Miracles sans miracles

Thanks to a Facebook post by Nella Lou, I found the online magazine 21C. I immediately gravitated to an article there about the late-beat-author William S. Burroughs. I have several of Burroughs’ books, some true first editions. I collect books and Burroughs is one of the authors I focus on for my collection. The article I saw was from a 1991 interview with Burroughs, and there is one particular comment by the late-author that really stood out.

“Who was Christ? Did he actually perform the miracles attributed to him? Yes, I think he did. As you know, the Buddhists are very, very dubious of miracles. They say, ‘If you can, don’t’. Because you’re disturbing the natural order, interfering with the natural order, with incalculable long range results. And also, very often, the healer or miracle man is motivated by self-glorification – regrettable, reprehensible, self-glorification. So there’s a lot to be said for that.”

Yes, believe it or not, there is no real reason why a Buddhist would doubt that Christ performed miracles in his day. Granted, there are Buddhists who think references to miracles in the Buddhist canon, or that the Buddha was endowed with superhuman powers – paranormal powers, if you please – are nothing but rubbish. And there’s probably good reason for that, and that is most of us view with great skepticism those who assert they have paranormal powers; many of us call such people charlatans because these folks tend only to show their alleged powers for profit.

So Burroughs was right to point out that the Buddha taught his followers should they reach states of concentration that such paranormal powers are realized to not become beguiled by those abilities. Attachment to these powers will derail one’s progress on the path.

There are many suttas that describe these powers, and probably even more suttas that instruct followers to ignore them, or if they are used at all for skillful purposes, to do so discreetly. A couple of these suttas deal with a particular monk who left the Sangha in part because he was disappointed by the Buddha’s refusal to use these powers openly and teach others how to use them.

When Sunakkhatta left the Sangha, he began to talk trash about the Buddha to other intellectuals and Brahmins at the time, and this malicious gossip was overheard by some of the Buddha’s bhikkhus, who then relayed the information back to the Buddha (see the Maha-sihanada Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar, and the Patika Sutta for more about Sunakkhatta).

The Buddha was unconcerned with Sunakkhatta’s attempts at slander.

“Sariputta, the misguided man Sunakkhatta is angry, and his words are spoken out of anger. Thinking to discredit the Tathagata, he actually praises him; for it is a praise of the Tathagata to say of him: ‘When he teaches the Dhamma to anyone, it leads him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering.’ … Sariputta, this misguided man Sunakkhatta will never infer of me … ‘That Blessed One enjoys the various kinds of supernormal power…’”

What I find interesting about these suttas as well is that they describe in a somewhat quiet manner – at least perhaps for us today – how other traditions or schools of Buddhism may have started and evolved. Some monk along the way decided he knew better than the Buddha did, or he wanted to know more about something the Buddha refused to teach about, and so the monk leaves and collects his own followers who then focus on whatever the monk thinks is important. There are many other suttas that allude to this, one of my favorites being the Cula-Assapura Sutta (MN 40).

In this discourse, the Buddha ridicules notions that one can become a better person and know perfection solely by becoming a naked recluse, or donning a particular patchwork cloak, or by becoming “a reciter of incantations,” (hmm, like maybe chanting something over and over again?) believing that these activities in and of themselves lead to the abandonment of the taints and eventually to Nibbana. The Buddha’s litany of examples are pretty funny as he rips off the idea that if it were that simple, then everyone would be running around naked or wearing the same cloth or reciting the same incantations and everyone would be completely free from all the taints; in other words, if it were that simple, we’d all be (as R.E.M. puts it) shiny happy people.

The practice of Buddhism is described as following a path for a very good reason. Like following any path, if you stay on track, you will reach your destination. Become distracted by sites off the path and you stray, you may become lost, or even die, never to return to the path. Or you might find a particular spot on the path and feel a desire that you needn’t go any further. Hence, you become stuck, failing to reach the true end of the path.

Which is why the Buddha said to his followers there are many things – ideas, beliefs, concepts, fabrications – out there in the world we can know about, but knowing them will not end suffering and lead to liberation; hence, the Buddha did not teach them, nor did he ever promise that he would.

‘A few days ago, Sunakkhatta came to me, saluted me, sat down to one side and said: “Lord, I am leaving the Blessed Lord, I am no longer under the Lord’s rule.” So I said to him: “Well, Sunakkhatta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Sunakkhatta, be under my rule’?”
“No Lord.”
“Or did you ever say to me: ‘Lord , I will be under your rule’?”
“No Lord.”
“So, Sunakkhatta, if I did not say that to you and you did not say that to me – you foolish man, who are you and what are you giving up? Consider, foolish man, how far the fault is yours.”
‘“Well, Lord, you have not performed any miracles.”
“And did I ever say to you: ‘Come under my rule and I will perform miracles for you’?”
“No Lord.”
“Or did you ever say to me: ‘Lord, I will be under your rule if you will perform miracles for me’?”
“No Lord.”
“Then it appears, Sunakkhatta, that I made no such promises, and you made no such conditions. Such being the case, you foolish man, who are you and what are you giving up?
‘“What do you think, Sunakkhatta? Whether miracles are performed or not – is it the purpose of my teaching Dhamma to lead whoever practices it to the total destruction of suffering?”
“It is, Lord.”
So, Sunakkhatta, whether miracles are performed or not, the purpose of my teaching Dhamma is to lead whoever practices it to the total destruction of suffering. Then what purpose would the performance of miracles server? Consider, you foolish man, how far the fault is yours.”
‘“Well, Lord, you do not teach the beginning of things.”
“And did I ever say to you: ‘Come under my rule and I will teach you the beginning of things’?”
“No, Lord.”
“…Such being the case, you foolish man, who are you and what are you giving up?”

