bare knowledge and repeated mindfulness

Yesterday I went to a dharma day inspired by the Satipatthana Sutra at London Buddhist Centre. It was a really great day, rich inspiration for practice. The previous day i listened to this reading of the Sutra from this page (second one down - also with links to three alternative translations from different scholars) several times. It is really lovely to listen to, and I am listening to it again now. 'New technology' is hardly news, and technology for recording and listening to the human voice has been around for a while, but this access we have now to dharma and meditations is absolutely unparalleled, and I continue to be struck by the astounding implications - you can have world reknowned teachers talking to you in your own home, and if you want to hear the talk again, you can! This is a mutation on the contemplative life which simply could not have existed at all before the last very few years. Of course, this also means there is an active world wide sangha, again, at a previously unimaginable level. We live in very particular times.
All the better to apprehend the very simplicity of teachings. Here, in the Satipatthana Sutra we are assured that with 'bare knowledge and repeated mindfulness' we have enough material to take our practice all the way.

Digham va assasanto digham assasamiti pajanati digham va passasanto digham passasamiti pajanati: = "He, thinking, 'I breathe in long,' understands when he is breathing in long; or thinking, 'I breathe out long,' he understands when he is breathing out long.

Our day was a mixture of talks and practices, I won't attempt to document it all, but there were two things beyond the Sutra itself (yes, still listening to it!) that are particularly in my mind to write about. Ratnachuda led us in an unusual version of Metta Bhavana. In the FWBO we learn and practice Metta Bhavana alternately with mindfulness of breathing from the beginning, it is not seen as either an optional or an advanced meditation, but one to be engaged in from day one (or day two!) Usually we are reminded that we chould choose for our difficult person someone we have a minor irritation with. Being foolish, I had taken a bit of a detour for the past year or so and had chosen to use someone very difficult for me, and had reached a point where it really wasn't Metta i was practicing, but a kind of harmful masochistic clinging. One day recently I simply couldn't engage with it at all. I had reached an impasse. I thought of 'only' doing myself, and then I thought of just taking the instruction to use an easier person more seriously. I am not sure why I had dismissed the idea of working just with myself so quickly, and I am indebted to Ratnacuda for leading the meditation in this way otherwise I might never have experienced it. He suggested thinking of the part of yourself that you find easiest as your easy person, and working through to a part of yourself that you are less happy with as your difficult person. I found it really productive and healing, and I would certainly use it again. What was I doing using someone I find so harmful in my meditation? What does it say about the Metta I have been offering myself?
The whole day went in to the evening, with Mitra ceremonies and a Puja, but I was never going to last that long, and I was really tired (I have fibromyalgia and get very tired) and I was just thinking of going home when Dhammarati arrived. Because of my illness there are lots of order members who I don't know because I rarely go to LBC in the evenings. So, even though I spend a lot of time there, there are still plenty of people I don't know. I have to admit now, that I do not remember the name of the order member I was talking to when he arrived, but they knew each other and she introduced us, and he shook my hand. His presence was of an order that I thought, ok, let me just stay for this one last talk. And I am very glad I did. He talked very plainly about the Sutra, and about practice. Very insightfully. And he brought the day together in it's conceptual simplicity; everything you need to know to practice, you probably already know. You just need to do it deeper.

The Abominable Offspring of Traditional Buddhism in the West

After pondering the latest few posts here by our own Venerable Brooke Schedneck and Justin, I thought I would perhaps add another hot topic to this conversation; the ability and acceptance of integrating various aspects of conventional forms of Buddhism to form different combinations of study and practice here in the West. From previous posts I have written concerning a Progressive or Western Buddhist tradition, I have found that those who were most strongly opposed to it made the concern that their particular tradition of Buddhism they practiced would somehow be debased and corrupted in order to fit the wants and needs of a different culture. This is both an important and somewhat delicate subject to those new to Buddhist teachings and to long time practitioners as well. Can the different ancient schools of Buddhism have parts of their practice integrated into a newer or more individual convention without destroying, dismissing or detracting from what is already in existence in a traditional sense?

