Creating West Coast Buddhism (2024)
letter.palladiummag.com
letter.palladiummag.com
Particularly in the SF tech scene, there is an unfortunate 'competitive enlightenment' vibe amongst many of those who profess to follow Buddhist teachings. "Oh, you've only attained the second jhāna? I got through all four on my first try."
I am certain there are plenty of genuine and sincere practitioners out there, but my small sample has not included any.
This is the reason that anything beyond the first dhyana is not encouraged in Mahayana, as it is impossible to apply vipasyana in a state of concentration so deep that you cannot direct your mind.
The teachers popular in the SF scene are inflating their own achievements and the ones of their students by using very lightweight criteria. I had that experience when I attended a TWIM retreat before their founder died. According to them, I reached the fourth or fifth jhana. I can assure you I did not.
As Chogyam Trungpa would probably say, they're all practicing spiritual materialism.
As mentioned in another post, I've been to SF Zen Center events both in practice and adjacent classes.
The tech scene now has become much more narcissistic than it was then. I didn't see the evolution as clearly as I did in Palo Alto while working there and in Mountain View.
I would not couple the tech scene with spiritual practices themselves. Judge the so called practicioners not the practice / practice instructors/organization.
I think Buddhist philosophy still has a way to go making its way through the West -- liberal democracy's crisis of vacuuity is something we're really struggling to come to terms with, and it feels like Western society is slipping into a full-blown existential crisis. Seems like fertile ground for a religion and philosophy that a large part of is predicated on nothingness and how to live and be content in the void. I have to admit though that it's unbelievable watching the market's seemingly unlimited ability to coopt, repackage and in turn sell literally anything, even a religion and philosophical system which would be completely opposite to a consumer society.
In some sense, this is one manifestation of what Nietzche said was a good state. A scrappy, anti-metaphysical system that doesn't need to rest on grand notions of reason or morality (not that there is no reason or morality, but in the traditional Western metaphysics sense; I find that people often conflate the two, I certainly did at one point), that simply outcompetes, adapts, and comes out on top.
On the other hand, I think Nietzche would have hated the outcome and would have worked to further refine his philosophy. I wonder what his thoughts would be in the 21st century.
Also through your comment, I realize I don't actually understand subtle differences in Eastern philosophy. Confucianism would have been up Nietzche's alley (no metaphysics), but Buddhism is a weird mix of "metaphysics" in the sense of spirits and gods, but not "metaphysics" in the Western Platonic tradition, and is in fact in many ways opposite to many of the dualities and boundaries that Western metaphysics creates.
Not unlikely Christianity was influenced by Buddhism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity.
And certain groups, especially a Gnostic creed Catharism, has a lot of similarities.
I recommend the book "Sacred Knowledge" by Willian Richards and the concept of cosmic unity (as the first "birth matrix") from "Realms of the Human Unconscious: Observations from LSD" by Stanislav Groff.
There ideas are in every culture and religion.
The most we have are faint gestures at how some Buddhists could indeed have been alive in the same place, at the same time, as early Christians. But Christ himself, as far as we know, never referenced Buddha or any Buddhist works, never interacted with a practitioner of the faith (or even referred to one), and all the same applies to the Apostles.
E.g. nobody would suggest that Buddhism was particularly influenced by Greek religious thinking, but we know with certainty that Greeks were present in the region due to their service in the Persian empire of the time.
That's not really the measure (and to be expected: Bodhisattva's always work within their context)
As early as 1960's Suzuki-Roshi would leave off temple duties at Sokoji because so many students wanted to learn meditation (and not just practice comforting rituals). For the Soto Zen and Vipassana traditions, practice is everything - not philosophy, opinion, or behavior.
Yes, it's nice that the West has embraced Buddhism and that Buddhism has managed to provide a philosophical counterpoint without actually conflicting.
But thousands - hundreds of thousands? - of people have gone through deep meditation training in the Soto Zen and Vipassana traditions (coast to coast); for most it has been life-changing. That wasn't due to "Buddhism" but to the lifelong commitment of (on the order of a hundred) effective teachers (many of whom are now aging out).
