Breakfast With Buddha

“If I can risk a sweeping observation, it seems to me that life often works that way: You ask a certain question again and again, in a sincere fashion, and the answer appears. But, in my experience, at least, that answer arrives according to its own mysterious celestial timing, and often in disguise. And it comes in a way you’re not prepared for, or don’t want, or can’t, at first, accept.”

The novel uses allegory to suggest that life’s answers have their own logic and time, just as celestial bodies follow an unseen order. The idea of answers “arriving in disguise” uses metaphor to imply that understanding or epiphanies often come in unexpected forms.

“A lemony morning light fell across the tablecloth, touching a vase of homegrown flowers there and the scattered pages of the Times. So thoroughly had the domestic life enveloped me over the past, what, twenty years, that I felt, once I’d at last closed the back door behind me and was striding toward the driveway, that I was peeling away several layers of skin and setting off into America’s dusty center in my bare raw flesh.”

The “lemony morning light” is an example of imagery that appeals to the senses, painting a picture of the scene as fresh and warm. The comparison of leaving the security of domestic life to “peeling away several layers of skin” uses simile to liken the vulnerability one feels when stepping into the unknown to the physical act of shedding skin. This also symbolizes rebirth or transformation as one leaves behind the familiar to venture into new experiences. The “dusty center of America” symbolizes the uncharted territory of Otto’s personal growth and the raw, unrefined potential of his journey.

“Nobody looks at it. The kids smirk. Jeannie washes a dish. If it happens at work, my assistant, Salahnda, takes a coffee break. Ten minutes and it’s over, and I’m left chastened and humbled. But for those ten minutes, I am as ugly as a parent yelling at his child in the park.”

The narrator’s outbursts of temper are met with indifference: Neither his family nor colleagues engage with his display of emotion, illustrating the isolation he feels during such moments of intense expression. His comparison of himself during these moments to “a parent yelling at his child in the park” is a simile that evokes an image of public vulnerability and the shame that often follows uncontrolled outbursts of anger. This simile underscores the idea of self-awareness and the struggle to reconcile one’s less admirable traits with their impact on others.

“So this trait had been passed down to me. That’s the way it works, isn’t it? Part of the ugliness in you is purely your own. But a portion of it is learned, or inherited. And, strangely enough, it seems immune to the scrutiny of your own conscience.”

The novel contemplates the origin of negative traits, suggesting a blend of nature and nurture. The use of rhetorical questions and reflection highlights the internal debate over personal responsibility and the influence of familial legacy. This passage suggests that self-awareness extends beyond conscious thought and into the deeper realms of inherited or learned behavior, emphasizing the difficulty in overcoming such embedded traits.

“[A]ll this Zen stuff, the sound of one hand clapping and so forth, it’s fine, but I’d like to have an actual conversation with you. We’re going to be in this car together for, I don’t know, thirty hours or so, and if all your answers are going to be cryptic…well, that’s not much fun.”

The reference to “Zen stuff, the sound of one hand clapping” alludes to Zen koans: paradoxical anecdotes or riddles used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment. The desire for straightforward communication reflects the tension between the narrator’s need for clarity and the spiritual tradition’s emphasis on the ineffable nature of truth. This tension illustrates the novel’s central dichotomy: the contrast between the narrator’s rational, analytical mindset and Rinpoche’s spiritual, nonrational perspective. The ellipsis highlights the cultural and philosophical gap between the two characters, emphasizing the narrator’s struggle to find meaning in Rinpoche’s cryptic teachings.

“Seese had referred to it once as an ‘arranged marriage’ in keeping with her idea that all relationships are part of the general plan, people brought to the same bed by the Supreme Intelligence who runs the universe.”

Seese’s description of life as an “arranged marriage” is a metaphor suggesting that relationships aren’t random but orchestrated by a higher power, referred to with the hyperbolic title of the “Supreme Intelligence who runs the universe.” This metaphor extends to the idea of destiny, implying that connections between individuals are part of a larger, cosmic plan, beyond human understanding or control.

“I am finding, in this life, the places where all the religions are the same. What Jesus said. What Buddha said. The way the Jewish people live and the way Hindu people believe. Maybe now I will make a new religion that holds all of them and people will not kill each other so much because of what they believe God is.”

Rinpoche’s statement is a form of didacticism, as it carries a lesson about the alleged underlying unity of various spiritual traditions. It conveys the idea that at their core, all religions share common values and teachings. In addition, this statement uses allegory, suggesting that the creation of a new, unified religion could be a solution to the violence and conflict in the world.

“Just at the point where you thought he was challenging your way of living, he’d call you a good man. Just at the point where you knew he was taking himself too seriously, he’d break out in joyous laughter at something he had said or done.”

Otto perceives a dichotomy in Rinpoche’s character, which he expresses by using antithesis, setting up a balanced opposition within the same sentence. The literary technique of stream of consciousness captures the narrator’s spontaneous and fluid thought process, reflecting the unpredictability of human nature and the complexity of Rinpoche’s spiritual teachings, which challenge conventional lifestyles while also embracing joy and humor.

