[tramadoldiscountes]

or is it dharma lite ala Berzin?

The subject of Alexander Berzin's essay "Dharma Lite" has been raised again here recently, and since Berzin's polemic has become somewhat of a standard pejorative against the Buddha's liberative teachings, it bears examination so that this notion can die in the light of day, as it rightly deserves. We shall examine Berzin's polemic in its entirety; as it is a short essay, and dissect each argument and point as it is raised.


We begin with the title and the metaphor he chose for his polemic: "Dharma Lite' Versus 'The Real Thing' Dharma". One cannot help but see the irony in his choice of epithets, as they are derived from the promotional campaign of an American soft drink, essentially fizzy, flavored sugar-water with oodles of calories and little-to-no nutritional value. This, the promotions cry, is "The Real Thing", and this is what Berzin compares his tibetan religion to. Indeed. And this is what he holds as superior to the Buddha's liberative teachings.


Berzin starts his essay declaring The Importance of Rebirth:

"Tibetan Buddhism follows the Indian tradition and all Indian traditions take for granted belief in rebirth."

It is important to note that this is written from the standpoint and tenets of the tibetan state religion, whose adherents are taught that their religion is the pinnacle of "Buddhism", that all other versions of Buddhism are inferior. Berzin also fancies himself as speaking for all of Buddhism, no matter how little resemblance the tibetan state religion bears to the liberative teachings of the Buddha. Beyond that, Berzin opens up with a Fallacy Appeal to Tradition.


"Even if traditional Buddhist seekers do not have a deep understanding of what takes rebirth or how rebirth works, still they have grown up with the idea of rebirth as a cultural given. They need merely to have their understandings refined, but do not need to become convinced in the existence of rebirth."

Berzin generalizes about all Buddhists and the beliefs they grow up being fed, and assumes that all who grow up being taught superstitions will actually believe them without question or reservation. We shall also note here that the tibetan religion holds that a person reincarnates over and over again. There are Buddhist schools that distinguish between the notions they have developed of "re-birth" rather than "reincarnation", in order to shoehorn reincarnation past the Buddha's refutation of the Atta/Self, but the tibetan religions do not make this distinction, and declare ad nauseum that this person is the reincarnation of that person, and this one of that, etc. In common practice, however, it is all the same reincarnation belief once equivocal definitions are established.


"Therefore, texts on the graded stages of the path (lam-rim) do not even mention the topic of gaining conviction in the existence of rebirth."


Berzin speaks again from the perspective of the tibetan religions, citing the lam-rim, which is strictly a tibetan teaching, only relevant to adherents of the tibetan religion. Now he begins to circle round the arguments:


"Without rebirth, the discussion of mind having no beginning and no end becomes meaningless."

Not only is this argument circular, it references a concept (beginningless mind) that never crossed the Buddha's lips. "Beginingless Mind" is necessarily an entity that is permanent, which the Buddha declared was not to be found in his liberative teachings.


"Without beginningless and endless mind, the entire presentation of karma falls apart."

Quite a self-damaging concession and a disaster for tibetan dogma (as is the problem of "beginningless mind"), but insignificant to the Buddha's liberative teachings, which are not based in the speculative view of karma-and-reincarnation or "beginningless mind".


"This is because the karmic results of our actions most frequently do not ripen in the same lifetime in which we commit the actions."

Yes -- "multiple-life" karma-and-reincarnation necessitate the postulation of a same entity or agent that produces and receives karmic results, and cannot survive without such an entity or agent. The Buddha staunchly refuted the notion that he taught of an entity that reaped the rewards of actions from one life to the next. Had Berzin ever read the Nikayas, he might have known that.


"Without the presentation of karmic cause and effect over the span of many lifetimes, the discussion of the voidness of cause and effect and of dependent arising likewise falls apart."


The tibetan versions of "voidness" and of paticcasamuppada indeed fall apart, agreed. However, the Buddha taught sunnata ("all things are empty of self or anything pertaining to a self" -- an indictment of illusions of states of status and ownership) and paticcasamuppada (ignorance causes us to grasp to sense pleasures, causing suffering) quite differently from how the tibetans teach it, and the Buddha's sunnata and paticcasamuppada in the here-and-now remains alive and thriving without any reference at all to superstitions of "karmic cause and effect over many lifetimes". The Buddha declares as such (in the case of PS) in the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta, MN 38:


"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir."