I would recommend at some point in anyone's life, that they build up to some deep meditation practice - weeks-long sessions - from real teachers in these longstanding traditions. There's nothing better for opening the envelope of life.
However, I do not understand this comment:
For the Soto Zen and Vipassana traditions, practice is everything - not philosophy, opinion, or behavior.
Right action is an essential element of the Noble Eightfold Path. I have myself found the teachings concerning behavior to be a central element of my practice as I have gone deeper with the dhamma.
I agree about right action. I (shouldn't have) used "behavior" (probably idiosyncratically) to mean performative actions to signal compliance - projections for the sake of their impact, like holding opinions for the sake of the ensuing emotions (illusions) or expounding them for the sake of social acceptance. "Right action" I take as practice in all of one's interactions, just as dharma is philosophy and opinion, but as practice in thinking and communicating. Similarly, forms are maintained for practice purposes (not for weeding or highlighting people, etc.)
They’re the founding forces behind the Insight Meditation Society in MA, which although isn’t the West Coast, is perhaps the most influential force in popular Buddhism in the West.
Kornfield also set up Spirit Rock Meditation Centre in California though, which gets tens of thousands of visitors a year.
Having dived really quite far into Buddhism over the past five years, I’ve found their flavour of Insight Meditation (as per the New Burmese Method based on Mahasi Sayadaw’s teachings) absolutely life changing.
A great read, thank you for sharing.
If anybody is interested in reading further - Goldstein’s podcasts, Mahasi Sayadaw’s writing, Kornfield’s introductory texts and ANYTHING by Bhikku Bodhi are a phenomenal place to start.
Other ones I listen to are in the Thai Forrest Tradition, started from Ajahn Chah and now talks from Abhayagiri, Amaravati. Other one from Mahayana, which has so many talks and probably the best book I've read, Seeing That Frees, is Rob Burbea. He died from cancer in 2020, which is incredibly sad given how young he still was and much he's produced for us.
All of these people give different angles on the teachings of the Buddha. I highly suggest listening and reading from these people and the differing traditions all talking for similar goals of how to look at the world for the acknowledgement of dukkha (pain / suffering) and how to deal with it. You don't need to sit and meditate either to get the benefits.
Thanks to "Buddha-Dhamma For Inquiring Minds" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (an ADHD-friendly question & answer format, https://www.suanmokkh.org/books/121), I understood that it is an unfortunate coincidence of words. These two concepts of Void or Emptiness are very opposite, as opposite as Hell and Heaven.
To my understanding, I would use the word "Clarity" instead. Light passes through, interacts with it, but does not cling to anything.
It seems Buddhism has followed the same path as any other religion/practice of the same age.
I imagine that today's Christianity doesn't look much like it did in 500AD, just as I imagine Scientology in 1,000 years will have evolved.
Is this a bad thing? Does religion not represent our perception of the meaning of life, evolving with us as knowledge, wisdom and tolerance (or lack thereof) is passed through the generations?
IIRC the Buddha said it was like carrying the oar of a boat: once you have used it to get you to your destination (nibbhana), carrying it is needless.
> सेय्यथापि भिक्खवे पुरिसो महतो उदकस्स ओरिमतटे ठितो एतस्मिं चत्ते ओरिमा तटा कल्लंणं भयंवरं, परमा तटा निब्बयं भयंविरं, न च नावाय संयताय न च पुल्लेन गन्तब्बं। तं किमन्तरेन। यन्नुनाहं तिणकट्ठपण्णं संकलिय च मज्झे उदकं अभिनवेन्तं हत्थिपदेन व अङ्गपदेन व तीरणं करोमि। अथ खो सो पुरिसो तिणकट्ठपण्णं संकलिय च मज्झे उदकं अभिनवेन्तो हत्थिपदेन व अङ्गपदेन व तीरणं करोति। तं पच्छा समन्ततो गन्त्वा पारे गच्छति। तं एं लोको किं नु खो करिस्सति कूल्हिरेन पारा गतो ती? एवमेव खो भिक्खवे धम्मो देशितो अजानासि। पारं गमनेन धम्मं नुपगम्म धम्मं।
Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22) of the Majjhima Nikāya, part of the Pali Canon.
