EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Yh7rA.jpg)
So, I purchased this book not long ago when it arrived on my Amazon recommendations. It had 5 Stars (out of a possible 5), and is currently at the same rating with 20 written reviews and possibly more recommendations.
How to terminate the sentence: "The Buddha walks into a bar, and... I'm drunk."
As Herman Hesse said of one Buddha's experience, "If I want temporary relief from suffering, then to turn to substances (alcohol, particularly) is that. My years spent in meditation and self-abnegation are of no more value than a night of heavy drinking [although there is no hangover]".
The image on the cover of this novel is notable in that it suggests the Buddha is a beverage one can imbibe, which is to say that one may find enlightenment in any circumstance. I think it's patently obvious that there are some environments which are conducive to a stable frame of mind and a bar is not one of them. At least not your typical bar.
The author's tone of voice in conveying his message bespeaks a certain patience, although his diction is terse, and the reading is more cutting than soothing. There's a certain tone of authority, as though the author himself purports to be the Buddha of whom he speaks. What quality would you expect from a Buddha addressing a mass audience? Would he speak to them as though they were him, himself, or would he speak to them individually? It seems the author of this work is happy to share his experiences of enlightenment with those who are in similar straits, but that's not to say that all readers can be thought to share his life-experiences or admit that his solutions to their problems are also their solutions to their problems.
There's also the question of terminology: whether a spiritual teacher in lieu of a Buddha would make use of terms with particular tone and in the narration of his work create an atmosphere of certainty. Does a Buddha provide answers or questions? There is a frame of reference in which one might argue that to provide answers is valuable to just 1 observer with just 1 perspective, while to provide questions is like to show answers to a multitude of questions (each originating, possibly, from a different observer).
Thus to say the Buddha walks into a bar, is to say that the Buddha speaks to each person in the bar. It's quite possible that there is no perfect Buddha, which is to say no person who speaks with absolute perfection to each person in the bar, but perhaps there is just an "approximate Buddha", that is, Buddhas of various 'power levels'. The higher-powered Buddha, so to speak, is the one who speaks in a tone of clarity to the great quantity of listeners and is received to reduce the turmoil and chaos of their minds.
To my mind, this author writes primarily to himself, and hopes that the listener will receive his wisdom. Yet, if the author writes to himself, and not to "the wider audience" then there is the chance that fewer people are like him than he expects, if he is a man possessed of such enlightenment then few people will share his questions and even fewer people will appreciate the quality of his answers. So, it is to my mind that the Buddha writes to himself, only if the Buddha himself is also the listener. If the Buddha writes to the listener, then he does not write to himself, unless he too is the listener.
Is this the quality of ego-absence? That in speaking to oneself, one also speaks to another? Perhaps it is not just a function of language or even perception; the speech of one Buddha in a bar may be much like that of another, and yet there is a question of the elements not so quantifiable. Are the words perceived in the right tone, at the right time, with the right sentiment? How much of the author's writing is an attempt to justify his own struggle with the world, and how much of the author's writing is to convey his true sentiment and wisdom to those who read his work?
There are 'spiritual teachers' (though many people shy from this language, I think spiritual teachers are what each person seeks to be), and there are people who live their lives in accord with other people. Neither one is truly the spiritual teacher. As some such teachers are fond of saying, you are as likely to find wisdom in an animal where you are to find Wisdom in a sentient-being of conscious logical thought.
when i bought this book i just placed it on my bed-side table (pre-furnished nightstand in an expensive apt, low quality construction, unfortunately)--probably endemic to the corporate attitude that so begrieves the author of "The Buddha Walks Into A Bar...", ultimately i never had a chance to read much of the book and just tore out the front page (blank) can't recall why. later i need a page to write notes on and, not knowing the length of the note i might be writing, or even whether my pen would have ink to write the whole thing, i (more carefully removed the back page--another blank--and was cautious to crease the page first, and then carefully 'incise' along the line formed in creasing).
