Creating medication out of my own tribulations. K’Naan
Drawing on the comments made by Daniel M. Ingram on my previous post Back to Suffragette City? I offer this response. His comment is quoted. Ennumeration is mine.
[1.] A simple point: Why I continue to somehow be associated with Brad Warner I will never understand. Aside from the fact that the word “hardcore” is associated with both of us for obvious pure book title reasons, our approaches, emphases, and paradigms are very, very different.
Clearly I am not the first one to lump approaches together. It is a natural psychological process to categorize stuff even in broad strokes in order to approach it. And for those who do not delve too deeply, similarities are more apparent than differences. Here’s a couple of quick lists:
Similarities
- based on personal experience as well as training
- same generation
- outspoken perspective
- punk and hard core labels
- claiming some kind of enlightenment
- empowered/permitted to teach formally
- book title words
- rejection of fluff and New Age
- rejection of ritual
- rejection of Asian cultural accoutrements and formalities
- rejection of formalist language
- rejection of over-intellectualization particularly regarding the dharma
- rejection of elaborate hierarchy
- rejection of conventionality
- rejection of non-English language terminology
- rejection of institutionalization
- avoidance or rejection of psychologization of Buddhism
- occasionally combative
- occasionally arrogant
- focus on meditation
- opposition to self-help approaches
- alleges openness and honesty but derides critics
- purist
- secular
- rational
- populist
- critical
That’s a start. Some points are more shallow than others. Many of these could also be applied to Stephen Batchelor, Steve Hagen, Shinzen Young, Noah Levine and many others. Hence taken together the notion of a “movement” or general categorization emerges.
Differences
| Subject |
Brad Warner |
Daniel M. Ingram |
| Background |
Soto Zen |
Theravada |
| Place of Study Outside of U.S. |
Japan |
Burma |
| Approach |
zazen specifically shikantaza |
meditation with focus on insight |
| Emphasis |
zazen |
insight |
| Paradigms |
-sitting as actualization
-focus on no-self as entry to realization
-ethics de-emphasized or secondary or resultant of practice |
-process based meditation
-3 characteristics impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self as entries to realization
-emphasis on ethics as a distinct part of the path |
| Realization |
sudden or sporadic |
progressive, continuous |
| Leadership/Teaching/Writing Style |
mellow, artistic |
aggressive, technical, analytical |
| Occupation (only because both mention it in their works or in bios) |
musician, writer |
ER doctor |
| Theoretical Foundations |
Dogen
Nagarjuna |
Pali Canon, Buddhaghosa, Vasubhandhu and related works |
Those are only some of the differences. I hope that people will take note of these. When people encounter the work they will notice many more.
[2.] I read “Hardcore” Zen and found nearly nothing practical in it at all. I consider it among the worst wastes of paper on my dharma shelf. It didn’t seem to be anything one could actually follow and instead seemed mostly about him.
My reading of Brad’s books is that they are primarily autobiographies rather than practice manuals. That is how they’re written in any case and that is what he has stated about them. I’ve not read them to get advice related to practice but as both a viewpoint of a person’s experience with taking up and practicing the dharma for himself and also as Zentertainment, if you will. Biography and autobiography are descriptive means to tell a personal story not prescriptive technical texts.
[3.] Try to practice from that book and see what I mean. Try to do a retreat from that book. Try to actually get enlightened from that book. Try to sort out what side effect of your practice is screwing up your life from that book and see how well you do. Try to do something “hardcore” from what is written in that book and see how far you get. What a sad joke.
One could try and practice from a phone book too and it would also be a sad joke. That’s not why it was written.
[4.] To me, and this is just one opinion, “hardcore” should be about real mastery, real practice, real results, real empowerment to do all this stuff. How that book gets away with calling itself that is baffling.
The term “hardcore” does imply a certain rigor, effort and intensity. I agree. It is just as likely that Warner’s use of it is in relation to the punk rock elements since he did play in a hard core punk band and as most of us know that is often abbreviated to “hardcore”. His intention in the use of “hardcore” is not immediately evident. It is an apt descriptor for both the music and the dharma. Since his public writings in books and blog form generally use both music and dharma as subject matter it may be an attempt to indicate that.
