Sometimes on this blog I write things very quickly without going over them with the kind of rigor I would when preparing something for a book or a magazine article. This is one of those times. It’s something I want to get off my chest right away without fussing over it too much and thus losing the spirit of it. As such there are bound to be mistakes and things that I’ll later realize I could have said a lot better. But here goes anyway…
I was just reading a thing by Sam Harris that says, “For beginners, I always recommend a technique called vipassana (Pali, “insight”), which comes from the oldest tradition of Buddhism, the Theravada. The advantage of vipassana is that it can be taught in an entirely secular way. Experts in this practice generally acquire their training in a Buddhist context, of course–and most retreat centers in the U.S. and Europe still teach its associated Buddhist philosophy. Nevertheless, this method of introspection can be brought within any secular or scientific context without embarrassment. The same cannot be said for most other forms of ‘spiritual’ instruction.”
Sam Harris is just one of many people in these here United States in these here modern times who hope to find that unicorn of unicorns, a form of meditation that “can be taught in an entirely secular way,” that is completely devoid of any taint of that most dreaded and feared of dreaded and feared things, the one thing above all others that is the cause of absolutely every problem in the world from the beginning of time – cue scary music here – religion!
I have been just as highly critical of religion as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins or anybody else. I am not a religious person. I know very well the evils of religion. One of the very first things I ever posted on the Interwebs in my capacity as a Zen writer was a piece about how the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York were caused by religion and that religion was a festering source of evil and badness.
So I get it. I completely and totally get it. I understand why Sam Harris and so many others long for a completely de-religious-ized version of meditation.
The problem is that our definitions about what constitutes religion are so broad that, if we’re gonna be scared of religion, we’re going to be scared of a lot of the very things that make meditation work.
For example, now that I’ve introduced traditional Zen Buddhist chanting services into some of the events I host, lots of people have been put off by the supposed religiousity of chanting ancient sutras together. It’s too much like singing hymns at church. And all that bowing! Its horrifying! The next thing you know we’re going to be attacking the Muslims next door for being infidels. Something that atheists like Mr. Harris would never do…
So. OK. Chanting services. I get it. They are kinda religious. So maybe if we don’t have chanting services we won’t be considered so scarily religious.
Afraid not. Even the mere acknowledgement that we are teaching a meditation technique derived from the teachings of Buddha and from the tradition that grew up and was refined for 2500 years around that original spark is enough the make people turn away. When we insist that the posture one takes in meditation is important, there are folks who find that offensive and terrifyingly religious.
But what happens when we attempt to sterilize meditation practice of anything anyone could in any way, shape or form accuse of being religious? What do we get?
I suppose we get science. And science is nice, right? It involves no reliance at all on any sort of a belief system. Everything is testable, repeatable and contains no hint at all of superstition or anything supernatural. Phew! What a relief! Everything is OK then. Gosh. And that was so easy!
But is it?
Look. I like science. I like the scientific method. I agree that the rational, non-superstitious non-supernatural approach is best. In fact I agree with that old horrible religious Buddhist Dogen who said that nothing – nothing at all in the whole universe throughout all of time – is outside of the laws of cause and effect. Which, to me, is the scientific method in a nutshell and echoes very similar statements made by the Buddha himself.
But Dogen and the Buddha and all the rest of this tradition never abandoned all that religious poppycock completely. They still performed rituals and ceremonies, they bowed to icons, they even said things that could be defined as (gasp!) prayers.
Why? Why? Why? Why did you let us down Dogen and Buddha and Lin Chi and Nagarjuna and all the rest? Why didn’t you dump all that stuff in the fire where it belongs? If only you’d done that we wouldn’t have to make the whole thing up ourselves anew.
Yet what happens when we try to re-invent that which has already been invented? What does a totally sterilized version of meditation look like?
For one thing, you get a lot of people involved who don’t really grasp the fullness of what it is they’re working with. They ignore the tradition and teach meditation as stress reduction, only to find that for a certain portion of beginning practitioners, meditation actually seems to trigger an increase in stress and anxiety. Because they refuse to look into a tradition that sometimes talks in spooky terms of things like Storehouse Consciousness or even (oh save us!) demons, they don’t know how to deal with it when meditation gets a little hairy scary.
What will we do about that? We’ll have to invent new words and new methods to deal with that stuff. We’ll have to codify it… again.
Nor can we avail ourselves of the kinds of spaces that have been developed by centuries of people dedicated to coming up with the very best places most conducive to meditative practice. Because those spaces are (horrors!) temples! They have all those ghastly statues in them! There are weird rules about entering the space. You have to bow to it! You have to (say it isn’t so!) bow in supplication to something greater than yourself!
And there’s nothing greater than yourself.
And what about science? I mean, I love it. I honestly do. But I can’t do all that math. I don’t understand all those complex calculations. I don’t really grasp why the moon stays up in the sky except to know it’s not magic. But because I don’t understand the science behind it, I have to rely on a certain amount of (please don’t make me use this word) faith.
I’m not one of those weirdos who likes to shout, “Science is a religion!” whenever somebody suggests that dinosaurs didn’t all die in the Great Flood. But can’t we at least admit that even though our scientist friends say that anybody could do the same calculations and come up with the same results, most of us don’t really know that for sure? Is that too much to say?
That is, the general outlines of something like the Theory of Evolution are obvious and sensible. But once we get into the details of how evolution works we’re dealing with something very akin to accepting what the priest says because he’s a priest and therefore possesses knowledge unavailable to us. Notice, please (oh please notice!) that I’m not saying that therefore evolution is just a theory and we ought to give equal time in our classrooms to the ancient Buddhist cosmological theories because they’re theories too.
EVOLUTION IS REAL. Just so you know that’s what I believe. But I am asking, in all sincerity, can we at least admit that most of us who believe in evolution are pretty much as clueless about how it works in the details (not in the overarching theoretical structure) as we are about how Noah got all those animals in the Ark? And that this goes for a whole lot of what we call science? And that a lot of what gets called “science” is often kind of flaky? And that science can and in fact has been just as horribly abused as religion? Science gave us gas chambers and the atomic bomb and twisted proofs that certain races were superior to others for gosh-sakes!
Please (oh I beg you puh-leeeeeeaaaase) understand I’m not saying that scientific theory is therefore on an equal footing with religious dogma when it comes to things like how the Earth was formed. However, when it comes to explaining how meditation works, I would say that science is ages behind Buddhism and some of the other (oh my flying spaghetti monster~!) “religions” that have been working on the matter for centuries.
I like the fact that people want to pursue meditation in a rational way devoid of superstition and the supernatural. I totally support that. But I also think there’s a reason the Buddhist tradition has not thrown away every single thing that seems the least bit religious.
The Buddhist tradition has been corrupted and misused and there is misogyny and racism and all the rest of that bad stuff included within institutions and practices that fall under the broad heading of “Buddhism.” But at it’s core, it is highly rational and anti-supernatural, anti-superstitious. When we try to completely sterilize the tradition of all things that it seems to have in common with superstitious supernatural-based religions, we are in danger of losing something very important.
Uh. I’ll go back and fix this one of these days.
Good Saturday to you!
* * *
I’m on my way to Europe soon. I’ll get paid for most of the events I’m doing, but often it’s just barely enough to get to the next place. Your kind donations help out a lot. Thank you!
* * *
Here’s my upcoming events schedule:
Oct. 1 Turku Panimoravintola Koulu, Finland– Movie screening
Oct. 2 Helsinki, Finland — Lecture Event
Oct. 3-5 Helsinki, Finland Zen retreat at Helsinki Zen Center
Oct. 6 Movie Screening in Espoo, Finland
Oct. 8 Lecture in Munich, Germany
Oct. 10-11 Retreat in Munich, Germany
Oct. 12-17 Retreat at Benediktushof near Würzburg, Germany
Oct 18-19 Retreat in Bonn, Germany
Oct 20 Hamburg, Germany
Oct 24: Lecture in Groningen, Netherlands
Oct 25: Day-long zazen in Groningen, Netherlands
Oct 26: Movie screening in Eindhoven, Netherlands at Natlab
Oct 27: Evening zazen in Eindhoven, Netherlands
Oct 28: Evening zazen in Nijmegen, Netherlands
Oct 29: Lecture in Amsterdam, Netherlands at “De Roos” bookstore from 19.00-21.00 (P Cornelisz Hooftstr 183)
Oct 30: Lecture in Utrecht, Netherlands at “De wijze kater” bookstore from 19.00-21.00 ( Mariaplaats 1, Utrecht)
Nov 1-2: Retreat in Utrecht, Netherlands
Nov. 2: Movie screening in Utrecht, Netherlands at ACU
Nov 6-8: Retreat in Hebden Bridge, UK
Nov 9: Noon — 5pm Manchester, UK
Meditate on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8
Really good insight for a quick blogpost! I’ve been reading Sam Harris’ blog for awhile and I noticed that he has a very deep negative emotional reaction towards religion and it colors everything he says and does. There is no escaping the human condition apparently.
