Thoughts on Vigilance Chapter of Dhammapada

“... the guard [their vigilance] as their greatest treasure.”

Dhammapada, vs. 26, trans. Eknath Easwaran

Diligence comes from the Latin verb diligere, meaning to love, to take delight in.  That isn’t the usual feeling I’ve had when thinking of diligence; my own thinking, and that of many people I have discussed this concept with, is of drudgery, hardship, sacrifice, etc…  But, thinking of diligence with its Latin etymology helps when it comes to cultivating Right Diligence (yes, that is one of the parts of the Noble Eight-Fold Path).  

It’s not a drudgery or a chore; it’s something delighted in.  This line of thought reminds me of Jesus’ “My yoke is easy, my burden in light” (Matt. 11.30).  In the Dhammapada chapter on vigilance, I see the connection between the two concepts: vigilance means to keep awake; diligence means to be careful and persistent, or assiduous.  They are brought together in earnestness (i.e. showing sincere and intense conviction).

The delight gives one conviction to stay awake.  This all leads to one guarding their conquest of the mind, of the four kinds of Mara1.  Without Right Diligence we will lack the earnestness to be vigilant.  

We awaken a little to realize that we need to awaken.  We have an instant of enlightenment to show us we are sitting in darkness.  This is beginner’s mind.  Without that “small” awakening we will not be aware that we are asleep.  Once we have that beginner’s mind we will delight in practice: we will fall in love with the Buddha we are to become.  Love will keep us on the path.  This is why last time I talked about love as being the only thing that will put an end to hatred.  Love is what gave the five “wise” virgins, of the Gospels, their wisdom, i.e. their vigilance.

If what you’re doing feels like a chore, a burden, a drudgery, then it will not be Right Diligence.  There must be and ease and a joy involved in the doing.  Verse 26 of the Dhammapada says, “... the wise guard it [vigilance, heedfulness] as their greatest treasure” (trans. Easwaran).  Treasure is something people love, otherwise it’s not treasure.  If you have trouble with your faith or practice, if they are bothersome, like something you don’t want to do but must, then those are not your treasure--they are your burden.

Think about it like this: people don’t love, don’t take great care, and don’t keep awake and guard a thing they don’t want.  They do those things for things they treasure--for treasure!  This is the reason Jesus said in Luke 12.34, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” The thing is: how do you change this?  How do you change what feels like a burden into a treasure?  Sometimes, you can’t, and in that case you have to accept the situation.  

You know the saying, “One person’s trash is another’s treasure”?  It has merit.  It may help to get a new perspective.  Try this: Make two columns on a piece of paper.  Then, write how you truly feel about the concept/practice that you consider a burden/a mere duty.  Then, in the second column, write down a different feeling--one you would rather have, would prefer to have.  Try something like: “I would prefer to see _________ as a splendid treasure instead of as a burden.”  Questions are powerful, so you can ask yourself, several times a day, something like: “Why is this belief/practice/concept/_______ a treasure to me?”  Have fun with it.  “Why is this _______ ‘my precious’?”  ;-)

It may be necessary to find a new practice--one that has ease, joy, peace and happiness in it.  It’s important to walk the Middle Way, i.e. not too tight, not too loose, but perfectly tuned to make the beautiful music of your life.

Once we have experienced the “small” awakening, we need vigilance to keep awake in order that we can walk the path to liberation, to freedom, to cessation of suffering.  Carry the treasure of vigilance with love and earnestness, with ease and joy, within your heart everywhere you go, every day of your life, every precious moment.

Peace! :-)


____________________

1. The four kinds of Mara: unwholesome mental factors, the Five Skandhas, death, and distractions.  For more on this, see: Thich Nhat Hanh, Awakening the Heart, note 75.

Review of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer by Bart D. Ehrman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is a good introduction to theodicy. Ehrman gives a broad and fairly thorough overview of what the Bible says about suffering. I like that he is not satisfied with the pat answers that are usually given for why people suffer.

Ultimately, I'm not satisfied with those answers, either and this idea of suffering was a key reason in my own leaving the Church and Christianity. This is not to say that I am an enemy of Christianity, but like Ehrman, I take an agnostic stance when it comes to the ideas of gods and spirits and other supernatural ideas.

I try to keep an open mind, and I have to be careful not to get set in one mindset; I appreciate Ehrman's way of presenting his discussion of this important subject: he didn't try to make those who believe the pat answers look ignorant or foolish, like so many militant atheist/agnostics do. He actually has an open mind, and with his current knowledge he makes many good points, all based on what is in the Bible.

The main thing, I think, is to start a dialogue and Ehrman has made an excellent starting place for such a dialogue.

This book resonates with me because many of the things Ehrman writes are similar or exactly my own thoughts, and it is always good to know that one is not alone when it comes to important issues and sometimes controversial topics.

If you wonder why the God of the Bible allows suffering and/or you're not satisfied with the pat and often parroted answers, you could do worse than to read this book. You may, as I did, walk away with more questions, but that is fine if you remember that the only thing that is certain in this world is uncertainty. We don't always have to have an answer.

View all my reviews

Get a copy here:

Review of Volume 1 of Modern Buddhism: The Path of Compassion and Wisdom

Modern Buddhism: The Path of Compassion and Wisdom - Volume 1 Sutra by Kelsang Gyatso
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is a good overview and practical manual for learning to walk the Buddhist path. It's similar to The Words of My Perfect Teacher: A Complete Translation of a Classic Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism (Sacred Literature Trust Series) , but this has more actual examples of meditations to use in daily practice.

