This is the first in an occasional series about my exploration of Buddhism while riding the New York subway.
Every morning on the subway I see people poring over religious texts. Seemingly oblivious to the groaning, shuffling tube-world of the subway car, these serious souls - Christian women; Orthodox Jews of both sexes; Muslims (usually women); and Holy Sisters of the Word Search - pass their daily commute in silent prayer or study. I am the only one marking up a book about Buddhism.
Buddhism's teachings have much appeal in a complicated life, but they can be a little perplexing at first, and I had initially hoped the book would provide some explicit guidance for putting its principles into practice in some way. Reading it for the first time, I kept waiting for the author to get to the - well, not to the point, because he did make the central point again and again - but to the secret, the method, the trick even - or at least, a conclusion. We expect a book, whether fiction or nonfiction, practical or fantastic, to have a logical narrative flow. If it doesn't, we think it's a bad book.
But Buddhism teaches that there is no secret trick, and, in a sense, no narrative, since there is no reality to the perceived distinction between this and that, then and now. Indeed there is no "I," no cork floating in the stream, but only stream, only thus. Shouldn't a truly Buddhist book, then, also be only stream? Buddhism counsels us to be aware when our mind is "leaning," whether it's towards something we want to have or away from something we want to avoid. If we "want" Enlightenment, if we "want" to gain something from reading a book, we've already defeated our purpose. The book, then, should not be an instrument of our "leaning" this way or that.
From the standpoint of a student of literature and child of Western culture, one of the fascinating things about Buddhism as presented in this book is its use of small words to mean big things.
Whole. Mind. See. Awake. Thus. These words refer to aspects of the same phenomenon: simply being present.
Article comments
1 - Bob A. Booey
I like your writing and your take on Buddhism, but you should lose the cutesy hippie "in a subway" part of it.
It doesn't fit well.
I think that if you're concerned with Buddishm not being "scientific" enough, you're perhaps missing the point and spirit of Buddhism. That's definitely the wrong question to ask, but you seem to realize that in what you say at the end of your piece and in what you quote.
I remember going to some lecture on Buddhism in college where a religion scholar said that he never thought that Western people could ever be truly Buddhist in letting go of their ideas of Truth and order. While I certainly don't believe in some stereotypical Occident/Orient divide since the two are both becoming so very Western (Asia, particulary, is out-tech'ing and out-rationalizing the Western mind now), I do think that post-modern, techno-rational Buddhism is a contradiction in terms. Speeding along on a subway or talking about quenching the will and the ego over fiber-optic data networks, plastic, and cables through the blue glow of the computer screen is anathema to a Buddhist mind.
Buddhism and Eastern thought are fascinating and get to the core of much of what continental philosophy since Nietzsche has tried to accomplish with much less verbiage, but I think any sort of interpretation of Buddhism is likely to get co-opted by ravenous consumers of culture and ideas to become yet more ammunition for a hedonist, quintessentially Western lifestyle of consumption, yet more intellectual capital to be "mastered" for familiarity with a world to be ordered according to its instrumental value.
That is all.
2 - Jon Sobel
Thanks for your comments!
You seem to be suggesting that Buddhism is simply imcompatible with modern technological society - and that the only way to be a Buddhist is to withdraw from that society. That's a pretty pessimistic view. Or am I reading you wrong?
3 - Bob A. Booey
Yes, if you're a Westerner. The entire history of America proves that ideology and ideas don't necessarily influence our underlying drives to consume and manage, which are very Western and anti-Buddhist.
Otherwise, you can try and be a Western capitalist Buddhist technical manager of the order of modern life, but then you're no better than all the other yuppie hippies out there who sell out all their values (or even worse, never actually hold those values at all).
Some famous literary critic (I forget whom) wrote that one of the central tropes of Western culture is turning to the East for a dose of faux mysticism and mystery every now and then in order to correct the more Apollonian cycles of Western popular culture and literature. The 60s counterculture was so bogus in part because it paid lip service to Eastern ideas and attributed mystical meaning to their infantile antics and consumption of corporate media. I have a sneaking suspicion that anyone who comes to Buddhism in America now is influenced by the remnants of 60s hippie detritus or by some vague, psychological dissatisfaction with society that is antithetical to Buddhist knowledge. Anger, ego individualism and rebellion have no place in Buddhism.
That is all.
4 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
loved this, Jon. and i actually really dug the "in a subway" nature of it all. in fact, it's probably what drew me to click on the article... which im glad i did!
5 - Jon Sobel
You're probably right about the 60s counterculture - I was born a little too late to be a part of it and experience the bogusness firsthand - but your exclusionary take on Buddhism contradicts some of the impressions I'm getting from my reading. As you say, "Anger, ego individualism and rebellion have no place in Buddhism." Why shouldn't a Westerner learn to be awake to the individualism and rebellion that are making him or her angry and confused?