The definition of hardcore is quite varied and that is one reason why some socio-cultural analysis and deconstruction may be useful, even in it’s “needlessly limiting way”. But more on that later.
[5.] I am beginning to see this particular list (Ingram, Folk, Brad Warner, etc.) being codified into something that people just repeat as if we are all the same or even coming from the same place, and while Folk, Open Enlightenment, the Dharma Overground and I are very closely linked in many ways, though we all have our differences also, how Brad got on this list is beyond me except that people must not have read his stuff or simply didn’t understand either what he wrote or what I wrote or the others on the list are about, though I should be careful and let them speak for themselves if they wish.
Quite likely many people have not read the material, or not read it thoroughly, or not read it critically. It is convenient, as I mentioned, to categorize things in broad strokes. When those things are related to popular or fashionable trends, meaning quite a number of people are talking about them, certainly some people will latch onto the jargon without understanding the substance simply for the “cool” factor. It is to their own detriment not to the detriment of the people who are offering their perspectives.
This is true in any field and quite often true in Buddhist-related interactions. Plenty of jargon, little comprehension.
[6.] Regardless, stop associating Bradley and I in this way, please, without at least some differentiation and explanation.
The similarities are of the most superficial nature. One paragraph in the introduction of my book that uses the word “punk” and one word in the title hopefully doom me or the others who are associated with this sort of practice to be perpetually affixed to that guy’s stuff.
I do hope the differentiation and explanations outlined above are sufficient for a blog post. The purpose of the previous post was to examine large scale groupings of counter-cultural instances of Buddhist-labeled viewpoints as they are presented and perceived in popular culture. Since the author is quite capable of speaking for himself rather eloquently and straightforwardly, I did not go into detail about the composition of that particular grouping. Considering my penchant for long-windedness that may not have been a bad thing.
The further point is, that if it is different, people will realize that once they get into it. And yes there will always be those who don’t want to realize that (or anything else), who don’t care or who simply don’t get it at all. No point in explaining things to a bag of rice, to paraphrase an old Zen metaphor.
[7.] I remember reading the line where Brad said that in one fell swoop he was just as enlightened as the Buddha: what a travesty of confusion and absurdity.
I too doubt that many people grasp all of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no-self completely in one gulp. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible but even as separate conventional conceptual experiences they are somewhat overwhelming.
Dogen, patron of the Soto Zen sect wrote:
Those who have not illuminated each dharma, dharma by dharma, cannot be called clear-eyed, and they are not the attainment of the truth; how could they be Buddhist patriarchs of the eternal past and present? (Shobogenzo, Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross) [quoted in Zen – Enlightened Wisdom, Delusion, and Confusion By Ted Biringer, on May 4th, 2010-read Ted’s commentary on that line for some serious hardcore Zen.]
This is very similar to the “noting” process that MCTB outlines, though on a somewhat progressed level. Dharma here is used in it’s meaning of “things” or “aspects” [the word dharma has at least 4 meanings-Buddhadharma being only one]. There are reasons that 84,000 dharma gates get mentioned. Even Tozan discussed 5 stages or ranks.
Glimpses via some kensho experience are common with dedicated practice. Lots of people have them. And quite a few in the Zen community have said so, in one way or another. If one reads what they write carefully it is evident. Dosho Port and James Ford Roshi have said it, as has Ford’s teacher John Tarrant Roshi to name only a few. There are dozens, and certainly not all of them are teachers.
And in the Theravada based communities this is true as well. I just reviewed a book by Rodney Smith called Stepping Out of Self-Deception. It is quite unlikely that such a work could be produced merely by studying texts. It is extremely insightful and also pretty hardcore.
The opening of that awareness is the opening only, not the whole territory by any means. Many have said that the first glimpses are when the real work starts. I think that’s quite true. Some traditions talk about the 10,000 petaled lotus opening and others about examining the various aspects via visualization. I’m talking about Pure Land and Vajrayana [both Tibetan and Japanese versions].
It’s like ice breaking up on a frozen river. Cracks appear in the solidity. Movement ensues. But it’s not all clear and flowing in 5 seconds.
