Dang, what a great series of posts! Piece by piece you are dismantling the underpinnings of what I've seen presented on Substack as Engaged Buddhism. I'm very happy to see an informed view of the buddhadharma in your work. Well done! This might bring you some shit from some (although they mostly seem to ignore those that don't agree), but certainly some good karma, maybe in some distant lifetime, but still, you've got that going for ya at least. Cheers!
Thank you for this piece. In particular "there is no possibility of collective liberation. Liberation is only personal and individual, one person at a time, based on one’s own interest" really resonated.
Not wanting to secularise your message, your post reminds me of the once-held importance of teachers, and the recognition that - however necessary curricula may be - real learning is both passed down as well as self-discovered, and happens one person at a time. HNY.
You’ll have ask someone who is expert in Denkoroku. This is a very specific narrative in Zen, one I am not qualified to comment on, as I do not have any experience with Zen koans, having never been a Zen practitioner.
I practice Dzogchen. Our point of view is that all sentient beings are already Buddhas, liberation is merely seeing that inherent nature. But if one doesn’t see it, how can one say one is liberated? If one sees it, how can one see anything but liberation? However, here there is no collective, since no one attained liberation, having always been liberated. If sentient beings are buddhas primordially, but don’t see their own buddhahood, how can there be collective liberation?
In terms of the post, it is a fundamental principle of Buddhadharma, one evident to one’s senses. If one takes the statement you posed literally, the Buddha would not have taught.
My additional point was from a Dzogchen perspective, but not the initial,post.
This seems like a rather fundamentalist approach to Buddhadharma, which I sense Gautama may have intended to be responsive to the causes and conditions in which we find ourselves.
For better or worse, we are living in times when we are acutely aware of the samsara of beings on the other side of the world, when the three poisons actually do manifest collectively (see David Loy's work for a good explication of this), when we are invited to consider how the teachings and our practice can move us toward liberation both individually and collectively. Yes, that's my bias, as a Zen practitioner who has taken bodhisattva vows -- which, yes, are impossible.
Is there a kind of liberation that exists outside of undefiled prajñā? Can that undefiled prajñā be induced in others involuntarily? Apart from voluntary, personal practice, I have yet to see a mechanism that frees sentient beings from the three poisons other than realizing undefiled prajñā.
Relieving sentient beings of material anxiety, fear, and expressing loving kindness and compassion are certainly three of the four kinds of generosity we can practice. While valuable in their own right as a categorical imperatives, without sentient beings accepting the gift of Dharma, the fourth and most important type of generosity, how can we ever expect sentient beings will be able to experience the fruit of liberation?
In Buddhadharma we have always been acutely aware of the samsara of beings in other parts of the world—this is the point of the contemplation of the eight unfavorable conditions. This is the point of the reflection on the suffering of the six realms. It is not like Buddhists woke up yesterday and discovered they lived in a world with diverse civilizations, languages and cultures.
It is good to receive bodhisattva vows and take them seriously.
When I see misconceptions take root—like taking literally the notion of collective liberation, without understanding it is part of the bodhisattva’s aspirations which are deemed impossible, and nevertheless, highly meritorious aspirations—I feel a duty to voice a perspective which is grounded in what the Buddha and bodhisattvas have to say on the subject, as opposed to opinions of modern scholars who do not accept rebirth, whose opinions apparently have more weight in some modern circles than the words of the Buddha.
It is not the case there is no practice for rebirth skeptics, but the Buddha was quite clear it is not liberative. He lays this out in the famous and most misunderstood Kalamas Sutta.
I see your point about the ripening of karma being absolutely personal and specific.
Is it not true however, that there is collective karma in the sense that groups of beings shared perceptions are a kind of shared karma? Humans in general down to nations, religions, class and political/social groups and families share ever more specific experiences of what is effectively empty luminosity - the classic example being how the 6 classes of beings experience water dependent on their karmic perception, which depend on karmic imprints.
The function of projecting karma is to project us into our birthplace in the next life. That karma too is not collective. So, the ripening of this karma only determines human perception to the extent that as human beings we have human sense organs. The only school which asserts the totality of our perception is a function of constantly ripening traces is Yogacara. We have this idea of traces being like Snapchat filters, switch one out for another, change the appearance. In reality, the appearances of the other five realms is invalid for a human being, and so on. So, in this case, traces have less to do with moment by moment cognition of objects and more to do with projecting karma. The shared experience you are referring to falls into the realm of convention.
I should add that I understand that (at least as I understand it) what I mean is sharing in a commonality of perception/karma, not sharing the exact same karma itself
Shit is good as a soil amendment.
Dang, what a great series of posts! Piece by piece you are dismantling the underpinnings of what I've seen presented on Substack as Engaged Buddhism. I'm very happy to see an informed view of the buddhadharma in your work. Well done! This might bring you some shit from some (although they mostly seem to ignore those that don't agree), but certainly some good karma, maybe in some distant lifetime, but still, you've got that going for ya at least. Cheers!
