Maitreya Buddha - the future of Buddhism in the West

(.....Waiting for American Dogen )

Buddha usually appear as “this very moment”, however perceived or defined. Being always “just that…..” Buddhas may or may not be perceived as Buddhas by others, nevertheless, they always continue being Buddhas just as they are. However, since the “as they are” is inherently empty and not any fixed entity, Buddhas appear as simply “this” […….] or “that” [……..], as me and you, as “this very moment” and as the entire Universe. 

They “appear” only when Mind appears (…) divided into its object / subject modes of Being.  

Whenever a Buddha realizes that he or she is Buddha as a human being, the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha rejoice, leap forward, and “Buddhism” takes yet another turn. 

The last 2,600 years of Buddhism have been marked by such occasional appearance of realized Buddhas, of spiritual guides, whose insights, understanding or manifestation of the Dharma not only subsumed and included all prior teaching traditions but also reformulated them into a new philosophical turn, new school or spiritual paradigm.

Today, two centuries after Buddhism was introduced to the West, many practitioners in this country wonder how long will it take for another Buddha, another uniquely enlightened mind, another Nagarjuna, Asanga, Milarepa, Hui-Neng, Hakuin or Dogen to appear in American Buddhism?

Alas for all of us, as the timeline in the box below suggests, it may to take quite a long time again.

More time is needed for Buddhism to take root on the American soil, more time to assimilate with the culture at large and to mature enough for its new, truly Western, form to eventually emerge.

Even more time is probably needed for an American teacher, another Nagarjuna, Asanga, Milarepa, Hui-Neng, Hakuin or Dogen to appear in the U.S., a teacher who will not only conclude the transmission of Dharma to this new land but who will also legitimize American Buddhism as a new and fully autonomous tradition.

And when it finally arrives, what is the American Buddhism likely to be, 400 - 500 years from now?

How is that future American Maitreya Buddha, likely to lead, galvanize and propel American Buddhism into its next Millennium?

Historically, Buddhism, born out of Hinduism and Yoga traditions in ancient India, has always tended to absorb native spiritual tradition and culture of the country to which it arrived. As it moved East throughout Asia, it merged with Confucianism and Taoism in China, assimilated shamanism in Tibet and adapted to the Shinto Samurai culture in Japan.

Similarly, the future of American Buddhism is likely to be shaped by the entire Western / American culture and its future evolution in the time to come. 

One can anticipate that, by the year 2,500, American Buddhism in will have assimilated and merged  with the following “Western” influences:

• Democracy – contrary to more autocratic, male dominated Asian model, American Buddhists will embrace more democratic, egalitarian / libertarian approach, with man and women practicing together in centers governed by elective process where the role of a teacher is separate from the center’s administrator. A full spectrum of training models will develop, from more traditional monastic institutions to lay centers which are likely to grow in popularity. The Western appreciation of individuality, democracy and transparency will result in more horizontal, egalitarian approach to the interpretation of the Dharma, with multiple, loosely related “lineages” and a marketplace of individual preachers. Paradoxically, this model is likely to resemble the origins of Buddhism in 600 B.C. India where wondering “seekers” / “monks” gathered only during rain seasons to study and practice in one place and only to resume their individual/ solitary search afterwards. An individual “hermit” / Boddhisatva / preacher model is likely to emerge, in addition to more organized Buddhism-as-religion. 

• Science– science in general, and quantum physics and Unified Theory (when available) will replace Mahayana Buddhism as the new paradigm for the understanding of the Universe, Mind and Emptiness. American Buddhism will not only embrace science as the preferred language of the Dharma but a new, Scientific Buddhism will emerge as the dominant “school” of Buddhism not only in the West but worldwide. 