“I derived a profound pleasure from going to a booksellers’ conference in some part of the country I had never seen, walking the streets of St. Louis or Seattle and just watching how people lived, seeing what they ate, hearing how the language of Shakespeare, Fitzgerald, and Woolf sounded in their mouths.”

The absence of conjunctions, known as asyndeton, in the series “walking the streets of St. Louis or Seattle and just watching how people lived, seeing what they ate, hearing how the language of Shakespeare, Fitzgerald, and Woolf sounded in their mouths” imparts a sense of immediacy and continuous motion. The narrator’s observations unfold in a stream, one after the other, without the interruption that conjunctions would provide, mimicking the actual experience of absorbing the vibrant life of a new city.

“But there was another segment of Americans that used it—via a process I did not fully understand—as a springboard to a kind of aggressive ethnocentrism, as if there was obviously a God, and the God was obviously Jesus and only Jesus, and he obviously loved the United States of America more than any other nation in his millions of universes, and therefore any military action we took must have Jesus’ blessing.”

The phrase “aggressive ethnocentrism” uses irony to criticize a belief system that Otto perceives as overly zealous and self-centered. The hyperbolic notion that “God was obviously Jesus and only Jesus, and he obviously loved the United States of America more than any other nation in his millions of universes” portrays a sense of nationalistic and religious fervor to highlight the absurdity of such extreme beliefs. The idea that all military actions would have “Jesus’ blessing” continues this hyperbole to underscore the dissonance between the peaceful teachings often associated with religious figures and the aggressive policies enacted in their name.

“I am the kind of person who believes that punctuality is one of the columns on which a peaceful world is set. What happens to a person like me when he’s running late—or when someone else is running late—is that anxiety builds up like water in a clogged sink.”

This passage personifies the concept of punctuality as a column, which is a metaphor that equates timely behavior with the foundational stability of a harmonious society. The simile “anxiety builds up like water in a clogged sink” conveys the escalating stress associated with tardiness. The use of this simile illustrates the physical manifestation of anxiety in a tangible way, illustrating the significance of punctuality to the narrator’s sense of order and tranquility.

“It means you will squeeze all the juice from this life that there is to squeeze. You will not waste your time here, that you have been given, that is so precious we do not realize until the moment we die. You will not waste this precious time, do you see?”

The metaphor of squeezing juice from life implies making the most out of every experience, symbolizing a full and purposeful existence. The anaphora, or repetition of the phrase “[y]ou will not waste,” emphasizes valuing and using every moment. This highlights the urgency and preciousness of time, a nonrenewable resource. The novel thus drives home the importance of living fully, one of its central theme messages, by repeating the resolve not to squander time.

“I loitered at the edges of the room like a boy at a high school dance, not wanting to be rejected, or rejected again, or laughed at, feeling somehow superior in his shame and embarrassment and envy and shyness. Furious, superior, and ashamed.”

The comparison to “a boy at a high school dance” evokes awkwardness and vulnerability. The emotions described—shame, embarrassment, envy, shyness, fury, superiority—are in tension with each other, illustrating the complexity of Otto’s emotional state. The juxtaposition of feeling “superior in his shame,” a paradox that conveys his complex response to social situations and self-perception, deepens the sense of internal conflict.

“‘Time,’ he said, holding up the braid to me. He indicated one end, then the other, ‘Maybe one thousand year.’ He touched the individual stalks of grass tenderly. ‘Souls. Spirits. You see? You, your father, your mother, sister, wife, children, you see? Your spirit is together with their spirits like this, tight against each other. That is why you were born into this wife together.’”

The braid of grass represents the interconnected and intertwined nature of relationships and life paths. When Rinpoche touches the “individual stalks of grass,” he implies that each is a synecdoche for a soul, part of the greater whole of familial and spiritual bonds. The braid isn’t just grass; it stands for the unity and continuity of lives across time. The symbolism of the braid provides a tangible representation of the abstract idea that individuals are closely bound to one another in the journey of life and beyond, echoing themes of destiny, kinship, and the cyclical nature of existence.

“Mere chance? Or the hand of fate, or karma, sketching dormers and trellises into the architecture of some grand plan? I have always wondered.”

The phrase “mere chance? Or the hand of fate, or karma, sketching dormers and trellises into the architecture of some grand plan?” juxtaposes the randomness of chance with the deliberate design suggested by fate or karma. The metaphor of life as a building, its specific architectural details “sketched” by an unseen force, evokes an image of life as a construct wherein each feature holds meaning within a larger scheme. The narrator expresses a long-standing curiosity about this, indicating a reflective nature and an openness to the mysteries of existence.

“Joke about it, fine, a little voice in me chirped. But try answering the question, Otto. What is the main current in the river? If you had your own talk show—God save America from that—what would you rant about? What do you care about most?”

