhidharma)
Buddhism
is for all people. I say this because all people have the same
problem, that of self-based delusion which is the main cause for
dissatisfaction (skt. dukkha). Confusion about one's existence can
only be solved by seeing through the false sense of me-ness or
entityness (skt. atman). This is the main principle of buddhist
meditation or vipashyana, that can be practiced in three main ways:
sutra, tantra and dzogchen. Regardless of which of these paths we
follow, eventually our confusion is put to rest through realisation
that all thoughts and other mind phenomena are empty (skt. sunyata,
emptiness, 空-ku)
and do not create a permanent self. This realisation happens in
degrees and with each insight (j. 見性-kensho)
we come to see the very same truth, ”Vast emptiness, nothing holy”,
as Bodhidharma, the great Indian yogi, taught.
Bodhidharma
is considered to be the 1st patriarch of Zen in China but
actually this truth is universal to all buddhism because all
buddhists seek liberation through the means of realising emptiness,
be it through the means of relying on one's own efforts (j. jiriki)
or through relying on the grace of the buddhas (j. tariki). Both
approaches are perfectly valid and can be simultaneously used for
better success, as is done in vajrayana buddhism.
To
be continued.
Thank
you for reading.
Namo
Guru Rinpoche,
-Kim
Katami,
Founder
and head teacher,