One thing that really bothers me about this attempt to take religion out of meditation is that in the USA it means that meditation is put in service of the Death Machine (aka Modern Industrial Civilization/Capitalism). So the military will use it to make killers perfectly serene as they murder people in the name of corporate profit and government stupidity. CEOs will use meditation to support their deadly “profit above all”
ways that go against every moral injunction religion has ever put forth.
I get it though – I grew up in the Texas and the complete insanity of so many religious people is enough to make you want to declare an atheistic jihad and go on the warpath with Harris and Dawkins.
Interesting side note that is sure to drive many people nuts – there is an Atheist Church in Oakland, California.
OK, the perfect post for me to ask you to follow up on something you started to talk about at the L.A. zazen session in August. It was the week Robin Williams died and you said you originally intended to talk about suicide, but somehow the subject changed to your incorporation of ritual into these zazen sessions. You mentioned that both of your teachers, Nishijima and Tim McCarthy, deliberately eschewed ritual in their teaching styles, but you only talked about Nishijima’s disdain due to the standard Japanese cultural predilection of Buddhist priests being primarily in the funeral business and he wanted to make a break from that.
But you never got around to explaining what Tim McCarthy’s reasons were – and I’m dying to hear about that – so please do tell.
You even made mention that day of my blog post here in July ruminating that I was planning to attend the 1/2 day zazen session but had my doubts because it included the ritual in between sittings. Your tongue-in-cheek reply was to listen to the 17-minute version of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida at low volume through headphones if I didn’t want to participate. And my tongue-in-cheek reply was that I’d rather listen to John Coltrane’s 17-minute version of Ascension because I’m a jazz musician.
At any rate, I showed up sans Ipod and took it all in and frankly didn’t have any really strong objections to being there for that. Having said that, I did find that chanting “Form-is-Emptiness, Emptiness-is-Form” in that monotone to be kind of comical. Honestly, it struck me as being very similar to the stereotypical way that animated robots in kids’ Saturday morning cartoons are voiced. So much for religion on that score, at least for me. And then spending the last 10 minutes chanting that long list of male and then female lineage-holders…not my cup of tea.
People of all stripes love religious ritual because it’s a common shared activity that can serve to pull one away from incessant involvement with individuality. But beyond that, does it really necessarily enhance meditation, or even serve the same purpose? I don’t think so.
Also, I think you’re painting a false black-or-white picture to state that meditation without religious elements is merely stress reduction. While it may be true that the burgeoning MBSR movement that’s gone mainstream these days may be about that, I’m all with Sam Harris when it comes to stating that the “benefits” (or fruits) of meditation can be had completely without religious elements and constitutes something much more than mere “stress reduction”. Too bad that he’s been publicly identified with the “Atheist” movement of Dawkins and Hitchens, who I believe have a more superficial bias in their objections to religion. I actually believe he is evolving from his earlier positions, and probably due in large part to his meditation practice.
I don’t really know Tim’s reasons. He’s just not into that stuff, it seems.
Sorry!
Oh please Brad. You are such a dickhead. Just call Tim and ask him if you don’t have any idea. I’m so tired of you Zennists dancing around questions as your raison d’être. Anyone can call Tim McCarthy and ask a question. You two are supposed to be close. He’s not exactly Gene Simmons or some busy person. Just call him and tell us what he has to say. Gawd! And you have the nerve to ask us for money. Well, I just get annoyed..
holy buzzkill comment…dude man, you should chill out and go sit more. I can feel your hostility from my bed where I’m reading this. I was so looking fwd to reading some good debates and 3 comments down I read your negative garbage…don’t you normally leave comments on a regular basis? I don’t remember them being so negative. It’s not a machine that writes these blogs, I don’t think you have to go for the low blows. Not cool…and you harshed my mellow, man.
Oh and here’s the answer to your question…who cares.
Well you nailed me Mr. Zen. I am a negative person and you must be a positive person to see that so clearly. I’m glad you straightened that out for us. Good for you.
It could be I wasn’t entirely serious when I wrote that damned grating post.. but then again I guess wasn’t exactly kidding either. It gets complicated when you are a harsh ungentle person like I am. I could and maybe should pretend to be wise and mellow. But the truth is I am harsh and unpleasant at times. I’ve found it’s so much easier being what I am than trying to be what I’m not. We is what we is after all, changing second.. At least until we are fixed forever by that final enlightenment..
ok cool, good point. I know so many of us need this blog that I get defensive, I guess! But, true that being all politically correct would be lame. I wonder if Mr Zen is taken!? Because if not I’m grabbing it haha
dang it…too much effort, stuck with boring old Wedged.
Religion is not defined too broadly, Brad – it’s not defined broadly enough.
“But Dogen and the Buddha and all the rest of this tradition never abandoned all that religious poppycock completely. They still performed rituals and ceremonies, they bowed to icons, they even said things that could be defined as (gasp!) prayers.”
This isn’t really what Harris considers “religion”. Nor, as I think you sort of mention, is the “faith” you think you need to accept scientific conclusions anything like the “faith” that underpins most religion. Nor is that faith directed toward embracing the sort sot things you mention as “religious poppycock”. I think you have missed the point of “secular meditation”, not entirely, but largely.
Harris studied in temples and in religiously oriented Buddhist contexts along with Hindu contexts. He certainly does not advocate secular meditation as simply “stress reduction” nor does he reject the knowledge and understanding of the tradition in the techniques and difficulties encountered. If you think this is what Harris is saying, you’ve entirely missed his point and apparently have not read his book.
He clearly states, in the book, that nothing about the sort of meditation and spirituality he is proposing need be accepted insufficient reason or faith, religious faith that is, not the kind of faith you mention regarding scientific conclusion (yes, I realize you are not entirely equating the two). I don’t think Harris would eschew the sorts of rituals and practicing you mention, they are not, in his viewpoint, the issue. This is the problem with, as you mention, the broad definition of religion. This is not what he is rejecting.
He is rejecting conclusions draw from insufficient evidence and without sufficient reason regarding the nature of reality. It is these sorts of things that are riff in religious thinking and it is that which he is rejecting with regard to the secular meditation he is advocating.
I personally had not problem with the ritual although I don’t find it particularly helpful or beneficial. I have found it is often emphasized to the detriment of actually sitting. But the ritual is not and was not the issue with the two Buddhist groups I visited, it was the religious way of thinking when approaching the nature of reality; it was the religious way of drawing conclusions about what it true.
Sam Harris talks about consciousness in his book. Meditation is a means of understanding human consciousness and the changes that is brings, the beneficial changes.
I will offer to send you a copy of his book, free of charge, entirely free of charge, if you will agree to read it. Just tell me where to send it.
For a slap-dash posting this is very sharp, in my opinion (if a little neurotic). But maybe I’m just saying that because I agree with about 85% of what Mr. Warner is saying.
When people say they are “spiritual, not religious” usually what they mean is that they have a chip on their shoulder about organized or institutionalized religion – i.e. the “church” (or temple as the case may be). Cue images of people in weird head gear strapping explosives to their bodies or binding beautiful teenage girls to the stake. And I understand that there are a lot of people who have good reason to have a chip on their shoulder, due to some atrocious childhood experience associated with that milieu. Such things are still quite common.
But as someone who had a completely secular upbringing, I’ve noticed there are also a lot of people who like to slag on organized religion in order to advertise their own wit – or weirdly, moral superiority. The idea seems to be that people involved in organized religion are inherently stupid, credulous, hypocritical, corrupt (i.e. pedophilic priests and money-grubbing televangelists) and insanely judgmental; therefore, attacking such creatures becomes proof of one’s own intelligence, honesty, integrity, tolerance and compassion.
Now I’m not trying to imply that religious people can’t display any and all of these terrible characteristics. Nor that organized religion does not in fact foster and encourage these traits in many circumstances. But does it follow then that self-described atheists, materialists, and secular humanists are any less prone to these things? Naturally there’s no way to really measure but in my experience I’d say – no. To assume that just because someone attends church services every Sunday or prostrates in the direction of Mecca three times a day means they’re operating from the same theological ballpark as Jerry Falwell or Osama Bin Laden is just as bigoted as – well, Jerry Falwell or Osama Bin Laden.
Anyway, maybe it’s not my place to say, having ties neither to church nor temple myself, but it seems like meditating for the purposes of stress reduction or improved cognitive performance is the equivalent of praying or performing liturgical rites in hope that God will send you a flying pony or suitcase full of hundred dollar bills for Christmas (it never ceases to amaze me how many atheists think the majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims operate in just that manner.) It’s also very curious to me how many people who have a phobia about religion want to co-opt doctrines, practices and icons from the ecclesiastical sphere and exploit them for their own agenda (i.e. the Buddha as proponent of corporate philosophy; Jesus as socialist revolutionary). Curious, that is, how such things continue to have cache even for those who claim to reject everything associated with them.
Shade –
That “spiritual but not religious” category can cover a wide swath and is ill-defined. To some, it means a kind of (oddly) religious belief in aliens,
crystals, Atlantis, channeled entities and “new age” magical thinking in general. I think the best use of the phrase implies an individual’s willingness to explore their connection/relationship to The Big Picture directly – without intermediaries, which is basically what religious “authorities” and their interpretations of The Big Picture essentially are.