For those who have decided not to choose one particular existing tradition of Buddhism over another to follow, I think the root of the problem they face is found in the simple question, "Is there only one true path?" And if not, can Buddhism is some respects be viewed as somewhat of a philosophical buffet, where one can pick and choose the practices and the teachings that suit their ideological approaches or dispositions the best? I believe the answer to the first question to be an unequivocal no, as it is easy to see that so many great teachers and students have been the product of the vast sea of the great traditions such as Theravada, Zen and Tibetan, just to name a few. Though all these practices have some similarities, by in large, they are greatly shaped by the cultures from which they are rooted. To the second question, of picking and choosing the practices and teachings of each particular existing tradition, I see the answer as both yes and no. Each person is unique, and each path they take and the goals of practice they set and the reasons they are drawn to Buddhism are extremely individualistic. A more tailored approach perhaps will suit one person more than another, and I see nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is so easy to get on the wrong path, to misinterpret what is meant by the basic Buddhist teachings without some clarification and guidance. I do see Buddhism as having some core concepts, basic fundamentals that extend over all the great traditions, which are intrinsic to exactly what makes Buddhism....well, Buddhism. For instance, I would not call myself a Buddhist if I did not recognize the three 'marks' or teachings of Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha; and I doubt someone would consider themselves a Buddhist if they didn't agree with some of these fundamentals after exploring the concepts and theories themselves.

Also, the differing and varying traditions of meditation and mindfulness can be quite difficult to learn and perfect alone, and the guidance of a good teacher may be necessary to fully realize the potential of such practices. However, many new to the practice may perhaps feel more comfortable with a Vipassana type meditation while others may be drawn to a Tibetan tantric practice while others may find being seated in ZaZen more agreeable. The big question is, are the differing practices of meditation and mindfulness from the varying traditions solely accessible and understandable in the context of the tradition they come from? For example, could I learn a Theravadan insight meditation technique from a Thai monk, but learn the fundamentals of Karma from say a Japanese Zen Master? Could one sit in a group Tibetan chant yet ponder some ancient Zen koans? Do these differences, both subtle and obvious belong unquestionably to the sect they were born from? More importantly, what goals can be attained or realized by the mixing of the different traditions together?

I think given the option, people would prefer the ability to sample and examine all the different variations of traditions that are out there, and that maybe somewhat both of a positive and a negative thing. However, I see the positives to exposure to all the traditions greatly outweigh the negatives, as I tend to view this issue in the light of inclusion rather than exclusion. While, being exposed to many traditions at once could become overwhelming and confusing, I see that it is as a positive thing for one's practice to experience all the different forms and shapes Buddhism comes from as their practice progresses. And what those that strongly disagree with any new Western or Progressive tradition of Buddhism forget or ignore is the basic fact that in every culture where Buddhism has landed, the culture has adapted the practices to fit their existing traditions. This has held true for cultures such as Tibet, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, etc.etc; why should the West be any different? Will some type of Frankenstein tradition arise in the West, made from bits and pieces of the existing traditions? As I see it right now, I think it is highly unlikely. But if it did, would it be such a terrible thing, just a mutant offspring of traditional Buddhism?

I remember my days as an alter boy in my local Catholic Church and a particular conflict I had with the priest one day after mass. I asked him why I had to tell my sins to him in the confessional instead of just talking with God myself. His answer sticks with me to this day; his blunt answer "Well, you can either take it all or leave it, but there is no middle ground in belief." This is why I find Buddhism so beautiful.

(Photo Courtesy of Brian Solis)

Blood, Sweat and Enlightenment

Watching a good football game is fun, isn’t it? Nothing beats the excitement of seeing the game unfold play by play, sitting on the edge of our seats full of anticipation, watching each move develop. Every moment of the game, every step each player makes, every bounce the ball takes changes the course of the final outcome, and this not knowing is what makes the game so special. It wouldn’t be so fun if someone just told you the score of the game? Blue Jays 7 Rockets 3; it wouldn’t hold hardly any excitement, would it?