The use of internal dialogue introduces a self-questioning voice that challenges the protagonist to confront his core values. The personification of the “little voice” in the protagonist’s mind is a common technique to depict internal conflict or conscience. It’s as though another character exists within the protagonist, engaging him in a direct dialogue, pushing him toward self-examination. In addition, the hypothetical scenario of hosting a talk show introduces a form of irony—“God save America from that”—hinting at the protagonist’s self-deprecating humor about his potential as a public speaker or commentator.

“It seemed to me he made a convincing case that, though these belief systems were not identical, they had a large area of overlap, a huge demilitarized zone, as it were, where people of good intention could meet and converse in an atmosphere of mutual respect.”

Describing the commonalities among various religions as “a huge demilitarized zone” is a simile that likens shared beliefs to a peaceful area between hostile territories, implying that within the diverse doctrines exists a neutral space where dialogue and understanding are possible. This metaphor reinforces the novel’s recurring message of spiritual unity and the potential for harmony amid diversity. The idea of people of different faiths meeting “in an atmosphere of mutual respect” further supports the text’s recurring motif of reconciliation and acceptance, suggesting the possibility of coexistence and shared human values beyond doctrinal differences.

“For proof I look at you, all of you here, and I think: Your hearts are pumping now, when we sit here and think and talk and question to each other. The blood is going. Outside, the trees are drinking in the sun and growing. Beyond them, the planets are spinning. These are facts. No one disputes—disputes, yes?—these things. More proof of God, or some Greater Being, why is it necessary?”

Rhetorical questions invite contemplation of the marvels of life and the universe as evidence of a higher power. The imagery of hearts pumping, trees growing, and planets spinning paints a picture of the world in constant, harmonious motion, implying an intricate design behind existence. The assertion that these are indisputable facts, followed by the rhetorical question about the necessity for more proof of God, suggests that the existence of life and the cosmos is proof enough of a divine creator or order. This line of reasoning is grounded in naturalism, in observing and interpreting the natural world as evidence of a greater purpose or entity.

“It was at this point in the trip that something in my interior world began to break open. The shell cracked, the thick whitish fluid started to leak out, though I had not yet taken the drastic, untakebackable step of pulling the brittle halves apart and dropping the egg into the pan.”

The “interior world” that begins to “break open” with the “shell cracked” symbolizes Otto’s old perceptions and beliefs starting to give way to new insights. The metaphor extends with “the thick whitish fluid started to leak out,” suggesting that the essence of his former self is being exposed and can’t be contained any longer. The “drastic, untakebackable step” of pulling the egg halves apart conveys the irreversible nature of transformation: Once begun, it can’t be undone. This image of an egg, a symbol of potential and new beginnings, illustrates the protagonist’s emergence into a new understanding of life.

“He laughed. I had made a joke, apparently. ‘What difference makes what you believe? What happens will happen anyway, exactly same, no matter what you believe. What you do makes the important part, what you do.’”

Rinpoche’s laughter in response to Otto’s comment, which he perceives as a joke, suggests an ironic twist; what Otto considers a serious query is seen by Rinpoche as an amusing simplification. Rinpoche’s didactic response, “What difference makes what you believe? What happens will happen anyway,” challenges the notion that belief alone is significant. Instead, he emphasizes action over belief, suggesting that one’s deeds are the true measure of one’s character and impact on the world.

“We let the conversation die there and soon we were leaving the corn-carpeted countryside of the heart of the Midwest and being drawn into the windy steel tangle of its greatest city.”

The “corn-carpeted countryside” uses alliteration and evokes imagery of the rural Midwest, creating a serene and natural setting. This peacefulness contrasts with the “windy steel tangle of its greatest city,” a metaphor for the complexity and chaos of urban life. The journey from countryside to city isn’t just geographical; it symbolizes a shift from simplicity to complexity, from tranquility to the hustle and bustle of urban existence.

“For the space of eight or ten seconds, something, some process or interior habit, had been suspended, and in those seconds, wordlessly, I thought I had seen or understood something, and I kept reaching back to retrieve that understanding, and my mind kept tripping over its old habits and bouncing away.”

The phrase “some process or interior habit, had been suspended” suggests a moment of epiphany or clarity, wherein the usual patterns of thought are momentarily halted. To convey the struggle to grasp this fleeting insight, the text uses metaphors like “reaching back to retrieve that understanding” and “my mind kept tripping over its old habits and bouncing away.” These metaphors portray the elusive nature of realizations and the difficulty of integrating them into one’s consciousness amid ingrained thought patterns.

“I caught a whiff of gunpowder from the academic battlefields.”

The “whiff of gunpowder” is a metaphor for the intensity and potentially hostile nature of academic debates, likening them to a battlefield. This imagery conveys the idea that the academic realm, often perceived as reserved and scholarly, can also be a space of conflict, rivalry, and high stakes, much like a battlefield. This metaphor highlights the underlying tensions and dynamics of academic discourse, presenting it as an arena where ideas clash with the force of combatants in battle.