That kind of over-simplification does not benefit students. Watering down either the Dharma or the resultant experiences of long practice tend to introduce an unnecessary layer of mystification to the whole process. It’s not mysterious or mythical or magic. It is only a shift in perception. And it is a lot of work. It’s fairly ordinary though, in that what is, still is, only perspective and experience of what is, shifts.
My impression of the realization process would render it to be more of a multi-dimensional fractal than a map of progression or stages. I think it is more subjectively fluid than clearly demarcated states.
I don’t know Brad or his teacher personally and have only exchanged the occasional email with both of them over the years. My impression though, is that Nishijima Roshi is considerably more “bookish” [and knowledgeable] than Brad.
Brad tries to pretend to downplay the thing. Many of the hardcore set seem to play it up. There’s plenty of middle ground.
It is unfortunate if discussing this topic gets into a semi-enlightened dick-measuring contest.
Here is something related that Alan B. Wallace wrote:
“If our practice does not diminish self-grasping, or perhaps even enhances it, then no matter how austere and determined we are, no matter how many hours a day we devote to learning, reflection, and meditation, our spiritual practice is in vain.
A close derivative of self-grasping is the feeling of self-importance. Such arrogance or …pride is a very dangerous pitfall for people practicing Dharma. Especially in Tibetan Buddhism, with its many levels of practice, the exalted aspirations of the bodhisattva path, and the mystery surrounding initiation into tantra, we may easily feel part of an elite. Moreover, the philosophy of Buddhism is so subtly refined and so penetrating that, as we gain an understanding of it, this also can give rise to intellectual pride.
But if these are the results of the practice, then something has gone awry. Recall the well-known saying among Tibetan Buddhists that a pot with a little water in it makes a loud noise when shaken, but a pot full of water makes no noise at all.
People with very little realization often want to tell everyone about the insights they have experienced, the bliss and subtleties of their meditation, and how it has radically transformed their life. But those who are truly steeped in realization do not feel compelled to advertise it, and instead simply dwell in that realization. They are concerned not to describe their own progress, but to direct the awareness of others to ways in which their own hearts and minds can be awakened.” – B. Alan Wallace [via Rev. Danny Fisher]
[8.] Otherwise, the pointing out of the masculine and counter-culture elements is all fine enough and has its obviously valid points, though as you say, I hope that just because I happened to have a “masculine” writing style won’t keep anyone from being able to utilize whatever useful information I present and the other strains of this “movement”, which is to say that…
Having been excluded from activities and once even losing a job assignment due to my gender this concerns me greatly. That it still occurs in Buddhist circles is unfortunate and therefore merits some consideration and discussion.
When people get all literal and say women can’t get enlightenment or can’t even become monastics at higher levels it reeks of hypocrisy. Gender bias is a social construction, sure. But one that is ominously pervasive and destructive not only to women but to men as well. It is one of the millions of things that act as an obstacle to complete freedom.
It would be nice to just dismiss it since it’s all relative anyway but as delusional as it is on a massive level the effects are still felt.
By bringing it up and discussing the tone and encouraging everyone to familiarize themselves with the information I am actually trying to get that apparent obstacle out of people’s way. It’s not a real obstacle, only one if the reader wishes to make it so.
[9.] …I hope that people will focus more on reality and actually understanding what is happening than all this superficial socio-political-academic-gender-whatever, not that this isn’t an important part of the causal web in some unfortunate and needlessly limiting way.
We live in a needlessly limited world. We deal with the causal web every second whether we are enlightened or not. To discuss these matters, to take them apart, dissect them, examine them is not much different than what we do in meditation. Since we engage with no-self [awkwardly phrased I know] we also realize that the sense of solidity in conventional thought is bolstered by and in fact created by apparent, though ultimately unreal, social reality.
So “this superficial socio-political-academic-gender-whatever” is as relevant as and indeed is as great portion a portion of that constructed illusory solid self as what we cling to in mind since that is part of it’s origin. It is not superficial by any means.