So although extreme examples can be legitimately trotted out (Catholic pedophile priests, Islamic beheaders, ultra-Orthodox Jews, power-hungry Hindu gurus, Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, evolution-denying Christian fundamentalists etc. etc.) as reasons for rejecting religion in its various forms, for me the objection to organized religion is more garden-variety. Why unquestioningly accept the authority of even a benign priest-rabbi-monk class who supposedly know what they’re talking about and whose interpretations of reality you automatically accept at face-value instead of taking the trouble to find out for yourself?
Admittedly, in Brad’s situation, the ritual is mixed in with actual sitting meditation, and if engaging in ritual serves a more “religious” purpose of social bonding among the group of meditators, then fine. But I’m more of the same mind as dwsmithjr above who states: “I personally had not problem with the ritual although I don’t find it particularly helpful or beneficial.”
So I believe (oops) that one must separate “atheists, materialists, secular humanists” and also superficial new-agers who call themselves “spritual but not religious” from people who may actually be spiritual but not religious, because such people exist and they are not using their “un-belief” to display moral superiority or mere wit…
To mb:
Why unquestioningly accept the authority of even a benign priest-rabbi-monk class who supposedly know what they’re talking about
Not unquestioningly, but they may have experience, learning, and a tradition behind them that can carry gems to spark an advance in one’s own journey.
and whose interpretations of reality you automatically accept at face-value
Not automatically, not at face-value.
instead of taking the trouble to find out for yourself?
Your journey is definitely your own, but why insist on rediscovering how to make fire on your own, when you can watch how someone else uses a flint and steel?
To minkfoot:
Not unquestioningly, but they may have experience, learning, and a tradition behind them that can carry gems to spark an advance in one’s own journey.
—————————————————————————————
Brad learned from 2 teachers, both of whom had their own reasons for dispensing with the ritual portion of their teachings. I’m hoping Brad will answer my query above about Tim McCarthy’s reasons. For whatever reason, Brad has found value with the ritual aspect and has incorporated in his teaching regimen. So he has no immediate “tradition” in terms of his flesh-and-blood teachers, the “gems” you refer to come from Dogen himself, I suppose.
—————————————————————————————
Your journey is definitely your own, but why insist on rediscovering how to make fire on your own, when you can watch how someone else uses a flint and steel?
—————————————————————————————
I’m not insisting on un-necessary re-invention. I’ve been practicing yoga for the last 14 years and have learned a lot from “watching how someone else uses flint and steel”. Occasionally I’ve been asked to engage in short ritual practices (in the yoga context – i.e. chanting in Sanskrit) not because the teacher considered it an inherently wise thing to be doing, but simply because it was “part of the package”. The tradition proscribed the ritual and that was that.
And while I’m on the subject, it’s my observation that people following the bhakti path in yoga are essentially indulging their preference for religiosity, it makes them feel good to chant and it’s an end in itself. But does it provide actual wisdom or is it merely an accessible means to get that “high” feeling?
It is an exaggeration to say Nishijima Roshi dispensed with all of the ritual. He didn’t. A quick search on youtube, and you’ll find video of him chanting “Fue Ko” and demonstrating the proper way to put on robes. He chanted the Heart Sutra. However, he did put much more emphasis on zazen practice and studying the Shobogenzo than on the proper way to conduct a funeral.
Tim McCarthy wrote a poetic commentary on the Heart Sutra. That is an important part of the tradition.
Also, Brad’s teachers (and Brad) were/are conveying the tradition even without the chanting. You might not think the tradition is valuable, but if that is your position, why show up to a zen retreat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S6Kqa4NhE4
Tim McCarthy wrote a poetic commentary on the Heart Sutra. That is an important part of the tradition.
———————————————————————–
I’d love to see his poetic commentary on the Heart Sutra – is it online? Do you have a link to it?
———————————————————————–
Also, Brad’s teachers (and Brad) were/are conveying the tradition even without the chanting.
———————————————————————–
Fine by me!
———————————————————————–
You might not think the tradition is valuable, but if that is your position, why show up to a zen retreat?
———————————————————————–
I like Brad’s books (the ones I’ve read anyway) and I like his somewhat-unconventional approach to Buddhism and his willingness in this blog to speak his mind on a variety of relevant subjects. So on that basis, I show up at an official Brad-event to explore my interest further. It’s not that I think the tradition is “not-valuable” either – consideration of tradition one way or the other was a complete non-factor in my case.
mb sed:
“And while I’m on the subject, it’s my observation that people following the bhakti path in yoga are essentially indulging their preference for religiosity, it makes them feel good to chant and it’s an end in itself. But does it provide actual wisdom or is it merely an accessible means to get that “high” feeling?”
Wouldn’t Bhakti people tend to believe the objects of devotion exist?
However that may be, the surrender of the ego to the beloved is a well-attested phenomenon in religious lit. It’s a bit more than getting high, though drowning in love seems like an extraordinary pleasure. So, it appears that, yes, dissolving the self in the divine can open one to wisdom. One can recognize it in the writings of Sufis, Christian monastics, Jewish ecstatics, and Hindus. I guess Pure Land Buddhists could be placed there as well.
My previous comment was framed more broadly than about just Brad and his teachers. But I am curious about Tim McCarthy’s eschewal of ritual, also. There’s a trend in Soto to concentrate on zazen and let go of all the “toys,” although what’s a toy and what’s a tool seems often a matter of arbitrary preference.
Sam Harris is a smart guy, but his Islamophobia and his defense of torture and ethnic profiling has pretty much made me give up on him. It seems that his adventures in mystical experiences haven’t awakened a strong sense of universal compassion. (A cautionary note, that.)
Anyway. It strikes me that taking meditation practice out of “religious” context to help the “death machine” isn’t a new or Western thing. It pretty much describes how Zen became the religion of the samurai starting in the 13th century. OTOH, I suppose those Zen teachers might have thought, “Look at these violent warrior types. Maybe if I reach out to them on their own turf, I can not only reduce their suffering but help reform their behavior so that the suffering of other will be lessened.”
Maybe teaching meditation out of a “religious context” to corporate raiders, meeting them on their own turf, might make for kinder and gentler corporate raiders, the development of a conscience? I don’t know, just speculating.
“Religion” is a problematic word. Literally it means “to tie again”, i.e. “to reconnect”, but to reconnect what to what? Human beings to something, I suppose, but what are we supposed to be connected to?
Grab an average American or European off the street and I suppose their answer would be about connection to some hypothetical supernatual entity. And furthermore if I please said entity by following the rules then when I die my mind will survive in some some of paradisaical afterlife, where I will be privileged to sing hosannas to that entity for all of eternity. In which case no thanks, I don’t have much time for that sort of “religion”, and I’ll call myself an atheist.
But perhaps there are other answers to that question? That’s what interests me about Paganism, I think that within the Neopagan movement we see some people trying to build a new answer. (Blatant plug, I’ve written a book on that topic, click through to my website for more info.) I think in the most mystical, experiential forms of religion — Zen, yes, but even some strains of the Abrahamic faiths — there are hints of a different sort of reconnection, not supernatural but rather dealing with the question “just what is this ‘you’ that you to reconnect to something, anyway? And are you sure it’s disconnected?” That goes a few steps beyond MBSR.
http://secularbuddhistassociation.com/category/articles/
Tnx
Brad wrote, “But what happens when we attempt to sterilize meditation practice of anything anyone could in any way, shape or form accuse of being religious? What do we get? I suppose we get science.”
No, we get meditation without bullshit. Nothing to do with science, its about stopping to bullshit yourself. Intellectual honesty is the word here.
Why did Buddha not dump Buddhism? Well…think about it for a second… 😉
I can think of one good reason religious ritual may perform an invaluable service to the ah, spritually-minded, regardless of denomination. That is, as a means of thwarting the most insidious effects of our own natural selfishness and egoism by compelling an individual to spend a certain amount of time each week doing something they May Not Want To Do. Which is not to say that notion can’t be taken to far in the opposite direction – i.e. to have every waking hour devoted to performing tasks that are unpleasant, tedious and seemingly arbitrary, or have no control over one’s daily affairs whatsoever. For some that would be a living hell and for others a means of escaping personal responsibility, neither of which are spiritually beneficial either. That being said, submitting to rites and duties designed and regulated by an outside authority is one way of reminding oneself that “one’s life is not one’s own” (a central component of almost all religious traditions, I would think)
The reason I object to the contemporary notion of spirituality sans religion is that it often amounts to a refusal to submit to – or even entertain – any theological argument that is not a perfect reflection of one’s own desires, emotional impulses, behavioral habits and aesthetic inclinations (political leanings and tribal/national affiliations come into play sometimes too). At the most extreme this leads to an absolute rejection of all creeds except that which one invents oneself, where the products of one’s hermetically sealed imagination are equated with ultimate truth. At best that’s sham spirituality, at worst narcissistic psychosis, as delusional and amoral as the most batshit, bloodthirsty forms of paganism. Thus, I prefer the term “religious” even though I’m not affiliated with any particular denomination and have scarcely ever darkened the doors of temple or church* (I can other hope that isn’t the only way of doing battle with the ego). (*Which, of course, causes a certain amount of confusion).
