Zen and The Bible

[rossum]

Buddhism isn’t concerned with what the Creator wants, Buddhism is concerned with “I”.

How many different creators are there in all human religions? How can I tell which (if any) is the right one and which are wrong. If I pick the wrong one then Zeus will smite me with a thunderbolt, or Durga come after me with her many weapons.

On the other hand, I know that I exist. That is a much more secure base to start from; I am more sure of my own existence than I am of the existence of Amaterasu.

The Buddha succeeded. Others following the Buddha have also succeeded. What one man can do, other men can do.

 

[Rabbi]

As also with you, I’m sorry for having delayed a response. To put it bluntly, life just got in the way, and that’s alright sometimes, its means we’re living! Think positive!

The question posed to me was how can we believe in souls if they don’t change? Can it be that souls are merely another form of our false external perceptions into this world, and the world of the Divine? I was given the example of an arachnophobe, or one who projects his or her fears onto harmless spiders. That fear, inofitself, is false. I was then told I believe to be an accurate statement: that our bodies and feelings change. In fact, every seven years or so, our entire cell system changes, so why not the soul?

In other words, what is Judaism’s answer? While not all sources agree on the fine print, the general principle is that there is but one soul, but it gets crazier from here! There are different dimensions to that soul, each corresponding with a different task and “world” from which it emanated from the Ein Sof (the infinite Divine beyond all conceptions), because G-d did not create out of ex nihilo, but rather, emanation. There are four general aspects to the soul - nefesh, ruach, neshama, and Chaya, with the lowest of them being intertwined with the flesh. The highest, though not always mentioned, is the yechida. This is the deepest part of the soul, it is the one which yearns for truth, for connection with that source of truth - and this is what’s unchangeable - in a certain sense, it is yearning for existence itself.

But all these souls exist simultaneously, in other words, there are no explicit levels of progression per layers of the soul per that lifetime. What you can develop, however, is a deep sense of awareness and appreciation for these soul types, but there are, again, many opinions, and I should warn you that Kabbalah - all we’re talking about here is deeply Kabbalistic - is more like poetry, rather than an exact science. Outside of this, one can do the mitzvot - and in a sense, the soul can therefore change insomuch that it is elevated to a higher state, closer to G-d. Some even go as far to say kaddish for the dead, as if that, though not by their own agency, can have some kind of affect.

But it doesn’t end, let’s go further with this, because I think there is another way in which we can deal with this issue, that of the soul’s ultimate transformation. Though it’s not often talked about in Judaism, I am, of course, eyeing up the famous sefer, Shaar HaGilgulim, another kabbalistic work. Well, what about it? I’ll tell you. It goes into great detail about gilgulim, or the transmigration of souls - think of it like a rolling wheel - and each soul, as it lives another life, can “progress” till it reaches fulfillment. Once it has done that, it may combined with other souls much higher than itself to create a new soul entirely, one which is unified, so-to-speak (though it can be broken). I will admit that my memory is a little foggy here as I can’t seem to recall whether the soul itself changes in some way, or just the aggregate’s composition.

 

[Rabbi]

The problem, as always, is language! Outside of the current description, how can we describe and feel the soul beyond our ability to experience it? Is our definition merely based on our capacity to understand it? These are all great questions, and I’m sure we’ll have answers to them someday. For now, we’ll have to make do with what we have.

With all that said, note again that the genius of Judaism is that it allows for a variance of opinion, and the Rishonim, especially the Rambam, had a very, very different conception of the soul, one based more on a rationalist model. According to him, the only aspect of the soul which survived after death was the “Active Intellect,” or those thoughts which one has refined over a lifetime, one lifetime, that is. Again, I can’t tell you how he handled eternality of the soul, as that happens to have also slipped my mind! To him, the soul, or the pintele yid (Jewish spark), has no effect on one keeping mitzvot, and it definitely doesn’t change.

