This week’s readings returned to the idea of the self and provided new insights which I found helpful in my understanding. Specifically, possessiveness was discussed in the Vimalakirti reading and the Thurman reading.

The two authors describe possessiveness as a sort of natural, but counterproductive, extension of the self. In Essential Tibetan Buddhism, Thurman spells out the process by which we come to value property so highly: When we value the self, we begin to prioritize the self’s happiness, and happiness can be (temporarily) achieved by pursuing property--things that are

“mine” (ETB 183).

Therefore, it seems that the self is at the root of a number of addictions, and abandoning one’s notion of the self must be a necessary step to achieving enlightenment. The Vimalakirti reading reaches a similar conclusion, suggesting that

“if there is no presumption of a self, there will be no possessiveness” (Vimalakirti 73).

This progression follows quite naturally from our lives, especially in the rampant capitalist American society. Our culture is entrenched in possessiveness: capitalism urges us to be protective of our belongings, to hoard our wealth, and to own property. This is why, as an American, following the instructions laid out by Buddhism seems profoundly difficult to me. The idea of surrendering my belongings and aspirations I hold dear feels like an impossibly lofty goal. Even though I can appreciate, for example, Thurman’s story of his renunciation of the material world, and even acknowledge that possessiveness and the self are barriers to finding true enlightenment, my dedication to the life-cycle is such that I can’t fathom ever being able to take the necessary steps to swear it off. I would be very interested in hearing more stories of Americans who have dedicated their lives to becoming monks or nuns, or at least taken some of the actions laid out by Vimalakirti and Thurman.

In a similar vein, the Vimalakirti reading explains what the dharma is not in order to demonstrate appropriate behavior in following the dharma:

“The Dharma is not an object. He who pursues objects is not interested in the Dharma but is interested in objects…. The Dharma is not a secure refuge…. The Dharma is not a society.... If you are interested in the Dharma, you should take no interest in anything” (Vimalakirti 51).

This particular passage was quite helpful in leading me to better understand what the dharma is, particularly in the seemingly paradoxical idea that interest in the dharma requires one to be interested in nothing else. It is in moments like this one that I come to appreciate the sentiment expressed by other readings that language can never come close to properly conveying the dharma. Language can strive toward its meaning, but our readings suggest that dharma is ultimately indescribable. The idea of having interest in nothing except the dharma is one that is difficult to describe with words; I imagine it is something that must be felt. The statement that

“He who is interested in the dharma is not interested even in his own body, much less in a chair” (Vimalakirti 50)

ties the dharma quite nicely into the idea of possessiveness. Vimalakirti suggests that, if one is truly dedicated to the dharma, they must give up their possessiveness over worldly comforts, as well as one’s own body, with the eventual goal of giving up possessiveness over the self.

ism

Two concepts that were of great importance to both readings, but which I don’t think I fully grasped, were voidness and nonduality. Voidness is described as the underlying feature of all things; when Thurman says that all things are voidness, he means that they lack basis. Further, it is occasionally emphasized that voidness is not equivalent to, or even compatible with, nihilism:

“Voidness is not nihilistic since all functions are viable because of it” (ETB 190).

I’m not sure how to formulate this into a question, but I am interested in deepening my understanding of the concept of basis so that I can better understand voidness. I would also like to explore the connection between voidness and nihilism; I don’t quite understand what makes them so distinct.

nondual

Finally, I am interested in an anecdote from the Vimalakirti reading in which Sariputra and a goddess switch forms, taking on the other’s gender. Though this moment is meant to illustrate the broader point that “all things are neither made nor changed” (Vimalakirti 62), it made me think more critically about the concept of gender in Buddhist teachings. I was pleasantly surprised by the text’s statement that “in all things, there is neither male nor female” (Vimalakirti 62), considering previous readings which suggested a more patriarchal influence over Buddhism. I do wonder, though, why the Buddha is depicted as male, or as having a gender at all. The Buddha is consistently referred to with he/him pronouns; could this be a product of the translation to English, or are we meant to understand the Buddha as a male figure? Of course, Siddhartha Gautama was male (maybe he chose a male form to better aid him in spreading his teachings), but the continuous referral of the Buddha as “he” or “him” seems to contradict the statement from the Vimalakirti reading that male and female categorizations do not exist. It’s also possible that I’m getting lost in the weeds here with my 21st-century eyes.