What makes something Buddhist? Today I was introduced to this UK meditation thingy called Headspace. Essentially they seem to teach breath awareness (anapanasati) meditation without, well, anything even resembling "alien Eastern mysticism". While they have a former monk in their group, I haven't seen any reference to Buddhism beyond that. The well known Big Mind (Big Heart) technique goes just a bit further with their occasional mention of Zen. And the list goes on about teachers and groups preaching a special meditation method "fit for the modern human regardless of faith" taken from any Buddhist tradition. But how much is that Buddhism? I mean, obviously the teacher has a background in long term dedicated practice in a mostly traditional Buddhist school, and the methods presented are hardly different from what one could find in the respective school's original materials and monasteries.
One simple reason to say no is that correct awareness and correct absorption are only 25% of the complete path. Just think about it, if you get only an engine and two windscreens of a car you still won't be able to go anywhere, especially since a block damn heavy. However, one could argue that there are a couple lineages where Buddhism is reduced to a single practice, or so it appears. I say it appears so because what is often presented in translations are only excerpts. For instance, there are many Zen books where ancient masters talk on and on about seeing the true nature of mind and doing meditation. But that results in a very biased view if one doesn't take into account the complete monastic training and environment. It's like reporting only about art classes of a high school without mentioning the complete curriculum. Nevertheless, that's what happens to Buddhism when it is taught in that "meditation only" form.
But let's look at it in another way. There are certainly teachings called the sudden/direct path and they usually have to do something with buddha-nature. That's because the doctrine of buddha-nature provides enough theoretical basis for saying that there is nothing to be developed (the qualities of a buddha are inherent) but only to be realised. (Going down a few levels, the same can be stated about selflessness, i.e. there has never been any self to be free from.) So what is the realisation that promises instant liberation?
There are two common approaches. One is to see the rise and fall of phenomena, the other is to see that there's no graspable self. While theoretically both can be taught directly to anyone, seldom does it result in actual realisation. And even when it does one has to continue reminding oneself of that insight regularly to finally maintain it all the time. The source of problem is easy to see when we consider that these methods are among the final meditations done by a practitioner following the usual gradual paths. That's why it is also said about sudden/direct methods that they're for people with the best capacity, although there are cases when it's claimed to be good for anyone.
The main problem with using exclusively a sudden/direct method is that while for a few moments one might gain realisation, immediately after that it is reified and turned into a concept. That is because of the habit of mind that keeps conceptualising everything, even non-conceptuality. That's where the meaning of a complete training comes in. It is possible to have a glimpse of freedom but that is meant only for strengthening one's faith in the whole practice. Thus we come to the very first element of Buddhism, trust, summed up as taking refuge in the Triple Jewel. It is followed by correct view, understanding the four noble truths, which is on one hand the teaching of rebirth and karma, on the other the teaching of liberation and path.
So, what makes something Buddhist? When a teaching has the correct view, it is Buddhist. This is like swapping correct meditation to correct view. The reason is that from the correct view comes everything else, while correct meditation leads only to liberation. It is certainly wonderful when somebody can make immediately the last step. It is certainly common that most of us has trouble making the very first. So if a complete teaching lacks the full training in the noble eightfold path it does not lead to liberation and cannot be designated as Buddhadharma.
"Tame your mind, tame your mind, tame your own mind with the Dharma!
If one tames one's mind with the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind,
then even without View, Meditation, recitation of mantras, Creation and Completion Stages,
one can't mistake the Path to Freedom from another."
(Dza Patrul Rinpoche in Advice to Kunzang Chogyal, tr. Karen Liljenberg)
I think that the aim of meditation practice has changed as well. It is not liberation any more, but a less stressful life. I was wondering if this can be put into the "box" of wordly aims of lay Buddhists (and even be called the mundane path) or it's simply not Buddhadharma (in this case not from the "path", but from the "goal" aspect).
ReplyDeleteI'd say it's just one of the many possible worldly aims, which is not necessarily a problem. But as I've said, the decisive thing is whether one has the faith and view or not, and not the method itself. Although I suppose with a view of inevitable rebirth one would at least think beyond the present life and try to assure a good human or divine existence in the future.
ReplyDelete