interview

Here's an interview of sorts I did via PM with a member at dhammawheel.com:

Laurens: I thought I would start by asking you about what your personal take on Buddhism is, which teachers you follow and the kind of practice that you undertake.

Me: Well, I think that Buddhism can be seem from many different angles, but I prefer to see it as a type of 'transcendent psychology.' I think that a critical analysis of the earliest texts reveals a much more pragmatic and specialized method of mental training than many people (traditional Buddhists and Western converts alike) realize—one that seeks to diminish and even eliminate suffering by radically changing the way the mind relates to experience.

As for myself, I've had many teachers, and almost all of them are Thai Theravada. My first teacher was Ajahn Chuen from the Midwest Buddhist Meditation Center in Warren, MI. Sadly, he passed away a few years ago. I also visited Wat Dhammasala frequently when I lived in Michigan, and practiced with Ajahn Khemasanto. After I moved to California, I started going to Wat Buddhanusorn and practiced with Ajahn Prasert, as well as with Ayya Tathaaloka, who was also a student of his at the time. My most recent teacher is Ven. Fa Thai, a Thai monk who is now in charge of a Taiwanese Mahayana temple called Miao Fa Chan Temple in Portland, Oregon, although I haven't been there in some time. In addition, I gain a great deal of inspiration and practical insights from Thai Forest teachers such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who makes his way up to Portland about once a year.

My meditation practice has mainly centred around mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati), although for the past few years I've been doing more studying than anything.

L: Would you say that the essence of Buddhism stands clear consistently in the scriptures that you study? Some religion's important messages are completely lost when in comes to interpretation of scripture (look at the number of different sects of Christianity) - why is Buddhism different?

I noticed that there seems to be a very mild evolution of the teachings in different cultures, but it struck me how the essentials of Buddhism remained pretty consistent throughout. Something that you couldn't say about all religions.

Me: Yes, I'd say that the essence of what the Buddha is recorded as saying in the Pali Canon is fairly consistent throughout. I think this is mainly due to the fact that the Buddha was a superbly gifted teacher, and that, despite evidence of later additions and modifications, much of what he taught seems to have been faithfully passed down by his disciples.

If you analyze other religious texts, such as the Bible or the Mahabharata, for example, there's evidence of layers of authorship (even in places where there is said to be only one author), and you can literally trace the evolution of these texts via changes in style, grammar and content.

The core of Pali Canon, however, shows evidence of originating from a single source through its consistency of content. As Prof. Richard Gombrich puts it, "I find (as Buddhists have always found) that the central part of the Canon... presents such originality, intelligence, grandeur and - most relevantly - coherence, that it is hard to see it as a composite works" (Theravada Buddhism, pg. 20).

I'm not completely sure why this is, but I think the methods of preservation may have had something to do with it. At the beginning, this included memorization of suttas by large groups of monks, who would then have periodic councils where they would recite and compare various recitations in order to weed out alterations and distortions. This was later done with written texts, as well.

L: I got the feeling too that Gotama was a gifted teacher. I feel however, that in the centuries since his death mankind has built a religious organization around him. My opinion is that the Buddha was aware that this may have been the case because he instructed his followers to essentially not make idols of him [I can't find a reference for that at some point, I will add it later, I thought I'd get the question out there first]. Yet we did, and there is a lot of superstition that has developed around 'gaining merit' and bowing to giant statues creating rituals and so forth . I think this says a lot about religion, and mankind's tendency to make idols and ritualistic behaviour. I don't think the Buddha intended to gain worship, I think he intended to have the focus on his teachings only.

What, if any, do you think are the differences between 'Dhamma' (in this context meaning the essential teachings of the Buddha) and Buddhism the religion?

Local customs, deities and religious practices have certainly found their way into Buddhism wherever it's been established. As such, I think there are quite a few difference between what the Buddha taught and Buddhism as a traditional religious institution. Take the Thai tradition of amulet making and the water blessing ceremony, for example. The Buddha didn't teach anything like these, but they've made their way into Buddhism anyway, even despite the whole 'not clinging to rites and rituals' thing.

I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with having an amulet to remind you of the practice, or participating in a water blessing ceremony. Hell, I'll admit that I like to get sprinkled as much as the next person. But I also don't think that amulets can protect me from bullets or make me successful, and I know that only meditation and contemplation can cleanse my mind, not a splash of H2O in the face.

L: I have a theory that a lot of Westerners, particularly in America turn towards Buddhism as a reaction to Christianity. The reason I say particularly in America, is because in America Christianity is often associated with right-wing conservatism - which for some, holds negative connotations. I think that Buddhism provides a liberally minded, peaceful alternative to the often intolerant views of the Christian right, and therefore it wouldn't surprise me if there were some that turned to Buddhism as a kind of backlash against the faith that they were brought up in. I am by no means saying that this is the case for all Westerners, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was a factor in the spread of Buddhism to the West. Do you think that there is any weight to this notion?

It would be interesting for me to know also, if you were raised in a Christian family?