(MN 22, सेय्यथापि... से अंतまで)
荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃 蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄 言者所以在意，得意而忘言 吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？
The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?
internalised understanding, attitudes, views etc. are more important that being able to recite things from a book.
Sure, if someone has gone through the process and achieved enlightenment like Buddha, they may be able to evolve the teachings to better fit the times.
However, my gut says that is often not the case, and much of the evolution is egoic in nature at the hands of a charismatic individual who wants to fulfil their desire or lust for power.
I'm far from an expert on Buddhism, but my own journey has taught me that ultimately we must kill our Buddhas and inner realization ultimately is a journey you must walk alone and discover for yourself. The teachers along the way may serve as wayfinding, but must ultimately be discarded.
If the evolved state of the religion seems like a big club, and isn't serving it's members to strike out on their own on their inward journey, to achieve independence and sovereignty, it should be questioned in my opinion.
I would would say it does look pretty similar. The Council of Nicea nearly 200 years earlier had established a consensus/mainstream theology. The papacy existed, although it did not claim the same level of authority. Even churches were built in styles similar to modern ones.
> Is this a bad thing? Does religion not represent our perception of the meaning of life, evolving with us as knowledge, wisdom and tolerance (or lack thereof) is passed through the generations?
In principle it is not a bad thing, but it is a matter of opinion. Christianity and Buddhism are both revealed religions so losing the truths the founder of the religion taught is a bad thing, learning more is a good thing. Which is which is a matter of opinion.
Pretty much. Sad state of affairs. I don't care if people find something positive in Buddhism and offer their own takes, but too many people call their offerings "Buddhism" for the clout. Finding a qualified teacher becomes very difficult if you are actually interested in Buddhism.
On the positive side, I don't actually agree with the first sentence. You still have to find a proper Buddhist teacher if you want to be taught the good stuff. Even if you found the instructions somehow, it either requires proper motivation (at which point you are a buddhist) or a transmission for those methods to actually work.
you can find that same complaint 1000 years ago.
People are free to take whatever they want from Buddhism and practice and teach it, even if completely unqualified. There is no dharma police to call. I was just making the point that calling teachings that reject core tenants of Buddhism by the same name is often just done to help them associate with whatever "clout" the word Buddhism has in the popular imagination.
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction is an example of how to properly go about this process without overstating what it really is.
The hardest part I remember is the nothingness of meditation and I remember his warnings not to fixate on trains of thought. I should probably reread it sometime.
The meditation room and part of the library were impacted by a fire recently - https://www.lionsroar.com/tassajara-zen-mountain-centers-zen...
Tassajara in the Santa Lucia range (south of Carmel valley) can be a harsh environment.
If it is fiction, why is it so popular among technical people like people who come to HN? Are the people on HN who are interested in Buddhism aware it is fiction/real?
These are Buddhist questions. :)
The Buddha famously told his followers not to accept his teaching merely because he said it, instead he told them to "go and see for yourself." The point is that if you want to know if buddhism is real, try out the practices and see if they make sense to you and make a difference. If the practices work, adopt them, if you find them worthless, abandon them.
You get free will and karma in Buddhism. Great 2-for-1 special.
Another way to come at it is to consider the good old Four Noble Truths. There are different ways to say them but this is how I learned them:
* Life is full of suffering
* Suffering is caused by attachment to desire
* There is a way beyond attachment
* Meditation and Buddhism is the way beyond attachment (or to Enlightenment, if you prefer)
Agree. Suffering doesn't send the right message in terms of what the word is trying to signal. The best version I've heard is likening life to a carriage ride, and the wheel is just never quite right, so it's always just a little bit uncomfortable. Nothing's just ever quite right.