• Psychology – both Buddhism and psychology endeavor to alleviate suffering and to grasp the nature of Mind. Psychology without the Mysterium of spirituality and mysticism is incomplete, Buddhism without postmodern psychology is naïve. Buddhism will eventually adopt the language of cognitive neuroscience and psychology to redefine itself within the Western culture. Insights of psychology, psychiatry, brain science and psychotherapy will not only inform any serious spiritual training and practice in the future but will also permeate the “Western” interpretation of the Madhyamika / Yogacara Dharma. Buddhist teachers of the future are likely to undergo formal training in at least one of the above disciplines to match ever evolving psychological-mindedness of their Western practitioners. Seated meditation and mindfulness will continue as the key elements distinguishing Buddhists practice from other traditions.

·        Language – translating Buddhism into the Western context will impose the English language and its vocabulary on the Dharma. A complete translation of most of Sanscrit, Chinese, Tibetan and Japanese texts should be completed within the next 100 years and most of the Buddhist canon will be available to Western readers in English. Terminology and understanding of particular terms is likely to evolve to adjust to the usage within the Western culture. New, original, modern  “sutras”, or Dharma texts, will appear and gradually replace the old ones. Future, American, Nagarjuna, Asanga, Milarepa, Hui-Neng, Hakuin and Dogen will “re-write” the old texts and create a uniquely English-language “school” of Buddhism. 

• Postmodern / postindustrial culture – Buddhism preceded some ideas typically associated with deconstruction and postmodernism for over 2,600 years. The lack (emptiness) of the subject and form, decentralization / multiplicity (Absolute / Relative) of signification and truth, quantum physics and interdependent origination – all point to inescapable parallels between Buddhism and the postmodern. The future Buddhism will continue to evolve within the postmodern Western culture and will become increasingly permeated by its ideas and values. Environmentalism and “engaged” Buddhism will play a significant role in defining how Buddhists will function in the future global / local marketplace.

• Technology –Buddhism will evolve in the Millennium dominated by science and its applications - technology. In a few decades we will be able to effectively manipulate our genetic codes, and hence the life itself, will learn how to control and change, at will, our states of mind through new advances in molecular neuropsychopharmacology, and will be able to immerse ourselves in computerized virtual realities of our choice, leaving more mundane chores to increasingly more efficacious and omnipresent artificial intelligence tools and robotic appliances. Instantaneous visual-audio global access to any information, person or place anywhere on Earth, via the next generations of the Internet, will be taken for granted. Biological computers and ultramicrochip-enhanced biological implants will merge technology with brain functions, altering cognition, consciousness and the sense of individual identity. The new American “Scientific Buddhism” will emerge  to embrace technology as its new “Great Vehicle” to ferry all sentient beings to the other shore of Existence.

• Judeo-Christian tradition – Buddhism will assimilate many of the contemporary Judeo-Christian forms of monastic and lay practice, ranging from the Catholic monastery / church / priest model to the Episcopalian / Protestant / Baptist minister / preacher / congregation formats of practice. Buddhism will continue to struggle with the concept of Judeo-Christian monotheistic God.  Interfaith dialogue(s) will emerge to clarify basic ideas and to enhance mutual understanding. The concepts of God and Buddha-Mind, along with neuroscience, will take the center stage in the multidisciplinary debate on the nature of the mind and spiritual and religious life.

• Global marketplace – American Buddhism will embrace wholesome, not-for-profit entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, simplicity and non-attachment rather than poverty and asceticism. Although Buddhism originally developed within tribal / feudal cultures of ancient India, China and Japan, we are now witnessing an increasing emphasis on economic self-reliance rather than on alms-gathering or feudal / government donations and support. Sophisticated fund raising, students / members fees and small business ventures are likely to become dominant sources of income for Buddhist centers in the future. Separation of the spiritual teaching from the economics, similar to that of church / state in the society at large, will have to be strictly observed to prevent perception of exploitation. The issues of property ownership or de facto property control by teachers, non-attachment vs poverty vs asceticism will have to be addressed and resolved as a Dharma question and within the American Sangha to assure integrity, purity and depth of future practice.

