Q&A w/BC: Happiness not suffering

Bruce:

Buddhism sounds negative and depressing, because it deals with suffering. And I think a lot of people are turned off with anything dealing with the word suffering. Instead, I’m starting to say that Buddhism deals with happiness – the other side of the coin.

Sounds strange, but I’m serious.

My new 4 noble truths:

There is happiness
Happiness is caused by the lack of craving
When you get rid of craving, you reach nibbana.
To get to nibbana, follow the 8th fold path

My new Ti-lakkhana:

Everything is transient
without a permanent self
and subject to happiness

BC:

Bruce, I’m afraid I’m not with you on this, but I see what you are after.

Suppose you wake up with a severe pain in the lower right side of your belly, and it doesn’t go away. The rational thing to do would be to go see a doctor. However, they are all negative and depressing, and only want to talk about your suffering, where it comes from, and how to cure it. That is a big turn off, so you go to a party instead, where everything is about happiness. The next morning you wake up with a hangover, and your belly hurts even worse.

The Buddha is sometimes called the Great Physician. Buddhism starts with suffering, because that is where people are at, but happily the Buddha has diagnosed suffering, and told us how to cure it. That is hardly negative and depressing. People already know suffering; it is prominent in virtually everyone’s life, whereas happiness is generally no more than a vague promise that is rarely fulfilled.

Unfortunately we live in a culture that is in denial of suffering and in pursuit of happiness. This works neither to lessen the suffering that is there in any case, nor to improve or lead to happiness. Look at how we hide away sickness, crippling illness, aging and even death. Look at how consumer products are advertised with models clearly blissing out at a spiritual level for having found the perfect shampoo, snack or networking solution. There is a strong trend toward marketing Buddhism alongside other traditions in this way.

Nonetheless, there is much in Buddhist practice that is quite pleasurable, and advanced practitioners do bliss out as suffering recedes. But happiness is the quiet contentment of a meaningful life well-lived that supervenes on practice. It will be elusive as long as we are focused on pursuing it.

There is another dimension to this: It is not advisable to mess with the Buddha. The Buddha’s Dhamma is a complex integrated system in which each teaching has its place. The whole thing is a guide for practice, how we live our lives, much as a cookbook is a guide for cooking. If we choose to reform one teaching, it is not likely work properly with the other teachings, like substituting sugar for salt. Let’s take the four noble truths as an example:

(1) the truth of suffering,
(2) the truth of the origin of suffering,
(3) the truth of the cessation of suffering, and
(4) the truth of the way to the cessation of suffering.

It is often pointed out that this follows what a physician does:

(1) is the symptom,
(2) is the diagnosis,
(3) is the prognosis, and
(4) is the treatment.

Since Dhamma is a guide to practice, the Buddha also tells us how to practice with each of these four truths:

(1) is to be understood.
(2) is to be eliminated.
(3) is to be realized.
(4) is to be pursued.

Now, if we substitute happiness for suffering, the whole practice becomes something quite different. The extensive wisdom teachings of the Buddha help us understand suffering. The teaching of dependent coarising even provides an elaborate psychology of suffering for us to understand. The Buddha does not provide anything like an equivalent account for happiness. In short, there is very little left in the four noble truths in the way of guidance for practice if we substitute happiness for suffering.

Comments

25 responses to “Q&A w/BC: Happiness not suffering”

  1. Colleen A Kastanek Avatar
    Colleen A Kastanek

    Hello Bruce and Bhikkhu,

    Dwelling on pain and suffering must be integral to the human psyche. In grade school we chanted the Latin Requiem Mass for every funeral in my community, and we were required to understand it. Before the fear of eternal damnation from that weekly experience, we had Santa Claus. Thank goodness I figured that one out before I was six. It might be a matter of perspective, but I don’t find Buddhism all that negative. In fact, I find it very uplifting that I am enabled to find the solution to my condition of suffering.

    1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Maybe we should take a poll to find out how many people are put off by the pervasive discussion of suffering in Dhamma. It certainly gained for Buddhism the reputation of being pessimistic in 19th century western circles. However, the west knows a lot more about Buddhism, mixed in with alternative but mistaken views about what Buddhism is.
      I’m with Colleen. I’ve always found Buddhism uplifting.

  2. Donna Gordon Avatar
    Donna Gordon

    I do not believe a student of The Budda has any place in rewriting a script that has been unaltered for thousands of years.
    Further, those that strive to fully engage in the practice will give testament that it is really the only philosophy that has a probability of finding happiness or ending suffering.
    Cognitive therapy In modern psychology closely parallels the Buddhist practice. One must acknowledge their state:student not Master. I hope he finds a state of being that mimics contentment.

