Monkey See, Monkey Do

back in california now, unpacking and getting caught up.

i made it safely to the retreat center. it’s like a huge reunion. so many folks i’ve done retreats with over the last three years are here. it’s amazing and sweet to see everyone. something like two hundred people are here for this. it feels wonderful. i’m really glad i could come.

tomorrow night i’m heading into a two week long dzogchen retreat. during the retreat, we’ll also be studying a buddhist philosophic text that discusses the yogacara school’s view of mind and reality. or in other words, how that school described mind and reality, as a tool to assist meditators in contemplation and practice.

it’s interesting, wikipedia has this to say about the yogacara, at the moment:

There are two important aspects of the Yogacara schemata that are of special interest to modern-day practitioners. One is that virtually all schools of Mahayana Buddhism came to rely on these Yogacara explanations as they created their own doctrinal systems–even the Zen schools. For example, the important Yogacara explanation of the pervasiveness of one’s delusions through “mind-only” had an obvious influence on Zen.

That the scriptural tradition of Yogacara is not yet that well known among the community of Western practitioners is probably attributable to the fact that most of the initial transmission of Buddhism to the West has been directly concerned with more practice-oriented forms of Buddhism, such as Zen, Vipassana, and Pure Land. Also, it is a complicated system, and there are still not really any good, accessible, introductory books on the topic in Western languages. However, within Tibetan Buddhism more and more Western students are becoming acquainted with this school. Very little research in English has been carried out on the Chinese Yogacara traditions.

it is complicated perhaps, but there are an increasing number of books that are presenting this view. however, very few practitioners have been well schooled in the details and debate.

say for a moment, that individuals do not inherently exist but are part of a fabric of existence - interdependent and interconnected. then describe ‘birth’ as simply the appearance of a new individual, but not really the creating of an individual. simply mere appearance. really the rearrangement of the fabric of existence, in such a way that portion of the fabric can look back upon itself and be self aware. but really is not independently existent. therefore, birth is not really occurring, just appearing to occur.

given that viewpoint, then the idea of death doesn’t make sense since birth never really occurred. it just appeared to.

my readings on buddhist philosophy, in particular discussions of interdependence, are causing these kinds of contemplations for me. but then how do you reconcile that philosophical question with the idea of reincarnation in the buddhist cannon - that we die and are born over and over again.

ok, new idea. from the point of view of a person (a piece of that fabric that looks back upon itself and sees a person, rather) there is the appearance of birth and death. but from the point of view of the fabric, is there rebirth? well, yes! because there are a myriad of beings forming out of the fabric and looking back upon themselves and seeing a “self”. so an individual might not have rebirth, because the individual was never really born, but the fabric is having countless rebirths constantly. and if “you” are really the fabric and not Joe Smith then “you” are having countless rebirths. all the time. They’re just not this illusionary “self” particularly that’s rebirthing. And your conscious awareness doesn’t include all the rebirths constantly occurring, since that conscious awareness is particular to your current arrangement that appears to be your “self”.

i realize there’s a slight problem with this metaphor, and it’s not a very sophisticated view as far as buddhist philosophy goes. probably most similar to the sautrantika school, or maybe even more of a hindu samkhya approach. and this can go nihilistic too, but i find it an interesting idea on how reincarnation could be presented at the same time as teachings on the self and no-self.

does it count as a terror plot if they’re complete idiots, have no chance at success, and the mastermind sells junk on a street corner? is this the kind of threat that we need to erode our civil liberties for, really?

the theme today is reflecting on childhood memories, i just wanted to tell a funny story about Mr. Rogers, of PBS television fame, apparently his plain while impala car that he drove his whole life was stolen outside of the TV studio. the news picked this up and it was reported widely. then 48 hours later, the car was returned to the exact spot with an apology note on the dashboard that read, “If we’d known it was yours, we never would have taken it.”

the link in this post includes other interesting stories about him. i remember him so fondly.