Using the scientific method, we begin without believing in anything. We accept beliefs *only* when they’re supported by evidence. And we’re always prepared to change or discard beliefs based on further evidence.
Many religious/spiritual groups don’t operate like that. They may encourage a belief-system from the get-go, beliefs that aren’t based on evidence, beliefs that aren’t questioned based on evidence. For many religions, embracing unsupported beliefs form the foundation, the very definition of the tradition.
This is precisely what Harris, Dawkins, etc, have long been fighting. It’s got nothing at all to do with chanting or bowing etc. If I go to a Buddhist temple, and we chant a sutra, or bow to a statue, etc… that doesn’t require me to believe anything at all. Practices like singing or bowing or walking or sitting are entirely unrelated to what Harris is targeting when criticizing “religion.”
If the leader at that Buddhist temple tells everyone they must believe in something because it’s written in a scripture, or spoken by some revered teacher… or if I’m told that I should bow with reverence to Buddha as a superior being with super-natural insight… THAT’S the “religion” that Harris is targeting.
Imagine someone who seeks support and guidance in learning meditation, as a way of inquiring into the true nature of the self, and into the correct way live and relate to other beings. They can find plenty of teachers and organizations offering meditation… but in many cases the meditation practice is surrounded with a mountain of beliefs. Why not have more availability of support for meditation and inquiry in a way that doesn’t require belief in anything whatsoever?
There *isn’t* a need to discard whatever “seems” to be religious. There *is* a need to discard blind belief. There *isn’t* a need to explain how meditation works in a scientific way, a Buddhist way, or any other way. There *is* a need to provide the opportunity for people to try meditation and explore the results for themselves… without having to accept any explanation based on any belief.
we are all coping and pasting our way through life. as need be. pushing and shoving. retreating and advancing.
Brad, does this sort of quandary tie into your statement (from a podcast years ago) that you thought that one day the term “Buddhism” would be dropped from use with the term “Zen”?
As one who has both been religious and spiritual (at different points in my life), I find sitting zazen to be a most secular experience.
What is more of this world than sitting still and actually experiencing what is happening? Slowing down, sitting down and excluding our usual flow of high volume distractions returns a person to experiencing “here and now”.
While it may be argued that such an experience can have a spiritual quality to it the actual experience is the most secular time of my day. I’m not trying to avoid seeing, feeling, hearing or any other sense. While I do want to avoid giving attachment to the experiences I am actually perceiving what is really happening. I can hear the sound of the tires on a passing car make as the near, roll over the manhole cover and then roll away. I can hear the subtle thrum of the ceiling fan as it turns overhead. I can hear the air drawn in and expelled by my respiration and feel my belly rise and fall beneath my hands in mudra.
This is far more secular than watching an episode of “Cosmos” which inspire me to dream of things I can not see.
There may be a muddling of terms here. You seem to take secular as real and religious as illusory. For me, religion is an attempt to address basic reality. Sitting with attention to all the senses at the present moment is a prime investigation into reality, thus close to the essence of religion.
Whatever the terms, whenever you examine something very, very, very closely, it always turns out other than you thought. I can’t think of any exceptions.
Scientific data, in and of itself, is objective. The way that data is interpreted is very, very often not objective.
Are eggs good for humans to eat or not? Science tells us they are good for us and not good for us, depending on which research article you read.
Which manner of exercise is the most health? Science tells us many different kinds are effective, but is unable to tell us which is most effective.
Does marijuana have legitimate medicinal properties? Again, depending on which research paper you read, you get different answers.
Basic physics works. It’s the best science we have. The laws of physics seem to be constant in this universe.
However, when you introduce variables into the equations, the math gets much more complex. For example, the simple act of introducing air resistance into the formula for gravity makes it significantly more complicated to predict what’s going to happen when you drop something.
That is why when science enters into more complex realms (such as that of the human body) it often fails to deliver reliable information. The complexity of certain realms means researchers are going to have a difficult time accounting for all the variables that interfere with the physics. The reason why we can’t decide whether eggs are good for humans are not (definitively) is because each human body is going to react differently to the introduction of eggs into the system, because each human body is bringing into the experiment its own set of variables that the scientists cannot account for.
Chemistry is a perfect example. Simple chemistry is just simple physics, and it’s a very good tool for prediction. However, biochemistry is so complex that scientists cannot possibly account for all the variables, and so the physics are thrown off.
Science, like any other tool, has been used for good and evil. It has produced many wonderful pieces of technology for humanity, but it has also made destruction of both people and the environment much easier. People like Sam Harris are religious in my opinion because they believe science can do no wrong and that it has all the answers. To me that’s the true definition of a “religion.” He’s closed minded to anything “spiritual” even though from my experience the most content and even happiest people I know all have what I would call a certain “spirituality.” Science and spirituality have their places in a “whole” life. But they both have their limitations. People who don’t realize this become extremists or, at the very least, quite insufferable.
This was an interesting read.
Brad wrote: “But what happens when we attempt to sterilize meditation practice of anything anyone could in any way, shape or form accuse of being religious? What do we get?”
Isn’t this what the Buddha did?
What if every religion in the world insisted that the sky was orange, and zen was the only religion that said “uh. . . no, take a look, the sky is light blue, you asshat”. That wouldn’t make looking at the sky a religious thing. Is that not the same idea? Help me out here, I haunt this site to learn from you guys.
I am probably wrong.
Could one of you Buddhist scholars point me towards whatever sutra or whatever it’s called that has words said to be directly from the big B himself that instructs on posture? Not a later addition to Buddhism, but some words from the actual Buddha. I am a fan of traditional posture, so I am not at all knocking it, but I am curious.
Anapanasati Sutta
Satipatthana Sutta
…off the top of my head. My suspicion is lotus posture is all over the place in the “oldest” sutras. We can’t really know if Buddha actual said this, but he probably said something like it.
Oh awesome! Thanks 🙂
Shoot a long time ago I had the book “A Buddhist Bible”, and I bet those were in there. I will have to track those down. Thanks again.
mtto said:
“off the top of my head. My suspicion is lotus posture is all over the place in the “oldest” sutras. ”
Nope! 😉
The term for the Lotus Posture is “padmasana”…
in the suttas the Buddha himself says nothing about posture in sitting meditation other than that one should sit “with the body straight” (ujum kayam) and the legs “pallankam abhujitva”. This term could mean legs crossed (i.e. lotus posture) or simply folded and the term “padmasana” occurs nowhere in the Tipitaka.
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-lotus-posture.html
Funny. I do not know of a sutra where the Big B himself talks about posture. OH WAIT! Justful and mtto posted some!
…and nowhere is the lotus pose mentioned…
… and i DOUBLE-TRIPLE DOG dare you to find a Therevadin text that says that Lotus or Half Lotus is the only way to do Buddhist meditation. 😉
“Pain is one of the meditator’s chief obstacles, so don’t encourage it. Acceptable postures include full, half, and quarter lotus, American Indian, Burmese, kneeling, or in a chair. The goal of practice is to obtain mindfulness / awareness / equanimity during everyday life, 24 hours a day, every day. Thus, eventually there will be mindfulness / awareness / equanimity even when we are not sitting, when we are working, eating, walking, etc. Therefore, clinging to a particular posture as the “one and only right way” is not necessary.
Lotus postures were common well before the time of the Buddha and require increased flexibility and provide good balance during meditation, but are in no way required to do Buddhist meditation.”
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Meditation_postures
Ok, there’s this:
“Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him.”
I guess I don’t see that as religious. I feel like religion is something extra added to this.
Barely hanging in there, but it was a good time dancing at the Melody tonight.
The Pali Text Society translation of that introduction to the setting up of mindfulness is more like “sits down cross-legged, holding the body erect”. Nothing about “on the lap”. Does say “places mindfulness in front” but not “the breath which is in front of him”. Sounds like the translation of some Western bhikku who is reaching a bit, in my opinion.
Science is coming, guys. I am revisiting Fuxi’s poem, with the blessed inspiration of this comment thread, and I find that all of our ruminations have now blossomed into something that informs me about the nature of practice. That doesn’t automatically allow the relinquishment of volition in habitual acitivity, but it gives me faith that there is well-being in what is occurring in my body and mind without the exercise of volition, and that is a major part of the induction of trance (as Milton Erickson would describe the relinquishment of volition in action, perhaps).
Nice to hear from you, Malcolm a couple of entries back! Great jigs and bagpipe work.
I’d like to thank everybody here, for keeping Brad’s feet to the fire, and for only chanting namo renge kyo when absolutely necessary for whatever it is we can’t live without.
Thanks for the clarification, Mark. 🙂
hmmm. . . you know I am thinking more about this tonight as I paint. Man, I miss living where there are people to talk to that are into this stuff, apparently!
So this word bhikkhu, means ordained buddhist monk, yeah? So there is religion there. Do you guys really think the buddha’s first crew were ordained monks? I get that it says that in writing, but in some sources it says lotus flowers sprang up where he walked as a kid or some such malarky, and that’s a cool image for a painting, but totally fucking stupid. So it’s best to measure writings against your own testing of reality.