    1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Donna! I’m glad to see your contribution here.

      Let me point out that the script has been altered repeatedly over those thousands of years. There is no current school of Buddhism that represents purely what the Buddha taught; all have added teachings, many have forgotten or misinterpreted teachings. Theravada has perhaps the strongest claim to representing the early teachings of the Buddha, since it has kept the Pali Canon alive, the most complete account of the early teachings. But then Theravada is significantly based in the “Commentaries,” texts compiled in the 5th century AD, that clearly deviate from the Buddha in many places. There is a recent movement, largely in modern scholarship, to return to the earliest texts, which I am totally on board with.

      Also, there is currently a lot of pressure to attract western adherents by altering it here and there to make it more comprehensible and palatable for westerners. (Modern Secular Buddhism is probably the staunchest example of that.) We’ve had discussion of here over the last weeks about how far we can stretch the Dhamma with that in mind, which may be Bruce’s starting point. There may be some value in that, but I am with you: for me retaining the integrity of the Buddha’s Dhamma must take precedent.

      Bruce is a good friend and has been studying Buddhism for a long time. Like Colleen, I appreciate his creativity in proposing a reframing Buddhism in a way that is easier for modern people to grasp. I do the same thing, but in very methodical way, in drawing parallels between the Buddha’s teaching on mind and modern cognitive science. In his case two arguments against his suggestion occurred to me, which are themselves open to challenge.

  3. Colleen A Kastanek Avatar
    Colleen A Kastanek

    Hi Donna,
    But the purpose of this discussion is that we Westerners can discuss “anything,” so I appreciate that Bruce brought it up. I see Bruce’s adaptation as “creative.”

  4. Sherard Maine Avatar
    Sherard Maine

    I think I know where this idea comes from – it certainly has been occasionally mooted by at least one prominent member of the Sangha I am aware of.

    There is an idea that for Westerners, sugar coating messages is necessary as a gateway to allow for a gradual movement toward insight. The argument continues that the medical formulation that the Buddha used to demonstrate his point doesn’t quite have the resonance in the 21st century, so perhaps one can explain it in another format for easier digestion – what if you start with the Cure (hey guys, check out these Antibiotics!) then move on to the disease (if you’ve got pneumonia, they totally work!) then point out where the disease comes from (everyone’s getting pneumonia these days, have you noticed?) then point out how you get the cure (so come down to the pharmacy!). Sounds reasonable, right?

    What that argument misses is 2 other angles of how to regard Buddhist thought. Firstly, the Buddha teaches not that life is suffering, but Sankharas are at Strife/Under stress. There is a very neat, clear sutta which states that “One who delights in [the causes of] stress cannot be free from stress.” So one has to be ready to abandon these unwholesome sankharas. In that case, if you give this teaching to someone who is not even considering abandoning anything, it’s not really finding its intended audience, while simultaneously offering a kind of false hope that you can have your cake and eat it too. The Buddha himself states that his teaching is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and does not see. There’s another where they state that the inhabitants of (Savatthi?) are too engrossed in sensuality (rookies by 21st century western standards) to understand the Dhamma. It is literally not for everyone.

    Secondly, there is also a sense that the dhamma is a silent, wordless place. There is no purchase there for someone *seeking* joy/ happiness they way one might seek a worldly object like a house or a car or a shot of antidepressants. Although happiness may exist in Dhamma, it is not something to be grasped at. If you try (and I’ve tried) it will vanish like a frustrating mirage. So you can’t practice Buddhism well while seeking the outcome. What you can do, what the Buddha is trying to teach, is that you can work on abandoning the causes of non-enlightenment. That’s the formulation, and that’s why it’s taught Dukkha first.

    1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Sherard,

      Thanks for posting.

      For me the ancient simile of the Buddha as doctor seems to resonate well with modern ways of thinking. But I don’t think many teachers utilize it for dispelling the notion that the Dhamma is negative or pesimistic.

      Let me restate what I think you are saying here for the benefit of readers. I mentioned in the original post that the Buddha has extensive teachings on suffering. You are getting at the heart of those teachings, and why suffering is so pervasive. ‘Stress’ here is ‘suffering’. Thanissaro Bhikkhu in particular translates Pali dukkha in this way. Sankharas are generally translated as ‘formations’ or ‘fabrications.’ They are roughly the same as kamma (karma), choices to behave or think in certain ways, or (since these generally habituated patterns) the underlying dispositions to make certain choices. The results of practice will show up in leaning and unlearning sankharas as dispositions. Our behaviors, thoughts, and dispositions have a way of conducing to suffering. In fact, Bruce’s tilakkhana actually states that all sankharas are transient, suffering and non-self, even though most of us do not realize it. The first noble truth is not (1) Life is suffering, but only (1) the truth of suffering. We are on our own to explore “suffering” in our own experience, with the guidance of the Dhamma, which you are touching on here. The second noble truth also tells us that craving is the origin of suffering. This is why sankharas/kamma lead to suffering: they are driven in the wordlings mind primarily by craving. The worldling chases after things in a self-centered way.