Me: I think there's some truth to that. Most of the Buddhists I know were raised in a Christian family. As for myself, I was lucky in that I raised without any kind of religious upbringing whatsoever, so I was free to explore my own spirituality without constrainment.

As a child, I began my spiritual exploration out of shear curiosity, beginning with Greek and Roman mythology. I used to love looking through the dictionary to find names of various gods and goddesses and read all about them. From there, I branched out to Egyptian, Norse and other ancient myths. I eventually got my Mom to buy me some books about mythology like Edith Hamilton's Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes and Kevin Crossley-Holland's The Norse Myths.

At some point, I became interested in Christianity for a brief period. I was under the assumption that since so many people believed in God, God must exist. I mean, why else would there be so many churches and television shows about God? But, after researching more about Christian theology, I began to have some serious doubts. I discovered alternative views, especially those of the Gnostics. Later, during the majority of my adolescence, I found myself drawn to LeVay-style Satanism until I was introduced to a witch and began practicing Paganism and Witchcraft. (Those were some interesting times.)

When I was around 24 [I'm currently 32], I discovered Buddhism after visiting a Thai Theravada temple near my house. I spent a lot of time visiting the temple and meditating, especially during some really difficult times, and I had a feeling that this path had more potential for my spiritual growth and well-being than any I'd previously undertaken (including materialistic self-indulgence). It's been a big influence on me ever since.

L: Can you tell me more about meditation? How does it relate to the teachings, and how did it help during difficult times?

Me: The way I see it, craving (tahna) is the cause of suffering (dukkha), and to end suffering its cause must be removed; the difficulty arises when it comes to how exactly this is done. My theory is that craving is a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology. It's there, latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fabrications (sankhara) by directing or at the very least encouraging the mind to feed upon sensory experiences via the five clinging-aggregates (upadana-khandha) in an unhealthy way.

The problem is that these processes of subtle movement in the mind are so subtle that they are almost impossible to discern as they are taking place. That's where I believe meditation comes in: meditation helps to calm and still the mind so that these mental events become easier and easier to observe. One, in effect, uses conditionality in order to fabricate controlled states of mental absorption (jhana) until they're able to discern the presence of craving, its movement in the mind, and the fact that even these refined and subtle states of mental absorption are ultimately stressful and unsatisfactory. This leads one to develop dispassion (viraga), and dispassion leads one to cease fabrication thus opening the doors to the deathless (amata) by ending the chain of causation (paticca-samuppada).

As for how I've experienced meditation personally, that's difficult to describe. I've experienced states of clam, and occasionally feelings of pleasure that permeated my whole body when I was meditating regularly, but those experiences are rare and, sadly, I've let my meditation practice slide for some time.

When I was going through a really difficult time, though, I really looked forward to evening chanting and meditation at the Midwest Buddhist Meditation Center. It helped keep me sane and allowed me to deal with some things that I normally wouldn't have been able to deal with. For me, it was like a shelter in a storm. I also had a hard time eating because I was so upset and my stomach would just get so tight I couldn't eat anything. After meditation, however, my stomach would usually relax and I was able to go to my favourite Thai restaurant and eat. Lucky for me I just happened to start meditating before shit hit the fan, otherwise I'm not sure what I would've done. Probably would've just drank myself stupid or something.

L: Are their any popular misconceptions about Buddhism, or Buddhist practice that you would like to address?

Me: Heh, lots, (e.g., anatta, kamma, the idea that Buddhism teaches life is suffering, etc.)

L: What are your views on the various kinds of religious extremism that we see in the world?

What advice would you give to a religious extremist if you could?

Me: I have mixed ideas about this. On the one hand, religion is, among other things, a creative expression of our search for happiness, meaning and truth in a seemingly infinite universe. Religion can be a beautiful thing that brings communities together, as well as bring individuals closer to a happiness that transcends much of the suffering and unsatisfactoriness seemingly inherent in this fragile thing we call life.

On the other hand, religion is being used to justify and even instigate violence and oppression, and that's a real problem; although, I think that when you dig a little bit deeper, it becomes apparent that there's a lot more going on than meets the eye. For one thing, it's not just the religions themselves that need to be scrutinized, but also the cultures that are influenced by these religious traditions.

I think it's fair to say that certain people and cultures are more intolerant and prone to use religious teachings to justify violence, but I'm not sure it's fair to single out a specific religion, such as Islam, for example, because, they way I see it, it's not religion that makes people dangerous so much as it's people who make religion dangerous. And the same can be said about almost anything, especially political ideologies.

As for what I would say to a religious extremist, I don't know. The problem is, how can you talk to a person about this in a rational way when they're not necessarily in a rational states of mind? I doubt anything I could say would have any affect on someone unless they were at least somewhat open to hearing what I had to say; but when you're sure you have the Truth™, you're often not listening, I mean really listening, to what other people have to say.

I've heard people express their desire to "kill religion" (e.g., Dawkins et al.), and I can understand some of their reasoning for making such statements, especially when you have people using religion to justify suicide bombing and discrimination against gays, women, etc., but I also can't help but think that doing so would come at a great cost to humanity in that we'd be losing an important part of what makes us human.