Personally, I can accept both approaches. In many ways, I am a true Maimonidean, in other ways, I can’t imagine a Judaism without its mysticism. I think a healthy dose is needed to keep it fresh and lively. If you study it, you’ll begin to notice just how is inherent and ironically humble the Kabbalah really is. Perhaps someday you’ll pick up a copy, actually, get two copies, I’m not trying to be G-d’s salesman, but tradition says if you get two copies, and read it twice, you’ll understand it much better!

I appreciate the questions, keep it up

 

[Rabbi]

How to succeed? How do you measure success? What did the Buddha do? Did he solve the world’s hunger? Perhaps I’m having a misrepresentation of him, perhaps I need enlightened on your religion, but the Jewish view is to not merely succeed alone. Let’s bring the world with us.

But if you’re asking me what is G-d, that’s the wrong question. G-d isn’t a “thing.” You can’t store Him in your home, He won’t fit. When you were first born, what did you realize about the world? Experience! There were no immediate “things”! “Things” are a human construct to make sense of the world. Living, breathing, realism, they all transcend “things.” In biblical Hebrew, there is no such word for “things.” There is a word for “words,” and that makes sense, for what is Torah? It’s words on a scroll. That’s it. It’s just words. In Hebrew, verbs are king, in fact, we don’t even have present-tenses, for nothing ever is. Everything’s in flux (sounds similar to the Buddhist method, right?). Why is that? Because Hebrew, unlike Egyptian or Mandarin, isn’t written in glyphs. Hebrew doesn’t represent “things,” it represents sounds. When you read Hebrew, you’ll looking at sounds. This fits nicely into the order of the universe, as nothing really exists, just look at what they’re saying now, they reject matter, for it can be broken down into waves, vibrations, fields of energy. Life, then, is like a concert, not a museum. It is like hearing a piece of music, once it stops, there’s suddenly no music. So the only existence is the flow of being. And that, Rossum, is where you’ll find G-d. In fact, the Holy Name is made up of verbs. All verbs. Yod, He, Waw, He.

When Moses asked what should he call G-d, the Creator didn’t say, “I Am.” No, in the original Hebrew, He said, “I will be Who I will be.” So G-d isn’t a “thing,” He is whatever is not material. That’s probably explains if you go to Israel, why you’ll never hear Jews ask, “Hey, does G-d exist?” Because G-d can’t exist. It’s not a tautology. You’d be better off asking, “Does existence exist?” How can something, like G-d, exist outside of Itself?

So the next time you wake to get a shower, or go get yourself some breakfast, think of being in that moment. Because emunah - faith - is an innate conviction, a perception of truth. It transcends, rather than evades, reason. It is that which makes up a human being, it is quintessential to who we are, actually. To seek a relationship with G-d requires much practice. A Hebrew artisan is called an “uman” for good reason, because s/he practices their craft till their fingers bleed. Rossum, you’ve got to make this second nature if you want to achieve it, you’ve got to be willing to do a little sacrifice here. So, like I said, when you get there, you’ll know, because you won’t merely exist, you’ll live. You’ll be in the moment, you’re experience it. The flow of being. That flow, it’s a single, simple point. If you can find it, commune with it, speak with it, become one with it, you would have found G-d.

So how do we know there’s only one G-d? Just mediate on Zeus. Let me know if you feel a similar experience.

 

[anon99031074]

It’s a great philosophy, but there’s one problem: Buddhism isn’t concerned with what the Creator wants, Buddhism is concerned with “I”. What can “I” do for myself. This isn’t Judaism. Judaism seeks to understand “why” we exist, not how. Based on that assumption, it tries to unravel the mystery of creation: if this the perfect world? How can we make it better? There is no “I” in Judaism, there is “we”. We’re here to serve the Creator, and the creation He made, not ourselves. No one’s waiting to escape into Nirvana, that’s an excuse to not deal with the world’s problems. No, we want to be here. We want to be reincarnated, again, and again, and again, until we solve it. So far, no one (I mean Buddhists) have adequately responded this these definitions.