      There are two levels of Dhamma: mundane right view and supramundane right view. The supramundane are teachings “for one who knows and sees.” Who is this? “The noble ones.” They are those who have at least attained the level of a stream enterer. Notice some teachings are called “noble.” They are for those who know and see. The noble ones understand the need to abandon craving, therefore they don’t strive for an outcome, they just practice according to Dhamma. They know there is an ultimate goal (awakening), but have no self-centered interest in the goal. They are in the process of perfecting virtue and wisdom, and these are a gift to to the world. Kamma and sankharas cease upon reaching the goal. The noble ones experience happiness that becomes greater than any mundane pleasure. Happiness is in the form of satisfaction or contentment of living a meaningful, fulfilling life worth living. But this happiness was never the goal of practice. It simply supervenes on practice,

      1. Colleen A Kastanek Avatar
        Colleen A Kastanek

        Considering that we are discussing “Packaging Buddhism for Westerners,” perhaps instead of downplaying the truth of suffering, we should downplay our tendency to set goals in order to make Buddhism more understandable to Westerners?

        1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
          bhikkhu cintita

          Are you saying that westerners do not set goals? That Buddhist practice makes more sense if we don’t plan to gain something? That doesn’t seem right.

          1. Colleen A Kastanek Avatar
            Colleen A Kastanek

            I am saying that Westerners set goals about EVERYTHING. We have a goal set for the next day before we even go to sleep. To get to the vet 15 minutes early so maybe we can get in early. And then there is education, career, and owning stuff. I have come to realize that what I accomplish in a day is not determined by the goals I set, (the sourdough spilled over in the fridge and I ended up cleaning the fridge and the oven is still dirty) the vet had an emergency and I didn’t get in until noon and now I will miss my doctor’s appointment. My education, career, and earnings are nothing close to the “goals” I set 50 years ago. I am a lot happier (oops there is another goal) now that I just accept things as they happen. I am saying that spirituality is perhaps something we should NOT set a goal for, but rather just be open to what comes our way and run with it. That said, most religions are goal oriented and the whole community is watching: for example in Catholicism, taking the sacraments in order, to finally, The Last Rites. Just getting dolled up for church every Sunday and Wednesday is a accomplishing a series of goals. I may be naive, but it immediately appeared to me that the “goals” of Buddhism are self-determined and my own private matter. If I miss morning meditation, no one knows.

            I imagine every devout Buddhist mother would love to have her child become a monk or a nun, an arahant, but, here’s the great thing: SHE can become a nun, an arahant! Nooo pressure!

  5. Celsa Avatar
    Celsa

    Exactly, happiness is another form of suffering in disguise. Thus, the middle way, let go of both and be contented. Am I right?

    1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Hi, Celsa.

      Very good. From the supramundane point of view (see reply to Sherard), the Buddha says that pleasure (sukha) itself is suffering (dukkha). There I use ‘happiness’ to refer to a consequence of suprmundane practice, which is something enduring, that we dwell in. The Buddha calls it a form of pleasure (sukha), but then says it is pleasurable because it is neither pleasure nor suffering.

  6. Jonathon Avatar
    Jonathon

    Thank you for this:
    > It is not advisable to mess with the Buddha. The Buddha’s Dhamma is a complex integrated system in which each teaching has its place. The whole thing is a guide for practice, how we live our lives, much as a cookbook is a guide for cooking. If we choose to reform one teaching, it is not likely work properly with the other teachings

    I am currently caught between the Theravadan Dhamma that seems to be your tradition, and the tradition of the LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), which I have a lifetime of experience with. I have discovered that the Church also has real and viable “path” – doctrine, ritual, and practice – with real and effectual, transformative results. After much challenging experience, I have found similarly that the God-spirit of the LDS Church is also real and not to be “messed with.”

    I have had insight experiences in both traditions. To use LDS parlance, I have a “testimony” of both. I have found that Theravadan Dhamma has a complex, resilient, and cohesive system which “takes” when it is practiced with sincerity and sufficient devotion/ardency. It results in a particular experience or realization of “self” and “world” which is real, repeatable, and reliable. LDS “covenant path” also results in a particular experience of “self” and “world” which I believe is more conducive to marriage, child-rearing, and integration with modern mainstream conservative consumerism. It is more about the realization of conservative success/fulfillment in career, home, and family than insight & the cessation of dukkha.