Berzin continues:


"Moreover, in terms of the three scopes of lam-rim motivation, how can we sincerely aim for benefiting future lives without belief in the existence of future lives? How can we sincerely aim for gaining liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth (samsara) without belief in rebirth? How can we sincerely aim for enlightenment and the ability to help others gain liberation from rebirth without belief that rebirth is a fact? In terms of bodhichitta meditation, how can we sincerely recognize all beings as having been our mothers in previous lives without believing in previous lives? In terms of anuttarayoga tantra, how can we sincerely meditate in analogy with death, bardo, and rebirth to purify ourselves of uncontrollably experiencing them if we do not believe that bardo and rebirth occur?"

So all of the circular arguments here follow this form ad nauseum: "--But without karma, there could be no rebirth! --And without rebirth, there could be no karma! --And without karma, there could be no rebirth! --And..."

All of these problems are only problems for the tibetan religion which has built a house of cards on the foundation of these superstitions.


"Thus, it is clearly evident that rebirth is a cornerstone for a large and crucial portion of the Dharma teachings."


Of the tibetan teachings, yes. That hardly makes rebirth a cornerstone of the Buddha's liberative teachings, which the tibetan religion virtually ignores. Berzin continues:



"'Dharma-Lite' and 'The Real Thing' Dharma"


Sounds like a Budweiser commercial, doesn't it? --A lot more than Berzin realizes, no doubt.


"Most Westerners come to Dharma without prior belief in rebirth."


What an amazing statement, considering that most come from some form of Christian background, coming from (and rejecting) a belief in Christian rebirth!


"Many approach the study and practice of Dharma as a method for improving the quality of this lifetime, especially in terms of overcoming psychological and emotional problems."

Which is something the Buddha taught the Dhamma as, also: He said many times, "I teach about suffering and the extinguishment of suffering".


"This attitude reduces Dharma to an Asian form of psychotherapy."

Quite the Straw Man here. Berzin fails to notice that the Buddha's phenomenological psychology is also coupled with a strong ethics of reciprocity (a la "Golden Rule" as examplified in the Veludvareyya Sutta), which makes it a modern "super-religion" in comparison to primitive religions that base their ethical planks in flimsy superstitions that require massive suspension of disbelief in order for one to adhere to their tentets. Berzin would reduce the Buddha's magnificent, modern, superstition-free super-religion teachings to just another flimsy, primitive pack of superstitions.


"I have coined the term Dharma-Lite for this approach to Buddhist Dharma, analogous to "CocaCola-Lite." It is a weakened version, not as strong as "The Real Thing." The traditional approach to Dharma - which includes not only discussion of rebirth, but also the presentation of the hells and the rest of the six realms of existence - I have termed The Real Thing Dharma."


Again, Berzin calls the fizzy, nutrition-free, flavored water of superstition-based religion "The Real Thing". How fitting. And he disparages and villifies the Buddha's superstition-free, liberative teachings.

Now Berzin raises the preposterous notion that while one practices the Buddha's rock-solid, rosuperstition-free super-religion, one should nonetheless do so while bowing to the supremacy of his superstitions:


"There are two ways to practice Dharma-Lite. "1. We may practice it with acknowledgment of the importance of rebirth in Buddhism and the sincere intention to study the accurate teachings on it. Thus, we aim to improve this lifetime with the Dharma methods merely as a steppingstone on the way to working to improve our future rebirths and to gain liberation and enlightenment. Thus, Dharma-Lite becomes a preliminary step on the graded path to enlightenment, a step prior to the initial scope. Such an approach is completely fair to the Buddhist tradition. It does not call Dharma-Lite 'The Real Thing'."


This ridiculous approach is completely ignorant of the fact that the Buddha constantly declares that his teachings are for the elimination of suffering here-and-now, in this lifetime.


