I'm about to get on a plane to see my partner. We are about as far apart as it is possible to be: He lives in London, and I'm in Sydney. We haven't seen each other in four months. Well, OK, we've seen each other virtually every day for four months. On Skype, of course.
A couple of weeks ago, I expressed a mostly sincere regret that I couldn't be there to help him cope with a tsunami of work. He said yes, that would be great (and a few other suggestions), but, he continued, the interesting thing about these separations is that we have to experience our relationship as intrinsic rather than instrumental. This is not love "because." Half the year, this is not love because of sex, entertainment or concrete contributions that ease (or add to) life's daily challenges. We live with wishful thinking, and talk about everything from God to malfunctioning plumbing to neurotic co-workers.
Then he compared the issue of intrinsic versus instrumental relationship to our ongoing discussion about immanence and transcendence, and this insight triggered one of his amazing flights of associative rationality. I tend to just sit back and enjoy the fireworks for a while before jumping right into the middle of them. To summarize a long and heated debate, he sees himself as a "theist" -- a non-atheist -- but this doesn't translate as belief in God in the conventional sense. I see myself as a Buddhist, but this doesn't translate as a belief in no-God. He's seeking to find rational means of reconciling the insights of scientific inquiry with an intuition of what he calls "Intent," which is transcendent origin and the point, in all senses, of return. I'm arguing for the immanence of ultimate reality not separate from the conditional. As the Heart SÅ«tra says, "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form." Or, "the world is no different from nirvÄṇa," (T. 1509, 25: 198a6) as discussed in the Dazhi du lun, the Chinese translation of the MahÄprajñÄpÄramitÄÅ›Ästra.
He argues ferociously for a lot of things (teleology, pure origins, transcendence) that I've been trained to view as suspiciously as a cat confronted with a carry-case. But there's a whiff of catnip about it, I admit. I argue for a lot of things that he, as a committed rationalist, feels compelled to pounce on and tear to shreds. He argues for synthesis and bridge-building. I point out that all forms of synthesis include an implicit dominant paradigm, and the point of bridges is not to meet in the middle but to end up on one side or the other. He argues that the point is to have a way to go back and forth.
To interact, we rely on the thinnest of bridges: the Internet. To be together, we incur the karma of the carbon footprint, what climate sociologist George Monbiot ("Heat") calls "love miles."
We are separate, but we are also that emergent non-thing, "relationship," that interdependently shapes who we are. Of course, I thrill to hear that our relationship is intrinsically meaningful, distance notwithstanding. Yet hi-tech is intrinsically not hi-touch. We know we're fooling ourselves if we imagine this virtual dance is immune to earth-bound laws of cause and effect. I once heard the Dalai Lama tackle a question about Internet ethics, and he said yes, even if the three poisons (attachment, aversion and ignorance) are virtual, they still have effect.
Our virtual attachments carry momentum as surely as our physical ones, because intention (for Buddhists) is the key threshold of agency that makes something into a karmically charged action. This is not "The Secret," it's right there in the open. Yes, our thoughts and intentions are connected with the forms that emerge. But the important point is not that if you have the right thoughts you get everything you want. The point is that every intention is connected to every other. Rickie Lee Jones sings in "Gravity," "I try to imagine another planet, another sun, where I don't look like me and everything I do matters."
Well, this is that planet. I'm getting on this plane and burning up these love miles. I'd like to say that I'm thinking about all the ways I can offset them. But mostly, I'm thinking ... well, never mind. Next stop, London.
Surviving a Long-Distance Relationship
Long-distance relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More young couples try long-distance relationships - USATODAY.com
Discovery Health "Making Your Long-distance Relationship Work"
Back to this loka -- I was wondering, is there more than one person posting as HuffPostThinker? The "voice" is consistent, but in this comment the poster seems to refer to his/her earlier post as if it were unfamiliar: "(b) “emptiness†refers to contained vacuum (apparently inquired about previouslyÂ)" (First, "emptiness" does not refer to contained vacuum.) But "vacuum" was something HuffPostThinker inquired about previously, and then uses the term "apparently" to refer to the earlier question?
In any case, these are all great questions from this singular or multiple poster. Unfortunately I don't have time to address each one, but I recommend a book by Tao Jiang, Contexts and Dialogue. He does a great job of comparing basic Buddhist approaches to mind, self, and emptiness issues, and then comparing them to Western perspectives. Also, of course, I would recommend meditation practice if that's at all interesting to you.