From a larger, or more enlightened viewpoint let’s say, certainly these things are limiting. But for the majority of the population who do not currently have access to that viewpoint that’s all there is. To disassemble that, and particularly belief in the authority of the social, is to, in one way, see and demonstrate the constructed aspect of conventional reality.
And from Daniel M. Ingram’s essay Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit
“…while the universal characteristics are always manifesting in all things and at all times, there are those that can perceive this well and those that cannot, and meditative training, conceptual frameworks, techniques, teachers, texts, discussions and the like can all contribute to developing the internal skills and wiring to be able to fully realize what is possible, as thousands of practitioners throughout the ages have noticed.”
and from Chapter 5 of MCTB
“From the conventional point of view, things are usually thought to be there even when you can no longer experience them, and are thus assumed with only circumstantial evidence to be somewhat stable entities. Predictability is used to assume continuity of existence. For our day-to-day lives, this assumption is adequate and often very useful.”
Superficiality is one aspect of reality. Unfortunately it is the one aspect that most people are entangled with. So some may deem it to be a waste of time to acknowledge but without acknowledgement and demonstration of it’s lack of substance it remains an obstacle.
[10.] Just got done seeing Twilight Eclipse, by the way, and loved it, which my wife can’t understand at all. People who try to make gender stuff so straightforward are really missing something.
That was kind of my point. No one fits precisely into any codified gender definition. I personally enjoy martial arts and high altitude trekking and mountaineering. In this instance I am a woman who is advocating for other women to read this “masculine” toned work, to be bold and not feel intimidated by that superficial label, which I am not the first to point out. That is a statement in itself.
The satire presented in my previous post is not to further entrench some either/or gender viewpoint but to illustrate the ridiculousness of it. So yeah, maybe some people did miss something.
In General
Frustration with the misconstruing of the dharma and of personal viewpoints, commercialization, half-assed explanations, feel-good platitudes, social nicening projects, self-help indulgence, cosmetic attempts at Buddhist practice, co-opting dharma to build intellectual Babel towers in part explains a lot of people’s interest in alternative viewpoints.
Sometimes though such viewpoints can become as entrenched and rigid as the scenes they wish to supplant. Many that present these viewpoints also can spiral off into their own little world of “rightness” and certainty that precludes further progress and cuts off those who may benefit the most from the information presented.
Musical Interlude
K’naan Take A Minute
{Chorus}:
And any man who knows a thing knows, he knows not a damn, damn thing at all,
And everytime I felt the hurt and I felt the givin’ gettin’ me up off the wall,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it ride,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it breathe,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it ride,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it breathe,
How did Mandela get the will to surpass the everyday,
When injustice had him caged and trapped in every way,
How did Ghandi ever withstand the hunger strikes and all,
Didn’t do it to gain power or money if I recall,
It’s to give; I guess I’ll pass it on,
Mother thinks it’ll lift the stress of babylon,
Mother knows, my mother she suffered blows,
I don’t know how we survived such violent episodes,
I was so worried, and hurt to see you bleed,
But as soon as you came out the hospital you gave me sweets,
Yeah, they try to take you from me,
But you still only gave ’em some prayers and sympathy,
Dear mama, you helped me write this, by showing me to give is priceless.
{Chorus}
All I can say is the worst is over now,
We can serve the hard times, divorce is over now,
They try to keep us out, but they doors is open now,
My man Akon is gettin awards for covers now,
This is K’NAAN, and still reppin’ the S
Comin’ out of Mogadishu and still draped in the mess,
And no matter how we strong, homie,
It ain’t easy comin out of where we from, homie.
And that’s the reason why, I could never play for me,
Tell ’em the truth, is what my dead homies told me,
Oh yeah, I take inspiration from the most heinous of situations,
Creating medication out my own tribulations.
Dear Africa, you helped me write this, by showing me to give is priceless.
{Chorus}
Nothing is perfect man, that’s what the world is,
All I know is,
I’m enjoying today.
You know, ’cause it isn’t every day that you get to give.
And any man who knows a thing knows, he knows not a damn, damn thing at all,
And every time I felt the hurt and I felt the givin’ gettin’ me up off the wall,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it ride,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it breathe,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it ride,
I’m just gonna take a minute and let it breathe,