    Thank you for indulging my exploration of these powerful spiritual traditions. I hope it is not inappropriate. After being unable to reconcile my understanding of LDS teaching and doctrine many years ago, I went into a bit of a tailspin that eventually the Theravadan Dhamma helped me recover from. I now recognize the Buddha and the Judeo-Christian God-spirit as two very real and powerful minds that are not to be trifled with. I try to walk between them but they are distinct and, like you say, both have a particular recipe that has been formulated and honed over many lifetimes.

    1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Jonathon,

      Thanks for your note. By the way, is “Mormonism” considered disrespectful as a name LDS? It seems members of your church avoid that word, in spite of its convenience.

      A lot of westerners come to Buddhism because of a falling out with their root or family religion. But also a lot of westerners come to Buddhism without rejecting their root religion. They embrace both, find no significant contradictions, but rather that Buddhism complements their root religion (Buddhism is very strong in contemplative practice). I knew a woman who called her self an Budhhopalian, and was very devout in both faiths. On the other hand, different religions are much like different languages; they don’t translate easily one into the other.

      I do not know enough about LDS to offer advice on specific issues you may be dealing with. However, I know someone you should talk to: Shoryu Bradley Roshi. He has web site at https://gyobutsuji.org/ where you can find his contact information. He began Zen practice at the same time as me, in the late 90’s, in Austin Texas. He was “Jim” then, and I was “John.” A small group of us would meet in a yoga studio for zazen in the very early morning, and he would always ride his bicycle in the dark. I have enormous respect (bordering on awe) for his practice. As I remember, he was raised a Mormon, so he probably dealt with many of the same issues. Tell him “Kojin” sent you.

      1. Jonathon Avatar
        Jonathon

        Bhante,

        Thank you for your reply. In August 2018, the Church’s prophet made an announcement discouraging the use of terms like “Mormonism” and emphasizing the importance of using the full and proper name of the Church to include the name of Jesus Christ.

        Thank you also for introducing me to Shoryu Bradley Roshi. I will reach out to him. 🙏

  7. Gerry Dhamma Avatar
    Gerry Dhamma

    Bruce-

    I like your perspective on promoting Buddhism, and the issue of emphasizing happiness vs. suffering from the point view of attracting more people to the significant benefits of Buddhism to enhance their lives.

    In fact, my view is Buddhism needs to be “re-packaged” for “Westerners” in a more “marketing friendly” form, which is clearly needed when we consider that only a fraction of 1% of Americans identify as Buddhists; a stunning and revealing statistic.

    Something is clearly wrong here.

    You know Buddhism is “hidden” in American culture when a reasonably well educated woman I knew as an acquaintance, hearing that I was a Buddhist, asked if Buddhism was about the life of Mohammad…..

    Suffering, sometimes known as the “human condition”, is indeed at the heart of Buddhism, and why Buddhism exists; but, the critically important distinction is that Buddhism is the CURE for suffering. Of the 4 Noble Truths, number 3 is perhaps the most important; suffering can be eliminated from our lives.

    With all due respect to “Traditional Buddhism”, or as I like to describe it, “Asian Buddhism”, it doesn’t resonate in America in its current form, which is typically found in local Buddhist temples, the vast majority of which are Asian. In addition to the substantial language and cultural barriers found at these Asian temples (from personal experience), the format is not conducive to American assimilation.

    Specifically, “new members” are “volunteers” treated like probationary monastics, at the bottom of the ladder, required to wear “uniforms”, do menial cleaning jobs, participate in ceremonies, and basically become subservient to the senior monastics and the Abbott.

    Moreover, they are taught the “doctrine” dharma in a rigid syllabus which leans heavily on the supernatural, cosmological aspects of traditional Buddhism found in “Pureland” for example, and focused on preparing for rebirth and the afterlife The “supernatural” is a turn-off for most Americans in our modern age.

    Sadly, curing suffering, arguably the most important aspect of Buddhism, is supplanted with fealty to the Temple, and building merit for the afterlife by donating money and service to the temple. Focus on dealing with the very real and painful daily issues of “unhappiness” through the teachings of the Dharma is rarely found in these temples.

    The sooner we repackage Buddhism as the cure for suffering, or unhappiness, and clean-up the “delivery” system (change the temples), the faster we can spread the benefits of Buddhism to our very troubled world.

    Metta

    1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Hi, Gerry.

      Let me address this to the readers at large. If you’ve been following discussions for the last few months, you know Gerry has a deep understanding and concern for the future of Buddhism in modern society, has thought deeply on these issues, and has strong connections in both with Asian (esp. Chinese), as well as modern circles. I met first him at Jade Buddha temple, a Chinese/Taiwanese temple in Houston, where he attended one of my classes.