The future is always different from our speculations about it. However, we know that Buddhism will have to change in its encounter with the West. The old Theravada / Mahayana tradition will be, eventually, replaced by a new "school" or paradigm.

Since science and technology, along with democracy and global marketplace, are the most dominant forces shaping the world today, the postmodern science will become the next discourse of Buddhism, not only in the West but worldwide.   

That fully autonomous American / Western Scientific Buddhism will need a teacher, who like others did before, will propel it into the next Millennia. That person, whoever he/she will be, will find a way to translate the Dharma into a new language of science, psychology, cognitive neuroscience and postmodern / postindustrial culture.

To save all sentient beings, we all need to do our best to make it happen as soon as possible.

Buddha usually appear as “this very moment”, however perceived or defined. Being always “just that…..” Buddhas may or may not be perceived as Buddhas by others, nevertheless, they always continue being Buddhas just as they are. However, since the “as they are” is inherently empty and not any fixed entity, Buddhas appear as simply “this” […….] or “that” [……..], as me and you, as “this very moment” and as the entire Universe. 

They “appear” only when Mind appears (…) divided into its object / subject modes of Being.  

Whenever a Buddha realizes that he or she is Buddha as a human being, the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha rejoice, leap forward, and “Buddhism” takes yet another turn. 

 When Being Healthy is Simply Not Enough

(a book review)

with L. Horvitz

Lynn, an attractive, Yale educated, 26 year old editor of a trendy art magazine in Manhattan, is discovered comatose by her socialite mother. Once she’s resuscitated, she is found to have taken massive doses of Xanax , Prozac and vodka, leading doctors to suspect that she’d attempted suicide. Her parents are stunned, frustrated and shocked. They failed to pick up the warning signs. Her doctors diagnose a major depressive episode and after further testing conclude that she has an underlying personality disorder – narcissism, which is notoriously hard to treat. An assessment of her history reveals a troubled life. Her suicidal impulses began within two years of landing her highly competitive job. There were conflicts with her colleagues, fleeting affairs with writers, a disastrous office romance, and drinking and pot smoking binges. She’d missed appointments and deadlines, shown lapses in professional judgment and performed shoddy editorial work. Her psychiatrist admitted that he’d had to cope with frantic phone calls, unending crises, abuse of prescribed medications and periodic visits to the local ER. Nothing he tried seemed to work. What made her case so frustrating was that on the face of it Lynn seemed to have every possible advantage. Yet she repeatedly sabotaged her life and her work and in the process she succeeded in destroying her health as well. It was only because of a quick-thinking medic and a young resident that she didn’t kill herself. Her doctors and therapists were clueless about what could be done for her. Was her case hopeless or were the doctors missing something?

One possible answer is suggested by another case which initially stumped doctors just as Lynn’s did.

Arthur, a forty-five year old self-made multimillionaire, becomes unable to get out of  bed; he spends days in his room, alternately sleeping and crying, petrified by the thought of having to face the day or do even minor chores. Although he’s in excellent health and physically fit, he’s simply unable to function. Diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder (popularly known as manic depression), he fails to respond to aggressive treatment with all known mood stabilizers. His therapists conduct multiple trials of every conceivable antidepressant and even resort to electric convulsant shock therapy all to no avail. His psycho pharmacologist, unable to control his growing suicidal thoughts or mitigate his paranoid thinking, arranges an emergency consultation with a colleague specializing in personality disorders. After a thorough evaluation and psychological testing, the specialist recommends a new approach to treatment – Dynamic-Neurocognitive Therapy [DNT]. Three months later his symptoms begin to abate. In six months he is back in business. Twelve months later he successfully launches his next multimillion dollar business venture, gets married and remains stable and symptom-free ever since.

 Before we describe this new therapeutic approach and see why it works we first need to consider a fundamental question:

What does it mean to be happy and how is one’s (un)happiness related to one’s health?  