As for Jared -- I know you mean well, but you might be the first Buddhist fundamentalist I've ever encountered! I basically concur with your grasp of things and non-things, but for heaven's sake loosen up a bit . . . you appear to be hitting yourself over the head with your "raft" (expedient means). It looks painful.
You are very fortunate to be receiving excellent training from a qualified teacher in one of the most extensive and complete of the Buddhist schools.
And, I also agree with you that there are many ‘scholastically strong’ teachers out there who are un-realized in that which they teach.
However, I will also point out that even if you add together *all* of the realizations alluded to in the 30,000 volume Buddhist canon - they only total up to a lucid, unobstructed, non-attached, freely-functioning essence of mind…
…that might think about *anything* in the context of its circumstances…like the nature of reality and the long-distance relationship?…attachment, physical and virtual?…transcendence or immanence?…and skype and plane flights.
All from a parasol-shaded lounger on the peaceful terrace of the Dhamma - with a clear view of those below being tossed about in the river of Samsara - while typing an article and some comments on a laptop.
It could happen…
How scary it is to lose inherent happiness! ^_^
I hesitate to point these things out because I don't know what your actual background is.. I'm assuming that you are a practicing Buddhist, but you could be a purely a respectful scholar. Whichever the case, what you are communicating here only vaguely represents any school of Buddhism I can think of. It's sort of like Zen or Chan but with no legs, arms, and guts.
The danger is, you will convince some beginner students that what you are talking about is Buddhist thought and practice. If you have some deeper experience, some profound training, some mindful awareness of your activities, etc.. Why not relate those in a way which can be useful to others? Simply relating your own opinions and experiences based upon self-other and emotional delusion does not provide assistance to anyone.
1. I'm currently in a long-distance relationship with someone living in Hong Kong, China.
2. Fully Alive. (Experiencing what is happening, but not what is NOT happening).
3. Nothing Extra. (No attachment, no aversion, no indifference, no expectation, no desire, no needs, no future events, no past events, no completely fantasized impossible existence).
upright and in-dependent
can share any experience
as directly transcendent
when it comes to love and war
it's all practice
seeking right action
with no actor or actress
but love is superior
a beautiful thing
worthy of sharing
between hearts that sing
All love and blessings to you and your partner - have a great time in London!
Regarding God, I consider God to be unfathomably fantastic. I tend to leave much of the nuts and bolts of reality to Him but human perspective regarding the human experience appears to be an intriguing topic.
I welcome your thoughts.
The ontological impossibility of inherent existence and independence rules out such a creator being, such humans, such worlds, and such objects from ever, anywhere, and under any circumstance occurring. It surprises me that someone who has written two books on Zen still clings to the idea of an ultimate creator. This is further evidence that the Dharma has not touched down in America.
There is nothing transcendent about Buddhism. If you posit something spiritual, transcendent, a deep reality, a oneness, something magical, occult, causeless, the ground of all being, the essence from which all others arise, the inherent nothingness, the nothingness, the inherent void, the illusion of conventional reality, the truth of ultimate reality, etc. Then, you have not realized the correct meaning of Dharma, even conceptually. If you have not realized it conceptually, there is no possibility - none - that you will be able to hold that correct image of reality in your mind with single-pointed concentration and to attain the results of Buddhism.
I welcome your thoughts.
It would benefit greatly from reading a few key texts related to Buddhism. These are resources which will not leave your technical mind wanting for more information:
"Calming the Mind"
"Understanding the Mind"
Pabongka Rinpoche's: "Liberation in Our Hands Vol 1-3"
Yangtsi Rinpoche's: "Practicing the Path"
"Zen in the Art of Archery"
Lama Tsongkhapa's: "Lamrim Chenmo Vol 1-3"
Nagarjuna: "Mulamadhyamikakika" commentary by J. Garfield
Lama Tsongkhapa's: "Ocean of Reasoning"
I would probably read them in that order.
I think what is most helpful to be aware of delusion not as "what might be considered delusion," but as "what might block fuller awareness." After all, one can be pretty delusional just walking down the street -- automatically screening out most of sensory experience, projecting wildly, having a furious disagreement with someone in your head. For me, the challenge of the razor's edge is to try to be as open as I can stand to awareness, whether this appears as ultimate or conditional, really annoying or delightful.
My partner is always brandishing "Occam's razor" at me -- i.e. the explanation that depends on the least assumptions should be the default. But that's if you want to explain things (which admittedly is sometimes useful). I would say that direct experience and philosophical explanation come together in the succinct observation you made: "You ARE it."