      It might appear that Gerry and I take opposite positions on many issues, but we seem to share a common vision of the the future role of Buddhism in modern society in challenging what ails us. As a rather solitary scholar-monk, I see my role as ensuring that the integrity of the teachings not be lost as (or rather if) Buddhism grows on American soil. His primary concern is that it grow. We need both perspectives, but there will always be a tension between the two. I’ve found our discussions very valuable, and I’ve been learning a lot from Gerry’s perspective.

      I think we are agreed that the Buddha’s emphasis on curing suffering does not turn modern people off.

      I also agree with Gerry that way Buddhism is often institutionalized can be offensive to modern people. It’s offensive to me. Small western small-scale temples, mostly western Zen centers, are more effective places of practice for moderns. However, I often criticize them for operating as small businesses, with staff and paying customers. BUT these count as examples in which the integrity of the Buddha’s teachings have been weakened or lost, first in a localized Asian context and then in the modern context.

      East Asian Buddhism is institutionalized in the traditional Chinese way: a merit-based hierarchical bureaucratic power structure. This seems to have happened historically through coercion from the top.

      The Buddha was the first to institutionalize Buddhism through the monastic, which he did in the Vinaya, and which is still recognized throughout the Buddhist world. His design is almost the opposite of what is found in East Asia: local sanghas defined as at least four monks or nuns in communion in close proximity, decentralized from the authority of any outside sangha, making collective decisions by consensus of all present, with no coersive authority whatever over local householders, living off alms and offering teachings and other social services as gifts to local householders.

      In Theravada countries monasteries for the most part follow the Vinaya model closely. Myanmar is largely a country of small villages, of maybe 100 families o average, with a monastery/community center where four monks live. The monks walk once a day through the village with their bowls for alms. The monks are highly regarded, which makes them influential in civic affairs. It is all very grounded. There are some larger institutions, such as meditation centers, schools (in which monks or nuns either serve as teachers, of organize provision of a salary, room and board for lay teachers), monastic universities, etc. But that groundedness of the simple monasteries feels present in larger institutions.

      I think the modern model of simple temples, or the Quaker Friends meeting house model are already closer to the Buddha’s design than much of what is found in East Asia. However, what is is clearly missing in the west is a viable monastic sangha. I am convinced that Buddhism cannot long exist without a strong monastic tradition. It never has, and this is one of the reasons I took the very odd step of becoming a monk. It is a necessary part of the delivery system.

  8. Gerry Dhamma Avatar
    Gerry Dhamma

    Bhante-Thanks for your comments regarding my answer to Bruce.

    Your statement: “As a rather solitary scholar-monk, I see my role as ensuring that the integrity of the teachings not be lost as (or rather if) Buddhism grows on American soil.”, is an important aspect of dealing with the dilemma of how to spread Buddhism to Westerners; we need to maintain the core concepts.

    From my perspective, we can achieve both goals, namely “repackaging Buddhism” to make it more attractive to the western mind; but also maintain the integrity of the Core Concepts.

    My view is to first promote what I call “Basic Buddhism”, or “Practical Buddhism”, which focuses strictly on the undeniable existence and causes of “suffering”, and relatively simple step by step “Cure” for suffering (without the use of Pali or Sanskrit terminology).

    The more esoteric aspects of Buddhism involving cosmology and the spiritual realms can be left for “advanced study”, AFTER people have established a solid practice of Basic Buddhism to cure suffering.

    If we’re being intellectually honest, suffering is rampant in our culture in the form of anger, hate, resentment, jealousy, envy, worry, fear, lust, addictions, anxiety, and depression. Anger and hate is evident everywhere from road rage, to domestic violence, violent “political” protests, and even insults and fights over sports teams.

    The front page of the “paper” (now internet) has daily reports of suffering in the form of vicious murders like the recent death of an acclaimed Hollywood director Rob Reiner and his wife, allegedly killed by their 32 year old drug addict son. Then there are the mass murders of Jews in Australia, and the murder of some students at Brown University, and an MIT professor by a former colleague. ‘

    And we certainly must consider that over 60 million Americans are in “therapy” for various “psychic irritants”, with over 60 million prescription drugs issued for psychiatric disorders.

    Moreover, 150,000 people die each year from alcohol, and 170,000 die from drug overdoses.

    Add to this the startling statistics that 50% of marriages end in divorce, and 40% of children are born outside of marriage.

    Is this Happiness? Clearly Not!

    Of course there are more examples, but the pervasive existence of “suffering” is undeniable and needs focused attention.