As we root out our cravings and aversions, our egoic programming, fear stops running the show, and gratitude and contentment takes it's place. We're able to meet every moment as it is and appreciate the perfection.
The subtler meaning is that nothing in existence will truly and permanently satisfy you, because that is the nature of the mind. Many people obviously don't realize this as they run around chasing their first million, billion or trillion.
In general, there are three commonly accepted methods in Buddhist epistemology to know if something is true: perception, inference, and testimony. For the specific case of rebirth, common proofs use either perception, or inference.
- Perception: You train in states of concentration and use those to gain direct knowledge of past lives. Maybe some people would find this unconvincing even if they had the experience. Certainly not something likely to be accepted as scientific as Ian Stevenson's research has shown, even if the case presented was iron-clad.
- Inference: This uses Buddhist logic and an understanding of dependent origination. This specific argument comes from Dharmakīrti.
- Every moment of consciousness must have a substantial cause.
- Physical matter can serve as a cooperative condition for consciousness, but it cannot be consciousness's substantial cause, because matter and mind are fundamentally different in nature. Matter is extended, non-luminous, non-aware and consciousness is luminous and aware. If you are a scientific materialist, you will not accept this, but it must be noted that there is no scientific evidence of any kind for dead matter gaining awareness.
- Therefore, each moment of consciousness must arise from a preceding moment of consciousness of similar type.
- Then you trace this chain to the first moment of your present life. The chain must have been preceded by a moment of consciousness of similar type. The same logic applies to the last moment of your present life.
- Therefore, consciousness must be a stream that transcends physical birth and death.
Again, I am aware many people won't find this convincing, but to say that Buddhism does not attempt to prove rebirth and karma is not true.
From the sample size of people who responded, I would say I am wrong. A good amount of HNers believe it literally as something beyond science.
Because it sounds cool and intellectual.
This is the same reason crypto-buddhist "philosophies" became popular in the Hindu-sphere post the decline of Ancient Vedic religion, which had no concept of rebirth and rather focused on Rta (cosmic / natural order), vrata (duty), kratu (will) etc...
Looking enlightened is more important than actually being enlightened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_Therav%C...
some may be more difficult to comprehend, but it's all there
Here is what I wrestled with for years, and I think it’s worth sharing because I suspect some of you have wrestled with it too.
Every Buddhist tradition agrees that all living beings possess Buddha nature. The Lotus Sutra’s parable of the Jewel in the Robe says it plainly: you already have a priceless jewel sewn into your clothing. You always have. You just don’t know it’s there. Enlightenment isn’t something you earn or achieve. It’s something you already are.
So if that’s true — if the jewel is already there — why is it so hard to find? And this is where I kept getting stuck. Because the tool we use to look for the jewel is the same tool that hides it from us. Our consciousness. Our thinking, analyzing, questioning mind. The very thing that makes us human is also the thing that stands between us and what every tradition says is our birthright. Each school of Buddhism is, in its own way, a set of gymnastics designed to get the mind out of its own way. Zen tries to crash it with paradox. Tibetan practice tries to transmute its energy. Pure Land tries to exhaust it into surrender. And each one works, for some people, some of the time. But the fundamental problem remains: you cannot use the mind to escape the mind.
This is the contradiction I brought with me to Nichiren Buddhism. And to be honest, I found the same contradiction here, stated more plainly. We say that a single sincere recitation of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo contains the entirety of Buddhahood within it. And I believe that. But we also say: don’t stop chanting. Keep going. Practice daily. Because your delusions will reassert themselves by tomorrow morning.
So which is it? Is one moment enough, or isn’t it?
The contradiction dissolves when you stop thinking of practice as a means to an end and start seeing it as living itself. Each breath you take is a complete act. No single breath is insufficient. But you keep breathing — not because the last breath failed, but because you’re alive and that’s what living things do. Each moment of chanting or meditating, each act of compassion, each time you turn toward someone else’s suffering instead of away from it — that’s not a step on the path to enlightenment. It is enlightenment, expressed through action.
