I used to think that in Buddhism, the pursuit of the Void is existential masochism, a glorified search for doom. It brought to my mind Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and such.

Thanks to "Buddha-Dhamma For Inquiring Minds" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (an ADHD-friendly question & answer format, https://www.suanmokkh.org/books/121), I understood that it is an unfortunate coincidence of words. These two concepts of Void or Emptiness are very opposite, as opposite as Hell and Heaven.

To my understanding, I would use the word "Clarity" instead. Light passes through, interacts with it, but does not cling to anything.

Interesting article, I've been thinking about this lately myself. Buddhism influenced German philosophy in the 1800's through Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, which basically influenced everything that came afterwards, and it also influenced art through Dada which you could argue was really a crypto-Buddhist/Taoism fusion expressed through a somewhat distorted Western lens, and that really goes on to influence postmodernism to a huge degree. This embedded it in Western thought in a much deeper way than 1960's fascination with Zen and Tibetan Buddhism IMHO.

I think Buddhist philosophy still has a way to go making its way through the West -- liberal democracy's crisis of vacuuity is something we're really struggling to come to terms with, and it feels like Western society is slipping into a full-blown existential crisis. Seems like fertile ground for a religion and philosophy that a large part of is predicated on nothingness and how to live and be content in the void. I have to admit though that it's unbelievable watching the market's seemingly unlimited ability to coopt, repackage and in turn sell literally anything, even a religion and philosophical system which would be completely opposite to a consumer society.

Wow never thought I would see an article mention Shinryu Suzuki, very cool. I read Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind as a kid and I still remember practicing the sitting and breathing like it was a magical tome.

The hardest part I remember is the nothingness of meditation and I remember his warnings not to fixate on trains of thought. I should probably reread it sometime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_Mind,_Beginner%27s_Mind

I was surprised to see Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzburg and Joseph Goldstein not mentioned here.

They’re the founding forces behind the Insight Meditation Society in MA, which although isn’t the West Coast, is perhaps the most influential force in popular Buddhism in the West.

Kornfield also set up Spirit Rock Meditation Centre in California though, which gets tens of thousands of visitors a year.

Having dived really quite far into Buddhism over the past five years, I’ve found their flavour of Insight Meditation (as per the New Burmese Method based on Mahasi Sayadaw’s teachings) absolutely life changing.

A great read, thank you for sharing.

If anybody is interested in reading further - Goldstein’s podcasts, Mahasi Sayadaw’s writing, Kornfield’s introductory texts and ANYTHING by Bhikku Bodhi are a phenomenal place to start.

This was an enjoyable read.

It seems Buddhism has followed the same path as any other religion/practice of the same age.

I imagine that today's Christianity doesn't look much like it did in 500AD, just as I imagine Scientology in 1,000 years will have evolved.

Is this a bad thing? Does religion not represent our perception of the meaning of life, evolving with us as knowledge, wisdom and tolerance (or lack thereof) is passed through the generations?

Honest question: Is buddihsm real? Does it have any basis in scientific and objective reality? Or is it fiction? I don't mean side stuff like meditation improves your IQ I mean does the fundamental point of buddihism have any basis in reality.

If it is fiction, why is it so popular among technical people like people who come to HN? Are the people on HN who are interested in Buddhism aware it is fiction/real?

The article "FTFY Buddhist Ethics" [1] comes to a similar conclusion about the development of West Coast Buddhism but isn't on board with it. IMHO an interesting contrarian take.

[1] https://vividness.live/ftfy-buddhist-ethics

This was a great article, thanks so much for sharing. As a buddhist who started in Tibetan Vajrayana as a teenager and has ended up chanting NMRK in the SGI, I can appreciate that faith, like human beings, adapts to its time and surroundings. While personal gain and financial enrichment and the like have infected almost every faith there is on earth (we are all fallible to some extent) the through line of an ever-narrowing compression of practice makes sense on the pursuit of enlightenment. And, while study is essential in any pursuit of the mind, the mind is sometimes our biggest adversary.

Here is what I wrestled with for years, and I think it’s worth sharing because I suspect some of you have wrestled with it too.

Every Buddhist tradition agrees that all living beings possess Buddha nature. The Lotus Sutra’s parable of the Jewel in the Robe says it plainly: you already have a priceless jewel sewn into your clothing. You always have. You just don’t know it’s there. Enlightenment isn’t something you earn or achieve. It’s something you already are.

So if that’s true — if the jewel is already there — why is it so hard to find? And this is where I kept getting stuck. Because the tool we use to look for the jewel is the same tool that hides it from us. Our consciousness. Our thinking, analyzing, questioning mind. The very thing that makes us human is also the thing that stands between us and what every tradition says is our birthright. Each school of Buddhism is, in its own way, a set of gymnastics designed to get the mind out of its own way. Zen tries to crash it with paradox. Tibetan practice tries to transmute its energy. Pure Land tries to exhaust it into surrender. And each one works, for some people, some of the time. But the fundamental problem remains: you cannot use the mind to escape the mind.

This is the contradiction I brought with me to Nichiren Buddhism. And to be honest, I found the same contradiction here, stated more plainly. We say that a single sincere recitation of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo contains the entirety of Buddhahood within it. And I believe that. But we also say: don’t stop chanting. Keep going. Practice daily. Because your delusions will reassert themselves by tomorrow morning.

So which is it? Is one moment enough, or isn’t it?

The contradiction dissolves when you stop thinking of practice as a means to an end and start seeing it as living itself. Each breath you take is a complete act. No single breath is insufficient. But you keep breathing — not because the last breath failed, but because you’re alive and that’s what living things do. Each moment of chanting or meditating, each act of compassion, each time you turn toward someone else’s suffering instead of away from it — that’s not a step on the path to enlightenment. It is enlightenment, expressed through action.

Kierkegaard wrote that life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards. Perhaps that’s why Pure Land buddhists seek this fundamental meaning at the time of death, that that is when enlightenment will reveal itself. But remember the jewel? It’s right there, any moment you honestly reach for it.

Thank you again for this fantastic perspective on the trajectory of this universal search for truth!