Thank you for this piece. In particular "there is no possibility of collective liberation. Liberation is only personal and individual, one person at a time, based on one’s own interest" really resonated.
Exactly what I need to hear this morning. Thanks!
Not wanting to secularise your message, your post reminds me of the once-held importance of teachers, and the recognition that - however necessary curricula may be - real learning is both passed down as well as self-discovered, and happens one person at a time. HNY.
if collective liberation is 'impossible' what did the Buddha mean when he said, ‘I together with all beings and the great earth attain the way.'
You’ll have ask someone who is expert in Denkoroku. This is a very specific narrative in Zen, one I am not qualified to comment on, as I do not have any experience with Zen koans, having never been a Zen practitioner.
I practice Dzogchen. Our point of view is that all sentient beings are already Buddhas, liberation is merely seeing that inherent nature. But if one doesn’t see it, how can one say one is liberated? If one sees it, how can one see anything but liberation? However, here there is no collective, since no one attained liberation, having always been liberated. If sentient beings are buddhas primordially, but don’t see their own buddhahood, how can there be collective liberation?
So then you're really speaking from a Dzogchen perspective, one that can't necessarily be a blanket statement about all Buddhadharma.
A blessed new year to you and yours.
In terms of the post, it is a fundamental principle of Buddhadharma, one evident to one’s senses. If one takes the statement you posed literally, the Buddha would not have taught.
My additional point was from a Dzogchen perspective, but not the initial,post.
This seems like a rather fundamentalist approach to Buddhadharma, which I sense Gautama may have intended to be responsive to the causes and conditions in which we find ourselves.
For better or worse, we are living in times when we are acutely aware of the samsara of beings on the other side of the world, when the three poisons actually do manifest collectively (see David Loy's work for a good explication of this), when we are invited to consider how the teachings and our practice can move us toward liberation both individually and collectively. Yes, that's my bias, as a Zen practitioner who has taken bodhisattva vows -- which, yes, are impossible.
Hello Maia:
Is there a kind of liberation that exists outside of undefiled prajñā? Can that undefiled prajñā be induced in others involuntarily? Apart from voluntary, personal practice, I have yet to see a mechanism that frees sentient beings from the three poisons other than realizing undefiled prajñā.
Relieving sentient beings of material anxiety, fear, and expressing loving kindness and compassion are certainly three of the four kinds of generosity we can practice. While valuable in their own right as a categorical imperatives, without sentient beings accepting the gift of Dharma, the fourth and most important type of generosity, how can we ever expect sentient beings will be able to experience the fruit of liberation?
In Buddhadharma we have always been acutely aware of the samsara of beings in other parts of the world—this is the point of the contemplation of the eight unfavorable conditions. This is the point of the reflection on the suffering of the six realms. It is not like Buddhists woke up yesterday and discovered they lived in a world with diverse civilizations, languages and cultures.
It is good to receive bodhisattva vows and take them seriously.
When I see misconceptions take root—like taking literally the notion of collective liberation, without understanding it is part of the bodhisattva’s aspirations which are deemed impossible, and nevertheless, highly meritorious aspirations—I feel a duty to voice a perspective which is grounded in what the Buddha and bodhisattvas have to say on the subject, as opposed to opinions of modern scholars who do not accept rebirth, whose opinions apparently have more weight in some modern circles than the words of the Buddha.
It is not the case there is no practice for rebirth skeptics, but the Buddha was quite clear it is not liberative. He lays this out in the famous and most misunderstood Kalamas Sutta.
I see your point about the ripening of karma being absolutely personal and specific.
Is it not true however, that there is collective karma in the sense that groups of beings shared perceptions are a kind of shared karma? Humans in general down to nations, religions, class and political/social groups and families share ever more specific experiences of what is effectively empty luminosity - the classic example being how the 6 classes of beings experience water dependent on their karmic perception, which depend on karmic imprints.
The function of projecting karma is to project us into our birthplace in the next life. That karma too is not collective. So, the ripening of this karma only determines human perception to the extent that as human beings we have human sense organs. The only school which asserts the totality of our perception is a function of constantly ripening traces is Yogacara. We have this idea of traces being like Snapchat filters, switch one out for another, change the appearance. In reality, the appearances of the other five realms is invalid for a human being, and so on. So, in this case, traces have less to do with moment by moment cognition of objects and more to do with projecting karma. The shared experience you are referring to falls into the realm of convention.
I should add that I understand that (at least as I understand it) what I mean is sharing in a commonality of perception/karma, not sharing the exact same karma itself
I have literally never heard of this until just now. 😮
which part?
"Collective liberation" in Buddhism.
Yes, its a thing you will see occasionally here on substack and elsewhere. Its a misinterpretation of TNH's interbeing notion.
https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/a-buddhist-perspective-on-economics-and-the-alleviation-of-poverty/