cak0l@harlequin.cs.Virginia.EDU (Christopher A. Koeritz) (03/16/90)
In Mahayana Buddhism, there is much of the same emphasis of
Zen Buddhism on meditation, although the practice is different.
There are two main categories of meditation, stabilizing and
analytical (according to the Tibetan Buddhist system). The
stabilizing meditation is analogous to taking a step back from
one's entanglements in daily life, and placing oneself in a
stable mind, which does not flitter about focussing on
distractions. Analytical meditation serves to cut the bonds
of bad conceptuality (this is not to say that all conceptuality
is bad, only afflicted types are), and to see this 'reality'
more clearly through varieties of reasonings. Reality is
the fundament of all things, with a nature that pervades not only
physical matter, but also oneself and other beings. In this way,
there is very little difference between a coffee mug and ones
hand, because they are both composed of this substance reality.
The idea of reality is just that, and one cannot reach reality
merely by closing one's eyes and thinking really hard. This is
because anything that the mind can conjure up, when it is not
receiving direct sensory input, is just a meaning generality,
or a mere mental shadow of the object. No matter how far one
goes in visualizing the object in question, the actual object
will always be more vivid, have more detail, and possess a
quality that the meaning generality does not have--the fact that
it is the object. I often think of people I know, and hypothesize
about answers they would give me, if I said a particular statement
to them. Now, even if I knew this person as well or better than
I knew my own mind, when I think of them, it is not really them
I am thinking of, but only a meaning generality of the person.
The goal of a Mahayanist is not merely to seek liberation
for himself, but to seek liberation for oneself so that other
sentient beings may be liberated as well. This is not an
evangelical thing, because Buddhists do not send missionaries
to other countries to brainwash the natives or do any of the
standard activitites of one who thinks they know what's good
for you. If a Mahayanist believes that he knows what is good
for other people, he is looking in the wrong direction, for
as Buddha says, "It is a greater task to conquer oneself than
to conquer others." The emphasis is on quashing personal
afflictions and generating merit, so that one's wisdom may
be empowered. Working on others problems when they don't
desire help is a sure way of only befuddling oneself. Only
through personal transformation can a world transformation
occur, because nobody ever changed for the better other than
by his own actions (or so I say).
Self, in Tibetan Buddhism, means a very simple thing. It
is just the mind and body of an individual, and is purely
imputed on top of just that mind and body. There is no
substantial thing that we can point at and say, "This is my
self." This is because, when we think very hard, and try
to totally qualify what we mean by our self, there is nothing
that answers the description. I have a headache, I am tired,
I own a Datsun, I am 50 years old, I am a carpenter. These
are all statements that can be explained as, this head has
a headache, this body is tired, this legal entity Fred Jones
owns a car, this body's prior instance emerged from the womb
fifty years ago, and this mind and body were trained to cut
and shape wood. There is no one 'I' that can serve as the
basis for all of these activities at once, because I am not
just my head or my body or my stomach or my legal rights.
The negation of self that one seeks in Mahayana Buddhism
and other flavors of Buddhism has been repeatedly misunderstood
to mean something that seems contradictory. It seems that
these people are trying to say that there is no one here
telling you that there is no one here. If all that the negation
of self implied was that there was no I, mine, mind, or body,
then it is surely a pointless message, because there is no
one to tell the story and no one to hear it.
Fortunately, the message has a great deal more power than
that. The negation of self, or no self, is understood (again
in Tibetan Buddhism) to mean that there is no 'inherently
existent' self. That is to say, that besides the mind and
body, there is no thing called a self. Or it can be understood
as saying that I am not a self-supporting entity, I do not
exist from my own side exclusively, I am not eternal and
unchanging, I do not inherently own things (not even my
mind and body).
Well, I am about out of things to say. Hopefully, I have
not offended my teachers by stating ideas which are untrue.
For the most part, this is just my own rap on what the self
and self of negation are (two different things), and a very
tiny introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. I welcome comments
and criticisms through e-mail, or if it is something of
general interest, here in this group.
May all virtues increase,
Chris Koeritz.