Being and becoming

This post was inspired by an article read in EnlightenNext magazine (formerly What is Enlightenment?) - my favorite magazine over the last 6 years since I last discovered it.

The article was a discussion in a series of discussions between Ken Wilber (an 'integral philosopher') and Andrew Cohen (a 'spiritual leader' and founder of the magazine) on vertical and horizontal development.

It is actually one of their best discussions and one that is particularly a propos for 'our' generation in which there is a lot of confusion, I find, about what becoming a better person actually means - which is something I imagine most of us strive for (some more or less actively and/or consciously).

Without rewriting the article, the main idea in their words is that horizontal development is about being a better you, i.e. improving (without getting into what that means). While vertical development is about becoming a new 'you' (quotes mine, as the you changes I figure it merits something to show the before-after element). Wilber differentiates between the two as horizontal pertaining to being and vertical dealing with becoming. Both agree that both are necessary.

My own take on this, as I try to explain it to myself, is that horizontal development is about improving or personal improvement. Something I think every one of us sees as a goal at some level. Vertical development, I see as evolving into something new.

Now I see this also as a wonderful goal, and share at some level the belief of the authors that this is possible. At the same time I wonder if this is not simply human hubris. Let me explain.

A major element/theme in EnlightenNext magazine is evolutionary consciousness, levels of spiritual development and the belief in the ability of human beings to evolve as a race and as people. Now the first part, evolving as a race, from one generation to the next is something that appears clear and, thanks to Darwin et al., not too difficult to see over the history of our planet. The second, being able to evolve within our lifetimes, and to consciously evolve (i.e. something that does not happen by accident or mutation) requires a bigger leap of faith. Can we really change in the sense of becoming something or someone new or can we only become "better" or "more" of what we already are?

Most of the faith-based religions would say the latter. Even Buddhism shows enlightenment as an awareness of something you already were (and forgot), i.e. a reconnecting with not a reinventing of.

In other words, can we give credence or, better yet, experience the idea put into words by Cohen, "we're not simply making the self, as it is, better. We are engaging with the spiritual process in such a way that the result is going to be the emergence of some quality, ability and capacity that was not there before"?

I tend to think so and I hope so. But maybe that is just my own hubris...

I am dualistic about Buddhism

Following up on my last post (a bit late due to an intense work schedule) I would like to comment on another text on Buddhism. After my last post I had an exchange with a former student of mine from China who is one of those people with whom you feel "spiritual toughness". What I mean by that is that you do meet occasionally people who seem illuminated or extremely spiritual or having some special "white" energy. At other times you feel people (and I mean feel as a synonym for a form of meeting people) who are extremely solid and grounded thanks to their spirituality. This was the feeling I received from this former student, now a friend, when he spoke of different elements of Taoism and Buddhism. After my last post I sent him a copy by e-mail as some blogs are blocked occasionally in some countries and cannot be consulted directly (another thing to be thankful for). In reply we had an interesting exchange. One thing he wrote me was the story used by Taoists to speak about Taoism.

The story goes something like this. A Taoist is like a man with hands and feet bound in ropes dangling over a cliff and holding on to a branch only with his teeth. Knowing this, we must be careful when we talk about Taoism. Knowing this, we talk about Taoism.

I thought this was a great image! If you open your mouth it's over, and yet we need to open our mouths... This was also his feedback, politely, concerning my writing about Buddhism. I should be careful I guess before I open my mouth. And this is true. Throughout this blog I am writing mostly about things of which I know very little of. I read a bit, according to the hasard of books, texts, ideas that cross my path, and react without the depth that comes from true understanding. Knowing that, I still open my mouth : ) 

As a follow up to my exchange by e-mail I was also sent a text called Buddhism in a Nutshell, written by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche of siddhartasintent.org. The text is quite interesting and really does get to the essence of what Buddhism is and is not. In four points, DKR explains that:

1. All compounded things are impermanent (and all phenomena are compounded).
2. All emotions are painful.
3. All phenomena are empty.
4. Nirvana is beyond extremes.

Even the path (Dharma) and the Buddha is impermanent, empty and an illusion. However DKR uses a wonderful image to explain why it is necessary. If you are trying to find someone you have never met, I can describe the person, show you a picture of the person, tell you what I know about the person and that way you can go and find the real person.

One of the reasons I am dualistic about Buddhism (pun intended) is that even Siddharta taught Buddhism three different ways. Instead of saying that his thinking evolved, Buddhists show some marketing moxy by calling it The Three Turnings of The Wheel and explaining it not as a "change of mind" (another intended pun) but as necessary evolutions in his teaching - which in all fairness does make sense.

In case you are curious, the three turnings are about a central element of spirituality, the mind. In the first turning the Buddha taught that there is a mind. In the second turning he taught that there is no mind. In the third turning he taught that mind is luminous. Different Buddhist commentators have interpreted the meaning of this evolution in Buddha's teachings, of which I know little. So on this subject of Buddha's change of mind concerning mind I will not open my mouth and leave you while dangling over the proverbial taoist cliff...

Buddha, Buddhism and Internal Paradox

I am now reading "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, who wrote this in 1958 while in Paris studying at the Sorbonne (which creates some sort of an affinity with me in my mind as it is also my alma mater).

What I like about this is that Rahula attempts to simply present the texts and Siddharta Gautama's original words and teachings. I am not sure that it is possible to do so but at least he makes an honest attempt to do just that.

While reading this book, from the very beginning, what struck me immediately is an internal paradox linked to Buddhism. Siddharta Gautama found his own truth by abandoning all traditional religions and their methods and going his own way. Unfortunately, to me this is the essence of Siddharta's message, you need to walk your own path. I say unfortunately because it makes our work more difficult. And my own feeling on this is that following any one else's method, no matter how beautiful, evolved, thoughtful, spiritual, ... including those of Buddhism, is a shortcut to someone else's truth.

The Buddha himself, who I prefer to call by his name Siddharta Gautama in order not to deify him, "attributed all his realization, attainments and achievements to human endeavour and human intelligence." And he seemed to believe that "man is how own master, and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny."

According to Rahula, Siddharta "taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop himself and to work out his own emancipation, for man has the power to liberate himself from all bondage through his own personal effort and intelligence."

So how do we go from a personal journey to an -ism, like other isms, religions and codified practices? While I have no doubt that the intentions were pure it seems that Siddharta was lacking the coldness of heart that someone like Jiddu Krishnamurti had. Siddharta saw the plight of others and tried to "teach, encourage and stimulate" where Krishnamurti called for uncompromising introspection with no real hints as to the how of proper self-knowledge and spent a lifetime trying not to become anyone's guru. It seems to me that both have a similar message but that somehow Siddharta allowed himself to become the Buddha, thus recreating some of that from which he broke free.

This is the inherent paradox I see in Buddhism. And it is even apparent to Rahula at some level as he begins his book by comparing the Buddha to other founders of religion, while wondering aloud "if we are permitted to call him a founder of a religion."

A final 'food for thought': Siddharta's story also made me think about how often in history spirituality is a privilege of the wealthy. Much like St. Francis of Assis, Siddharta was the son of wealthy parents (royalty) before becoming a renunciate. Maybe only wealth to the point of not having to worry about the bottom elements of Maslow's heirarchy of needs from a young age, leaves the mind to dedicate itself to more lofty or existential thinking. Who knows?