The main concern of Buddhism isn’t with me, myself and I, although you are correct that it doesn’t teach the existence of a transcendent creator of the cosmos, and hence cannot be concerned with the wishes of such a creator.

The purpose of any Buddhist path is to understand suffering, and through understanding it, overcoming. The reason Buddhism still persists after 2500 years, is because of the kindness of the Buddha and his followers throughout the ages, who have preserved, developed and transmitted the teachings, instead of just retreating to a cave and ignoring the rest of humanity.

Many Buddhist paths are primarily concerned with saving others, and plenty of Buddhists have taken a vow not to enter Nirvana before all other sentient beings are liberated first. All Buddhists learn to create a mind filled with love and compassion for all sentient beings. Since this thread is about Zen, if you go to a zendo to practice zazen (sitting meditation), one of the four vows everyone repeats is:

“Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to save them all.”

Since there is no inherent identity in any mind from a Buddhist point of view, any awakened Buddha is in a very real sense the same Buddha as all that have gone before and will come after, the only difference being the specific circumstances that lead to the enlighened mind arising in samsara for the benefit of many. And so as long as there are suffering beings in the cosmos, the Buddha will arise for the benefit of countless sentient beings.

 

[Rabbi]

Thank you for clarifying that for me. So, as I understand it then, there’s one Buddha, doing his good work, being reincarnated, till all are saved. That’s good. However, does the Mahayana tradition explicitly say he was a god? Also, I’ve been doing some reading on Buddhism, and I found this book, maybe you’ve heard of it: Buddhism and Science, by Donald S. Lopez Jr. In the introduction, he speaks of two Buddhisms, one which is Western, and the other, Eastern. He sets out to make the distinction that it was in fact the Western model which demoted the Buddha to manhood, and robbed him of his divinity. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this, if possible. Thank you.

 

[rossum]

How to succeed? How do you measure success? What did the Buddha do? Did he solve the world’s hunger? Perhaps I’m having a misrepresentation of him, perhaps I need enlightened on your religion, but the Jewish view is to not merely succeed alone. Let’s bring the world with us.

The Buddha rediscovered the path to the cessation of suffering. He founded a religion so he was not alone on that path; others could follow. Those of us who follow merely have to walk the path.

So the next time you wake to get a shower, or go get yourself some breakfast, think of being in that moment.

Well said, Zen in a nutshell: “If you walk, just walk. If you sit, just sit; but whatever you do, don’t wobble.”

So how do we know there’s only one G-d? Just mediate on Zeus. Let me know if you feel a similar experience.

For myself I would meditate on Brahman if I had to pick a God to meditate on. I have too many preconceptions of the Abrahamic God due to my personal history. Besides, there are too many meditation subjects to try them all.

 

[Rabbi]

Then, in many ways, Judaism and Zen are the same thing. What do you mean by “preconceptions” of G-d? you’re coming from a Christian background, I suppose.

 

[anon99031074]

Thank you for clarifying that for me. So, as I understand it then, there’s one Buddha, doing his good work, being reincarnated, till all are saved. That’s good. However, does the Mahayana tradition explicitly say he was a god?

Yes and no. Since any mind lacks an inherent identity, the qualities make the mind. So, whenever a mind that is identical to the Buddha arises, the only thing that distinguishes it from another Buddha is the history that led to Buddhahood, the history of development. So from a point of view it could be seen as the same mind, and from another point of view, a different mind. Metaphorically, one could view it as the Buddha taking rebirth again and again, and not resting until all sentient beings are liberated, but not literally, as rebirth ends for that individual mental continuum at the end of life when Buddhahood was acheived. The Buddha did not claim to be god, but Buddhists who believe there are gods do view him as greater than any god. Gods are filled with love and compassion, and are not subject to anger and hatred, but their liberation is temporal, and their abillity to permanently liberate others is lacking (unless they are Buddhists, which it is claimed some are ). At some point, even if it takes the age of a universe to happen, gods die, and they are not protected from a bad rebirth by virtue of being divine in their former life.

