In all of my previous blog posts I discussed paradise as a physical state – either somewhere on the planet, in a transcendental divine realm, or in the womb. This week I looked at the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, which marries together ideas of a physical realm of paradise with the Buddhist ideal of reaching Nirvana. Unlike ideas around the Garden of Eden, wherein it was only a certain kind of person which could enter, in the Sukhavtivyuha Sutra in which the Buddhist paradise is described, even those who have committed terrible evils during their life have the chance of reincarnation in this realm – by reciting the Sutra and fully surrendering oneself to the Buddha Amitabha, the chance to be reincarnated in the Land of Utmost Bliss is given. Once you reached this land, it would take only one week to reach full enlightenment, due to features such as the constant playing of the Dharma.
In Buddhism, unlike in the Christian tradition, most people aim to reach a state of Nirvana rather than “heaven”, as reaching Nirvana means that the reincarnation cycle is broken, and one will be in perpetual bliss forever (Lopez, 2015: 316). Nirvana is, however, an extremely difficult mental state to get to – even if there is a 3-Step WikiHow on reaching it (WikiHow.com, N/A).
A repeated theme in the Sutra, where the Buddha Amitabha appears before the Queen Vaidehi tells her the chronological steps one must take to enter, is an idea of stretching your mind to far past what it is capable of seeing. This is particularly true in the “Contemplation of the Buddha Amitabha”. His dimensions are so great that the mind is no longer able to comprehend them. Contemplation in this way is not just thinking about something, but rather forcing your mind to expand so as to reach almost-Nirvana. In the West, the notion of contemplation has been distilled largely to one of its actions – mindfulness.
Mindfulness is a part of Buddhist contemplation, but it is not the whole. A key part to contemplation is immersing oneself in the words of the Dharma; a part which is well forgotten about in the Western conception of mindfulness and meditation. Žižek (2001) is highly critical of the West’s (false) assimilation of mindfulness, and our incessant search for quasi-spirituality, seeing mindfulness in particular as a false-bliss in that we are able to fully participate in the hectic, capitalist society in which we live, but believe we are somehow outside of it. It is a false notion of paradise in this powerful delusion we are able to blind ourselves with.
Mindfulness offers respite from the stresses placed on us by capitalism according to Žižek (2001), but it also provides a spirituality which is recognised as being lost in capitalism, replaced instead by materialism. The fracturing of our public and private lives due to capitalism, has long been theorised and feared by political philosophers such as Arendt (2017). It is ironic that the way many remedy the fracturing of society due to capitalist market structures is by fracturing and exploiting Buddhism to serve themselves.
An issue with paradise, and pursuing paradise, is in the conception of those who pursue it. Often, the view is not holistic and without considering every aspect of a paradise, it seemingly can never be reached. The “Land of Utmost Bliss” does have a keeper – but the keeper is our own ability to conceptualise and commit to every aspect of the paradise.
Bibliography
Arendt, H. (2017) The Origins of Totalitarianism. UK: Penguin.
Lopez, D. (2015) The Norton Anthology of World Religions: Buddhism. USA: Norton.
WikiHow (N/A) How to Attain Nirvana. [online] Available from: https://www.wikihow.com/Attain-Nirvana (Accessed 10 March 2019).
Žižek, S. (2001) From Western Marxism to Western Buddhism. [online] Available from: https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2011/05/04/slavoj-zizek-heresy-western-buddhism-and-the-fetish/ (Accessed 10 March 2019).
This post provides an engaging overview of the Mahayana pure realms and hones in on Western distillations of Buddhist thought. You’re right to note that mindfulness is only a part of contemplation; and that our pursuit of such an ideal in capitalist society is problematic. I wonder whether you could expand more upon / critique Žižek’s interpretation of this dynamic?
Always be sure to cite the original source (in the case of Žižek, the essay was published in Cabinet (http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/2/western.php). It might also be helpful to define your terms a little more clearly and to provide some context (i.e. when were these sutras written? in which society? do they not equally reflect the values of that society just as capitalism’s approach to Buddhism says a great deal about capitalism itself?). Regarding definitions, while I know what the Dharma is, a reader might not be familiar with this or with the concept of Nirvana. Just a quick overview in a sentence or two when introducing a new term can be helpful (as it also lets your reader know how YOU define/understand these concepts). You might fruitfully say more about Žižek’s notion of how mindfulness/Western buddhism has become a fetish/supplement in the Marxian sense. It could also be helpful to provide a direct quotation from Arendt regarding the fracturing of public and private lives. Your conclusion would also benefit from a bit more expansion. As it stand, it is rather vague and unclear (additionally the idea of the keeper is introduced here, but occurs nowhere else other than your title).
Overall your writing is clear, but be sure to indent the first line of all paragraphs, and beware the difference between the em-dash, the en-dash, and the hyphen; try to avoid dangling prepositions when possible (as per the style guide). With a bit of expansion and polishing, this would make an excellent entry. Good work!
LikeLike