Much of what I have been exposed to makes me feel that originally a man figured his shit out and shared it, and that the first “buddhism” that came with it was more of a reaction to how messed up religion was, and hundreds of years later it also became religion.
I feel the same thing about Jesus. His book says he reacted to some of the religions of his time, which were lame and money grubbing, and later people made a religion out of it.
In fact, there’s so many similarities with the bodhi tree and the 40 days in the desert that I sometimes think that my consciousness just contains this cool program as part of my justlui! Ha!
I think since I am not religious that I tend to only want the core useful thing, and not the fluff. I could never imagine experiencing right now as it. As. . . IT. As god. You! Me! Yes! Oh yes, of course, this! I always knew it was this! and then thinking, you know, my homies should shave their heads and wear robes and shit. I mean, wtf?
I tend to believe that the buddha actually emerged from under his tree with a numbered plan of action (4 truths, 8 steps etc) about as much as I believe that Russell Crowe fit all the animals in the world on one boat or that Mel Gibson rose from the dead. I think people want to worship and hand over their responsibility and so they make religions, and I think people want to be worshipped and have power so they like this setup.
Buddhism would have been way cooler without the monks, although monks chant and write shit and some make cool art, so I guess we wouldn’t have heard of the buddha at all without them. I sort of feel sorry for a lot (not all) of modern monks. To me lots of them seem like people who almost get it, but then can’t just take responsibility for being themselves.
I still love religion though, but to me, it’s just culture.
justlui, the past few years, I have been in frequent and close proximity to a number of male and female monastics who have taken the full Vinaya vows. I think Buddhism would quickly get watered-down without them. My gratitude for the opportunity to hang with them.
You’re too quick to assign their motives. The Bodhisattva Vows are a real thing, although everyone human falls short of how they want to be.
Ah yes, and I agree! And thank you for the ego check. (cyber bow) I am brutally opinionated, it’s my big vice. I will try to be softer with my words.
I have been around a ton of monastics over a lot of years. However, as I have said in previous posts, most of it as been through family and close friends, so I have taken an outside non-convert perspective. I liked it that way, it made me see most of them as people with shaved heads and uniforms, not mystic special people.
I did work closely with a Chan Buddhist master, but only for about 6 months. I wanted some mediation training and that was it. I was lucky in that my situation gave me one on one training. Her meditation style is what stuck with me though, and even today I sit her style. I built her a nice garden haha.
I worked as a farmhand for a monastery for a while too, and really got the impression that helping people and knowing yourself was the real Buddhism, and that 99% of the other stuff the monks and nuns did was, well, a job, like the army. And that’s ok.
Because I love Zen (oh nerds like me say Chan haha), and it’s a big thing in my life, I tend to be very hard on Buddhism. Buddhism needs it. I guess that’s why the title Hardcore Zen appealed to me. My first real Chan exposure was in China, and later while living in Taiwan. Here in the US though, many people are weak ass fanatical suckers who need a good gnarling! Well, in East Asia too, to be fair and not sound racist, so I should say most people need a good gnarling!
I admit though, I am out of hand. I do love a good shock value statement!
“The Bodhisattva Vows are a real thing” – Sure man, and so is being saved by Christ. It’s cool. Lots of people who have never heard much or anything at all about Buddhism live and lived the “Bodhisattva vows”, some better than most people who actually used the words “Bodhisattva vows”.
Again, thanks for the teaching and head check. I agree with you. This being a religious blog, I could easily be too offensive if I stick around. So, I’m off.
🙂
I hardly meant you should leave. Some exchanges get heated, but usually not disrespectful. Maybe I should have put a smily at the end of my last comment 💀
And whether this is a religious blog is a matter of utter disbelief for some.
At any rate, there are two big (for Buddhism) international orbs in the States and Canada where you can get yer Taiwanese Chan fix. BLIA & Dharma Drum. Both of them have lots of monastics.
Stephen Batchelor (‘Buddhism Without Beliefs’) has for a while been saying essentially the same thing about meditation and non-religious Buddhism as Sam Harris, it seems to me, but without the religiophobic agenda.
SB’s latest (2012) manifesto:
http://www.globalbuddhism.org/13/batchelor12.pdf (long)
A debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGhoKbzBbEg (also long but with pictures)
****
Thanks, Mark. To be clear and just in case – that weren’t me. That was Harry Bradley fluting and piping (‘Harry’/’Harry B’ – you remember), another used-to-be-here-a-lot guy. I ran with Andy’s joke(?). I blame him for any confusion. And you. And Bret, of course.
Stephen Batchelor (‘Buddhism Without Beliefs’) has for a while been saying essentially the same thing about meditation and non-religious Buddhism as Sam Harris, it seems to me, but without the religiophobic agenda.
SB’s latest (2012) manifesto:
http://www.globalbuddhism.org/13/batchelor12.pdf (long)
****
Thanks, Mark. To be clear and just in case — that weren’t me. That was Harry Bradley fluting and piping (‘Harry’/’Harry B’ — you remember), another used-to-be-here-a-lot guy. I ran with Andy’s joke(?). I blame him for any confusion. And you. And Bret, of course.
And a debate (Stephen Batchelor and Bhante Sujato) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGhoKbzBbEg (also long but with pictures)
– I forgot the rules and just posted this link along with the previous comment, putting two links in one post, hence that comments is now ‘awaiting moderation’. If the whole lot shows up again, blame Brad Warner.)
Regards,
Malcolm
This discussion is much easier to hear than the one I just linked. Sorry for any inconvenience. I blame myself –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuHi9Zpx7zo
“What Would Lemmy Do?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99X_ytK8FiE
One thing Lemmy did in the Winter of 71/72 was to leave his new Rickenbacker bass resting overnight against the radiator in his flat in Little Venice. When Bruce and I and I visited him the next day (Bruce was one of Hawkwind’s roadies and the first guy I played in a rock band with), Lemmy was surprised to see that the Rick’s neck had developed an excessive amount of up-bow, rendering the bass temporarily unplayable. Lemmy also had sex with Bruce’s girlfriend, Alison, and Bruce punched him on the nose. Cause and effect.
That’s all the Lemmy news I got.
I AM NOT WORTHY!!!!
I’ve been adjusting my diet recently and looking more at the science than I’ve done before. I find it remarkable the kinds of biochemical interactions that exist between certain ingredients of venerable dishes.
Take some turmeric, which contains curcumin. Curcumin is made bio-available to the blood stream by dissolving in fat, so add that, and then add some black pepper to the mix, which contains a chemical which increases curcumin’s bioavailability by 2000%. Abracadabra! and that nice curry you chow down is a potent anti-inflammtory, antioxidant, can increase brain function, effects cancers, alzheimers, arthritis, depression etc.
Heck, add a few strands of saffron…
I think this provides a good analogy for religions. If we stripped our diet down and removed fatty stuff like curries from our diet, we might have been missing out on something important – until, that is, the science saw it differently. And yet I’m glad science is looking, otherwise how would I have guessed? Ghee doesn’t strike me as a great thing to have every day, so should I cut out the other things in a curry along with the ghee and feast on an avocado with turmeric and pepper regularly? What if some unforeseen interaction with some chemical in avocado means that, a few years down the line, I’m partially lobotomized and crapping blood, for missing out on something else that them there Indians picked from their locale and prepared in a particular way over millenia? Yet who the feck am I, in this wonderfully modern sick making machine, to either confidently ignore the latest nutritional info or discount it, or cherry pick?
I suppose I just try and factor it all in and get ill and die like the next believer/disbeliever.
Never change.
Malcolm! Yes, we mustn’t forget Stephen Batchelor.
Welcome back. Are you still doing your blog? I’ve lost the link. Last I heard you were back doing photography? Still with the band? Mine [Sticks & Stones] is gigging a lot lately, I’m a bit road worn. Writing a lot of songs, and having a lot of fun though.
Hi John,
I haven’t written anything for the blog since the last post you saw and commented on. Also haven’t taken any pictures for a few months. And the band’s been on the back burner for a long time now – Ben (he who writes and sings the songs) got fed up with gigging. But we have been working, very intermittently, on some home recordings. Meanwhile I potter about with this and that. Good to hear you’re having lots o fun!
“I ran with Andy’s joke(?). I blame him for any confusion. And you. And Bret, of course.”
Hi Malcolm
Sorry, was just mucking around – from the message where Mumbles misrecognized (maybe mischievously) one of the mates Mark was making music with. I blame Mara – I stopped commenting here a while back, which is an on-going commitment for me.
Quite alright, Andy. At the risk of displaying narcissistic tendencies, I confess I’m flattered to have been mischievously misidentified.
…I’m not commenting either : )
I suppose I don’t have to be so narcissistic that I rise to the bait and use your tease to express my opinion that the risk with narc tendencies is in behaving as though we don’t have them when it matters (whatever labels we use for such) and not so much in the sincere recognition of them – before moving swiftly through a serpentine sentence that modulates into “that would be to appropriate and distort a bit of fun as much as a bit of fun can distort what it appropriates”, but then that would be to miss some point amidst all the convolutions. Thank god I don’t post here na more.
I am wondering how you guys think the concrete biochemical dynamics of the brain relate to experiential content?
Personally, I don’t think symbolic manipulation and neural net models really explain how awareness relate to the brain.