When it comes to the Buddha, he is more godlike in terms of mental qualities in some traditions than others, and typically most otherworldly in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, but the seeds of these views are found in the ancient texts common to all schools.

Also, I’ve been doing some reading on Buddhism, and I found this book, maybe you’ve heard of it: Buddhism and Science, by Donald S. Lopez Jr. In the introduction, he speaks of two Buddhisms, one which is Western, and the other, Eastern. He sets out to make the distinction that it was in fact the Western model which demoted the Buddha to manhood, and robbed him of his divinity. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this, if possible. Thank you.

I have a few of Donald Lopez’s books, including Buddhism and Science. He is sort of the Bart Ehrman of the Buddhist world, but he isn’t always correct. If you want to view the Buddha as an almost godlike figure, there are certainly plenty of writings that support such a view, but if you view him more like an ancient precursor to a modern humanist skeptic, one can find support for that view as well. Who the historical Buddha was tends to reflect the mind of the one looking for him, like with the historical Jesus. Ehrman looks for an apocalyptic preacher, and lo and behold he finds him. Dominic Crossan looks for the proto-socialist reformer Jesus, and he finds him. The Catholic Church looks for God incarnate… etc…

Lopez also makes a few claims I consider to be flat out wrong. For instance that laypeople were only taught how to go to heaven while the fully fledged dharma was reserved for the monks and nuns. He has to ignore the majority of the oldest sutras to entertain such a view.

 

[Rabbi]

[@adgloriam @Shakuhachi @anon99031074] For everyone, I want you to contemplate what you’re about to read, and decide for yourself if it matches Catholic/Buddhist thought. Again, this is just a dialogue, so if you disagree with it, you’re free to do so! Enjoy.

If nobody minds me explaining some Kabbalah, I will. I want to see what the Buddhists think of this, and if they agree with this order of creation; and if we do it right, with kavvanah (intent), we’ll move along!

According to Kabbalah, which has been passed down from teacher to student, father to son, there are deep esoteric underpinnings to even the letters of the Torah. Now, if I understand it right, the Buddhist view is, through meditations, visualizations, mantras and prostrations, one can become a bodhisattva. It presents a path of sentient beings ending their suffering, but does it have a basis in cosmology, as the Kabbalah presents? I leave that open for you. For my part, I’ll explain to you our cosmology, in as brief a manner as can be done!

In Kabbalah, we’re told there were four creations, so we read four creations into Bereshis, Genesis. All these creations correspond to the four letters of the Name - the yod, he, vov, he. The “yod” is the fire spirit of emanation, or, intuition. The “he” is air, mind, creation, knowledge. The “vov” is akin to water, heart, formation and feelings, in Hebrew, Yet Zirah. And the last “he” is earth, body, function and doing. In other words, action.

Now, each letter in the Divine Name represents a spirit, or state of consciousness. As I’ve stated before, these are 1) body, 2) heart, 3) mind, and 4) spirit. Through deep contemplation, these become intuition and a form of identity, so it’s sort of psychological, to a degree.

Therefore, you have four destinations to reach when in prayer, understand? This is called davening, but in order to succeed, you have to do it with kavvanot, with the right intention. Only then is your prayer connected to the sefirot (seven attributes of G-d, see 1 Chronicles 29:11), and then to G-d directly. Literally, it is rising trough worlds. It is a way to connect with G-d, from the inside-out. When one’s reached such a high spiritual state, she or he reaches Olam Atsiluth, the “world of Emanation,” which is the highest of the four worlds.

Let’s spend a moment to talk about Devas, or angels, because they will help us reach these outer levels. What are such beings? The Kabbalistic tradition teaches that they have such a large consciousness, that if an angel’s consciousness where to enter my head, I’d have to reject it because it’d be overwhelming. But each of us has an angel, and when we talk, the angels are acting it out on another plane, and the realms just go on from there. Even the fire angels, seraphim, have a positive place in the universe and cause the natural order of things to do as they do.

