Is that all there is?

“Is that all there is? Is that all there is? If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing. Let’s break out the booze and have a ball if that’s all there is.”

These words might very well be the mantra for today. They were however, sung by American singer Peggy Lee and an award winner from her album in November 1969. When your life seems surrounded with corruption it is easy to become disillusioned. Peggy Lee’s song was written by the team of Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller and based on the existential philosophy expressed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th-century. 

More specifically the writers borrowed the idea from the 1896 Disillusionment written by Thomas Mann who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1929. Mann was a big fan of Goethe, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, all of whom, in one way or another saw life as meaningless and were considered either implicit or explicit nihilists.

Without plumbing the depths of consciousness it seems logical that life is indeed meaningless. The words of the song keep changing but the message appears to be the same. Even among mainline Buddhism that message was first resonating with what was known as “The Three marks of existence.” The Buddha was thought to have taught that all beings, conditioned by causes (saṅkhāra) are impermanent (anicca) and suffering (dukkhā) while he said not-self (anattā) characterized all dharmas meaning there is no “I” or “mine” in life.

If that was the end of the matter, Buddhism would more than likely, have lasted about twenty seconds. But fortunately that was not the end of the matter. It took some time for Mahāyana Buddhism to emerge, which told the rest of the story. In Chapter 3 (On Grief) of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra the Buddha taught, about what he called “four perversions.” 

He said that the true Self signified the Buddha, the eternal signified the Dharmakaya (the Mind of truth), Bliss signified the lack of dukkhā and Nirvana/the Pure signified the Dharma. He went on to say that to cultivate impermanence, suffering, and non-Self has no real value/meaning. “Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas. Having these perverse ideas, their (the lost) minds and vision are distorted.”

When life seems to be characterized by violence, political shark-man-ship, power through money, injustice, a growing wave of corruption, despair, apathy, and hopelessness, it’s easy to wonder, “Is this all there is?” And while we may not yet be able to find our true Selves (which is Sunyata), we don’t need to see life through the lens of a victim. A man who waits for enlightenment before being a balm to others is like waiting for the ocean to warm before taking a bath. 

While facing such adversity in the present moment, it may require strength, endurance, and keeping a level head. But of equal importance is the clear understanding that the only way to have better “nows” for tomorrows is by making those betters today. A single match can either ignite a blazing inferno of hatred or light a lamp of love that shines brightness into the darkness. Whatever we do in the never-ending “now” will make our world of tomorrow. 

We don’t need to be a Malālah Yūsafzay or an Edward Snowden to make a difference. A single act of kindness in whatever sphere we live turns adversity into joy. A single drop of rain waters 10,000 pines.

Two Realms—One Reality

A prominent scientist and a girl on the edge of becoming a woman seem to have little in common. I know them both intimately and thus see the common ground even though they may not. 

Both are highly intelligent, both creative, both kind, and a pleasure to be with. One is a senior citizen, the other still a teen. Their worlds and concerns are years apart, yet they seek the same thing: Rules and guidance systems to plot a future path. Their chosen paths are very different, but their approach is the same. 

In our phenomenal world, it’s an expedient matter to measure conduct against adopted standards. It keeps us on track and out of the weeds, at least most of the time. Conditional society couldn’t function very well without agreed-to standards that define acceptable behavior and help us chart the road ahead. The problem is that such standards only work when everyone embraces the same standards, but standards that suit one person don’t suit another, which is why we have conflict—No universal agreement. 

One of the central teachings of Buddhism is “Dependent Origination.” The teaching is not difficult to understand, but it seems difficult to fully embrace. The premise is this: All things exist in balance with the opposite. For example, “down” requires “up;” light requires darkness; phenomena require noumena (infinite other examples). These opposites are dependent and arise and cease together. There would be no such thing as a down without an up, which is why the teaching is called what it is—things depending on opposites to originate and cease together. 

Simple to grasp but not so simple when it comes to adopting needed standards. And why is that? Because a standard used to measure light wouldn’t work so well when there isn’t any light. And this observation becomes even more critical when it comes to the edge separating opposites, which is to say, “How do you establish rules and standards on the edge dividing the opposites?” Where neither is there, yet both are there. 

This sounds like an impractical consideration but stay with me. My scientist friend is a brilliant physicist pushing the limits beyond normally acceptable boundaries (into the metaphysical realm). The young lady is likewise exploring the limits beyond normally acceptable boundaries of ethics. She is searching for some spiritual rules and guidance. Both go into the same realm and try to use proven yardsticks from the phenomenal realm applied in the noumenal realm without realizing that the rules must change when you cross that boundary line. What we become accustomed to—perceptible objectivity, becomes worthless when operating in an imperceptible realm. It is like trying to find a new set of glasses which will allow you to see air. 

We commonly make two errors in conducting our phenomenal affairs, and these two haven’t changed since the time of The Buddha. The errors are that we perceive objects as either fixed and lasting or fluid and decaying. In one sense, we conclude with permanence and in the other nihilism. This conundrum is exactly the same as what confronted people in The Buddha’s time, and what he realized upon his enlightenment is that both are true, and neither is true (as separate matters). 

His enlightened resolution came to be known as The Middle Way. But how does that make sense? How can something (anything) be both true and not true at the same time? For that to work, it is necessary to acknowledge this dilemma, which my two friends are wrestling with—The opposites of phenomena and noumena and being willing to stand with one foot in each of those two camps. The Sutra of Complete Enlightenment (Address by the Bodhisattva of Pure Wisdom) said 

“...the intrinsic nature of Complete Enlightenment is devoid of distinct natures, yet all different natures are endowed with this nature, which can accord and give rise to various natures.” 

Elsewhere, it says that enlightenment is not something that comes and goes; it is ever-present. This, too, seems like an irrational statement. It is a perfectly logical question to ask, “If enlightenment is ever-present, then how is it I don’t experience it?” Perhaps the answer to that question is that we are trying to see air with a new set of glasses. Air can’t be seen with any glasses, and “Complete Enlightenment is devoid of distinct natures...” If enlightenment has no defining nature, then it doesn’t matter how sharp our vision—It can’t be seen. 

Yet the Sutra goes on to say that “all different natures are endowed with this nature, which can accord and give rise to various natures.” So what is the pearl of wisdom here? Perhaps the pearl is to stop expecting the impossible and accept that the task is not to invent another set of tools but rather live by the Spirit’s constant infusion. Buddhists might choose to call Spirit “Buddha-Nature.” Christians might choose to call it “The Holy Spirit,” but a name is just a handle. Some people prefer one handle, others prefer another handle, but noumenal truth has no handle or nature. 

We are not comfortable in “flying blind,” but isn’t that the definition of expedient means—Doing what is needed, one moment at a time, as phenomenal life flows and changes? How useful is it to use fixed standards when all of life is shifting and changing? The rules that worked yesterday are yesterday’s rules, and tomorrow’s rules will only work when unknown conditions arise. Circumstances change, and when they do, we need to measure the moment and act appropriately. This flexible way requires only one leap of faith—That enlightenment is a constant reality, and it has no nature.

The First Step

The Eight-fold Path is a road map for traveling from suffering to awakening. From a certain perspective, it is about traveling to Nirvana. But from another perspective, it is not a journey since there is nowhere to go from and nowhere to go to. This sounds like double-speak, but it is not. The keyword in these statements is perspective.

Suppose we are at a destination but don’t know. For whatever reason, we are confused. Maybe it is a case that we awaken from a dream into a fog bank so thick that it is impossible to see the nose on our face. In the dream, we imagined that we were at some other place, and when we awaken, we retain this dream. In such a state, we travel out of one dream into another. There seemed like a far-distant destination from this deluded perspective, but when the fog lifts and a new perspective emerges, we realize we have never left.

This is a non-journey or a journey depending on the perspective, either with or without the delusion of dreams and fog. It is important to know our beginning, as well as our destination. In the vast majority of cases, suffering results from being lost in the fog of delusions without realizing that we are already home. We lust for what we have already, but in ignorance, we are like people who die of thirst while in the vast sea of bliss. It is worth noting that to know you’re crazy, you must be sane. And to think you are sane, you must be crazy since you can neither think your way into sanity nor know you are crazy when you are.  “A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.”  

We imagine ourselves in poverty only because we are not aware of our source. In such an imaginary state, we have no ability to harness abundance. Abundance, continuously available through the dharmakāya, can only be accessed through our physical form. And our physical form is nothing without the infinite, always-full, never-ending, well-spring of dharmakāya. 

These “aspects” of Buddha-Nature are inexorably joined and glued together through our spiritual aspect. The confluence of these three aspects is known in Buddhism as the “Trikaya”—the unseen/ever-lasting dharmakāya physical embodiment and spiritual dimension. From the perspective of dharmakāya, nothing is lacking. There is no suffering and nothing but the unending bliss of Nirvana. This is the Eight-fold Path destination, yet it has always been with us. Our beginning point for the journey is the dream-state and fog, and it is the task of the Path to remove the delusions which obscure the truth of our existence and allow us to see that we are already home.

Like any road map, it’s important to have the correct perspective or “viewpoint,” which is why the first step on this journey is the Right View. Without the correct view, it will be a case of the blind leading the blind, traveling forever and getting nowhere. From one perspective, this is non-dharma dharma. It is not a truth or teaching since there is no truth lacking, no teaching to be taught, no teacher to teach, and no student to learn. These entities do not exist independently. They are empty of intrinsic substance. 

This is the perspective of empty-emptiness—the ultimate non-truth truth. But most of us begin far away from this lofty goal of blissful Nirvana. For us, there is dharma—a partial truth which we pursue so long as the teaching retains merit. When we learn what we need to learn, we must release the teaching, as we must release everything. To embrace dharma is critical. To become attached is death. With one hand, we grasp, and with the other, we let go.

Critical to this first step of Right View is attachment and attaches, the principle of resistance, and one who resists. The Buddha preached a doctrine of non-self and a doctrine of Self depending on the object of attachment and the nature of the one who attaches. Those who concluded that nothing exists were taught the dharma of self. For those who concluded that everything exists, he taught the dharma of non-self. The nature of identity and the object of attachment determined which “medicine” was administered.

In truth, neither self nor non-self exists as independent entities. Both are subject to dependent origination. The self majesty as the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha-womb), the ultimate, non-differentiated source spoken of in the Heart Sutra and the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, is one dharma. The impermanent non-self/ego is a dharma that teaches about the other side. Such conclusions as “All conditioned things are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows; Like dew and also like lightning. Thus should they be contemplated,” are central to the teaching of the Diamond Sutra.

There is conditioned reality and unconditional reality. They exist as two book-ends propping up the dharma of dependent origination. Likewise, the premise that nothing exists (Nihilism) is the flip side of everything that exists (Absolutism). These, too, are likewise subject to dependent origination. To cling to one view (or another) at the other’s exclusion is still a form of attachment that perpetuates suffering. To cling to, resist, a non-self (ego) or a self is still attachment. It is not an issue of establishing the validity of one view vs. another view—which will involve never-ending speculation since both are true (dependently) and neither is true (independently). The issue is seeing all views, being rid of all views, and clinging to none.