The glass is fully empty

Hoo!

I can't seem to upload pictures today, so you'll have to be satisfied with a picless philosophy rant.

I saw some great theatre last night at TIPA, which I'd somehow managed to avoid visiting until then despite the fact that I had to walk past it every day on the way to Tushita, and that I live near it on TIPA Road. I'm really glad I finally went though - lots of wonderful singing and dancing, and some skits which looked funny, although I couldn't really tell, since they were in Tibetan. One of my favourite performances was the singing of the Tibetan national anthem, which is actually a beautiful song, unlike most anthems.

The main thing I've been doing since my course ended though has been attending the Dalai Lama's annual post-Losar Monlam teachings every day in the courtyard of the Tsuglagkhang temple. They're in Tibetan, but there's a simultaneous English translation via FM broadcast. You can also watch and/or listen to any of these teachings online by clicking here. The most surprising thing about them, especially for Western audiences, is how heavily philosophical they are. You see a sea of Tibetan peasants silently praying or counting strings of mala beads, listening raptly to their highest religious leader talk about how "all composite things are produced from causes," and that "everything comes into being in dependence on other things," (thus negating the idea of inherent existence for the self or for objects). Wow.

The main texts that he is using are the Compendium of Precepts, and A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life, both by Shantideva, an 8th-century Buddhist saint and scholar. I've already read the Guide (as translated by Stephen Batchelor), because it was the textbook for my Tushita course, and I follow along in it at the teachings. It's a beautiful poem/philosophical treatise/practical guide to life. Well, it's beautiful and practical for Buddhists or for those sympathetic to the Buddhist mindset - a strong current of disgust with the body and all things worldly runs through it, which probably turns off a lot of people. Human bodies are described variously as "...walking corpses/Which are moved around by a few (impulses)," "...cages of bones tied together with muscles/Plastered over with the mud of flesh," and, very simply, as "bags of filth." This disgust is rooted in the belief that the human realm, along with the other realms of Samsara (or cyclic existence), are basically places of illusion and suffering which we must overcome to realize Nirvana, "the state beyond sorrow." To become attached to objects such as bodies is to become attached to Samsara, and to create further suffering. Ironically though, the ideal in Mahayana Buddhism (of which Tibetan Buddhism is a branch) is not to realize Nirvana, but to become a Bodhisattva, a being who forsakes full Buddhahood and remains in cyclic existence in order to help others attain Nirvana. One of the final passages of the Guide reads: "For as long as space endures/And for as long as living beings remain/Until then may I, too, abide/To dispel the misery of the world."

I find it very difficult to integrate this ideal of the Bodhisattva with another central aspect of Buddhism, the belief in "emptiness." As opposed to Hinduism, which posits a permanent, all-pervasive Self as the fundamental reality, Buddhism denies the inherent (permanent, independent, and partless) existence of the self and of everything. Given this idea, I'm confused as to the point of compassion and the Bodhisattva's way of life in general - why should we develop compassion for beings who do not truly exist, and thus do not truly suffer? The Guide answers as follows:

Although sentient beings do not truly exist, deceptively one should develop compassion for those imputed (as sentient beings) by the confused mind which has promised to practice the (Bodhisattva) way of life in order to lead them to the goal of liberation... Although ultimately it is true (that there are no truly existent sentient beings, compassion or results), deceptively, from the point of view of a mind confused about phenomena, we accept the existence of merely apparent results arising from merely apparent compassion developed towards merely apparent sentient beings... In order to completely pacify suffering one need not and cannot reject compassion. Therefore one should not reject this merely apparent confusion about the results. However, the confusion about the self should be rejected because it increases such things as self-importance, which are causes for suffering.

Yeah... I still don't get it. If suffering doesn't truly exist, then why should we attempt to eliminate it? In fact, I don't see the point in attaining even our own "liberation," since "...in their being (empty of true existence), there is no difference between the state beyond sorrow - Nirvana - and the state not beyond sorrow - cyclic existence." And even if there were a difference, there would seemingly still be no point in even securing liberation for oneself, since one does not have a self. Hmm...

By the way: as per the question that I was trying to use Hinduism to answer, Buddhism completely avoids the whole can of worms. Cyclic existence has been occurring since "beginningless time;" whether or not there was a Creator, and if so, whatever his reasons for creating were, is immaterial, as the answer will not help us to achieve enlightenment.

So there you have it.