"2. We may practice it with the recognition that Dharma-Lite is not only the actual Dharma, but also the most appropriate and skillful form for Western Buddhism to take. Such an approach shortchanges and is grossly unfair to the Buddhist tradition. It easily leads to an attitude of cultural arrogance."


The Buddha's Noble Path is indeed the actual Buddhadhamma, and is the most appropriate and skillful form for Western Buddhism, and indeed all religions that call themselves "Buddhist" to take. We are, after all, Buddhists, and it is therefor most appropriate for us to follow and practice the teachings of the Buddha, rather than wallow in the superstitions that preceded him or the eisegeses that followed him.

It is more than fair to hold any religion that calls itself "Buddhist" to the liberative teachings of the Buddha. And the cultural arrogance lies on the part of a religion that ignores the Buddha's own liberaqtive teachings, buries them inder with superstition and state politics, and deigns to continue to call itself "Buddhist".


"Therefore, we need to proceed with great care if we find that, at our present level of spiritual development and understanding, Dharma-Lite is the drink for us."


One who would call him- or her-self "Buddhist" should indeed take care -- to be sure that they are learning and practicing the teachings of teh Buddha, adn being taught the Dhamma of the Buddha, instead of watered-down superstitious nonsense that bears only a superficial resemblance to "Buddhism", and has little-to-nothing to do with the Buddha's own, liberative teachings.



"Schematic Summary of Dharma-Lite: Buddhism becomes Dharma-Lite when

* the aim is to improve only in this life;
* the student has little or no understanding of the Buddhist teachings on rebirth;
* consequently, the student has neither belief nor interest in future lives;
* even if the student believes in rebirth, he or she does not accept the existence of the six realms of rebirth;
* the Dharma teacher avoids discussion of rebirth or, even if he or she discusses rebirth, avoids discussion of the hells. The teacher reduces the six realms to human psychological experiences."



* the Buddha taught his Dhamma for the ending of suffering here-and-now, and that here-and-now is necessarily in "this life". Berzin is calling the Buddha's liberative teachings "Dharma Lite"
* the Buddha taught the internal inconsistency and irrelevance of karma-and-reincarnation beliefs to his liberative teachings, for example in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta. This is a proper understanding of karma-and-rebirth according to the Buddha. Again, Berzin is calling the Buddha's teaching on karma-and-reincarnation "Dharma Lite".
* With respect to "interest in future lives", we already see above quote from the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta, in which the Buddha states that such interest is irrelevant. Berzin calls the Buddha's position "Dharma Lite".
* The Buddha taught the realms as metaphorsl: "I have seen a heaven called "Six Sense Bases". I have seen a hell called "Six Sense Bases." Berzin calls the Buddha's metaphorical approach to the realms "Dharma Lite".
* The Buddha does not discuss reincarnation/"re-birth" in the context of his own liberative teachings. Again, he teaches the hells as metaphor when he says he has "seen a hell called Six Sense bases". Berzin is calling the Buddha's libertive teachings "Dharma Lite".


"Schematic Summary of The Real Thing Dharma: The Real Thing Dharma is the authentic traditional practice of Buddhism, in which

* the student at least acknowledges the importance of rebirth on the spiritual path and has the sincere wish to gain a correct understanding of it;
* the student aims either for liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth or for enlightenment and the ability to help all others gain liberation;
* even if the student aims for improving future lives, this is merely as a provisional step on the path to gaining liberation or enlightenment;
* even if the student aims for improving this life, this is merely as a provisional step on the path to improving future lives and gaining liberation or enlightenment."


Berzin arrogantly proclaims that the dogmatic tenets of his religion are the "authentic traditional practice of Buddhism", claiming to speak for all religions that call themselves "Buddhism". This is a manifestation of the position of his religion that it is the Ultimate Buddhism, superior to all other forms of Buddhism.

The Buddha is clear about the irrelevance of reincarnation/"re-birth" beliefs to his teachings, and could not be more clearer than in his description of the "Four Solaces" in the Kalama Sutta, AN 3.65:

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."



This, in which the Buddha demonstrates the irrelevance of karma-and-reincarnation/"re-birth" superstitions to his teachings, is what Berzin laughably calls "Dharma Lite".