Kierkegaard wrote that life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards. Perhaps that’s why Pure Land buddhists seek this fundamental meaning at the time of death, that that is when enlightenment will reveal itself. But remember the jewel? It’s right there, any moment you honestly reach for it.
Thank you again for this fantastic perspective on the trajectory of this universal search for truth!
The concept of "religion" as it is meant in the modern context is only a few centuries old, as is the idea of "Buddhism", but to the extent that we can think of the teachings of the Buddha as a religion, it's probably most helpful to think of Mahāyāna and Theravāda as different "religions." I frankly think that the Vajrayāna subset of Mahāyāna probably is best thought of as a different "religion" as well, but it's not my area and I wouldn't suggest anyone take my thoughts on that topic with any great heft.
My own journey has led me to believe that it is the ego that stands in the way of us realizing our true nature. I believe we are born into a state of non-duality, and over time our lived experience is harnessed by the ego to create the separate false self.
To use your jewel example, our perception is distorted by the egoic lens through which we view the world, hiding the jewel within all of us. And, in my experience, this process is confusing as fuck because it is one of subtraction rather than addition, only by directly questioning our beliefs can we begin to shed them. As we shed them, the jewel will begin to shine through.
Is one moment enough? I mean, in theory, if someone could update their priors to understand that the only truth is that I am consciousness and all other beliefs are ultimately bullshit we perceive as real, then sure, done, enlightenment obtained. But, the ego has spent decades for most of us building up walls of false belief around the jewel, so, they likely need to be slowly and sometimes excruciatingly dismantled.
I also think it bears mentioning that the ego evolved in times when safety and food/shelter/physiological needs in general were not pretty much guaranteed as is today(Yes, I recognize this is not globally true at the individual level, but generally speaking, we're better off than we were at any point in history on this front.) The environment ego was borne out of was also stable over a human lifespan. Although it's been accelerating for I dunno, 10000 years or so, these statements were likely still true in the times of Buddha for the most part, so we are likely playing a slightly different game now in some senses.
The ego has jumped the shark in modernity. I'd peg it as speeding up noticeably since the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment Era, getting really fucking weird post WW2, and being absolutely fucking insane since the dot com era, and yet, still accelerating noticeably. We now live in an exponential age of abundance and the ego is simply not build for it in my opinion. John Vervaeke calls it the meaning crisis, I think it's simply the manifestation of many humans reaching their abstraction limit. Most of us would benefit from fostering awareness of the machinations of ego so we are not a slave to them, a slave to all the abstractions. Are the ego's stories serving you? Or are you serving the ego's stories?
And, all of this is not to villainize the ego. A life driven by fear is often a productive one. Ego brought us the vast majority of the technological advancement that provides many of us with a comfortable life. That allows us to discuss the universal search for truth with someone on the other side of the world, through a screen. And, set aside whether all this technology and advancement is good or bad. If there was no ego, if everyone was enlightened, life would probably be a hell of a lot more boring. Ego gets full credit for making Humanity the greatest show on earth.
My take at present: All our beliefs are nonsense that has been ingrained in us through our lived experience. Our perception of suffering is these beliefs creating craving or aversion, which results in discontent with whatever happens because we want it to be otherwise. The process of dismantling our belief structure is a road to the reduction of suffering and an acceptance of what is. Ultimately, this road leads to understanding that no-self is true self as you begin to appreciate that what you thought of as yourself is just the amalgamation of a bunch of false beliefs you've picked up over the course of your life. I think enlightenment is simply a state of contentment and equanimity with what is, that is achieved by removing all beliefs.
So yeah, Buddhism came out of Hindu tradition, and Hindu tradition brought teachings from Buddhists back into their spiritual paths as well (like Hatha yoga in the Amrtasiddhi [1] and even Patanjali's yoga sutras contain a good amount of early Buddhism in it [2]). It's almost as if the teachings on interdependence are correct!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritasiddhi
[2] https://www.academia.edu/25517181/Some_Problematic_Yoga_Sutr...