Life is to be appreciated. Human beings desire and deserve to be happy. On the surface, happiness seems to be practically a birthright of Americans – it’s right there in the Declaration of Independence. But happiness is difficult for us to define, let alone find. You would think that health would be integral to happiness. It makes sense; if you’re not feeling well it’s hard to enjoy life. But what if health and happiness are in conflict? What if being happy trumps being healthy? What if someone actually feels that she must jeopardize her health if she is to achieve happiness?  If that’s the case, then we have to ask: Is it more important to be happy or to be healthy? 

Supposing, though, that this is the wrong question?

 In spite of the proliferation of health clubs and our obsession with dieting, millions of Americans don’t see health as a major concern. In fact, they act in ways that make them unhealthier. That’s one of the reasons why so many people drift from one doctor to another, dropping out of treatment, or trying alternative medical practitioners -- they’re dissatisfied with the treatment they’re getting. And no wonder. They’re frustrated because, without their realizing it, they don’t want to be treated. They simply don’t want to get well.  

Take the example of Rachael. An attractive, talented musician in her early thirties, she refused treatment for depression and alcohol and drug addiction because she was afraid that her “creative angst” would be “taken away.” In her view intoxicants heighten her sensitivity and induce altered states of consciousness that feed her creativity. She prefers to emulate her idols Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison. She regards a healthy lifestyle as “boring and dull.” She subscribes to the sentiment in the Neil Young song, “It’s better to burn out than fade away.”

 Or consider the case of Mel, a CPA now facing eight years in prison after he embezzled $5 millions from his family business which he proceeded to squander on escort services, expensive gifts and extravagant trips. Like Rachel, he dropped out of intensive treatment because he couldn’t bear the idea of trading in an exciting life for a healthier one.

 We smoke, drink, we eat badly, we pursue unhealthy relationships and engage in self-destructive behaviors. Our culture seems to reward behavior that is antithetical to health; if you want proof all you have to do is spend a night spent in front of the TV. People are gulled into thinking that a new car, a new mate, a new game or a new wardrobe will offer them happiness, at least for a little while. And if you’re feeling lousy you just have to pop a pill.

 Within mainstream psychiatry and medicine Lynn, Arthur, Rachel and Mel are usually described as suffering from so called personality disorders. According to the US Surgeon General, people with personality disorders have “great difficulty dealing with other people. They tend to be inflexible, rigid, and unable to respond to the changes and demands of life. Although they feel that their behavior patterns are ‘normal’ or ‘right,’ people with personality disorders tend to have a narrow view of the world and find it difficult to participate in social activities.” Experts are divided about what causes these disorders, whether they’re mostly genetic or environmental or some combination of both. What is clear is that these disorders aren’t rare. On the contrary, estimates of the number of people affected range from about 10 percent to 33 percent of the US population depending on the definition, methodology and sampling method and diagnosis bias being used. It is reasonable to suppose that as many as 45 million Americans have these disorders and there may be millions more who never show up in doctors’ offices. We should also add that these disorders put people at much greater risk of other illnesses like depression and anxiety.

 Today doctors generally rely on two basic types of treatment – talk therapy and drugs. We call this the medical model. As much as possible the therapist’s objective is to alleviate the patient’s symptoms like anxiety, mood swings, impulsivity and panic and make them “better.” Symptoms are what therapists focus on when patients come to their offices. If, however, a patient is determined to follow the example of Janis Joplin or Sylvia Plath then what is the doctor supposed to do? Talk therapy and drugs can accomplish a lot of good but they have their limits. The medical model is necessary but not sufficient. Unfortunately, most doctors fail to notice the underlying problem; they try to treat the symptoms but they don’t understand what’s responsible for causing them. That’s because they’re not looking in the right place or from the right perspective. Treatment, if it is successful, should help the patient’s ability to work, play and love. It should enhance capacity for happiness and compassion. This sounds all well and good until we remember that many people – whether they’re in therapy or not – don’t want to get better.