 

[Rabbi]

[@adgloriam @Shakuhachi @Rossum, continuation…] All such creatures are subservient to their Creator, however, there is no “Devil” in Judaism. To use a metaphor, G-d is like an infinite electrical charge, it needs transformers (angels/forces of nature) for lower levels, but in truth, we could go further: angels are manifestations of the Divine. They are like garments placed on the body, the outer-layers. In intuition, there’s no need to discredit their existence. So again, when we commit to doing a mitzvah, we’re essentially connecting with higher realms, realms which cannot be perceived easily. But this is just one world, the world of material, the world of self. Once we journey to the world of assiyah (doing), and to that of yetzirah (feeling), we’ve penetrate into a third world, that of beriah, or first creation. This, in Buddhism, is akin to samsara, in Platonic logic, it is the World of Forms. Beriah is the opening source to the objective world, it is the source of name and of form and individuality, though it in itself, is not “objective,” rather, the Divine mind conceives objects. Remember Olam Atsiluth? The world of Emanation? The final world? Here, it is so infinite, that it is full of both actuality an emptiness at the same time. So, G-d is everywhere, and yet, He’s nowhere. So, your intuition, arising from the realm of emanation into thought in the realm of creation, transformed into a shape in the realm of formation, and, finally, into action in the realm of function. Now, the Lurianic Kabbalists also added one final stage, that of “Adam Kadmon,” being conceived as the mythical body of the first man with a soul, Adam.

So, like the Buddhists, we Jews participate in devanning (prayer), and brakhot, or daily blessings. We do this as mindful as we can, nothing is done out of mindless “doing the motions,” per se. Now, there are 613 “connections” in the Torah (mitzvot doesn’t have to be translated as “commandments”). This is done through, in Buddhist terms, “right aspiration, right feeling,” with G-d at the forefront in the mind. This is why each day, and especially on Shabbat, we ask ourselves, “What did I accomplish this week? Did I make the world a better place?” We also ask the same questions at the end of the year, on Rosh HaShanna. so one is prying into her/himself, and seeing what karma is there. In Judaism, we call seeing the other perspective, via deep contemplation in the realm of thought, hitbonenut. It is, again, a way of practicing mindfulness towards other persons. You see? One is always judging their actions, seeing the “other side,” and correcting themselves, because this world is in a state of impermanence. Therefore, when someone wrongs you, ask yourself, “Why? Perhaps there is a reason for it? Perhaps I’m the one not seeing something?” Again, this leads back to galgal ha-hazer, the turning wheel, or in English, “what comes around, goes around.” Before a Jew says, “lights out” each night, he or she asks G-d to forgive them of any sins they might have done towards another person, and wait for the next incarnation, if need be.

 

[Rabbi]

[@adgloriam @Shakuhachi @Rossum @anon99031074, continuation…]

Armed with this information, one can really appreciate the Jewish view of removing the simplistic view of G-d serving as autocrat. This alignment, of course, correlates directly with Buddhist thought, I’m lead to believe. Even though many of our prayers depict G-d in an image, such as Father, or King of kings, this cosmology, as presented by the Kabbalists, suppresses such imagery. Because G-d is, again, not a “thing.” He is Ein Sof - or an impersonal infinite, or, in some interpretations, nothing. Imagine it for a moment. G-d is nothing.

G-d… nothing.

We cannot comprehend this, and yet, it is true. Of course, this isn’t entirely identical to the Buddhist shunyata, if I’m understanding it right, but it is the closest we’re going to get. It is a radical understanding of monotheism.

To end this short tale, the Kabbalah says that G-d did not willingly create out of Ex Nihilo, He did not come from somewhere else and decided to make the universe one day, rather, it happened through emanations. It came from G-d. In fact, creation is happening even now. It never ceases.