We even find ourselves learning every aspect of the game. The stats, each players strengths and weaknesses, the play books, the team history's and even the equipment. Hell, we can even coach it if we know enough.(or in my case blog) We love football so much because it brings some sort of pleasure so we sometimes immerse ourselves in these trivial things to keep these good feelings going.

But how can somebody truly know football if they never actually step on the field and play? We forget why we love football, we forget that it isn't numbers or stats
or players, but the joy of the event unfolding. We need to immerse ourselves in the mud and the sweet and the blood and the fierce competition to understand football at it's core level.

As students of Buddhism, it can become very easy to fall into a similar cycle. We learn the teachings and read many books and develop theory's and ideas about enlightenment and self. We talk, and blog and think about it, but we can end up losing the meaning of the way to the goal.

Dogen Zenji said "To study Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self."

It is indeed necessary to get some mental knowledge to help encourage us on our path. These teachings are fine road signs pointing the way, but they are not in themselves the way. As long as we are mindful of ourselves while we are talking and writing and thinking about Buddhism, it is still making for right effort. But we must never forget why we are students of Buddhism, and what our real problem is, Dukkha.

We must practice our concentration and mindfulness moment after moment, constantly making effort in this moment. Practice, practice, practice. Eventually understanding will make itself clearer and clearer. It is impossible to have a mental conception of ultimate truth so it is impossible to figure out enlightenment with our thoughts. Indeed Buddhism itself can become just another obstacle to seeing. Anything you read or hear about the Buddhist practice, this right effort is the most important lesson we will need to learn on our journey!

Isn't it time to get off the sidelines and immerse yourself in this journey? It's a choice we make in each and every moment, as it is only you who can ultimately set yourself free.

“However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you If you do not act on upon them?"
~Buddha

ps. I realize that American readers see the term 'football' as meaning a different sport than most of the rest of the world, 'soccer' err football err...I'm now officially confused. But anyway, hence the two pictures.

Activity in Buddhism

[x-posted at And Now For Something Completely Different]

Whitney Joiner over at Salon.com wrote an interesting appraisal of the Dharma Punx phenomenon, which she playfully titled "Dive-bar Dharma." Specifically she considers how this new phenomenon within American Buddhism relates to the more original phenomenon of American Buddhism itself (i.e. Buddhism that rushed into America after WWII and proliferated with the then counter-culture). In the end she comes out with what, I think, is the typical utilitarian/skillful-means defense of the movement. Rather than strive for appeal through the quasi-authority of Eastern exoticism---which may or may not fairly describe the original appeal for '50s and '60s counter-culture-warriors like Allen Ginsberg, who like many other disaffected youth of his time was already enamored with quasi-mystic figures of the Romantic movement like William Blake and the less mystical but no less romantic Walt Whitman, not to mention being steeped in the Jewish and Christian mystic traditions---Joiner thinks Levine and a fellow dharma punk, Ethan Nichtern, are on the right track with their edgy new approach to spreading/practicing the dharma. What I think is missing from this sort of account is the flip-side of even this movement. I'll digress for a moment in an excerpt from the lengthy comment I left, which I think says my point about as well as I care to right now.

The key to understanding how active Buddhist practice is already (before getting hipsterfied or whatever) is in understanding how active our minds are already.

We are typically dominated by a more or less mild froth of mental activity, both in the moment but largely also out of it. That is to say, when we pull out the drawer to get a spoon for eating our freshly poured bowl of cereal, our minds are probably engaged in that activity, but more likely than not a bunch of other stuff too---whatever we were doing before we made our bowl of cereal, whatever we anticipate doing afterwards and associations and thoughts of other sorts. What happens is we are constantly pulled out of the moment and to the extent that we are in the moment, the weight of the rest of our mental activity can make things that are not in this moment feel very present. Isn't it common to be in a bad-mood and to take what someone said or did, or some otherwise inadvertent circumstance, as we put it "the wrong way," only to realize later that "I was just in a bad-mood" and feel crumby about it?