How can my first-person experience with its felt, phenomenal properties be explained in quantative terms, which is all a model is? Dr. Seung argued once we have explained all the neural circuitry (e.g., synchronized firing all over the brain, GABAergic inhibitory feedback loops, reciprocal firing, neural oscillitations, parallel processing, thalamocortical loops, and etc.), the neurotransmitter systems (e.g., neurotransmitters like sertonin released from pre-synaptic membrane to post-synaptic receptors in synaptic clefts), the excitatory/inhibitory properties of neurotransmitters (i.e., that lead to an action potential in the axon hillock), all the molecular mechanisms in neurobiology (e.g., chromosomes containing DNA in the nucleus), neuroplasticity (e.g., synaptic scaling, LTP, spike-timing dependent plasticity, synaptogenesis, synaptic pruning, and etc.), and so forth all in a model, we will have sufficiently accounted for awareness. While I agree our mental lives depends on such machinery for its existence, to say they are one and the same is ridiculous. I do not like reductionism or eliminative materialism.
It can still be the case that there is a kind of internal mental life of matter, or that it coalesces itself into certain material forms, or any number of other scenarios because we don’t have the evidence at the moment.
“I am a neuroscientist and so 99% of the time I behave like a materialist, acknowledging that the mind is real but fully dependent on the brain. But we don’t actually know this. We really don’t. We assume our sense of will is a causal result of the neurochemical processes in our brain, but this is a leap of faith. Perhaps the brain is something like a complex radio receiver that integrates consciousness signals that float around in some form. Perhaps one part of visual cortex is important for decoding the bandwidth that contains motion consciousness and another part of the brain is critical to decoding the bandwith that contains our will. So damage to brain regions may alter our ability to express certain kinds of conscious experience rather than being the causal source of consciousness itself. ” “I don’t actually believe the radio metaphor of the brain, but I think something like it could account for all of our findings. Its unfalsifiable which is a big no-no in science. But so is the materialist view- it’s also unfalsifiable” (Lieberman, 2012).
This guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNhk3owF7RQ
Good quote from an honest neuroscientist who is at least (by his own admission) 1% non-materialistic in his views.
“Perhaps the brain is something like a complex radio receiver…”
Something’s wrong with my radio…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTZk0Zy2-8A
Tim McCarthy’s poetic commentary on the Heart Sutra:
http://kentzendo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TimMcCarthyAndYetAndYet.pdf
Pgs. 86-106 (that’s Reader pages, not the page #s on the printed page)
IMO, Sam Harris and Steven Bachelor are both going for the same market: Educated middle class professionals. They are emphasising the bits of Buddhist practice that this cohort are prepared for and saying that the bits this cohort doesn’t like are anachronistic. In other words, the fairly comformist, instrumentalist agnostic middle class find an outlet for their “spiritual” activities, while keeping their worldview and materially comfortable existent unchallenged and intact. There’s a fair bit of jockeying for market share of the non-rational belief systems of a lot of segments of late capitalist societies at the moment. t’s fascinating to watch systems that have been developed over centuries being shredded in order to become “relevant” (i.e marketable)
BTW, I’m not sure how “consciously” Harris, Bachelor et al are aware of doing this. They come from the same class/cohort and are are steeped in its’ values and weltanschauung, so this might be a natural “freely conscious” choice to them, or it may be a cynical marketing ploy: Who knows?
That was Harry?!- nice! I knew it wasn’t you, Malcolm- I saw all those pictures on your site. Nice pics.
“Yet who the feck am I, in this wonderfully modern sick making machine, to either confidently ignore the latest nutritional info or discount it, or cherry pick?”
cracked me up. Well, yes, there are some powerful synergies that science has obscenely denied over the years. And we are all lab rats here.
Interesting about the radio-signal parts of the brain theory too. Just having all kinds of fun tonight.
Well and as I was rattling on about last night, understanding something of the mechanics is really only useful when it allows me the faith to step off the edge. “Step right off, Ladies and Gentleman…” For example, reading this article:
http://www.bjj.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/39-B/4/718
turns out that part of our mechanics is to generate abdominal pressure when lifting weight. The author of the article thinks maybe that protects the vertebrae from forces that clearly would pop the little lovelies, but the interesting thing to me is the statement that the diaphragm is unimpeded by pressure sustained in the fluid ball of the abdomen. Just like Harry’s bagpipe!
You can add that to what these people have to say:
“A mathematical model of the lumbar spine using an optimized system to control muscles and ligaments”, S. Gracovetsky, H.F. Farfan, C.B. Lamay, Orthop. Clin. North Am. 8(1): 135-153, 1977
unfortunately not freely available on the web, but to summarize, displacement of the lumbar dorsal fascia by even very slight amounts, perhaps by rearward pressure from the abdomen, suspends the vertebrae of the lower spine in the fascia to allow the transfer of forces in the fascia rather than right through the little lovelies with the aforementioned Gallagher-watermelon effect.
Now what does all that mean to someone grabbing cotton on a zafu?
“the ox crosses the wooden bridge”– yeah, it’s a stretch.
I’m working with it.
I quite agree with WOken about the middle class obsession against religion. I, for my part, tend to be particularly “priest eating” as we say in French and am none too fond of dogma of any kind.
However, as I have often stated before, Man is a symbolic animal, and we need rites. Whatever those may be, but when we are deprived of some, we invent others. Which may, eventually, not be seen as rites, although they would be, but still. Heck! The old Chinese religion was nothing but rites! All old master Kong talks about is rites!
What is the 14 July Parade in France, if not a rite? What is the sales of poppies in England in November, if not a rite? I’m sure you could pick and identify a lot of these.
So why not prostrate in front of a Buddha’s statue? And why not burn incense to it, as a sign of gratitude for having taught us something of value? Just like in the various martial arts dojos they will prostrate in front of a picture of the founding master (Sensei ni: rei!).
So, let’s leave “meditation” to those who don’t want to learn the teaching-practice of the Buddha, and they’ll be quite the happier like it.
Michel: “…So, let’s leave “meditation” to those who don’t want to learn the teaching-practice of the Buddha, and they’ll be quite the happier like it.”
We can each do as we please. We can advocate this or that practice; identify with this or that school; argue that what we think/do is better than what everybody else thinks/does. But to maintain that our version of Buddhism is the right one, the true Buddhism, because it’s the one the Buddha himself would endorse suggests the kind of thinking one most often encounters among religious sectarians and fundamentalist political types. Claiming the founder’s teaching for oneself or ones’own particular school is a symptom of the need to be right. As I see it, it’s that kind of thinking that objectors to religion object to and they’re right to do so. In that regard my Buddhism is fundamentally anti-religious, too.
Having been taught Zen sitting by a(nother) student of Gudo Nishijima, I’m familiar with objections to the word “meditation” (suggests intentional mental effort to concentrate in order to improve one’s self), and with arguments that the essence of Gotama’s teaching is to be found not in such meditation but in just sitting/shikantaza. But the belief that Gotama Buddha did not teach “meditation” as in mindfulness/attention to and of stuff, and for the purpose of self-improvement, isn’t supported by all we know of his teaching from the early texts.
anon 108: I was just saying, along with Brad, that if you don’t believe that the teaching you have chosen to follow is what’s best, why should you follow it?
As a bowmaker, I try to be as faithful as possible to the reasons for which I have decided, more than 40 years ago, to dedicate myself to early music. I know there are those who do a half-arsed thing, where the only thing of import to them is selling their wares. I don’t mind, as long as they may make a living. But that’s not how I see thing.
Same goes for Zen.
“I was just saying, along with Brad, that if you don’t believe that the teaching you have chosen to follow is what’s best, why should you follow it?”
Of course, Michel. I don’t take issue with that at all.
I took your suggestion “let’s leave “meditation” to those who don’t want to learn the teaching-practice of the Buddha” to imply that the particular form of Zen that you (and I) have practised is the _true_ teaching and practice of the Buddha, and those who teach and practise “meditation” have got it all wrong. If you didn’t mean to say that, I take (some of) what I said back.
I took Michel’s suggestion to mean let’s leave meditation to “those who don’t want to learn ANY FORM of the teaching-practice of the Buddha,” rather than one particular form.
I agree, I suppose. I’m not for burning the heretics!
However, for secular meditation proponents to act as if they are improving on Buddhism, that I take issue with. If you want the stripped-down, less valuable version, fine. It is still valuable, but it is by definition less valuable.
Of course each culture needs it’s own forms of Buddhism, and Buddhist teachings need to be translated into our culture(s). However, before you throw something out that makes you uncomfortable, or that you don’t understand, MAYBE there is some value there and MAYBE there is a way to bring that value into our culture. At least that is partly how I read Brad’s post.
By definition less rich, (because you are stripping away most of the teachings), not by definition less valuable.
Hey mb, thanks for that link to Tim McCarthy’s MFA thesis, which I am enjoying reading. The content is great, but the text could’ve benefited from a proofreader, lots of typos!
Actually it was the introduction, the rest was pretty tight.
Yep. I read the Heart Sutra section first and didn’t run across any “imperfections” until I went back and started reading the intro.
“Rubbish!” (Hakuin 31)
Let’s ask an expert.
“The Dalai Lama Speaks – Secular Meditation”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTLe5TFTh24
Well, religion has always been co-opted in society to copperfasten the status tof the haves, be it the feudal kingship model of Catholicism, the work-driven puritan spirit of the protestants, the caste system of the hindus and many Buddhists. some Zen and some aspects of Taoism (which are extremely close IMO) have been historically iconoclastic: They have consistently set up their practices to force their practicioners to see through the common myths and delusions shared and reitereated by society. What’s fascinating about the current “secular rational” spiritual movement is that they have embraced this iconoclastic practice as a central tenet of their social myth/justification. “Rationalism” has “proven” the validity of the iconoclastic, subversive teachings of the zen Buddhists and the Taoists. It’s the end of history folks!
March 2012, Fred wrote on Brad’s blog:
“There is no one to be mindful, but
in the beginning an ego observes
itself, the thoughts arising and
falling away, the sensations
occuring in the body, the cultural
fiction engaging in games with others.
Mindfulness is a name given to the
technique of vipassana meditation.
But in reality, there is no one to
experience the sunrise other than
the ineffable experiencing itself.
If you are the sunrise, no
technique is necessary to do
something to someone. ”
Mr Harris’ secular meditation is an unnecessary product sold to a fiction so it
can escape its imaginary shackles.
Check out SH’s blog and talks and you’ll soon find that no self is one of his favourite no-things, as is meditation as a way to no-experience ‘it’. He’s pretty taken with cultural fictions and the enaffable, too.
no-self’s spelling’s gone to shit.
” I’m familiar with objections to the word “meditation” (suggests intentional mental effort to concentrate in order to improve one’s self), and with arguments that the essence of Gotama’s teaching is to be found not in such meditation but in just sitting/shikantaza. But the belief that Gotama Buddha did not teach “meditation” as in mindfulness/attention to and of stuff, and for the purpose of self-improvement, isn’t supported by all we know of his teaching from the early texts.”
“Although Gautama described the induction of meditative states in detail, he made it clear that his practice both before and after enlightenment was “the intent concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths” (which he described as a particular instance of his more general “setting up of mindfulness”). His instruction for the “intent concentration” began as follows:
“Mindful [one] breathes in. Mindful [one] breathes out. Whether [one] is breathing in a long (breath), breathing out a long (breath), breathing in a short (breath), breathing out a short (breath), one comprehends ‘I am breathing in a long (breath), I am breathing out a long (breath), I am breathing in a short (breath), I am breathing out a short (breath).’”
(MN III 89, PTS III pg 130)
Gautama elaborated on the comprehension of the long and short of inhalation and exhalation, saying the practice is “like a clever turner, or clever turner’s apprentice who, making a long (turn), comprehends ‘I am making a long (turn)’; or when making a short (turn) comprehends, ‘I am making a short (turn)’” (MN I 56, Pali Text Society I pg 72). What a “turner” was in ancient India, he did not explain.
Eihei Dogen’s teacher in China, Rujing, had this to say about a comprehension of the long or short of breath:
“Breath enters and reaches the tanden, and yet there is no place from which it comes. Therefore it is neither long nor short. Breath emerges from the tanden, and yet there is nowhere it goes. Therefore it is neither short nor long.”
(Dogen’s “Eihei Koroku”, vol. 5, #390)
The “tanden” is the Japanese equivalent of the Chinese “tan-t’ien” that Chen Man-Ch’ing spoke of, yet no such location in the body is mentioned in the teachings of Gautama the Buddha. However, Gautama’s analogy for the first meditative state makes it clear that something shifts and gathers consistency through the exercise of an ability to feel that leaves “no part” of the body out.
In Gautama’s teaching, the experience of phenomena of trance like that he described for the first meditative state may seem to be related to his practice of setting up mindfulness, yet Gautama never actually asserted any cause and effect between the two; that he failed to do so suggests that the experience cannot be made to happen through the exercise of will. In fact, the “no place” that the breath comes from and goes to in Rujing’s teaching is an affirmation that the breath whose long or short is willfully comprehended is not comprehended at all.”
(that’s from here)
What the practice of shikantaza is, turns out to be the subject of the piece I am working on now. I very much hope to submit it for your consideration very soon.
Not sure, but I think “turner” in ancient India meant “fluffer.” But, as I would’ve said had I been there then and I am here now (sort of), I’m only here for the sura, er, beer… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_India
mtto: “…for secular meditation proponents to act as if they are improving on Buddhism, that I take issue with.”
I don’t know that ‘they’ are, but…
‘Buddhism’ – the whole schmeer -is, like every other human activity, a history of developments, adaptations and alleged improvements/heresies. Zen, I’d suggest, is THE candidate for the one form of Buddhism that has ‘thrown things out/stripped away most of the teachings’. In contrast, secular Budddhism, as I hear it (primarily from Stephen Batchelor) is essentially the Gospel according to Gotama, with doubts about (some views of) _literal_ rebirth.
“…not by definition less valuable.” Phew : )
Hinayana/Mahayana?
I’ve got an issue eating me so I’m posting something maybe kind of off topic.
Brad writes this blog for anyone to read. And it looks like a fair number of people posting here do read his articles. He don’t charge anything for this work and only asks very discretely for donations to help him continue.
Despite this generous act, occasionally some commentators seem to feel that Brad owes them something, a reply to a question or to change one of his opinions.
I can understand this because I’ve been there myself.
But, stated very crudely, Brad is not your bitch. He doesn’t owe anyone here anything. Thinking otherwise is a mistake. I’d even claim that the debt goes the other way….
As Bob Dylan once said “Just because you like my stuff doesn’t mean I owe you anything”.
End of rant.
“Occasionally some commentators seem to feel that Brad owes them something, a reply to a question or to change one of his opinions.”
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”
http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
Opinions without arguments are prejudices that haven’t been thought through. If you’ve thought about something to any extent, you have arguments. The value of discourse is to test the strength of your arguments against those of your adversary. Ideally, the one with the weaker argument will recognize that, and concede the point.
Good luck with that!
I know I feel indebted for the insights I gain from Brad apart from his books through this forum as well as the many podcasts I’ve been able to download for free. I take my own steps to compensate for these extra offerings.
I was bored and fed up and wrote this.
If a person would really like to do something they find it difficult or painful — like learning to play the violin – a person can make efforts to see if slow, regular practice and exercise help. If, after a making a consistent effort over a significant period of time a person has made no progress, a person can give up the violin and try some other, perhaps easier, instrument. Or they can forget playing musical instruments altogether and have a go at something else. No shame. No blame.
When, about 9 years ago at the age of 52, I decided I wanted to do zazen, I decided I wanted to do it by the book. The book was The Three Pillars of Zen. The ‘how to sit pictures the back of that book showed burmese, half lotus and full lotus postures. Full lotus was best, said the book. But I knew full lotus was completely impossible for me. It looked completely impossible for anyone. I was pretty sure I’d be able to get into quarter lotus, though.
As it happened, I had real trouble with quarter lotus for the first couple of weeks. It hurt. I thought I might snap something. But nothing did snap and I persevered. After about two years of gentle stretching exercises and daily sitting in half lotus (which took me about 3 months to feel comfortable with) I found I could sit for half an hour in full lotus without pain. My legs would often go numb, (they’d go numb in half lotus, too), but there was no discomfort. In fact, it felt very nice. Nowadays, I often sit in full lotus when sitting at my computer. I can tell you that, for me, it’s the most stable, balanced, comfortable way to sit.*
Brad’s written many times that you don’t have to do zazen in full lotus. You can do what you want and you can call it what you like. But if you can sit full lotus it’s a very nice way to sit, so it’s worth putting in some practice. It may work out for you and you might like it. Of course, people are built differently and some people will never be able to sit full lotus, or half lotus, or in any cross-legged arrangement at all. People also think differently and some people will never see the point of fussing about what their body’s up to while they’re meditating with their minds. Fair enough.
Yes, Brad has written that sitting on a chair isn’t Zazen. If that sounds like horseshit to you, fine. You don’t have to agree with what Brad Warner writes. You don’t have to do what Brad Warner recommends. But there is this idea in Buddhism – some would say a discovery of the reality – that what we call ‘body’ and ‘mind’ are not two separate things. If that’s true, then the idea that the way the body is arranged is not incidental to what we call our ‘state of mind’ is far from unreasonable. Understand that idea and you’re not a million miles from understanding why someone would identify a physical body posture with what others see as primarily a(n unrelated) mental state. I think that’s why sitting in the lotus asana — preferably full lotus – has come to be regarded by some, in some traditions, as not merely the physical aspect of the practice, but as the practice itself. For those people, ‘sitting in a chair is not zazen’ is not an empty dogmatic point, but an expression of their experience.
________________________
*Uniquely, full lotus gets both feet above the thighs. As a result both knees make contact with the floor, and the back is naturally raised and straightened. Raising the behind (with a zafu/whatever) makes everything even better. No muscular strain is needed to keep this or that up or down or from falling forward or backward. There’s no tension – which there certainly is when sitting any other way (particularly in a chair), I’ve found.
Zazen = yoga with only 1 position?
Yeah, kinda. For some. …Hell, I don’t know.
anon 108 said:
“Yes, Brad has written that sitting on a chair isn’t Zazen. If that sounds like horseshit to you, fine. You don’t have to agree with what Brad Warner writes.”
Tis true… I strongly disagree with him on his views on posture.
I think he holds it only because it was the opinion of his teacher, and he swallowed it uncritically – if he thought about it, or tried to defend it, i suspect it would fall apart.
“But there is this idea in Buddhism — some would say a discovery of the reality — that what we call ‘body’ and ‘mind’ are not two separate things. If that’s true, then the idea that the way the body is arranged is not incidental to what we call our ‘state of mind’ is far from unreasonable. Understand that idea and you’re not a million miles from understanding why someone would identify a physical body posture with what others see as primarily a(n unrelated) mental state.”
But that would mean that the inverse would be true right…?
It would mean that “enlightenment” is the lotus position and half-lotus, and that is the DUMBEST thing ever… that all you need concern yourself with in this Ancient religion is cracking your hips/knees into a magical pose??
Well “enlightenment” might turn out to be the dumbest thing ever. (Nothing magical about the pose.)
– “Tis true… I strongly disagree with him on his views on posture.”
As Gary Busey, this year’s Celebrity Big Brother UK winner, is fond of saying: “That’s your truth, man. That’s beautiful.”
anon 108 said:
“As Gary Busey, this year’s Celebrity Big Brother UK winner, is fond of saying: “That’s your truth, man. That’s beautiful.””
It’s not “my truth”… From the earliest teachings, the point of the posture is to able to sit with the least amount of tension and pain, so that you can do the practice – be that vipassina, shikantaza, breath following, visualizations, koans, whatever.
what Brad teaches about lotus is “his truth”… it’s not supported anywhere in the teachings of Buddhism or Zen.
Yeah, Gary Busey is a dick. I was very disappointed when he won.
Go forth, then, and slay the heretics…
Cheers.
“Go forth, then, and slay the heretics….”
No need to go crazy. 😉
I’d be happy even if Brad would make an honest attempt to defend his position, or just admit that he is wrong.
anon 108,
Thanks for taking your time to write that.
It’s a tribute to your persistence that you spent so much time working towards the traditional posture. You may like what Shunyru Suzuki said;
“Those who can sit perfectly physically usually take more time to attain the true way of zen, the actual feeling of zen, the marrow of zen. But those who find great difficulties in practicing zen will find more meaning in it.”
That passage has always troubled me since I sit (physically) fairly easily. Maybe I need to put a thumbtack under my ass….
Cheers.
Thanks, Alan.
I’ve always been very lazy about seeing things through. Most things, in fact. Other things I’ve stuck with. It’d be nice of SS were right!
” Brad is not your bitch.”
That should be the title of his next book
“Big For My Britches”
But what if its true, Fred. And why not?
108 are you sitting again? Inspire me somehow. Actually, it seems contrived to me these days, the zafu and zabuton sit lonely as I pass by, mocking them day after day.
I was forced to “pray” recently by someone’s uncle at the beginning of an outdoor party for a couple getting married where the punch turned out to taste awful but delivered a potent punch (as promised by its name). I was surprised how immense the space was that opened up when I closed my eyes and ears to deliberately shut out whatever the man was rambling on about, Amen. There was peace there that was not present when I opened my eyes to the unfolding uncomfortable social meandering that followed blah blah blah until of course, the punch kicked in…
We (me and wifey) were seated on a sort of bench, my legs in front of me, my arms akimbo. (For those wondering about the posture) Obviously I’ve forgotten proper prayer posture, but from now on it will be lurching toward whatever punch bowl happens to be around. Cheers indeed, Alan!
Since finding out that I’d stopped sitting – about 9 months ago – I’ve sat a couple of times in the last month. So no, I’m not sitting again. I’d also appreciate some effective inspiration. There again, no shame, no blame. I suppose.
Actually, it seems contrived to me these days, the zafu and zabuton sit lonely as I pass by, mocking them day after day.
Sounds like reverse projection. The ten thousand things come forward to ridicule your lack of diligence.
I am not one of the ten thousand things here, merely speaking from my own experience.
Brad must be in Finland now. M’gosh.
You guys inspire me to work over the conclusion of my piece on Fuxi’s poem, yet again. Here’s tonight’s rendition, for the cat on the fence top choir:
“The seated practice of Soto Zen is often referred to as “shikantaza”, a Japanese word that Zen teacher Kobun Chino Otogawa said meant “sitting just for the sake of sitting”. He spoke about what sitting shikantaza meant to him:
…Sitting shikantaza is the place itself, and things. …When you sit, the cushion sits with you. If you wear glasses, the glasses sit with you. Clothing sits with you. House sits with you. People who are moving around outside all sit with you. They don’t take the sitting posture! ”
(lecture by Kobun Chino Otogawa (15))
Not only did Kobun caution Zen students about the possible unseen nature of things that enter into the practice of zazen, but he also cautioned them that the practice might do more than just sit:
“You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around!”
(lecture by Kobun Chino Otogawa (16); zazen is the practice of seated Zen meditation)
The zazen that gets up and walks around resembles sleep-walking; as in sleep-walking, the action occurs in a state where volition in activity has been surrendered.
Kobun cautioned that “people who are moving around outside” are a part of the practice of zazen. The notion that the things that enter into the practice of zazen are not limited by walls can be startling, yet Gautama’s descriptions of the further meditative states would indicate that the boundary for the things that enter into the practice stretches well beyond what is considered the normal range of the senses.
The extension of the boundary of the senses may at times become a matter of necessity in the practice of zazen, and at such times zazen may indeed get up and walk around, yet the well-being of activity in the absence of volition is always close at hand; perhaps that is why Gautama the Buddha described his own practice both before and after enlightenment as particulars of mindfulness in the movement of inhalation and exhalation.
Zen in China and Japan abandoned instruction in the particulars of mindfulness Gautama had taught, yet even today beginning Zen students are usually taught to return to a mindfulness of breath as an aid in their practice.
Fuxi’s poem predates the arrival of Zen in China, yet already the invitation to suspend volition in a transderivational search is present, along with particulars of experience that may be found in the absence of volition. The style of instruction exemplified by Fuxi’s poem became the rule in Zen, and is still very much alive in the instruction given today.”
The piece itself is a complicated dance step involving tutus and pond fronds, with more anatomy/physiology/kinesthesiology than you can shake a stick at. If this conclusion holds up, I might heave my guts, and forever hold my peace.
I liked that, Mark (especially the bit about tutus and pond frogs : )). I still don’t get some of your phraseology, like for example “The extension of the boundary of the senses may at times become a matter of necessity in the practice of zazen,” but I may be closer to grokking the gist of your investigations. Thanks.
(yes there will be footnotes; sorry about (15) & (16).)
(commentary on the Commentary;)
The getting up and walking around bit as sleepwalking (whatever that is) bit I’m pretty sure you interpret as one actually doing that and calling that zazen as per Kobun’s remark. You have elaborated on this time and again.
But I don’t recall prior to the above you mentioning him saying that about “people who are moving around outside” which implies he is (also) talking about zazen as a part of a whole (lotta shakin’ goin’ on), or rather the awareness of the Whole (enchilada).
So maybe when he said it gets up and walks around (obviously this hit you smack up alongside yer head koan-style) he was speaking of the “people who are moving around outside” in a reference not to sleepwalking but to take it all in is the practice… which sounds a lot like mindfulness practice as it revealed itself to me thus:
Long time ago (I’ve mentioned this) I would sit Zenny style or what I thought was so and the neighbor’s dog would bark bark bark. I wrote on a scrap of paper “the dog barking is my practice” knowing that while it bothered me because I was trying to sit and be all Zen and shit, I also knew that the dog had to bark and that this was a gift to me somehow. But I was also puzzled as to why I wrote that down.
Long time after that when I had a couple teachers and really dug deep into labeling practice and its variants ala Mahasi Sayadaw and others, I realized that here was a meditation practice that took it all in, used the entirety of the environment inside and out, all the sounds, smells, tastes, irritants (dog gone, kid watching tv too loud downstairs, etc.), thoughts, whatever, were fodder for practice.
Later, I dropped the labeling and again, just sat, but the stuff going on around me sitting became as much of the sitting as me sitting there sitting was.
Now I don’t sit, (but could, its all the same, sitting, standing, walking, lying down) I just walk around thinking not thinking doing zazen all the time.
When the ocean moves, you move with it.
One of the characteristics of my meditation practice is how glacially slow it is. What effects I have noticed happen over the course of years.
And I’m a relative beginner.
The question of which is the “best” technique is impossible to answer. It’s hard for me to see how you could properly compare more than a few styles of practice in a lifetime.
I’m mentally frowning as I type this, but a version of the “We do it this way because it’s always been done that way” is an answer that I can accept. To balance this, I also bring an appropriate amount of skepticism to the zafu.
I don’t believe that other positions and practices are wrong. It’s just that I can see that sitting lotus and staring at a wall has worked for my teachers, so I have faith that it will continue to work for me.
Cheers.