    I find a certain level of elegance in the Core Concepts of Buddhism, in their simplicity and logic. Specifically impermanence, non-self, the Four Noble Truths, Three Poisons, 8 Fold Path, 5 Precepts, 6 Perfections, and the 5 Hindrances. If we focus strictly on mastering the understanding of the Core Concepts and guidelines, with emphasis on the critical need for mindfulness and meditation to reprogram our culturally distorted perceptions and unrealistic expectations, we will find a breakthrough to lasting happiness.

    Once that is achieved, any study of the spiritual concepts like realms and an afterlife can take its own course.

    It’s important not to throw-up unnecessary barriers to this introductory process, like claiming we must be vegetarians to be true Buddhists. I personally eat “meat”, as do many Buddhist friends, and some monastics; does this mean we are not “good Buddhists”? Not in my view. (Full disclosure, I am a former “cultural” hunter and fisherman, for sport, until I recognized this was for pure egocentric purposes. Killing to eat is an entirely different issue).

    The same applies to wearing uniforms and building merit by giving money and time to the temple. If we want to give money and time, great; but, don’t make this a “requirement” under the guise of building merit.

    Westerner monastics like yourself can make this happen.

    Metta

    1. Bhikkhu Cintita Avatar

      Gerry,

      I agree with with your description of what ails modern society. I agree the Buddhism offers a means to alleviate what ails modern society. I might add that other religious traditions also possess such means, but not those that merely mirror the values of modern society. Buddhism is particularly radical in any society; it offers an alternative way of life that has never fully pervaded any land, but defines a counterculture that exerts a lot of positive influence over the broader culture.

      I also agree that with your idea of a Basic or Practical Buddhism as a starting point for Buddhist practice. But would like to add some ideas about what that would look like. I agree that Basic Buddhism should at least ideally make sense to new Buddhists. You are right: we do not want to begin with rebirth and deity realms. But I should add that Basic Buddhism should also lead to effective Buddhist practice, practice that quickly makes a difference in people’s lives, and evokes a degree of ardency in the practice. Many wisdom teachings, such as the “five aggregates” or “non-self” might provide intellectual satisfaction, but if they cannot be put into practice, they will not make a difference in people’s lives. Few people, even teachers, know how to put aggregates into practice. As such they can safely be omitted from Basic Buddhism.

      Modern Buddhism has largely been fashioned by what makes sense, and what has been most alluring to modern people: mindfulness and insight meditation. Ethics, for instance, is woefully neglected in modern Buddhism. The result has been a Buddhism that philosopher Slavoj Zizek has called “the religion of global Capitalism.” I think what he means is that, even among those who do not call themselves Buddhists, people turn to mindfulness and meditation to improve the skills they need to compete in the global marketplace. This is a matter of mirroring the values of modern society, and will never serve as a cure-all for what ails us.

      Basic Buddhism should be balanced and comprehensive, reflecting the core values articulated in the Buddha’s Dhamma. We’ve been doing a poor job of this. Buddhism in a nutshell is about development of character in its two aspects of virtue and wisdom. I would argue that Buddhism is 100% about ethics, which is incomplete without wisdom.

      The Buddha himself described the stages of development in Buddhist practice, beginning at zero but gradually leading to full awakening. The practice of generosity is the very first step. This is the “gradual instruction,” and my book Buddhist Life/Buddhist Path follows this framework. Buddhist Life is an absolute prerequisite for Buddhist Path. The pivotal practice attainment that fully qualifies one to undertake the Path is “stream entry.” The stream = the noble eightfold path. At stream entry one qualifies as a “noble one” (ariya), which is where the “noble” comes from in the four noble truths and in the noble eightfold path. How does one become a stream enterer? Through a highly developed ethics, and through unwavering refuge (trust) in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. The Buddha even taught two levels of right view: mundane and supramundane, that roughly correspond to Buddhist Life and Buddhist Path. Wisdom and ethics span both, but ethics has more weight in Life and wisdom in Path.

      It would seem that Buddhist Life would be a good candidate for Basic Buddhism, but I don’t think this is altogether appropriate for modern people. I should note that most of what you include in Basic Buddhism are supramundane right view. And cosmology is largely limited to mundane right view. On the path, we are interested in the direct experience of non-self, impermanence and the aggregates, for instance, but not in seeking rebirth as a deity. I do think mindfulness and meditation should be included in Basic Buddhism (they are not in mundane right view or Buddhist Life), simply because these begin right away to provide a counterbalance to the hectic-ness, noisiness and pace of modern life, which differs from the relative serenity and quite lives of the Buddha’s time.

      In short, Basic Buddhism should include what is comprehensible to new modern practitioners, what is most readily effective in making a difference in people’s lives, and what provides a firm foundation for advance practice toward awakening. At least that’s what I think. Sorting this out is the next step.