Tarrying with this mental activity, which takes us out of the moment when we don't even normally realize it until after the fact, is the core of Buddhist practice. Stilling the mind is not simply turning our inessential mental activity off, because we can't turn our thoughts off like that. Luckily for us, what comes goes, and the same is true for our thoughts. So, the trick of Buddhist practice, at least when we're talking about meditation, is staying with these thoughts long enough to notice that they are there, but not so that we become unaware of everything else that is going on around us. This is, on the one hand, profoundly difficult, more difficult than anything else someone can try and do, because it is asking that we stay in full contact with every nook and cranny of our mental activity so we don't lose track of it. On the other hand, it turns out to be profoundly simple too, since after establishing our mindfulness, the mental activity goes away by itself. We're just there to watch, engaged enough to know what's going on, but not so much that we're really worried about what's going to come of it, since we already know: when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.

In this way, Buddhism is already profoundly active from the get go. I'm very much on board with what one of the commenters said about the ease of this practice perhaps unskillfully being put before its simultaneous [depth and] difficulty. As much [as] overly esoteric practices and teachings are unskillful (not in themselves, but because they are brought [up in] an inappropriate context), I think that overly exoteric practices and teachings are probably just as unskillful. The idea that "you aren't doing anything" isn't wrong, as I already pointed out, but it's incomplete, and it is incompleteness of a view or a practice that makes it unskillful. What we do on the meditation cushion, or however you meditate is, first of all, tremendous work, but it isn't to be just something we do on the meditation cushion. The goal is bring this practice we have in meditation into every moment of our lives. If that doesn't sound like positively the most difficult thing anyone has ever suggested to you, then I don't know what will. Nonetheless, somewhat in defense of the article, it doesn't matter what's going on the outside so long as the same practice is happening on the inside, whether you say "Peace, man" or "Oi!"

That's pretty much all I have to say, but I should still add a bit more. What is at stake for Buddhists brought up in Generation X and now Generation Y is still very much what was at stake for the first mentionable generation of American Buddhists in the last century: suffering and its cessation. The way I see it, people have come to the dhamma because they are ready to begin taking up the path to the cessation of (their) suffering and dissatisfaction with life. If they aren't, then allure of the exotic (whether its from China, the hippie commune, or the tattoo-parlor) wears off, as everything does, and they get on with their lives---still unsatisfied.

The point I fear is missed by many in the Dharma Punx movement and those surrounding it is that we practice the dharma for its own sake---not because it's cool or fun or whacky or edgy or however you want to describe the vehicle. I think this marks one of the difficulties for the development of a truly Western (or American) Buddhism, because we have a deep cultural penchant for commodities (i.e. things whose first and practically only purpose is to be consumable by as many people as possible, which is to say, things that are all exterior), which translates into approaching something like the dhamma asking "so what is it good for?" The only meaningful answer I can think of is: everything, and nothing less.

This reminds me of a story I've heard from somewhere about the Buddha and a farmer. The farmer comes to the Buddha, who he heard has this great teaching, and asks him if it can help him with this or that mundane problem of his life (nagging wife, unruly kids, failing crops, etc.). The Buddha says his teaching cannot help with any of those problems. He tells him that life is full of all kinds of problems, 83 to be exact, and the Buddha's teaching will help him with none of them. The farmer, kind of ticked off, asks the Buddha just what good his teachings are then, if they in no way answer to any of these issues in his (or anyone else's) life. The Buddha points out that his teachings are good and only good for one still yet unmentioned problem, an 84th problem enveloping all the other 83 problems: the farmer wants to have no more problems.

In a similar way, Buddhism's task is not to remain popular (i.e. prolific in a social context insofar as that context stays the same), like when the farmer asks if it can fix this or that problem (i.e. a fix for a problem only when it's a problem), but to remain effective. By effective I don't mean in the sense that there is any particular, conventional issue it addresses, but because it remains true to its only purpose: the cessation of suffering.

Obstacles to Practice & Progressive Buddhism?