6 - Bob A. Booey
Because they're expressions of desire and will, which need to be extinguished into nothingness. And because individualism is absolutely at odds with the kind of consciousness Buddhists aim to attain.
That is all.
7 - Jon Sobel
That doesn't address my question at all. Isn't being awake to them the necessary condition for extinguishing them into nothingness?
Gotta say, it's funny to be having a conversation about Buddhism with a person who goes by a screen name taken from the Howard Stern show.
8 - Bob A. Booey
Who's Howard Stern? Never heard of him, but I heard he might be big into TM.
No, you don't become awake to individualism and rebellion by engaging them or conquering them. That kind of "mastery" of your emotions is alien to Buddhist thought. You forget them all together. You're thinking in terms of Western psychology, where you "work through" your issues. That doesn't happen in Buddhism. You don't harness emotion, you let it go and adopt what DT Suzuki calls the state of "no mind."
It is because I am stupid that I am at a higher level of consciousness than you and closer to the truth of being.
That is all.
9 - Jon Sobel
I didn't say anything about engaging and conquering anything. I think you are reading more into my statements than is there. I think you are projecting onto my little essay a big general frustration or problem you have with Westerners exploring Eastern philosophies, and I am interested in what lies behind this.
I'm aware that Howard Stern is into TM. He's also into "engaging" his enemies (like the FCC and President Bush) and "conquering" all media. I'm not being criticial of you calling yourself "Bob A. Booey," just saying that it tickles me.
10 - Bob A. Booey
I don't want to turn into friggin Yoda here, but getting to what lies behind everyone's words, motives, and opinions is precisely illustrative of what I meant.
Westerners (and I include myself) can't let go of the idea that they can understand and comprehend everything for themselves and for everyone else, can't let go of capital-T Truth. If you want to talk about it in Western terms, it's not all that different than Heidegger's notion of being radically open to the disclosure of Being, an ontological clearing where being isn't defined by our Being-toward-others. In order to be able to do that, we have to give up our pre-conceived ideas about what truth and knowledge are and relinquish our desire to master technique and intellect toward an end or any end at all.
Again, I include myself as an example of the Western mind because I too psychologize almost everything. Buddhists don't cure their problems or spend much time trying to analyze their conflicts -- it's unnecessary and only confirms the desires that created them in the first place. Buddhists also don't speak of "solutions" and "answers" to problems -- they'd suggest letting go of the problem and its importance to you altogether.
Desire and mind are the root of all suffering in Buddhism.
That is all.
11 - Bob A. Booey
I agree with you that this Howard Stern fellow whom I'm unfamiliar with sounds like he'd be a very poor Buddhist indeed. He sounds angry, egotistical, and rich, which means he's only using meditation for his notions personal advancement and not for enlightenment.
That is all.
12 - Kaethe-Marie
Very nice article! I enjoyed it very much! Concerning science, I can only say that science is becoming more and more buddhist as it develops. Just think about actual developments in physics, where they now say that there is no "last particle", that everything is energy and even that space carries information! What they do with proton and electron accelerators is most amazing and at some point the scientists will all have to agree with Buddha who said "Everything is space..."!
Greetings from Germany,
Kaethe ;o)
13 - Oliver White
Hi there Jon,
As a Buddhist practicing in Australia I can give my own reflections on what it is like to be a western Buddhist.
I have been studying the suttas and practicing daily meditation for about 6 months, and attending the Buddist Society of Western Australia since I arrived in Perth at the beginning of June. The Society is served by monks from the Bodhinyana forest monastery, about 60km south of the city.
The monastery is headed by Ajahn Brahm, an Englishman who trained under the great Ajahn Chah of the thai forest tradition.
Ajahn Chah had many western diciples, and founded a second monastery near his own where westerners could practice. Ajahn Sumedho went off to found Chitthurst monastery in England, Brahm in Australia and another fellow I can't remember in New Zealand.
A recent post to the buddhist society website stated "Monk Factory Production Booming" "At this rate, there will be no lay people left to feed us!". :-)
So, while asia does have the advantage of an established monastic community (Sangha) to support and guide the lay people, a lot of westerners are stuck with books and the internet to discover the dhamma. This will not be the case for long, as the various traditions (Tibetan, Zen, Theravada) take root in the United States and other western countries.
I myself have had great success in my practice, and enjoy sharing my experiences with others on the internet. Truely the path can be followed by anyone.
14 - coolmel
great post.
Buddhism is a very complex religion. just like other major religions, it has it different flavors depending on the culture of the society that has adopted it.
http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/ndtapp.htm
to me, Buddhism is probably the most "scientific" of the major religions. scientific in the sense that: here's a method on how to replicate the experience; try it out; verify it with a group of practitioners if your experience match. that's basic science right?
but like any other religion, Buddhism has it's stages of beliefs.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15318_1.html
for more hardcore Buddhist stuff, check this out: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/writings.html#Writings