 If the doctors were looking in the right place (and from the right perspective) they’d be trying to understand what’s truly driving their patients.

What doctors and therapists often fail to realize is that people with personality disorders don’t engage in destructive behavior IN ORDER to be unhealthy. Instead, they do it IN SPITE of the fact that they’re risking their health. And the reason is because we have other goals and sets of values – call them metaphors, agendas or life-paradigms. Health is only one of these life-paradigms and for many people it’s not the most important one.

 We all have our own conscious and unconscious life paradigms. Jung might have called them archetypes. They govern how we view the world and ourselves in it. Rachael’s ‘paradigm’ is creativity and Mel’s is power and hedonism. For many young people between the ages of 17 and 25 pleasure is the operating paradigm. They want an enjoyable, exciting, challenging life, only they don’t want to work hard to make it happen. Of course, human beings aren’t built for a life of perpetual pleasure. In some cases, it’s not pleasure per se that they’re seeking but the pursuit itself.

 But how can people get better when they don’t know that they’re ill? And how can doctors treat them if they resist getting better? In other words, how can you cure someone who doesn’t want to be cured? And what does it mean to “cure” someone anyway? How could Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, or Janis Joplin be ‘cured’? For that matter, what would it mean to “cure” Picasso, Mozart, or James Joyce? Would they even want to be cured? Would it be desirable? The question is not simply theoretical; many people with considerably less talent see these artists as heroes and role models. If you couldn’t cure Picasso, or if by ‘curing’ him you risked destroying his genius, they ask, why should I want to be cured, either?

 Mainstream psychiatry aims to eliminate identifiable symptoms. It may try to improve the level of adaptive functioning and try to reduce the distress patients feel. But that’s not enough. That doesn’t represent a “cure.” A cure does not necessarily have only one prescribed outcome. Health may not be what the patient wants. But the patient must be able and free to understand and make that decision rather than blindly emulate the role models promoted by our culture.  

We don’t want to see people – whether they’re our patients, friends or loved ones – destroy their health or their lives. And the people who are ill – in spite of their conviction that health isn’t such a big deal – often change once they become aware of their life-paradigm. They may decide that their life-paradigm isn’t working and abandon it and attempt to become “healthier”. Others, once they become aware, may decide to continue living according to their life-paradigm because they are convinced that that is what makes their lives worth living. The key obviously is getting people to be aware.

One of the major goals of our book is to make people aware of what’s causing them to do what they do. We want to find out why people don’t want to be healthy and what they can do to change their attitude so that they can become healthier and still find happiness. We’ll offer a quiz to help readers determine what kind of life-paradigm they’re following whether they realize it or not. And because adolescents are at such risk we will also include a chapter for families of teenagers to help them steer their children away from a self-destructive path.

 The book will:

 * explore some of the principal “life-paradigms” as expressed and lived by so called “difficult-to-treat patients.”

* explore how the most common life-paradigms such as beauty, pleasure, power and love – can result in life styles that undermine health.

 * explore the relationships between personality disorders and the notion of “life-paradigms”

 * provide tools for understanding and self-diagnosis of readers’ personality type and ones dominant life-paradigm.

  * introduce and describe a NEW approach to treatment of personality disorders – Dynamic-NeuroCognitive Therapy (DNCT) – based on the analysis of “life-paradigms”·                               

* show that far from being a speculative program, DNCT has been proven to work for a surprising number of patients in major psychiatric hospitals when conventional therapy and drugs have failed.  

* explore how by using such “unorthodox’ techniques and experiences such as art, music, yoga, meditation and religion readers will have a better understanding of their own behavior whether or not they are currently in therapy.  

We will present examples, exercises and real life stories illustrating how to use and benefit from this new approach.  In addition, we will offer a recommended list of aesthetic experiences – works of art, significant books and musical compositions, etc. – that readers are likely to benefit from.  We will also provide practical information about what to look for in choosing a therapist or psycho-pharmacologist.