The image displayed with this post is courtesy of my friend Jimmy Huang.

Durrian and potatoes and simsapa leaves

There is a lively discussion over at Sweep the Dust, Push the Dirt, where John wrote an excellent post about comments made by the Dalai Lama recently at the University of Wisconsin. John notes in his post that within Buddhism, there is no concept of original sin, and he references a statement made by the Dalai Lama at Madison that our basic nature is pure rather than sinful.

This has led to a very interesting litany of comments raising the issue of original sin versus kamma; isn’t the idea of kamma similar to the concept of original sin? If Christianity posits that we are born with the burden of original sin, isn’t that parallel to the Buddha’s teaching on kamma, that our current birth condition and life is the result of our kamma, our previous actions both in the recent past and from previous lives?

I thought about leaving my own comment, but I realized my response would be far too long. Because, essentially, I believe the discussion to be frivolous. John is correct to say that there is no original sin within Buddhism; the Dalai Lama is correct to say that our basic nature is pure, that we corrupt this pure nature through our misunderstanding of how things really are.

And the comments by those who say that our current life condition is premised upon our past actions – kamma – both within this life and from earlier life times are correct as well.

But the effort to draw parallels between the two concepts of original sin and kamma is contrived and pointless, as they are not the same thing at all, nor are they even similar. It’s not that we’re talking apples and oranges here; the concepts of original sin and kamma are so fundamentally different that we might as well be talking about durrian and potatoes, and any discussion or effort to identify similarities between the two is to be concerned with the simsapa leaves up in the trees above our heads, rather than with the few leaves held within the Buddha’s hand. It is Wrong View.

First, there’s the fundamental difference between sin and kamma. A sin is an offense; to commit an offense, someone must be offended. Our vernacular reflects this with such phrases such as a “sin against nature” or a “sin against god.” Although nature is not a person, we personify it. Kamma is action and the results it brings. The crux of kamma is intent; when our intentions are turned into action either via doing or speaking, we create kamma because all action has a consequence, every cause results in an effect. The result can be either pleasant or unpleasant; there really isn’t any good or bad kamma, it’s all just kamma. That’s why the Buddha talked about liberation is achieved when we end kamma.

The effects of kamma can either be immediately manifested, or be delayed, or both immediately evident and delayed. And this is where, I believe, the discussion gets off track and people start to draw parallels between kamma and original sin. But let’s examine the concept of original sin first, because all I described above was sin.

As I recall from my catechisms, Original Sin originated with Adam and Eve. In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed, but He warned them not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Satan manipulated Eve and tricked her into eating the fruit anyway and sharing it with Adam. This annoyed the hell out of God, and so he burdened not only Adam and Eve, but all of their progeny with Original Sin. So in Christian doctrine, or at least Catholic doctrine, we are born with the burden of the original sin – the first sin – committed by Adam and Eve. It’s not even our own sin! And the only way to lift this burden is to appease god and seek his forgiveness. As a gay man, I have no chance with this transaction.

However, I am the owner of my kamma. It is not a burden laid upon me, causing me to start my life in the hole, so to speak. It just simply is. And no matter what my current state of affairs are, no matter what my previous life had been, I always have the opportunity to eliminate my kamma and liberate myself in this life time, perhaps even in this moment. It is for me to accomplish, no one else, and no one else can prevent me from accomplishing it should I see its potential – not god, not a devil, not another person, just me.

I think people become fixated on the notion that “life is suffering,” the First Noble Truth. But that is really just one way of saying it. Life contains suffering, but it’s not all suffering all the time. So to suggest that “life is suffering” is the Buddhist rendition of original sin is to miss the mark of what the First Noble Truth is really telling us. In my post on the Four Noble Truths, I simplified the first truth into the absurd statement that “life sucks.” But the reality is that life doesn’t suck, life is simply life. We tend to say it sucks because life never fully meets our expectations, or at least when it does, it’s only temporary. Hence we become disappointed because we expect permanence where none exists. Ergo, we experience dissatisfaction.

Sariputta: “Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.” (MN 141)

Yes, life is stressful! Birth is stressful! Right from the freaking start, life is a bloody morass of stress! But it isn’t specifically stressful for just we humans; it’s freaking stressful for all forms of life. Even plants experience stress!

This is not, however, equivalent to original sin. While we enter this world kicking and screaming and wanting to crawl back into the womb, we are nonetheless born into this world unburdened by any debt owed to some deity or higher power. Our ultimate happiness is not dependent on appeasing external forces; rather, the seeds to our happiness are already within us. We enter each lifetime fully equipped to stop the cycle on our own. Whatever burdens we carry from previous lives are our own; we made them, we can undo them.

Pink Dot 2010 Singapore

Over the weekend, members of the lesbigay community in Singapore gathered with their allies in Hong Lim Park in the Chinatown area of the city. A few of my Facebook friends who live in Singapore attended. An estimated 4,000 attended this event, which was allowed to carry on unmolested by the local authorities. As one man says in the video I posted below, Singapore is a lot more open than many people might think.

Anyway, I thought I would post this video share this wonderful event with all of you.

With metta