Devotion and awakening

Maybe this article is the perfect mirror -- reading it is like holding the mirror of conditioning about meditation practice and awakening up to your face. What you find its meaning to be, your reactions to it, can then be used in your practice as an avenue for self-examiniation.

One more thought -- I have always liked the word "pragmatic" as applied to dharma. But in my mind the word pragmatic means "what is effective, what works." So if what works is not just of one flavor and accommodates a lot of variation based on the obvious truth that human beings all differ, then a "pragmatic dharma" must be accepting of the differences in human beings and their approach to meditation practice and Buddhism, assuming we chose to call ourselves Buddhists.

"
Maybe this article is the perfect mirror -- reading it is like holding the mirror of conditioning about meditation practice and awakening up to your face. What you find its meaning to be, your reactions to it, can then be used in your practice as an avenue for self-examiniation.

"

This is what I was thinking as well - it looks like we are reading different things into it, and that would explain the differences in opinion.

I'm definitely not against anything traditional. I attend services at the local Shambala center, which is pretty far from pragmatic at times. I'm currently reading the "Cloud of Unknowing", an awesome Christian mystic book, and finding it very inspiring. My negative reaction to this essay was based on this particular author's argument. And I'm pretty sure we are seeing that differently.

When I read it I'm definitely hearing the author say that a technical-focused secular approach to buddhist meditation is selfish, or "self-focused" to use his term. And that to correct that selfishness we need to be more like traditional Asians and adopt an attitude that is more religious:

" Traditionally, in the Asian cultures in which the dharma has flourished, Buddhism is more a matter of attitude than a set of techniques ... the main attitudes through which Buddhists have always expressed their connection to the dharma are devotion and faith."

He does talk a bit about the technical approach being out of balance, which is where I think your picking up on him, but most of the article focuses on how important it is to be traditionally religious and devotional, in other words, to be like Asian cultures here in the west. It is an argument for more religious devotion among westerners as far as I can tell.

That is where I react negatively. For many people religious devotion is important and wonderful, but he is implying that it is what everyone needs.

"When I read it I'm definitely hearing the author say that a technical-focused secular approach to buddhist meditation is selfish, or "self-focused" to use his term." -- Ron

Ron, he says that a technical focus ALONE is not optimal. He could be right. We need to be fair enough to consider the POV without conditionally dismissing it without consideration. He's arguing for community, for devotion to something outside the pure technical vision of practice as the only way. He's arguing for balance, not that we should all be like the Asians. He cites Asians who are purely devotional Buddhists as an example of a different way, not an optimal way. I read him as saying that in these modern times in the West, we have decided to emphasize meditation ALONE as the Way, when what we may also need is community, and maybe a little more spirituality and devotion. Not to the exclusion of meditation, but as supplements.

I'm sure the article brings many things to mind, some with positive connotations, some negative. But to tar the author and the article with favoring all the extras we are carrying in our heads is, I believe, unfair.

I feel like I've beat this horse to death

Out of curiosity I had someone who could care less about this stuff read it - my wife. She agreed to read it if I made breakfast. I figured if I was way off base she would interpret it very differently. She summed the author's point as: "Meditation without religious devotion is hollow."

Is that far off from what others are reading?

The article isn't just about devotion, but also about community. I have been thinking a lot about this subject, because I've been leading something of an isolated life for far too long.

The problem with community for many people is that all too often other people, especially in groups, let us down. Not only do they fail to live up to our expectations, but sometimes they treat us personally in injurious ways. The natural strategy is to become a do-it-yourself-er. Part of what attracted me to this practice was the hope that I might insulate myself from the pain others might inflict on me, not to mention the pain I inflict on myself. We are drawn into our practice for such reasons, but in the end, we have to move beyond any such self-protective agenda if we are to grow.

I believe that people engaging in a meditation practice will come to this conclusion sooner or later, but it doesn't always get much visibility on our forums. Daniel's book makes a stark distinction between "stuff" or "content" and the real business of meditation practice. What I take away from this is that we can't deal with content at the level of content; there's a level of experience underlying all of that, to which meditation allows us access if we don't get sidetracked. At the same time, though, all of us are living in this world. Even monks have to deal with the day-to-day reality of living in a sangha. All too often I come home from a lovely daylong retreat, or get up from a lovely half hour meditation, and find myself sucked back into negativity, unless I can begin to expand on my practice in ways that help me see things as they are when I am "out there."

(cont)

(cont) Communities that are functional can help us deal with the realities of daily life. People in churches, for example, visit when someone is sick, bring food, attend each other's funerals, mourn each other's losses, and celebrate each others' successes. I believe we all need these things.

Ron, I think your wife is on the right track, if we include the author's call to community as well as devotion. But I don't think he's saying that mindless devotion is the key; he's calling for integration among our practice, our devotion, and our love for and service to others. Meditation without anything else grounding one's practice can become self-centered and unbalanced. What I'm unwilling to say is that everyone should include worship in a particular way, which is what this author seems to recommend.

