Annotated Source

Buddhism in the Modern World. "The Making of the Western Lama," by Daniel Cozort. 2003. pp. 221-248.

Monks debating at the original Sera monastery in Tibet

Though this entry in Buddhism and the Modern World is on the introduction of courses of training designed to produce qualified Buddhist teachers in the western world, it uses for comparison the course of study undertaken at Sera Je monastery. Sera Je was originally a monastery in Tibet, and is still going strong, but has also been built in exile in Bylakuppe, the refugee community we will be living in. I wanted to understand more about the lives of the people who make up such a large portion of this particular community, the monks and nuns living in the monasteries. The course of education at the monastery is incredible.

The entire curriculum takes 20-25 years to complete (and I complain about the 12 years to become a doctor!), granting the graduate the title of Geshe, one authorized to teach. There are five phases of curriculum, as follows:
3 years on logic, epistemology, psychology
5 years on 70 topics essential to the dharma
4 years on several topics, the main being shunyata, or the doctrine of emptiness
4 years on monastic discipline and how monastic disciplinary codes and actions reflect Buddhist ethics
4 years on the Abhidharma, the more esoteric teachings - cosmology, meditation states, etc.

In Tibet, the monks spent 6 or more hours a day debating. In Bylakuppe, there is a 2 hour debate session in the morning and a 2 hour debate session in the evening. Geshe Jampa Gyatso, a prominent teacher of Buddhism, said, "In a monastery, it is said that 25% of one's understanding of the subject comes from the teacher's lecture, 25% from self-study, and 50% from debating" (p. 239). Debating is an exciting activity, and becomes a sport of sorts for the monks. They learn to take all sides of an argument and pick them apart, using a vast memorized corpus of scripture and commentary, looking for logical inconsistencies and trying to find ways to disprove or problematize them. It is in this way that the truths of the dharma come into sharp focus, for the monks spend a large chunk of those 20-25 years testing them rigorously. This reminds me of B.H. Roberts' approach to Book of Mormon scholarship - his belief was that the Book of Mormon was absolutely from God, and therefore would stand up to all the hard questions you could ask about it (by the way, I think he was right). B.H. Roberts' material, humorously enough, became one of the main sources for anti-Mormon material, espoused by folks not realizing the position of faith he had taken and the subsequent scholarship that answered many of the questions and transformed and sharpened others. The Buddhists seek to do this intense testing of faith as a monastic body, which is a powerful way to confirm the value of the dharma.

Another interesting point is that the monks begin formal tantra study only after the title of Geshe has been received. Tantra is considered so powerful and dangerous that only the most accomplished practitioners are deemed worthy to use it.

Here's a video of a debate at Sera monastery in Tibet. Remember, these guys are really on the same side. It looks like fun. :)

 

You'll figure out the all the clapping noises about halfway through.

HUM 201 Journal Entry 4

The Shift from Material Happiness to Internal Happiness

Indian Philosophy and Nicomachean Ethics

            The astonishing realization that things have not always been as they are is one of the great reasons for studying ancient humanities. While holding to my thesis that people are and have been basically the same for the duration of the history that may be called human, it is undeniable that philosophical institutions and understandings have changed dramatically over the millennia. It is taken for granted in modernity that happiness is internal. Methods for producing internal happiness differ from philosophy to philosophy, religion to religion, but I contend without hesitation that the vast majority people of the world today know, though they might not always practice accordingly, that lasting happiness is not in material things. This is due largely to the work of two of the largest influences on modern human thought: Indian philosophy and Greek philosophy.[1] Indian philosophy and Nicomachean ethics both represent the philosophical shift from materialism to what may be termed spirituality by emphasizing right understanding, right action, and right habit.