My apologies for the lengthy disappearance. I had to retreat a bit in order to keep various commitments and obligations, and to keep a modicum of peace and stability in the midst of recent professional turmoil.
----------------------------------


I recently sat down to list (ostensibly for the mindfulness group I’ve been developing on campus) what kind of obstacles we can experience in our practice. As I was putting these down it quickly became apparent that these are nothing but my own challenges to practice. All of them. Persistently. Hence, the list became an inventory of obstacles to my own practice, and a good way to look deeply at the same.

I thought they also made sense as obstacles to a progressive Buddhism, or as I prefer, to a “zen humanism.” I offer them here as an initial foray for us to contemplate and expand, and repost.

Basic Obstacles/Challenges to Practice

1. Either/Or Thinking: This kind of polarization is particularly unhelpful as I often come across folks who repeat things like, “a good practice HAS to be like this,” or who make claims about “Buddhism” or what being “Buddhist” is or is not. In any case, a practice marked by either/or thinking would seem to be pretty limiting for exploring the self and for transforming suffering. A progressive engaged Buddhism might also conceive of this as a need to be explicitly self-conscious about its own assumptions.


2. Fear of Truth: This refers to the fear of facing the insight that emerges from deep looking. Often this fear becomes so intense that the insight from practice is distorted in order to make it fit with one’s own cherished assumptions. Discomfort with what we face about ourselves is unavoidable. A progressive Buddhism must welcome bracing insight about its own assumptions, beliefs, and claims.


3. Seeing Only What We Expect or Have Learned to See: The tyranny of assumptions and expectations that are unacknowledged, or that we have been conditioned to expect, is enormous. A progressive Buddhism must look deeply to challenge attachments to “the old country,” or this or that master, or particular practice.


4. Intolerance for Change, Not Knowing, and Uncertainty: Nothing kills a practice like holding on with a death grip to long-held assumptions, not being willing to say “I don’t know,” or needing to be certain about everything. A progressive Buddhism needs to exemplify skillful harmony between affirmation and epistemic agnosticism.


5. Overclassification, Categorization: Attempting to fit everything into boxes and easy categorization systems as a way to make sense of them. This is the way human beings work, but we ought to consider that easy categorization does not wisdom render and immediately imposes a narrowing of circumference. When we engage in simple categorization we stand to engage in two fallacies: the fallacy of composition (taking the part for the whole), and the fallacy of division (taking the whole for the part).


6. Seeking Control, Being Dominant: Some folks and groups need to be dominant, to control, and to assert themselves or their beliefs. Seen from another perspective this translates into inability to be receptive and non-controlling. A progressive Buddhism need not be “top dog” neither in cultural wars nor among other “Buddhist” groups, even as it shares its understanding and/or insight.


7. Need to Conform: The counterpart of seeking control, the need to conform translates often into playing it safe, and not challenging ourselves or the information we encounter. A progressive Buddhism ought to blaze new paths and not be afraid to confront challenges.


8. Over-Respect for Authority: For individuals this refers to being too much of a follower, and unwillingness to question “authority.” The balance that must be struck is between reification of the self on one hand, and being too compliant and submissive on the other. We must remain open to wisdom and insight from various sources, while seeking to ground wisdom in light of our own practice. A progressive Buddhism can find wisdom in venerated masters, but must also carefully look broadly at other sources of wisdom and challenge “authority.”


9. Need to Challenge Authority: The counterpart to over-respect for authority, the need to confront and fight authority or the knowledge of others can be quite a detriment because it usually means a reduced circle of wisdom sources, and a “too healthy” belief in ourselves. A progressive Buddhism must challenge authority but not just for fighting authority’s sake.


10. Eschewing Tradition: This refers to the easy dismissal of tradition and the seeking of thrills or the “new.” In short, we must be careful not to fall for the “latest and greatest” craze as it might signal fetishization and faddishness rather than open-ness to new ways of being. A progressive Buddhism needs a connection to tradition(s) as a way to form and solidify fellowship, while remaining unfettered by over-respect for the authority of the “traditional.”

Thanks,