When I first read the article, I didn't really know what I thought about it, only that the author's position grabbed me because it was so radically different from what I do. It's good to process it (with others!) on here.

I thought Laurel had some interesting points. I think a lot of what appeals to people is going to come from their own backgrounds (including reacting against things they didn't like. One sangha I used to frequent was full of ex-Catholics and ex-orthodox-Jews. They wanted some elements of the spirituality and community they grew up with, but without the bossy God or dogma.

I think some of it will just be personality related. Some people are more geeky and technical by nature, some more academic, some more musical or artistic or theatrical or whatever. It seems there's plenty of room for everyone to find their own niches.

I also think some of it is phase related. In my own practice there were several years where I really felt very caught up in the "inner process" - it was almost like being on retreat without being on retreat. I valued as much solitude as I could get, with occasional visits to area sanghas and regular online or skype talks with colleagues and teachers for support. But I didn't feel very engaged in the world or a community.

That said, my spiritual practices have always had a strong devotional element, even before I started a meditation practice and discovered pragmatic dharma. Even when I was doing noting practice as my meditation technique, I was also doing work with deities and spirits and such. What's been a bit surprising to me is that the devotional attitude in my practice has in the last year gotten even deeper and stronger. The less "me" there is, the more "God" there seems to be, and I've found myself drawn increasingly into Christian mysticism. It was not what I planned, but the pervasive sense of love, compassion and engagement with the regular world (with all its charms and sorrows) keep increasing, and I am finding that these ancient (and some modern) writers really hit the nail on the head in describing my experiences.

I think we are starting to get some consensus here. A part of his argument is for more community.

What gives me a bad feeling is his conception of what practice community looks like. It just feels wrong to me to try and create an Asian style practice community. We need something more culturally congruent. I think we are still working out what that is, but these online forums might be a start to that.

I have to say these online communities have been a wonderful thing. But I am really loving meeting with real live people lately, of all types, even if we just talk about the weather. As Laurel said, when you are in the hospital, who is going to visit? My "dharma peeps" are scattered over three contintents and none of them live within travel distance. I wonder how many people here also participate in a meat-space sangha or support group of some kind, even if it's not directly meditation related? (for instance, being part of some kinds of clubs, associations, etc. in your home town?) I've started going to a contemplative prayer group at the Catholic church and a qi gong class to get more community and friends where I live.

"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]"

I think your comments were very good, Gozen.

"Michael, I've now read that article many times and I really just can't find this meaning in it."

Chris, on re-reading I think you're right. I think his polemic is more focused on Western secular Buddhism. Yes that's somewhat different from how Buddhism has been practiced in the east, but I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing. Although the author raises some good questions, he conflates experiential faith with religious faith, and he conflates faith in technology with faith in meditation technique.

And I don't share his concern about 'narrow focus on the application of technique alone' because I don't think you can completely divorce technique from the rest of the dharma and have it be effective. To a large extent the teachings help us make sense of what bare attention reveals. And the techniques help us make sense of the teachings! Is there a lot 'naval gazing' going on? Sure. But for me practice has done the opposite of what the author of this article is warning about. There's more openness with others and a greater ability to skilfully engage.

The Buddha urged his followers on to liberation 'in this very life'. If others would rather defer that to some possible future life, that's fine. But I doubt most people are going to awaken in this life without the application of some kind contemplation or analytical meditation technique (and that can be as simple as 'who am I?'), whether faith plays a part of their practice or not.

Nikolai said: "You get what you optimise for/devote to realising?"

I think that seems to be true. It seems to be true after initial awakening, in particular, that among my closer friends and colleagues our styles of practice, interests, techniques and directions have wandered off in all sorts of directions. I find that interesting, and it certainly isn't a bad thing, assuming one is becoming ever more at peace, content, free, happy, or however one prefers to say it.

'Nikolai said: "You get what you optimise for/devote to realising?"'

Yes, yes, I've been thinking about this a lot since reading that. This makes sense to me.

This is a cool topic. Thanks for introducing it, Laurel. Over the last few months I have been thinking more or experiencing more of what I think of as grace. This is not an undeserved gift from a higher power, but the sense that reality on its own terms is perfectly safe and complete. I don't have to do anything to attain this, in fact any effort obscures it. There is probably a buddhist word for this, but like others I have/had an attraction to the language of theistic (primarily Christian) traditions. I like words like salvation, grace, redemption and the general sense that we are being taken care of. Even if I don't agree with the views expressed by those typically using these words, I find something moving in their expression. For years into practice I was an off and on prayer. Some of this is due to cultural influences (being a member of a 12 step program for years, Catholic upbringing). I didn't do it because I believed there was a being who would actually answer these prayers, but because the ritual of relinquishing control was one that I found to be useful. I don't have a current way to make use of these practices, though I do at times like to use the word God to express the reality that is ever present beneath my thoughts and conceptions.

"Meditation without religious devotion is hollow." -- Is that far off from what others are reading? -- Ron

I read the article as saying, "meditation alone, focused purely on the technical aspects of it" is hollow. It needs community and it needs some sort of faith, even if that faith is in the efficacy of meditation." I don't think the author is advocating an Asian style of devotional practice. He's just using Asian Buddhism as an example of a different way of practicing. I think the author is raising a cogent issue that should make us all think. I hope by raising it here we've been able to piggyback on the article's intent. Sometimes it takes a radically different POV to get folks to pay attention, and then it takes a calm, reasoned approach to make sure that a negative reaction is not the only result.

@Michael - I believe that the word "technical" in this article is being used more to describe the technology of mediation, not western technology in general.

"There's more openness with others and a greater ability to skilfully engage."

Yep, that's what I would think, too, but then I read the initial reactions to this article, which were not as open minded as I would have thought.

devotion without meditation is blind

"This is a cool topic. Thanks for introducing it, Laurel. Over the last few months I have been thinking more or experiencing more of what I think of as grace. This is not an undeserved gift from a higher power, but the sense that reality on its own terms is perfectly safe and complete. I don't have to do anything to attain this, in fact any effort obscures it. There is probably a buddhist word for this, but like others I have/had an attraction to the language of theistic (primarily Christian) traditions. I like words like salvation, grace, redemption and the general sense that we are being taken care of. Even if I don't agree with the views expressed by those typically using these words, I find something moving in their expression. For years into practice I was an off and on prayer. Some of this is due to cultural influences (being a member of a 12 step program for years, Catholic upbringing). I didn't do it because I believed there was a being who would actually answer these prayers, but because the ritual of relinquishing control was one that I found to be useful. I don't have a current way to make use of these practices, though I do at times like to use the word God to express the reality that is ever present beneath my thoughts and conceptions. "

I was raised Baptist, and I also find an odd power in bringing up some of the beautiful words of the gospel that I memorized back when I was a young boy, and also new verses from the Gospel of Thomas, I think. It's one of the books that didn't make it into the Bible, there's a word for them. Anyway, Jesus speaks in a way that would be VERY familiar to us here, giving no doubt what he learned in his travels to the East. It is all very beautiful and powerful, and if I have ever reached the Pure Land jhanas it is only through reflecting on the sense of awe I feel in these teachings.

Grace may be part of how the universe is but it is best understood as a way to act in the world.

" Sometimes it takes a radically different POV to get folks to pay attention, and then it takes a calm, reasoned approach to make sure that a negative reaction is not the only result."

The point of view in that article seems very safe and mainstream to me. The radically different view is the secular one that he argues against.

Which raises a question at the heart of all of this - does one have to have a religious practice of Buddhism to awaken? Or is that optional?

I'm not saying I know the answer, but I would love to hear what others think...

"The point of view in that article seems very safe and mainstream to me. The radically different view is the secular one that he argues against.

Which raises a question at the heart of all of this - does one have to have a religious practice of Buddhism to awaken? Or is that optional?

I'm not saying I know the answer, but I would love to hear what others think..."

Apparently not at all, as is evident in the many secular people here. But then again, it begs the question, is it really Buddhism if you take away the parts you don't want that are customary for traditional Asian Buddhists? It's not that it doesn't "work" in terms of one awakening, but I don't know how much you can leave out before it's not really very Buddhist.

"Apparently not at all, as is evident in the many secular people here. But then again, it begs the question, is it really Buddhism if you take away the parts you don't want that are customary for traditional Asian Buddhists? It's not that it doesn't "work" in terms of one awakening, but I don't know how much you can leave out before it's not really very Buddhist. "

Hmmm... that response really has my gears turning... I can't help but wonder what could or couldn't be taken away before it really isn't "Buddhism" anymore?

"
Grace may be part of how the universe is but it is best understood as a way to act in the world.

"

I would suggest that "technically" grace in the Christian context is that which arises of itself (or "from God"), without (your) agency - in other words the fruits of practice. These are considered to range from compassion, gentleness and love to even such things as deep states of absorption, motivation to practice, engagement with practice, and so on.

Grace in the more common sense, as a way of acting (kindly, skillfully) in the world, is perhaps also a fruit of awakening, I'd think.

"Hmmm... that response really has my gears turning... I can't help but wonder what could or couldn't be taken away before it really isn't "Buddhism" anymore?"

Some level of engagement with the Buddha (whether as a supernatural, historical or inspirational figure), some level of engagement with the traditional Buddhist texts (as guidance, teaching material, study material, etc.), and some level of method from Buddhist traditions, in combination, would probably be a bare minimum. How many here would say "I'm a Buddhist" versus "I meditate" or "I meditate using some techniques based loosely on Buddhist methods"?