            Aristotle is meticulous at his approach to gain right understanding. As was noted by several students within my earshot, Aristotle’s method is to go around and around a thing and seek to understand it from every angle, refusing conclusion until a satisfying thoroughness is achieved. Understanding the impossibility of perfection, even using the most rigorous methods available, he is content to  “indicate the truth roughly and in outline… to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits” (Supplement 17). The right understanding of what is epistemologically possible was similarly voiced by Indian Jain philosophers in the doctrines of anekantavada, syadvada, and nayavada. Anekantavada literally means “doctrine of not one side,” meaning that there is necessarily more than one way to look at things. Nayavada considers the different points of view that observers may bring with them, including prejudices and predispositions. Syadvada makes every statement conditional by adding the Sanskrit word “syat” to any claim, transforming, for example, “this chair is big” into “this chair, in a way, is big,” or, more generally, “in a way, X is Y, and in a way, X is not Y.” With all of this considered, the honest acquisition of truth becomes an effort well defined by Aristotle when he claimed only a rough definition of the truth. Armed with the right understanding of our own limitations, we march forward in an attempt at right action.

            Permissible actions in Hinduism are of four categories: pleasure, power, duty, and release. Of these the first two are considered lower and the last two are considered higher, with the goal of release being the highest. Aristotle examines pleasure, honor, money-making, and happiness as the general categories of human endeavor, and ranks as the highest category that of happiness attained through virtue. There is great, though not total, correlation between Aristotle’s definition of happiness and Hinduism’s definition of release. Aristotle sees happiness correlating to material things as low and fleeting. Hinduism sees the material world as something that must be escaped for release to happen and nirvana to set in. Aristotle says, “We call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.” In the Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s sacred scriptures, the avatar Krishna tells the great warrior Arjuna “A disciplined man abandons the fruits of his action and attains unlimited peace, but an undisciplined man becomes a slave to the rewards of his action” (Bhagavad Gita 5:12). Action done for a reward other than the action itself is doomed to disappointment, and is missing the essence of happiness. Action, therefore, may be called “right” if it is done because it is right, and not because of any outcome apart from internal happiness.

            Right habit, according to Aristotle, comes from practice in doing what is right and virtuous (22). Gandhi, arguably the most prominent Indian of recent times, agreed wholeheartedly. In battling the caste system prominent in India, he affirmed that if one acts as a holy man, then one is a holy man, and if one acts as a slave, then one is a slave, regardless of birth or station. There is evidence that ancient Indian philosophy was similar to Gandhi’s views (cf. Bhaskarananda, The Essentials of Hinduism 23). There is nothing in man’s nature but potential, and this potential may be nourished through action and preserved when actions become habits. In correlation with Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, we have “sarvam atyanta garhitam,” meaning “too much of anything is bad” (Bhaskarananda 187). Hinduism respects and venerates the great discipline and moral rectitude of the ascetic holy persons, but self-mortification was never the purpose and is not permissible for even the holy persons, for a life may not be taken before its time. In virtue, morality, as well as in practical living, a doctrine of the mean and right habit is affirmed in both traditions.

            In showing the great similarities within the philosophical traditions of Aristotle and the Indian ancients, I have sought to focus only on points of agreement. There are obviously great differences in matters of theology, theodicy, the organization of society, art critique, etc. My goal in this examination has been simply to trace some of our taken-for-granted philosophical stances to two of their possible roots. Of course, we in the American West owe most of our cultural philosophy to Aristotle and other occidental thinkers. However, as the worlds of East and West become ever more integrated, it is valuable to find common ground on which to build, common sensibilities that may be activated, and common subjects on which to have intercourse.

---

[1] Though no figures are cited to support this claim, it is easily defendable. From India came Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and others, which spread into greater Asia. Greece imparted traditional occidental philosophy and paved the way for Christianity and Islam to take root, which spread into Europe, the Americas, and Africa. Much culture mixing added into this, coming from China, greater Arabia, Africa, etc., but identifiable and undeniable roots are in India and Greece. Most of the human family falls under the umbrella of one or both of these schools.