  9. Gerry Dhamma Avatar
    Gerry Dhamma

    Bhante-

    Thanks for your recent comments, and your statement: “Buddhism is particularly radical in any society; it offers an alternative way of life that has never fully pervaded any land, but defines a counterculture that exerts a lot of positive influence over the broader culture”.

    This notion of “an alternative way of life” as “radical” is indeed the primary barrier to spreading Buddhism to westerners, while at the same time providing. A solution, or the “cure” to suffering. A hard pill to swallow.

    Our culture today has become so fixated on narcissistic pleasure seeking where the end justifies the means that many of us are no longer aware of the ethical impact, and virtue/wisdom is not even on the radar.

    Moreover, this “addiction” to pleasure, whether its money, food, drink, shopping, alcohol, sex, drugs, or status, is so ingrained in our collective psyche that “ethics”, per se, is more of an archaic dictionary term than a working concept.

    This is evident at all levels of life today with blatant lies from federal and local government, to deceptive merchants, manufacturers, and even the clergy, where lying, stealing, use of intoxicants, and inappropriate sex are common.

    The Five Precepts, in my view, are the first Buddhist Core Concepts to understand and assimilate in our lives as we pursue a radical transformation of the mind, since they provide almost immediate results in the form of “feeling better” about ourselves.

    Lying is one of the most important precepts because it fuels the flames of “duality”, a “self” imposed separation from others where we satisfy our cravings at the expense of others.

    We see this in troubled relationships where dishonesty is the norm, which is one of the reasons divorce is at 50%. We see this with families stuck in addiction where one or more members are living a lie.

    We see “respected” corporations like Volkswagen rig the electronics on their diesel cars in the US to cheat the air pollution standards and make more money (it ultimately cost them about $30 billion in fines, buy backs, settlements, etc.). We see it in home builders using shoddy materials and labor

    When we decide to always be truthful, the burden of guilt working in the subconscious, immediately disappears and we experience an epiphany, or an awakening.

    While stealing is less common in our culture, it is still a factor for feeding negative feelings of unhappiness because we know we are “stealing” someone’s time when we are late, credit for something we didn’t do, even simple things like parking spaces when we park over the lines is stealing from others. And gossip is another form of stealing as we attempt to burnish our own image by disparaging others.

    And the use of intoxicants as a negative influence on “how we feel” is out of control in this country as we “self medicate” to feel better, with the opposite results.

    I think teaching Buddhsim to beginners in our “immediate gratification” culture, should be structured to focus on the precepts first, before moving to the 8 Fold Path, 6 Perfections, 5 Aggregates, etc.

    When they experience a clear improvement in their lives just from the precepts, they’re primed to want more.

    Ultimately Buddhsim is about cleansing the mind of negative thinking and emotions, and replacing those with wholesome and ethical wisdom. But, it must be gradual in modern times because of how far we’ve fallen off the ethical ladder.

    If I were teaching an intro to Buddhsim class, I would challenge the students to a weekly test to see how many could honestly say they focused on rigidly following the precepts the past week. I think the results would be encouraging.

    The same would apply to the Six Perfections where generosity is another transformative event in our distorted minds. Whether giving money, food, clothing, or out time, the results for a sense of well being are almost immediate. The same transformation happens when we focus on patience.

    I would hold the 8 Fold Path until the Precepts and Perfections are fully engaged, followed by the 5 Aggregates, the 5 Hindrance, and the 10 Fetters.

    The point here is actually putting the Core Concepts to work in our daily lives, starting with the Precepts, to demonstrate that it works.

    I’ve been through too many Intro to Buddhism classes where all of this is presented in a dry lecture, like theoretical physics, and each week, the class gets smaller as people lose interest.

    If this is going to work, people today need to see immediate results.

    Metta

    1. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Gerry,

      So, I think we agree that there might be a Basic Buddhism that makes sense and appeals to modern people, and that is effective in making a difference in people’s lives and offers a platform for developing the more sophisticated teachings toward awakening. I mentioned the Buddha’s “gradual instructions” that begin with what seemed to work in the Buddha’s day. Here is an outline of the gradual instructions:

      (Buddhist Life)
      • Generosity (dāna).
      • Precepts (sīla).
      • Heavens.
      • The drawbacks, degradation, and corruption of sensual passions.
      • The rewards of renunciation.
      • On the basis of the understanding, and pursuit of the fore­going, “a mind ready, softened, unbiased, elated, and trust­ing,” a precondition for the last step.
      (Buddhist Path)
      • The four noble truths.