So in Judaism, we attempt to reach a state of pure annihilation of the personal, and to do this, one needs to find him or herself with G-d. That is, until one gets off the wheel. Try to visualize it like this: throughout each incarnation, a soul is given a garment to wear. If we we’re bad, a little of the garment is cut off. If good, a little is patched back on. Once we finished the task, it becomes a garment of light. Once all the souls in the universe have achieved this, then comes the Messiah, to make the world perfect.

The problem is, Jewish mysticism is mostly rejected outside the Haredi world. Not much people know of it, and if they do, they laugh it off as mere “fairy-tales,” and go back to being pure “rationalists.” But as I’ve said before, just reading Rambam is not enough. Of course, it’s important to keep the halacha, but I’ve always said, don’t go to Rambam for mystical elements. He’s an expert in halacha, and that’s all he was ever meant to be. Yes, he covered some mystical aspects in Moreh Nevuchim, but that work mostly dealt with philosophy. It’s not Kabbalistic by far.

So, for just a moment, let’s suspend our rationale, think of G-d as nothing… will you connect with me to the Divine?

 

[rossum]

Then, in many ways, Judaism and Zen are the same thing.

From what you say, yes. A lot of techniques are common across many religions. People tend to go with what works.

What do you mean by “preconceptions” of G-d? you’re coming from a Christian background, I suppose.

Yes, Christian. See my post #90 for more details. In Buddhism morality (karma) is superior to the gods, they are subject to it, they are not above it. The Abrahamic G-d, by His actions, is not good. For instance, He kills far too many animals and people. The first of Buddhism’s moral rules is not to injure living things. Animal sacrifice, as demanded in Temple worship, is one of the things Buddhism does not allow.

There are better subjects for meditation than such a deity.

 

[Rabbi]

I see your point. Some, like the Rambam, have tried to sway a little back from animal sacrifices, offering two scenarios: 1) they were metaphorical, 2) they were the acts of primitive people. This last one signifies a change in G-d, and the Kabbalah certainly offers clues to change.

Regardless what it is, on face value, it is a mark of shame on the Abrahamic faiths, something we have to deal with. Some say it will return in the Messianic Age, others, not.

Some say the animal being sacrificed was a reincarnated soul that needed to be released from the body of a beast. Others thought this concept stupid.

It is true, many are horrified, even Jews, of the thought of animal sacrifice happening again in the near future (even though they’d be killed humanly). With all the modern movements speaking for animal rights, how can such a thing happen?

To answer that, we need to define a few concepts. What were these sacrifices for? Before we get to the spiritual side-effects, let’s note first that we all make sacrifices for the people we love, the ideals we believe in. The Talmud has a beautiful passage (Gittin 90b), which says that when a man loses his wife, “The altar sheds tears.” To have a healthy marriage, one needs to partake in much sacrifice.

If we can sacrifice so much for all this, why not for G-d, the Creator of all life?

The Torah never used the name “Elohim” when mentioning sacrifices (that name signifies justice), but HaShem, which signifies love and compassion. We usually see the verb legakriv (to come, bring close), connected to the noun korban (sacrifice). Even the book itself, Vayikra (Leviticus), means to summon in love. So how can there be sacrifice if it’s done in love?

Well, perhaps, as I’ve said earlier, there’s even a deeper thing going on here than first meets the eyes. Even the students of the Talmud couldn’t figure it out, and the Zohar says perhaps we never will.

One thing is sure, the whole event was drunk on spirituality: the choir, the priest, elevating his soul to another realm via meditation, and you, bringing your sacrifice, had to also be in that realm. So the offerings had many dimensions to them in the means of expressing that love. Think of it like this: imagine that you’ve never seen or heard of a phone before, and you stumble upon this guy, he’s laughing, crying, all at the same time, and all the while, he appears to be talking with his wrist! What is he, nuts! You’d have no knowledge that there’s a signal taking his conversation to a person halfway around the world. You couldn’t comprehend it.

Do you see it? There’s a whole other dimension regarding sacrifices which we don’t see, but from there, I’m sure it all makes sense. These other “worlds” from the Infinite Light, are not just mentioned in the Kabbalah, but also in the Talmud (pretty much the basis of tractate Chagigah).

 

[Rabbi]

In Kabbalistic thought, there are sparks all over the world, and when we do a mitzvah, we elevate those sparks to higher realms. Whereas meditation only elevates myself, sacrifices, said the Ari, a great Kabbalist, elevates all souls, including the souls of objects. It all happens at once, and those sparks became sources of energy for conscious beings in the spirit realm (these, of course would be angels). The energy we provided wasn’t filtered, it was condensed. Now you see, it really was a psychical transformation into spiritual realms. In fact, the whole Temple Mount area served as a portal, a channel to the Divine. So these sacrifices were not merely about blood and guts, and they were certainly not bribes out of fear, like their ancient counterparts! Our world is one of abstractions, rather than tangible substance, at least in ideas, and the mitzvah of sacrifice really is, in some ways, the strongest, but also the strangest. Because of this oxymoron, we often fail to understand why, let alone any mitzvah, for that matter. But if we just thought for a moment that these things indeed have a spiritual connection, sometimes far beyond our understanding, we’d be left in awe and with a greater context. After all, each mitzvah is just one instrument in the orchestra.

Since the destruction of the Second Temple, the rabbis tell us that prayer and charity has replaced animal sacrifice.

 

[anon99031074]

Thank you for sharing. I find it interesting, if somewhat complex and hard to understand. My approach to Buddhism is relatively minimalistic, and I believe this is what the Buddha intended. The Dharma did not, and in my opinion, should not, attempt to answer all the so called big questions. It rather considers some of them unknowable, and even if they were knowable, sickness, disease, sorrow, lamentation and death would still occur. If the universe is eternal, I will die. If it is not eternal, I will still die. If it is a combination of the two, or a combination of the negation of the two, I will still die. I will age. I will become sick. I will have to lose the ones I love, or, if I die quickly, they will lose me. This is the fundamental problem of suffering, which the Buddha left behind a life of luxury, and set out into homelessness to solve.

Emptiness/shunyata and anatta/not self are not dogmas to be clung to. They are medicines against a way of interpreting experience that is conducive to suffering. In a world where no one believes in or feels like a truly existing self, a teaching of no-self will have no meaning. No self can be found in the aggregates, but they do not lack a self either. Viewing them as lacking is nihilism, and is arguably worse than reification.

In world where no one thinks objects have an inner, independent nature that makes them what they are, a teaching intended to see through this view, shunyata/emptiness, means nothing and is not needed. So even the teaching of emptiness is contingent on the error of reification, and without such a reification it would not exist. This is what it means to say that emptiness is empty.

In a nutshell, all Buddhist teachings are conditioned, and are intended to be medicinal. They exist to aid the spiritual practitioner in curing the disease of suffering. They are not absolute, metaphysical truths about reality.

 

[rossum]

In a nutshell, all Buddhist teachings are conditioned, and are intended to be medicinal. They exist to aid the spiritual practitioner in curing the disease of suffering. They are not absolute, metaphysical truths about reality.

The Four Noble Truths are structured as a doctor’s diagnosis from Ancient India:

1. The disease is suffering.
2. The cause of the disease is selfish desire.
3. Removing the cause will cure the disease.
4. The prescription for removing the cause is the Eightfold Path.

Number 3 is important; not all diseases can be cured by removing the cause. The disease of suffering is one that can.

 

[Rabbi]

@anon99031074, for both.

