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?

[Thoughts on] EnlightenNext magazine

One of my favorite magazines of recent years, or at least one of the only ones that I really try to read cover to cover is EnlightenNext (formerly What is Enlightenment). Recently it appears that they have had financial problems, like much of the printed press, and are now calling for donations, financial support and the like. I am kind of worried about them as most people in a delicate financial situation only make those kinds of requests/announcements late in the game and when they have to.

Already, in the last few years I noticed the increasing use of advertising in their pages and started to wonder about that. Although, to their credit, these have usually been (more or less) spiritually-oriented ads. Which brings me to the real subject (sub-text) of this post: how can you reconcile spirituality with commerciality? (I know that that's not really a word, or at least a regularly-used word, but I am sure you know what I mean). How can you be discussing enlightenment on page 1 and asking for money on page 2? Then again, maybe it is a modern form of (the somewhat medieval) alms - people on a spiritual mission depending on the generosity of strangers for their survival.

And here I go off on another tangent. Alms and living off other people's generosity reminds me of St. Francis of Assisi, one of my favorite religious historical figures. God's little pauper, as Kazantzakis called him, was one of the first well-known (or at least well-documented) renunciates. While he had absolute faith, his acolytes probably had a more difficult time dealing with the day-to-day. As I see a personal letter from the founder of the magazine calling for financial help I must admit I hear more concern and realism than the irrealism born of absolute faith. Which probably means that the rest of the staff is a lot more worried... I do hope that they figure out a solution.

What I read (past tense) between the lines is what got me thinking and what eventually led to this post. It is not easy to reconcile "doing the right thing" (or a good thing) and getting paid for it. We are now in a world in which we expect a lot of things to be free, open source, 24/7, available, shareable, etc. So how can spirituality not be all of that too?

While I don't know if they are considering this, I have a feeling that many of their readers would be willing to pay more for their subscription to see the magazine survive. How much is too much to pay for a unique magazine? Not sure I know the answer to that one, but I do imagine that the price sensitivity of their readership will be less elastic for this magazine than for others.

Finally, getting back to the ads I mentioned earlier. One of the phenomena I have seen on the internet in financial advising, commercial websites, blogs (but not mine, otherwise there would be more than a dozen of you reading this) and now spirituality is something I call "closed-circle expertization". A handful of experts mention a handful of experts, write the testimonials for their books, blogs, courses, conferences, show up as guests in the books, blogs, courses and conferences of each other, are present on the same panels, roundtables and speaking circuits. A kind of cartel in which each boosts the interests of the others in order to boost their own interests. It is a great business model and one that probably evolves more naturally (organically to use the parlance) than most business cartels, but it not less present nonetheless. Such it is with most of the spiritual leaders we read and hear about today - and EnglightenNext's panel of spiritual leaders is not much different.

Nevertheless the quality of the writing, the breadth and depth of articles and spiritual leaders, as well as the themes they explore does make it a magazine well worth reading and thinking about and, now, supporting.

Enjoy! and tell them I sent you ; )

[Thoughts on] Eat, Pray and Love

So I am reading Eat, Pray and Love by Elizabeth Gilbert and besides how much I enjoy her writing style and the content of what she writes, I find it is also a wonderful spiritual primer. The one thing with spirituality is that it is such a personal endeavor for most of us that it is hard to compare notes with others. There are things that I was sure were personal issues or shortcomings that I needed to deal with and this little book has given me a lot of perspective on that. Most of these 'issues' are faced by everyone, in varying degrees, and I (really) didn't realize it.

One (of many) great passage in the book (page 138 in the paperback edition I'm reading), Gilbert says, "I don't think I'm good at meditation... I can't seem to keep my mind still." The monk she is complaining to answers, "It's a pity that you're the only person in the history of the world who ever had this problem."

While that seems quite silly and evident, it is true that I don't think I'm good at meditation either... and I can't seem to keep my mind still too. And that has been an excuse for me for not really trying. While it makes me smile to read her adventures in this domain, it also inspires me and gives me a necessary kick in the butt. I have read alot, I keep reading alot, but do I try to stop and apply some of the things I have read? Nooooooo...

Another great part of this book, which really spoke to me was a section in which she decides that she is going to become silent. She tells of a spiritual fantasy in which she becomes a silent mystical saint that people admire for her silence. Without going into the book's details, she is then reassigned a job at her Ashram in which she will have to speak all day. She goes on to recount a favorite statement of her guru's guru: God dwells in you, as you.

She explains this as 'God dwells within you as yourself, exactly the way you are.' Spirituality is not acting like the image you have of a spiritual person. No 'massive, dramatic, change of character' is necessary, there is no need to 'renounce our individuality.' The guru's guru then adds, "To know God you only need to renounce one thing -- your sense of division from God. Otherwise, just stay as you were made, within your natural character."

Once again, not a life-shattering insight, but to me, for me, this is a very important insight/reminder. I have various and varying images of what a spiritual person might look and act like (chief among them is my image of St. Francis), but that is (sigh) not who I am. And that is ok. I guess I need to learn to accept that it is ok to 'work within my own personality' as Gilbert coins it. She, drives the home point with a quote from Sextus, a Greek philosopher, "The wise man is always similar to himself."

Sometimes you find spirituality in the most unexpected places -- even in an Oprah-recommended, NY Times bestseller -- and this book is as enjoyable as it is thought-provoking or, rather, life-provoking. Gilbert's inquiries and adventures make me want to say yes to life more wholly (holy) and find the spirituality which is me and the me which is spiritual...

Hopefully the feeling will last beyond the last page.