HUM 201 Journal Entry 7

Part II, Q. 3, art. 13

            It seems that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is incompatible with the theory of organic evolution. Joseph Fielding Smith says, “The doctrine of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church and is not advocated or countenanced in the Church. There is no warrant for it in scripture, not an authentic word to sustain it.”1 (47) Adam is described in scripture as the “first flesh of all flesh” (Moses 3:7), negating the possibility of life on earth having existed before him.

           

On the contrary B.H. Roberts asserts that there is no conflict between Latter-day Saint theology and the existence of pre-Adamite man. Scriptures describing Adam as the first man necessarily refer to Adam being the first man of this dispensation. The wealth of the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth and to living beings having populated it for millions of years.[1]

           

I answer that the answer to the question remains unsolved by theological and scientific methods, but that continued research has swayed the argument in the direction of B.H. Roberts’ conclusions. It must be remembered that both of these highly qualified brethren were speaking in the early 1900s, before the vast wealth of evolutionary evidence was created. The argument is not whether or not God had a hand in creation – the question simply addresses how He did it. Presidents Roberts and Smith were both faithful to the Church throughout their lives.

To definitively state the method of creation, specifically of the creation of man, is to overstep the boundaries of both available science and revealed truth. Scientific statements are forever tentative. Observe the upheaval of Newtonian physics in the wake of Quantum and Relativistic mechanics – though still useful in the normal realm of existence (we send people to the moon using nothing more than Newton’s laws), the anciently held assumptions break down in the realms of the very large and the very small. Current evolutionary theory only resembles in part Darwin’s original theory, due to continual advancements. Further changes are sure to occur. In regards to revealed truth, the scriptures and revelations are, as has been discussed elsewhere, “fraught with background.” Ancient and modern scriptures are content to describe the natural world only in outline, and often metaphorically, for their realm is the salvation of man, not scientific exegesis. We must hold loosely our scientific reading of sacred text. The assumption of many that “all truth is in the Word” is true, but only insomuch as truth is defined to be that which will give a person salvation. Isaiah, Paul, Moroni, and Joseph Smith all had no reason to delve into Schrodinger’s box, for that world of thought had not yet been created. What glimmers of scientific truth we find in scripture (eternity of matter and intelligences and the material nature of spirit as examples) should be cherished, but should not be pushed to extremes. It is irresponsible scientifically and religiously to close oneself or others off from the whole spectrum of truth, for as it is stated, “plan of salvation must . . . circumscribe [all] the knowledge that is upon the face of the earth or it is not from God.”[2]

It is likely that B.H. Roberts came nearest the truth. Radiometric dating puts the age of the earth at billions of years – even allowing for the large degree of uncertainty inherent in the measurements, the earth is at least much older than the 6000 year model of Young Earth Creationists. The geological record points, again and again, to micro and macroevolution.[3] The scriptures, especially in the book of Moses, affirm God’s scope of influence as encompassing the universe and all the worlds therein, which have both come into being and passed away. Creation and destruction are inextricably linked, and the method of God’s creation is to take matter unorganized and organize it. Combining these doctrinal and scientific ideas should inform one’s reading of other texts, including the creation accounts. It is possible that God utilized organic evolution to bring forth Man in his present state –in accordance with His other creative paradigm and the bulk of scientific evidence, primitive matter was progressively sophisticated over the course of time until the desired result arrived. Then was Adam the first Man, as distinguished from the first Cro-Magnon Man or any other type of man found in the fossil record. Homo sapiens is delineated in taxonomy from Homo erectus and all of the other Homo- species, and for this reason – something is different. Then the Fall brought spiritual death into the world, and we find ourselves here. The case for pre-Adamite man is tentative, but it finds no serious objectors in scripture, geology, or biology. Here we leave our exploration in the hands of further revelation and scientific exploration, and state emphatically that we do not yet know the whole truth.

---

[1] Laird, Kurt Wilford. Mormon Rhetoric and the Theory of Organic Evolution. Provo, 2008. Print. Masters Thesis.

[2] Journal of Discourses, 7:148

[3] Do you really want the citations for this? Scientific papers are overwhelmingly boring.