(It is Volume 1 of 3, all of which were free on Amazon.com at the time I got my copy.)

If you are even a little interested in Buddhism in general, and/or Tibetan Buddhism in particular (esp. as it has evolved in our time and in the "West"), this is an excellent place to start.

It covers several levels, which I have only found similarly in the Dalai Lama's Becoming Enlightened . Here they are laid out in a way that was more clear to me.

View all my reviews

Get a copy here:

Review of Proof of Heaven, by Eben Alexander

Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Near-Death Experience and Journey into the Afterlife by Eben Alexander
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I can understand where Dr. Alexander is coming from in this book. He was a materialist science-based doctor, who occasionally attending church, but had no real belief in a deity or an afterlife. Then, after his coma, he believes his experiences while in coma to be "real." He believes that he met God/the creator, and was given many "answers" to questions, etc.

My problem with this is: all of what he says sounds very much like a mixture of several of the world's religions: Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, mostly. This does not discount his experience, but like all experience, it is subjective and if he (along with anyone else who "believes" his words) gets caught by those words or becomes attached to those experiences, he is then in essence following a new religion.

Some of the things he said "felt" true to me, in other words, I didn't get a definite "NO! That's a lie and that can't be true." For example: he said something along the lines that all the universe is based on love and compassion.  That is a Buddhist idea with which I agree.  But, that does not validate Alexander's experiences. Who am I? Other things in his experiences were just too convenient; I won't say what they are because I don't what to spoil the book for anyone else.

What it really comes down to for me is that if you need this kind of "proof" you probably won't accept it, in much the same way that Dr. Alexander did not accept the ideas and experiences of others who had had NDEs before he did. Any experience that CANNOT be replicated, tested, and ultimately be disproved, is NOT scientific; Dr. Alexander, a self-proclaimed scientist, should have known this and that he seems to overlook that gives me pause. He also claims that his NDE was not like others, which then, negates the idea that it indeed had been replicated. There does not seem to be enough knowledge of the causes of these experiences, and given that they are often similar is not enough to prove them outright.

The author states that science is not giving enough attention to this area, i.e. consciousness. The problem is that which I mentioned above: the experience cannot be duplicated and so there is nothing for science to do. True science is based on hypotheses that can be tested; how can I (if I were a scientist) test, i.e. replicate Eben Alexander's experience? How can anyone do that without being in exactly the same situation? The answer is, they can't. Each of those factors: the problem that caused the coma, the coma itself, the exact drugs that were used to treat the problem, the environment, etc.: all those have to be duplicated and get the same result (his experience). Given that what caused his coma is extremely rare, it is unlikely that anyone will have the same or even a similar experience anytime soon. There is no way to test and thus, no way to prove the experience was, as Eben Alexander says, "real."

That being said, they cannot be disproved, either, at least not at our current ability. So, the best stance for me is agnostic, as it was before I read this book. I'm not convinced by his story. You may be, and that is your prerogative. You will have to read it and make up your own mind.



View all my reviews

Get a copy, here:

Sacred/Profane/Spiritual/Secular

Sacred and profane are not mutually exclusive.  If you read sacred literature closely, you will see how it is often the profane that is set aside for destruction, i.e. set aside for the deity.  The meaning of "set aside for destruction" is to "make sacred."

Spirituality and secularism are exclusive.  Or are they?  I have often pondered this question.  I consider myself secular, humanist and atheist, but I also have an aspect to my way of seeing and being that I cannot label anything other than spiritual.  It's not that I believe in fairy tale creatures or deities or ghosts or anything else supernatural.  It is more like a connection to Jung's collective unconscious (a term I find amusing, because to be unconscious is like being, you know, passed-out/fainted/...errr, unconscious).  While I'm not sure how much I hold to this idea, I do have a need to spend time in quiet contemplation, which could be equated to the spiritual practice of meditation -- which I am also interested in.

But, and this is a big-O but, I don't believe that we are genetically spiritual.  Some scientists have found "evidence" of spirituality in the brains of subjects.  I think a good experiment to follow this, is to have atheists go through similar tests, but to use non-spiritual language, images, etc., to see what kind of result they come up with.

No 'God Spot' In Brain, Spirituality Linked To Right Parietal Lobe

“We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

There should also be the caveat here: spirituality does NOT by default mean YOUR specific brand of spirituality.  If there is a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, that does NOT mean there is a basis for a deity.  It is non sequitur to reach such a conclusion from this data.

I believe that people can have a form of, what could be called, spirituality without having recourse to deities or spirits.

I also believe that atheists can hold things as sacred.  What do atheists deem as sacred?  Sacredness usually connotes holiness or has a spiritual aspect, but can it not simply mean "set apart"?  They might hold their families as sacred, their friends, their intellect, even science.  They may hold the quiet beauty of the deep forest, or top of a mountain as sacred: not because it is inhabited by a spiritual being, but because it is a place where they can reach the deepest parts of themselves.

Atheists still have faith, right?  So why not sacredness?

Think about the things you consider sacred/profane; and about your outlook: is it more spiritual or secular?

NOTES:

Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Sacred - 1. a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>