|
A Buddhism defined by national borders is not Buddhism at all. By David Brazier Excerpted without permission from "The New Buddhism" by David Brazier without permission of St. Martin's Press, LLC. White or Western Buddhism is a contradiction in terms. If Buddhism means the life of enlightenment, then there cannot be a specifically English or American Buddhism and we should not be looking to create one any more than our spiritual ancestors should have wanted to create a Chinese or Thai Buddhism, specifically. Buddhism does not belong to countries and should not become caught up in national pride. We need to understand that when you look through Buddha eyes, England and America do not exist. They are just conventional designations that have been blown up into a justification for some of the worst barbarities in history and currently stand as ramparts in defence of the world racist system. Do not be proud to be British, or American, or French, or any other nationality. As soon as you begin to feel any such sentiment coming over you, you should smell the blood of all those who have died for such folly and hear the cries of the excluded. Buddhism, therefore, should be profoundly non-nationalist. People are conditioned to think that nationhood is inevitable and even noble something to die for even and certainly something from which to exclude nonnationals. That, however, is definitely not Buddhism. There have, in consequence, been repeated crises in history over whether or not the Buddhist sangha would recognize or acknowledge the supremacy of the state. One different occasions, this issue has gone different ways in specific cases, but the Buddhist position in principle is that the sangha does not recognise the state. This principle has been compromised in many real-life situations. The subordination of Buddhist principles to nationalist ones, however, is generally extremely deleterious to the former. The revolutionary nature of the Buddhist renunciation becomes sharply apparent in such controversies. Of course, much of the time this is an issue that never comes to a head. The sangha is no military threat to the state and its presence is often welcomed by the civil power because it brings peace, stability and social service of all kinds to an area. Buddhism does not seek to overthrow the civil power. It aims to make it redundant. In Japan, it was not possible for the sangha to maintain its independence and a series of military governments regulated and subordinated the practice of religion to national requirements. In Japan, religion and state have always been closely connected. The word a religious organization is matsuri. The word for government administration is matsuri-goto. The state was a form of religious expression and religious expression was state regulated. Some of the schools of Buddhism that arose in Japan more than accommodated to this environment by advancing teachings with a strongly nationalistic flamour. It is these forms of Buddhism that have, in large measure, found their way to North America. Buddhism that places religion in a subordinate position to the state is actually being practiced in a number of places, but this is not the original variety and should not be part of the New Buddhism either. Awakening to the Present Q. What is the Buddhist perspective on an afterlife? A: Different schools and traditions offer slightly different answers. For example, some Buddhists say that the Buddha himself did not say much about the afterlife, or even about rebirth for that matter, but concentrated on teaching how this life can be lived in virtue and wisdom. A Zen teacher once told me, "The afterlife is just a dream. Be here now." When I said I had heard and read much about it from Tibetan and other sources, he laughed out loud and said, "That is all just a Himalayan nightmare!"Nonetheless, the Tibetan teachings on dreams, conscious dying, the afterlife or bardo (intermediate stage), and rebirth, are very well developed and subtle. They aim to help us awaken from illusion and realize our true nature. These teachings are found in the renowned "Tibetan Book of the Dead," an ancient scripture of the Nyingmapa tradition, recently outlined and commented upon by Sogyal Rinpoche in his best-selling "Tibetan Book of Living and Dying," which I highly recommend. The concept of an "afterlife" is not generally found in Buddhism. Lamas say that birth is not our beginning nor is death our end, that the bardo is a transitional space between death and rebirth. The afterlife more properly applies to Christian theology and its notion of a heaven and hell-- which people reach after death, depending upon how they live in this world. I used to think that my Jewish ancestors believed in heaven, but when I asked an Orthodox rabbi from Jerusalem who teaches Kabbalah about this, he responded that rather than a permanent heaven or hell, the Kabbalah views all creation as being in constant transition and process until such time when all re-unites in primordial oneness with God. Buddhists are similarly process-oriented, recognizing the nature of all conditioned phenomena as impermanent, ever-changing, and interconnected. Therefore, Buddhists do not believe in any eternal state such as heaven or hell. The bardo between one life and another, between one day and the next (through the bardo of sleep and dreaming), or between daily reality and spiritual reality through the bardo of meditation are viewed as equally real and unreal. Each stage is simply part of our spiritual journey and can be utilized--either intelligently or unskillfully--as grist for the mill of awakening and enlightenment. Thus, Buddhism stresses the importance of mindful, ethical, and compassionate living in the Holy Now, each and every moment. Living in this manner helps us awaken from the dream-like nature of everyday existence, come into lucidity while dreaming at night, and awaken through conscious dying and even after death. If in our lives we become awakened, liberated, and free then there is no afterlife to be concerned about.
|