Before proceeding to the questions, I wondered why
American readers don't ask such questions? (At least, not on this
website.)
Nirvana
What is Nirvana? This seems to be a matter of deep division in Buddhist
circles, but a few things are agreed. All concerned seem to agree that
attaining nirvana ends the cycle of reincarnation, a doctrine taught by
the Buddha himself and/or his immediate disciples. So, one approach to
nirvana is to ask what causes reincarnation.
Reincarnation results from "bad karma," of not leading a right life. If
one leads, in the Socratic phrase, "a life worth living," presumably one
accomplishes in life all that one should. There is no residual of
living. When one dies, it is satisfactory because one is fulfilled. On
the other hand, if life is somehow insufficient or unfilled, one may
have a hankering to live more. It is that hankering - craving - that
leads to reincarnation. Put differently, the person at peace with
himself feels fulfilled and needs nothing more.
Nirvana is often described as lacking craving or desire, or being at
peace with oneself. It can also be described as being in harmony with
the world. Critics of Buddhism say that attainment of nirvana is
essentially death, because no one alive could possibly be content with
oneself or the world. That is a typically Western way of looking at
things, which also gives us a differential method of describing nirvana.
Those who constantly strive without feeling accomplishment have not
attained nirvana. This implies that the American demand for more and
more denies the possibility of nirvana. There has to be some point at
which one says, "Enough!" Does this mean that attaining nirvana is
inconsistent with economic improvement or leading a better life?
I think the answer depends on how one defines "improvement" and
"better." Some of those teaching ways to achieve nirvana agree with the
Western criticism. In that view, worldly desires are inconsistent with
the purification necessary for attaining a state of nirvana. Typically,
such a view of nirvana is given by ascetic monks or mystics who see lack
of craving as denial of the body and self. I think it is unlikely or
impossible for most people to understand or practice such self-denial.
If such removal from the natural world is what is required for nirvana,
then few or none ever achieve it. In contrast, it is important to
recognize that the Buddha himself did not practice self abnegation in
the manner of ascetics, and the Dalai Lama does not usually teach such
practices. Thus, while the ascetic attainment of nirvana is one
heuristic, it appears there are other ways as well.
In Buddhist philosophy, one goal of meditation and other practices is to
lose the self. The "I" is a barrier between one's existence and the
world. It may seem paradoxical, but this does not mean that people lack
an ego. Rather, the self should melt into the world, become one with the
world. One's "self" becomes an aspect of the world integrated with it,
and not an entity separate and apart. When the self is seamlessly part
of the world, the "I" fades away. In that case, cravings fade away as
well, to the extent that they are imbedded in the ego. In many artistic
works, it is suggested the master (guru, yogi, etc) can accept whatever
outcomes occur, because they are attuned to the way the world is. This
is not at all the same thing as resignation or fatalism, but only "going
with the flow." This perception of outcomes is part of melting into the
world, of abandoning self. (Resignation or fatalism require an
antecedent "I.")
I note that reduction of the ego to harmony with the world, and the
acceptance of outcomes, is not the same thing as positing a Theory of
History or taking a position on Cause and Effect. It is also not an
abandonment of activism - efforts to change the world. It is only to
accept the way the world is, and however it appears to work, and to find
peace with it. Thus the activist must accept success or failure as
given, and not be uncomfortable with the result. It is sufficient that
'I did what I could,' and 'I did what was right,' whether or not my
activities succeeded. Those who cannot accept how things turn out get
reincarnated.
Another way to look upon this is the Wheel of Dharma. All things cycle
through the stages of life, from birth to fullness to death. To attain
nirvana is to get off the wheel; to see it all as an onlooker. This is
true, even as one's flesh is being carried by the wheel to its destiny.
There is a sense in which all life eventually attains nirvana, because
our Universe is a Wheel of Dharma which eventually dissipates into
nothingness. Strangely, modern Western physics and biology teach us the
ultimate impermanence of self and material.
Income Distribution
The foregoing is one answer to the proper distribution of income.
If everyone sought nirvana, rather than another gaudy toy, our society
would be organized entirely differently from the way it is now. Because
our goals and outlook would be different, our economic arrangements
would be different. We would begin with a proper regard for the needs of
every individual, not with the cravings of some. Seeking nirvana is
essentially a community project, not an individualistic one. Along the
way, those seeking nirvana have to see themselves as human - as an
example of humanity - and not as the self centered, ever-important "I."
Einstein's relativity gives us a way of seeing this last notion. When
one is stuck on the Wheel of Dharma, the self is the center of the
world. The "I" is the unique, immovable, Newtonian frame of reference.
Such a conception always has causes and effects, ticking of clocks and
machines that make it so. But, in the relativistic world, there is only
the whole world; innumerable (infinite?) equivalent frames of reference.
"I" is the same as "You" or "We." In the non-self oriented world, what
is cause or effect depends on an arbitrary frame of reference. There is
only the whole, which is the integration of a large number of nodes,
which can be seen many ways. In such a whole Universe, one cannot
distinguish oneself from the other.
Thus, I think those who seek nirvana cannot be capitalists, because the
doctrine of Capitalism starts with greed; i.e., craving and want.
What this discussion shows, I hope, is that one's outlook determines
whether we solve the problem of equitable income distribution.
I do not agree with those who say one must
be an ascetic or a monk in a cave to pursue nirvana.
Seeking nirvana, and even attaining it, is not
inconsistent with improving the conditions of life. The resolution is in
living a fitting, worthy life.
18:15:43 - Monday, 02/20/2006