There is a concept in Judaism called Lekh Lekha, it means to “take yourself out. Go and travel. Seek foreign lands.” It is sort of an aliyah (immigration) for some people, but there’s a midrash (interpretation) to it. In Bereshis (Genesis) 12:1, we read about G-d telling Avraham to leave his country, his birthplace, and finally, his father’s house. But it seems kinda backwards, right? And the rabbis noticed this. The answer? “From your country” means from the earth, or that which bonds you to it, so, pretty much, your attachments. So your body is the first which needs cleansing. Next is the interpretation of birthplace - since we’re all begotten from our parents, who purify themselves in the act of begetting, that is, bringing life, we have to also deal with that when it’s our turn. Lastly, the father’s house means desire, or the source of such desires. In such terminology, Judaism finds itself on the door-step of Buddhism’s second noble truth, or, perhaps the other way around, since Judaism is older. So, this Midrash is then saying: clean yourself of your earthness, then your birthness, and finally, your desire. Only then will you reach the promised land, the land which G-d will show you. So you see, Avraham, choosing to leave his homeland, is a sort of paradigm for every spiritual journey ever taken. So we transform our pains, our desires, into something spiritual, something far beyond us, and its beautiful.

When we meditate, what is the technique, in other words, what’s the phenomenology of the experience? In Buddhism, you have vipassana, where one lets the mind adrift until they begin to notice it, and then, gentle bring it back to the subject, which is mindless space. This is visualization at its core. Through it, one becomes subtly aware of the process of mind. Those who practice such meditation often claim to seeing a living bodhisattva in front of them, breathing. Staring at them. This isn’t meant to be unnerving, but it can be a little, perhaps for the novice. This sort of thing relates very closely to the Hasidic method, as taught by Rabbi Elimelech of Lizensk. To do this, one needs to imagine an intense fire burning in front of them, and for the sake of sanctifying G-d’s Holy Name, you overcome your animalistic nature, and jump into the fire, becoming a martyr. Eventually, one can also experience the rebbe, staring in front of them, breathing. But this one shouts at you, too! He watches your every move, to make sure you’re following the path.

 

[Rabbi]

But the path can be difficult for some. Steps in Moses Maimonides, the 12th century sage, who advocated the middle path (similar to Plato and the teaching of the Buddha). He said that we must try to balance extremes of behavior, in order to achieve virtue. In his Mishneh Torah, the Rambam said the best way to cure the illness of arrogance and anger are as follows: “If one is irascible, he is directed so to govern himself that even if he is assaulted or reviled, he will not feel affronted. If one is arrogant, he should accustom himself to endure much contumely, sit below everyone, and wear old and ragged garments that bring the wearer into contempt, and so forth, till arrogance is eradicated from his heart and he has regained the middle path, which is the right way.”

Well, that was his method. Try intertwining the two, and see what you get. The problem is, not many know where to start! Even with such practices, and with Rambam’s writings, how to begin? It seems so difficult, the journey, perilous. This is when one seeks out a master, someone who’s done it before. Someone willing to teach.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe once said that you need to find for yourself a geologist of the soul, for it is full of treasures, such as hope, love, faith and G-d. But you need to dig them out, and you don’t know where to dig. If you go down the Freudian route, you’ll meet mud, the Adler route, stone. You don’t want that, you want the diamonds. So you find yourself a spiritual master, he’ll tell you were to dig, but the digging, you have to do that yourself.

Here’s one such master. I’ll describe him for you, then you’ll know what to look for. Have you ever heard of the Baal Shem Tov? One day, he told his students to think of a beautiful woman. But not just any woman, the most beautiful you could imagine (for the ladies, think of the most beautiful male you can dream up). What was his point? Doesn’t tradition say to do away with exotic intoxication? Isn’t it a drug for the mind, a virus? Not so, said the Baal Shem Tov. Keep dreaming of her. Lust for her. Now… ask yourself, where does she (or he) comes from? What is the source of such thoughts? Don’t be afraid, don’t push her away, keep thinking. Think hard. Harder. Picture the image, crystallize it in your mind. Now, the source, the source. It must be sublime, it didn’t create itself, what’s the source…?

G-d.

G-d is the source. Now you love G-d more so then ever before, it certainly more so than that image, for He implanted it in you. It is my understanding that there is a similar thought-process in a branch of Hinduism, but the Baal Shem Tov called this method, his “strange thoughts” experiment.

Will you try it, tonight? Find the experience. The source.

 

[Rabbi]

Thank you for your response. You have enlightened me regarding the Buddhist view.