      These are describe in detail in Buddhist Life/Buddhist Path. The Buddha begins with generosity, rather than precepts. This makes sense, because it engages one at the community level, and the needs of the community. Notice that “heavens” follows, and clearly makes a cosmological reference, bringing to mind rebirth in a heavenly realm as a fruit of Buddhist Life.

      My method is not to balk at references like “heavens.” There are many ways one can potentially interpret what is meant here. Maybe heavens are a metaphor for something else, or else (like money) a useful symbolic way to frame some aspect of the world, or else an easily understood (in ancient India) way of explaining something that is much more complicated.

      My method is instead to ask why the Buddha would teach this, and let that lead us to a proper interpretation. The Buddha was always practical. “Heavens” must serve some role in this sequence of stages in the development of practice. Giving us something to believe in seems pointless at this stage. I daresay the Buddha is giving us something to contemplate. That something must follow on the experience of practicing generosity and precepts, probably over many years. What stands out about these ethical practices is the joy that evoke when we put aside any personal agenda. This joy is unique: (1) It unrelated to sensual pleasures. (2) Carried over many years it grows steadily with time. (3) It is something we seem to dwell in, a quality of the holds us, even while our mundane lives go through ups and downs of pleasure and pain. Moreover, when we observe older people, some are bitter, living under a cloud, some glow with satisfaction in life. We also notice an ethical basis for this. Ebeneezer Scrooge exemplifies the former (an apt reference for Christmas). This is an important discovery, and has a natural basis: a kind of pleasure that becomes constant, seemingly a quality of the world, enduring into the future. How that happens in mysterious, so we need a good metaphor to encapsulate it. “Heavens” works. Many will take take it literally, but it fulfills its function in any case.

      The next steps continue this contemplation by examining what kinds of intentions drive our behaviors, with clinging on the one side, and simplifying and letting go on the other. This is where the teachings around karma, skillful and unskillful, become relevant. Contemplating heavens has already given us the experiential basis for identifying the positive fruits of kamma. We now learn what it is act with a “pure mind” and to develop that pure mind through ethics. This is a system of ethics that is quite unfamiliar in the modern world.

      Out of years of dedicated experience with ethical behavior, and contemplation of its nature, our minds have developed into something quite remarkable and have opened up to receiving the deeper Wisdom of the Buddha, offered in the Dhamma, and by the Sangha. These are the conditions that produce stream enterers (who have become “noble” in the sense of having attained initial stage of awakening. They are ready to fully engage the four noble truths, which includes the noble eightfold path.

      In sum, Buddhist Life might be taken as Basic Buddhism, given that its cosmological features are easily and justifiably finessed. It is actually quite profound in itself, involving deep contemplation on the nature of the human mind, and particularly how the many of the mechanisms of ethics are already built into the human mind, waiting to be purified.

      I believe you and Amie attended by Buddhist Life/Buddhist Path class at Jade temple, but that was years ago. I suggest a refresher. I’ve just finished the third edition of my book, and am planning to teach it online in 2026.

    2. bhikkhu cintita Avatar
      bhikkhu cintita

      Gerry,

      I’ve written a simple, short, non-scholarly intro to Buddhism Where Dharma Meets Practice. It is a very recent new edition of what I used to call Mindfulness: Where Dharma Meets Practice. I think you and Amie might have also attended a seminar based on the earlier edition. If you go to cintita.org > resources > books, you can find a pdf. It is also available through book sellers.

      I think it would be a great service if you would read through the new edition with a critical eye, and tell us which parts you would include in Basic Buddhism, and what you would change or add. The book is meant as a very practical guide for modern people, and even discussed how to find a place to practice and how to respond to the unfamiliar elements at ethnic temples that do not seem very Buddhist to westerners.

      1. Colleen A Kastanek Avatar
        Colleen A Kastanek

        What about music? Western music tends to not promote tranquility. A few months ago I was rereading for book club. I was farm sitting, and the pump kept switching on and irritating me, so for the heck of it I said, “Alexa, play Tibetan music.” She plays singing bowls, and occasionally Buddhist chants (which I do not understand) but it is all so beautiful and peace-making that I listen to it whenever I have the opportunity. I am sure there are other “free” ways to listen to this music that we could share with Westerners trying to find a better, more peaceful way. How would this, for lay people, fit into the Buddha’s teaching to avoid distractions?

  10. Gerry Dhamma Avatar
    Gerry Dhamma

    Thank you; I’ll be happy to read it and get back to you.

  11. Gerry Dhamma Avatar
    Gerry Dhamma

    Bhante- I’ve just found this book and read the first 14 pages, and can see it will be interesting and helpful for understanding how to better “package” Buddhsim to make it more appealing to Westerners. It may take a week or two to get through it with my current schedule, but I’ll get to it. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts