"Buddha Nature"? Know Thyself!

Laura Murphy, Jordan Kramer (Against the Stream); Seven (Wisdom Quarterly)
What is our true nature or Siddhartha's for that matter? (Indiaaa.../Flickr.com).

Ever try to define your "true" nature? Can it differ in different contexts? If success is more lasting when it follows our natures, why do so many desert their talents?

I am? I am that I am? I'm basically good, naturally bad? These are the questions I ask.

Pema Chodron (Tibetan nun) on "Basic Goodness"

Then there is the issue of identity, I am...what? What is there to identify with? These passing mental states, this body, these feelings?

Descartes famously misspoke, "I think therefore I am." Surely, based on the evidence, all that could really be said as a foundational truth was "There's thinking so there's thinking."

Something's thinking, but it does not follow that it is some permanent, perfect, unchanging self. "Self" changes. It changes at every moment. It can identify with anything. What is it? The Buddha defined it as "materiality and mentality" or "form (body), feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness."

These are the Five Aggregates of Clinging. They cling to one another, and illusion clings to them. They are empty and impersonal in an ultimate sense.

In a conventional sense, here "I am" questioning what is "I," who is "self," what have I been, what will I be? The questions of fools who go on revolving in rebirth and suffering. Renewed becoming depends on this confusion. Rather than being mindful and fearlessly looking at the truth AND THEREBY BEING LIBERATED, we assume the answer and ponder in a hopeless circle.

Siddhartha sat in spite of all the inimical forces that it upset (WTPille/Flickr.com).

To be fully oneself, to embody one's potential, to utilize the talents brought over from countless past lives (or given as "gifts" at birth for no reason), to cultivate skills, to move beyond personal suffering and self-esteem issues... are a few angles to investigate.

To fathom the enigma of my "true" nature -- as Christian evil and fallen, or as essentially good with the potential to be a buddha -- is something any ancient Greek could agree on: KNOW THYSELF.

Watchers of Gilligan's Island already know, "To thine own self be true." That is important. But is that enough. What is the self "I am" being true to?

(ambergristoday.com)

The historical Buddha warned: Thinking won't get you there. If it did, he would have advocated philosophy and debating, voting for truthiness and creating consensus realities. There is a Truth beyond all that. And it is accessible. And the Buddha pointed the way. The pointer is not the way anymore than the reflection of the Moon is the Moon.

We talk about Truth. But Buddhism is a practice, not a dogma, not something to believe. "Come and see. Investigate," the Buddha bid others. You need not take anyone's word for it. "Relying on no one, depending on no other's truth, you will see." The Truth shall set us free.

Of course in our culture, this was hijacked. That famous Bible character became that Truth, that way, that beacon of light. Was that copied from the Buddha's title as the "Light of Asia"? The Buddha did not seek glory. The Truth cannot be hidden forever, whoever found it, rediscovered it, or pointed to it.

If only Western mystics had a way, a step by step way.

All thinking, none knowing
All speaking, none showing
All searching, none finding
Traveling roads that go on winding.
Seven (half remembered words scrawled on a philosophy class desk)

JORDAN: The Buddha never said the words, "Buddha Nature." Where did he say we are naturally or basically good? Before one again starts a sentence "I am...," it might be better to rephrase it: "For right now, it is this way..."

The mind is confused. The mind confuses. The mind, to keep itself a going concern, delights in illusion. It deceives itself. It drags us to suffering. And all the while that seems the thing it dreads. But there it is, standing in the way of Truth and freedom.

SEVEN: You know that saying, "If someone's in your way, and you kick him/her as hard as you can, your butt is going to hurt"? I identify with mind, which is changing at every moment, and stand in my own way. Maybe if I just was rather than imagining "I am this, I am that, I was this, I will be that," maybe if I followed the Buddha's advice and pondered four useful things, I could be free of all suffering.

LAURA: The solutions I come to are based on a thinking mind, which confuses me time and time again. Probably the best way to know is to go inward and experience the luminosity from within -- shining without, and actually see it and feel it, rather than thinking about it. I must pay close attention to this luminous expression, how it feels in my body, in all of my interactions with others, my actions and habits in day to day life. I think that's when -- well, there I go again!

I start to get a deeper understanding beyond mental discernment. It takes repetition -- catching the mind/myself/the Thinker is being mindful -- before this inner knowing starts to make sense, before it can be trusted, before I know that my very being is rooted in life and everyone and everything just as a tree is far larger when the roots are revealed.

It is so easy to become distracted, to forget, to lose direction, to fall off the wagon or get carried away. But I am learning to true my wheel, which can be as simple as coming back to my breath. That is the first and maybe only step in reevaluating my true nature.

I may be uprooted at times, which happens even to the healthiest of trees, so one aspect of my nature is impermanence. In the breath my true nature is revealed, and in feeling the unsatisfactory nature, in mind the impersonal nature... and in nirvana the boundless liberation free of all impermanence, suffering, and delusion.