i wrote a note to myself about a few thoughts crossing my mind, and then returned the book to the table where i left it unattended some weeks. today i finally opened the book, and read it in repose, enjoying it with the lights off and sunlight filtering in the window from a grey sky outside. i've just one pillow on my bed and so my reading angle was awkward, contorting my body in a sideways-arch, elbow propped on my pillow (the most expensive thing on my bed, by volume, a therapedic or whatever the more expensive brand is with a similar name). i'm not sure the posture of the body affects the tone of the voice when narrating another's writing to oneself, though my inclination was, now that the first and last page were missing that i would turn to a middle chapter with a name that spoke to my sensibilities (knowing that i hadn't time to read the whole book, at least not today, and wanting to peruse what would be most valuable in the time i had to 'spend').
i can't call to mind the name of the chapter, but it was just before the beginning of a segment, i think maybe the third volume of the work. at first the words struck me harshly, and it was an effort to continue reading, like the author was trying to pry my mind from its stuck ways with a hammer and a chisel, rather than excise whatever damage was meant to be adrift...
the author's thoughts wandered to-and-fro, and he counseled against the evils of money and about over-paying at the grocer, and whether there were groceries of lower and higher quality with respect to their price (although he, neglected, to mention how i might compare his utility function with mine own). so, although he counseled patience in dealings with others, i'm not sure that his approach would work to me, being that i live in a crowded part of town and am not particularly willing to heed his advice concerning the purchase of groceries some distance away. i'm tempted to turn back to the book in writing this review, though i read just one chapter, and due to some life stress i feel that i only read it with a passing thoroughness. however, i think his referencing his mentor and teacher the sakyong mipham rinpoche, whose father was the famous trungpa rinpoche (hope i'm spelling that right, and no disrespect intended if i'm not), who wrote some very moving pieces about his journey out of tibet, and makes reference to certain forms of insight into his travels gleaned by what the author of this book may be calling 'magic' (in the 4th section of the work, which i am yet to read; and of course the term 'magic' does sound a little hokey).
if there's any whose opinion i would share on the 'magic' that might be here referred to by mr. rinzler, i think it would be that of shunryu suzuki (a favorite author of mine), saying "the world is its own magic, and if you discover the magic yourself 'don't use it!'" (with a mischievous monk grin, i'm sure). anyway i think that shunryu was right in disassociating the term 'magic' and all of its connotations with a wholesome spiritual practice, one that should revolve solely around knowledge and wisdom, and not make great reference to the practice of occultism or whatever magic might be owned by an individual (if such is the case, which i doubt). i think, without reading his chapters, that magic is probably misconceived in both its definition and its use, that is to say that magic, as it exists (or is perceived) is probably more synchronicity than a sort of channeled spell, or whatever hype is given to occult practice by modern writers, etc.
so, if indeed there is some sort of magic extant, i think it's probably not a personal magic controlled by individuals (in terms of one person casting spells, or whatever, is to a large degree quite ridiculous), and magic, where it lives is more in what shunryu spoke when he said "buddha mind", or big mind, where we hold ourself in respect to the larger world, and in return, fortune, often in quite unexpected and often not-so-pleasant ways, smiles upon us. i think it's fair to say that if 'magic' is to be spoken of at all, it should be done with reverence to a style of life and not to the individual human. so, possibly an employee at chic-fil-a pursues magic, also university colleague, and a monk at a monastery, and none be the more magical to their unique practice.
the sakyong rinpoche himself, (who ought to write more books, although i was not so fond of 'ruling your world' because it seemed a bit mystical to those of the western mind, and perhaps even those of the eastern mind, cause its heavy reliance on those tibetan terminologies that are somewhat inaccessible and may create confusion in minds unacquainted to tibetan vernacular) seems to prefer a somewhat confrontational approach to spirtuality, that i think is a best reflection of the western stance of mind. just that the mode of reflection itself is less accessible to the westerner, though more intuitive to the easterner, in that the western mind is the empiric mind and the eastern mind is more attuned to the universal mind. the sakyong may speak to the westerner in the language of an easterner, and be just partially seen, and so his influence is still beautiful, though his language to the westerner doesn't quite convey the words he's speaking.
EDIT! [NSFW]:
