Devotion and awakening

Everyone, I posted a link on Facebook to an article from Tricycle: www.tricycle.com/feature/living-buddhism . It is a far-ranging critique of pragmatic dharma on the one hand and clinical mindfulness on the other. The author, who is the head of a Pure Land community, argues that western Buddhism has become too deeply entrenched in results-oriented practice, that we focus too much on the technologies of awakening, and that this leads to a kind of self-obsession that is opposed to what Buddhism is all about. What he supports instead is an other-directed practice that is more devotional in focus, and that supports community building.

While I think he goes to a surprising extreme, I'm wondering if we could benefit from thinking about the relationship between devotion and awakening. The author, Dharmavidya David Brazier, seems to suggest that thinking about enlightenment is wrong-headed, yet we on the other hand tend to disparage devotional practices as having nothing to do with awakening. This topic actually spurred a bit of discussion on my Facebook page and I am now moving it here. My other Facebook friends, btw, are going to have a nice time trying to figure out what in the world it's all about . But there's more to be discussed than what we can manage in that venue, plus not all of you are my Friends (yet!). So, let's have at it.

I personally know quite a few long time practitioners of the more devotional paths and they are as awake as anyone. Some of them post here regularly, or used to. I will not out them but let them decide to engage with this discussion of their own volition. Personally, I found the vehement reaction to that article when Laurel posted it to Facebook concerning. It's one thing to disagree with someone, yet another to completely dismiss their POV. The roots of this community are in MCTB and Dan Ingram's critique of traditional Buddhism as practiced at places like IMS. Yet many in the practical dharma community still attend IMS retreats, and many in the practical dharma community practice now or have practiced in the past, devotional forms of Buddhism. So I think if we dismiss that side of Buddhism entirely we do so at out peril.

From what I gather, this guy probably considers the IMS people to be too results oriented, not just hard-core dharma types like us. I should also say that a lot of people find their way to our practice after having gotten fed up with organized religion, Christian or other, and so devotional practice is a sore subject. People carry scars from early religious training.

In my case, I still go to a liturgical church (Episcopalian), where my husband is the liturgist and musician. I am not sure that I'd be going if it weren't for his job. I've been in a lot of conflict about it, although less so lately. I find that I get a lot of benefit from belonging to a community and joining for worship once a week, even if I don't subscribe to the Nicene Creed. I would probably prefer going to the Buddhist sangha that is about 40 miles away from here, but it's easy for me to say that when it's not a possibility. In other words, I don't know how much I would miss my church. I do think I would miss having a religious community, so one way or another, I would want to belong to one.

That's my two-cents at this point.

This passage from the article, in particular, makes some sense to me:

"Lack of a coherent and meaningful community life and way of relating to others is, arguably, the cause of much of the suffering that people seek to resolve in Buddhism. If what they get is a do-it-yourself, on-yourself, by-yourself, for-yourself, at-a-price technique, this is not going to do the trick, even if it does provide some secondary gains or palliative satisfactions"

I think that comment has some merit. What do you think? We here have seen folks who simply lose contact with other human beings and live in a little practice world all their own with no teacher, no dharma community or snagha, to provide bumpers for the bowling ball so that it hits the pins.

BTW - where in the article does the author say one should not mediate? I'm having trouble finding that. When I read it the theme I get is that Buddhism is not historically a solo sport. It has relied on communities (sanghas) - like this one - to further the practice and the dependencies we all share. I hear the author seeking balance between practicing alone and practicing in a community.

Anyway, you turn!

I'm quoting a paragraph near the beginning: "Going hand in hand with the idea of context-free meditation is the view, not uncommon in Western convert Buddhist circles, that Buddhism and meditation are virtually synonymous. But the vast majority of Asian Buddhists, now as throughout history, do not meditate, or only do so on rare occasions, and when they do, do so as part of a collective ritual rather than as a personal improvement method. The experience of Buddhism as it is actually practiced is, it seems, very different from the recent technical view of how it should be practiced."

I don't think he means that we shouldn't meditate, but implies that Buddhism does not necessarily entail meditation. That feels strange to me. It's like saying that the majority of Christians go to church but do not pray at home. If they do pray, they do so in public settings. Wait a minute, though--a lot of Christians probably do match that description, although I don't know that it's the majority.

I was one of the people who gave the article a big thumbs-down right away. My reaction to it was pretty strong and immediate, kind of like tasting something bad.

I think what gave me the "yuck" feeling in that article was the underlying assumption that if one is not ascribing to an "-ism" and isn't practicing in an other-focused community with devotional rituals and faith then one really is missing out on an important part of the practice. Those kinds of sentiments make me worried about some of the more cultish things that happen when eastern traditions get grafted onto western culture.

Let me add that I am not saying there is no place for these things or that they are inherently bad. I'm a community psychologist. I love community. But what the author was describing was what a lot of us on KFD and similar forums, even those who do have devotional practices, have rejected as the mushroom culture - no?

From the article: "Lack of a coherent and meaningful community life and way of relating to others is, arguably, the cause of much of the suffering that people seek to resolve in Buddhism."

There may be a grain of truth to this thesis. What people *seek* from Buddhism is often something like what they get in a community. But does that address the actual cause of suffering at its root? Everyone here understands what I'm getting at. The author doesn't seem to understand that the actual cause of suffering and its actual cure are still as described in the 4 noble truths. He doesn't understand that people really are 'getting enlightened here.'

Looks like the article gave you some interesting content to focus on in your noting practice Ron!

I once heard a Jodo-Shinshu priest say "Shakyamuni Buddha is the perfect representation of a historial person who attained complete awakening; Amida Buddha is the perfect representation of what that person realized."

For me, that really cuts to the heart of it. Amida is part of my practice. Just as my physical body is a representation of experience itself, Amida is a representation of the dharma itself. That's just my own opinion, but when it's put in those terms it has a place in my practice and a place in my life.

My take:

What do the following have in common?

A self narrative motivated by the context of devotion (in whatever) to aim and move in the direction of awakening= good.
A self narrative motivated by the context of a practice devoid of devotion but still with the aim and movement in the direction of awakening =good
A self narrative motivated by the context of community to aim and move in the direction of awakening=good
A self narrative motivated by the context of solitude to aim and move in the direction of awakening=good
A self narrative motivated by the context of 'pragmatic dharma' to aim and move in the direction of awakening*=good
A self narrative motivated by the context of Kenneth or Daniel or someone else's 'teachings' to aim and move in the direction of awakening=good
A self narrative motivated by the context of zen, theradada or whatever buddhist school of thought to aim and move in the direction of awakening=good
A self narrative motivated by the context of a non-buddhist school of thought in the direction of awakening=good
A self narrative motivated by the context of the church of the holy spaghetti monster to aim and move in the direction of awakening =good.

Answer: self narrative + a context that motivates -> awakening = good

*Awakening: this little word may entail differing ideas and notions for differing self narratives. I call any general direction in becoming more aware of being alive on this planet a good thing. But if pressed to clarify, I'd go further and say a more beneficial definition of 'awakening' for practice reasons is a mind that does not construe, fabricate, fashion and overlay the field of experience with mentally fabricated 'objects'. Such a mind can most certainly be recognised and cultivated by any self narrative with the motivation within any context to do just that.

2 cents

"Answer: self narrative + a context that motivates -> awakening = good
"

Is everyone's own 'self narrative' the same? I do not think so. To see others utilize whatever context their 'self narratives' gain motivation from to aim and move in the direction of awakening is good to see and good to support in my opinion. If devotion does orient oneself to do what must be done in practice, then all the more motivation to do what must be done. It might even be said that devotion of the highest order plus an appropriate awakening practice is more beneficial than a path where it is just the 'appropriate awakening practice'. I certainly found it a very powerful combination. A devotion plus actually seeing that a teaching holds weight in one's own experience can mean a devotion that fuels an investigation that goes above and beyond the norm. You get what you optimise for/devote to realising?

Not everyone's storehouse of habit is motivated by the same contexts. I think one could tweak any practice that aims towards awakening (for example as I defined above) to suit any context that motivates the self narrative to practice recognising what needs to be recognised, and drop what needs to be dropped.

One could put any conceptual spin on the path to the recognition of such a dissatisfaction-free awareness. The self narrative is inspired by so many varied things, you could probably teach the recognition of such an awareness within the context of a starwars fanatic terming it 'the force' and spinning it as the true realisation of the jedis of a universe far far away if the self narratives inspired by such a fantastical context were strong enough.

This is a great angle Nik. You have a unique perspective and voice. Thank you.

I think there is also an opportunity in this community to clarify Views/goals and identify a good series of practice for a given set of goals. Nik, you're post about Dzogchen View vs Flying Spaghetti Monster View is a nice contribution to this.

I am currently struggling a bit with identifying a new goal. My goal used to be discovery of the Truth, which was accomplished simply through Emptiness realization. Now what?

I would characterized Kenneth as focused on dismantling all levels of selfing to eradicate suffering. I interpret you as working toward an ideal abidingness that is beyond equanimity.

These Views have less to do with enlightenment and more to do with behavior and aesthetic. People usually just advocate one View without considering others. Can we see the whole menu?

My post is motivated by the belief that categorically our society does a really ****** job of clarifying goals and optimizing practice for that goal.

Meditation is a lot like weight lifting. If you lift weights without having a goal, you will get mediocre results. Do you want to maximize absolute power or strength/weight ratio? Do you want to minimize body fat? Do you want to maximize mass?

People think they want to weigh less on the scale, but what they really want is to Look Good Naked. To minimize scale weight, one then focuses on minimizing both fat AND muscle, which is exactly what chronic cardio does. If you want to Look Good Naked, you change the ratio of fat / muscle and the scale weight will probably *increase*.

Anyway, my point being I find "meditate a lot and get enlightened" to be as worthless as "exercise a lot and get in shape".

To the question of community: I have been wondering what a brick and mortar aspect of pragmatic dharma would look like. I mean, if you build it, they will come, right? It might be nice to extend this culture beyond the weary dark night cyber yogi, to the completely uninitiated and average meditation consumer.

To get a good idea of what a brick and mortar pragmatic community might look like, come to the buddhist geeks conference! I met orasis there and got to have dinner with cmarti and others, and we talked about the path in such practical and down to earth ways - I'm really looking forward to it again.

One thing that I'm beginning to wonder is what people thought the main argument of the article was? It occurs to me that we may be "hearing" it in different ways...

Check it out here: www.tricycle.com/feature/living-buddhism

I'm late to the party, so this reply will address several previous posts in this thread.

Laurel: Like you, I had a connection with the Episcopal Church that I valued. There is something of value in participating in Christian liturgy. For me, however, that connection was broken when the priest "disinvited" me from receiving Communion [the Eucharist] because I had gotten ordained as a Zen priest. If I could not participate in the central part of the Mass, what point in attending at all?

Nikolai: You asked "What do the following have in common? A self narrative..." [followed by a bunch of examples]

My answer to what they all have in common: They are all about "self", ego, the core contraction upon an illusion. In other words, what they all have in common is they start off on the wrong foot.

[to be continued]

Even secular Buddhists know that the core of Buddhism has always been the Triple Gems a.k.a. the Three Treasures: Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Secular Buddhists may prefer to think of the Buddha as a teacher without giving him any more significance than that. In fact, they often refer to him as Sid (short for Siddhartha) which, perhaps, might be seen as a useful short-form nickname, but which all too often reeks of an unseemly presumption of familiarity. I would ask them:
"If the Buddha were alive today in the body, would you approach him as if he were some dude from your circle of friends, or would you approach him with deep respect, even reverence?"

Anything short of reverence would be what Jesus called "the sin against the Holy Spirit" which is the failure to recognize the great Realizer as He IS! That failure would prevent YOU from benefiting.

Having written all of the above without having read Dharmavidya David Brazier's article in Tricycle titled "Buddhism is not just a set of techniques for self-help. There is something much bigger going on" I went on to read that article, in which I found the following:
"But the main attitudes through which Buddhists have always expressed their connection to the dharma are devotion and faith. The form and content of these attitudes varies depending on the culture, the tradition, and even the individual, but the common characteristic is a whole (though not uncritical) and deeply felt sense relationship to the Three Treasures: the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. ... At the core of Buddhism lies the devotional act of taking refuge in the Three Treasures as the most useful thing to rely upon. ... we can avoid subverting the dharma to a Western self-centered, technology-worshipping agenda and establish dharma in the West on the other-centered principles of nonself, refuge, and community."

Exactly!

[to be continued]

The ego likes nothing better than to get hold of something and use it for private self-satisfaction. Like a dog with a bone, the ego likes the idea of getting a technique or an ideology and chewing on it without regard for anyone or anything else.

I have said here and elsewhere, I think, quite a few times that "You can't meditate your way to Enlightenment." (Here's one instance from Sept. 30, 2009 community.tricycle.com/profiles/blogs/yo...meditate-your-way-to )

Bodhi (Realization of THAT Which Exists Beyond Conditions) cannot be achieved on the basis of any conditional action within the realm of cause-and-effect. No action can result in Awakening, like knocking over a series of dominoes with the final one labeled Enlightenment.

Meditation (concentration) and the rest of the Eightfold Path simply ups the odds that one will Awaken. It's like getting washed, dressed nicely, and then going out to look for a date with the perfect potential mate. No matter how good you look, there's no guarantee you'll meet the right person today. But your odds are better by going out looking your best than by sitting home on front of the TV with a laptop next to you, sending text messages.

Fundamentally, what prevents Realization is the grasping, clinging, self-contraction we call ego. The opposite of that is open-handed, open-hearted, love and devotion.

Yet loving another human being is, for all its value, still fraught with many complications of desire. Love and devotion toward a great Realizer is more profound and difficult, but much more likely to bring one to Awakening than anything else. This is my view and certainly is not mine alone.

[to be continued]

If you feel resistance to devotion, then I suggest that rather than simply dismissing it altogether, you investigate the source of that resistance. What are you reacting to? What do you fear about it? At the very least, such an inquiry will reveal more of your own internal dynamics.

[END of reply series]

'One thing that I'm beginning to wonder is what people thought the main argument of the article was? '

I thought the author was saying focus on meditation practice - bad. Devotional practice - good (because that's how millions of Asians do it). I don't even know where to start with this article, it's riddled with misrepresentations, sweeping generalizations, dubious interpretations of the four noble truths, and plain old bias. BTW no one reading this should assume I reject devotional practices as somehow wrong. I agree with an open view on practice, like what Nikolai and Orasis posted above.

As I currently am defining, a 'self narrative' is the fabricated subjective reaction towards a fabricated 'object' of mind. If these fabrications of mind are pointing in a particular direction due to a 'view' of awakening that one has informing said direction, then practice will aim to fabricate such self narratives to move in that desired direction.

Any fabricated 'object' will always have an unavoidable subjective reaction towards said 'object'. I refer to that subjective reaction as part and parcel of a self narrative no matter how refined it has become, no matter to what degree it manifests as such things as the fabricated sublime abodes, not matter how subtle and all encompassing it has become, i.e. one with all, no matter if the subjective reaction is seen as yet another 'object', thus no matter how non-dual it may appear, a mental overlayed 'object' is still co-arising with a subjective-like reaction, it still is the self-narrative. Then if it is aimed at 'awakening' as one defines it, as defined by the 'view' one has, then the path will be fabricated successfully towards the objective of 'awakening' as it has been defined via 'view'.

The self narratives will arise, be fabricated, to point and move in the desired direction. Whether or not the 'view' one holds as the guiding star towards one's version of awakening is what you think is 'right' view or not, is a different argument. I'm pointing to the idea that devotion or no devotion, if a flow of fabricated self -narrative is motivated by the right context for said self narrative, then it will move in the desired direction. 'You' get what you optimize for. View does certainly have a say in direction and where one may end up though.

I kind of think of devotional practice as a bit like nuclear power. It is wildly powerful and frighteningly dangerous.

There have been all these stories in the past few years of people dying while doing intensive practice with a strong devotional aspect. And most of us have read "Enlightenment Blues" (if you haven't -do!). Maybe I'm too cautious about these things. I know most devotional communities are wonderful to their members, but I can't help but get alarmed when I hear the kinds of things in that article, especially in a mainstream western context...

The Pali suttas recognize that there are practitioners with different inclinations (in this case, faith vs. wisdom), presumably owing to some feature of their personalities. The famous discussion of different meditation subjects in the Visuddhimagga does not presuppose that everyone ought to be fitted into the same mold, or that different inclinations are a pathological sign that ought to be rectified, but rather, suggests different practices that might be especially beneficial to one or the other (e.g. recollection of the triple gem for a faith-type, vs. analysis of the elements for a wisdom-type).

It does a disservice to people to the extent that diversity in personality and mindset is not seen as something to be worked with skillfully, but is ignored or rejected as problematic (asking everyone to be more like oneself). Whether the author of the article is saying that this kind of diversity ought to be ignored or rejected as problematic, I'm not sure; but it does seem unfortunately easy to read the article in that way.

"I thought the author was saying focus on meditation practice - bad. Devotional practice - good"

Michael, I've now read that article many times and I really just can't find this meaning in it. I can find meaning that says Buddhism is not JUST about meditation -- and I think that's why when people read it (or skim it) that's what they come away with. When I read it carefully I find that the author is asking for balance and a recognition that a purely solo mediation practice is not what Buddhism has always been about.

The negative reactions I saw to the article when Laurel posted it on Facebook seemed to be coming from a conditioned reaction to anything that isn't pragmatic dharma, and I would caution people to be more aware than that and to be more tolerant.