(Dan Vetree/GR8quotes)

"I think therefore I am"? Descartes was wrong

Wisdom Quarterly
(Leashcolon26/Flickr)

By the way, Rene Descartes was wrong. He is a famous philosopher in the Western tradition. He is most famous for deducing the maxim, "I think therefore I am."

He was wondering and reasoning and questioning. What is true? Do I exist? How can I know? What can I be sure of? As he thought and pondered, he realized that the only thing he could be sure of what that he was thinking.

If I am thinking then I am. I think therefore I am (exist). But it is not true. Based on the evidence, he should only have concluded: "I think therefore there's thinking."

In a sense thoughts think themselves. It is actually more complicated than that: They are dependently-originated. What's that? Dependent Origination is a teaching so subtle that the Buddha declared that it was on account of not seeing, not penetrating this teaching that both he and we had wandered on in this round of suffering.

Wisdom and insight are better than knowledge and thinking.

The "I" he posited was assumed. There was identification with the thinking. And viewing it as personal, he was logically trapped: A self exists. And it has all of these problems, thinking being one of them.

Had he meditated under a tree like Newton or Siddhartha, Descartes might have realized: This is a mess. Thinking is no escape. It leads to logical dead ends and fundamental assumptions. What if I were to let go of thinking and just being?

By not identifying, I might be freed because I have heard said by many, "The Truth shall set us free." It does. Thinking is not the way to enlightenment and liberation. Stillness, samadhi, and insight are.

Meditation is letting go, allowing stillness, then systematically
investigating reality with the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (DN 22).

We Are All One... or are we? (video)

What does it mean to say "We are all one"? A very spiritual girl I knew scoffed at the notion. Even after becoming an expert Buddhist meditator, she did not speak of nonduality, Oneness, or unity. She could see through the delusion of separation, yet she would not make the claim of all being one. She asked, "Do you think we're all one? What does that even mean?"

"Of course," I answered emphatically. "It's not even that hard to understand." One needn't be St. Francis or Thich Nhat Hanh (or "Nitch Natch Hans Christian Anderson" as we would refer to him, never being able to get our Vietnamese or Thai lessons to stick) to understand the unity (nonduality) concept.

It was not by direct mystical experience that I understood it. But there's almost no one I know who hasn't had intimations of sensing how we are all interconnected.

Official trailer for Tom Shadyac's film, "I AM" now in theaters: iamthedoc.com

• On a subatomic level, we're all constantly exchanging ions (and not just the living beings, but rocks, streams, blades of grass...unseen emanations of energy).
• On a social level, we're all going through the same thing -- even as we experience it differently according to our attention, intention, and habitual reaction patterns).
• On a physiological level, we are all more or less the same: subject to the same follies, mortal, morbid (when we get a boo boo, we instinctively exclaim ouch).
• On a psychological level, we have the same neurotic tendencies and stumble into the same thought traps.
• On an emotional level, we can empathize with one another (by force of our mirror neurons being triggered before we're even consciously aware of it).
• On a biological level, we're all built up out of DNA, cellular material, the Four Great Elements, subatomic particles, properties, name-and-form (nama-rupa)
• On a spiritual level, we all have the same potential (enlightenment, buddhahood, basic goodness, Buddha Nature, humanity, self-actualization, altruism)

It might be better to ask, In what way are we actually different? Take a set of building blocks and build something. Everything tangible is the same. Everything intangible (the arrangement of all the tangible things) is within the potential of others.

When we're in love, we love connecting, merging, losing our burdensome ego (our sense of separateness or isolation). But even when we hate someone or something, we are bonding with it by our attention/intention, and so we run into it again and again. How great, then, to cleanse the heart of bias and partiality and accept everything with the same equanimity and peace of mind that still allows us to act and respond appropriately without getting snared and entangled.

Our main separation -- and our main problem -- is the delusion that we are apart, independent actors, isolated, alone, abandoned, forgotten, or left behind. We are not.

We are united (whether we like it or not at any given moment), we are together, we are in the same boat (Earth as our own Easter Island, and we all know what happened there -- and if not, we can all get on the same Network and find out), we are inter-dependent, we are All One in this sense and probably many others.

And it is possible to glimpse in a mystical/shamanic/DMT (the spirit molecule)-fueled state that this is literally true at all times and in all situations even though we now look back and feel we were alone a lot of the time. We were never alone. She agreed.

It's easy to forget this growing up in our competitive society watching "Survivor" and wondering why Donald Trump seems to get off firing people and feeding a scarcity mentality. But even Christians have an easy reference to this universal truth in theistic terms: There's that poster in the bathrooms of footprints in the sand; when we felt most alone and look back to prove it, we were actually being carried.