Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Do we need a belief framework to make sense of practice?
SattvaPaul
South Wales, UK Veteran
This is an offshoot of Christian Buddhist thread where I asked a question about whether it is possible to separate path and beliefs. Does spiritual practice of whathever sort (Buddhist, Christian, other) need to be embedded in a particular belief system? Is it conditioned by that system?
I will post here an (longish) excerpt from "Mind at Ease - self-liberation through Mahamudra meditation" by Traleg Kyabgon that elaborates on this point of view:
"While many people want to learn Buddhist meditation, often they are skeptical and uneasy about the philosophical and religious elements of Buddhism. Consequently, it is quite common for people to think Buddhist meditative experiences can and should be separated from the belief systems within which they are embedded. That notion, however widespread, is highly questionable and bears examining. It is very important to recognize that we have to make use of certain Buddhist concepts in order to make sense of meditation practice. For example, proper meditation practice requires us to believe many things: that there is such a thing as liberation, that ignorance is the cause of samsaric bondage, and that the conflicting emotions of the mind restrict our ability to realize our goal."
"Many modern educated people view all belief systems - especially religious ones—as harmful. They regard anyone who is a "believer" as a dogmatic person or a conservative, someone whose mind is closed to new ideas. Naturally, such people are often afraid of being “converted” when introduced to Buddhism, which they assume would be a terrible outcome. There is some merit to this reservation, in that there is some truth to the perception that people can be dogmatic and sometimes express their cherished beliefs in opinionated and fundamentalist ways. But we should not then conclude that we could embark on a spiritual path without explicitly believing in anything. With no philosophical orientation,we would have no idea of what we are trying to achieve or what our spiritual vision is. Furthermore, we would be blind to how we are supposed to travel on the spiritual path; we would also not know how to understand our personal predicament and our existential condition, not to mention the potential psychological and spiritual conflicts that we might encounter along the way. Therefore, while it is sometimes said that we should learn to dispense with our beliefs at a later point on the Buddhist path, we cannot approach spiritual practices without having any viewpoints or making use of belief system."
"Buddhist meditation practices and experiences are always discussed from a particular viewpoint that is taken to be valid and true—this cannot be otherwise. From this, of course, we should not draw the dubious conclusion that the Buddhist way is the only way or that its view is superior to all other religious or spiritual traditions. It is just that the Buddhist approach to realizing the ultimate truth and discovering the sacredness of spiritual reality can only be attained through adopting the Buddhist view and following the Buddhist path. We as Buddhists do not have to regard ourselves as the sole custodians of the ultimate truth, but we have to approach our meditation practice from a Buddhist point of view. This may apply to people of other faiths who, for whatever reason, may want to practice Buddhist meditation. We cannot say, “I'm doing insight meditation, and worldviews do not matter." They do matter, and that is why developing the “correct view" comes before starting our meditation practice in Buddhism."
"The correct view (drsti) is also called the “noble view,” and the incorrect view is called the “ignoble view.” This noble view should act as a guideline for the beliefs we need to hold and those we need to discard. Through this process of refining our views, we learn how to reorient ourselves on the spiritual path and realize how appropriate belief systems and liberation are intimately related."
What do you think?
I will post here an (longish) excerpt from "Mind at Ease - self-liberation through Mahamudra meditation" by Traleg Kyabgon that elaborates on this point of view:
"While many people want to learn Buddhist meditation, often they are skeptical and uneasy about the philosophical and religious elements of Buddhism. Consequently, it is quite common for people to think Buddhist meditative experiences can and should be separated from the belief systems within which they are embedded. That notion, however widespread, is highly questionable and bears examining. It is very important to recognize that we have to make use of certain Buddhist concepts in order to make sense of meditation practice. For example, proper meditation practice requires us to believe many things: that there is such a thing as liberation, that ignorance is the cause of samsaric bondage, and that the conflicting emotions of the mind restrict our ability to realize our goal."
"Many modern educated people view all belief systems - especially religious ones—as harmful. They regard anyone who is a "believer" as a dogmatic person or a conservative, someone whose mind is closed to new ideas. Naturally, such people are often afraid of being “converted” when introduced to Buddhism, which they assume would be a terrible outcome. There is some merit to this reservation, in that there is some truth to the perception that people can be dogmatic and sometimes express their cherished beliefs in opinionated and fundamentalist ways. But we should not then conclude that we could embark on a spiritual path without explicitly believing in anything. With no philosophical orientation,we would have no idea of what we are trying to achieve or what our spiritual vision is. Furthermore, we would be blind to how we are supposed to travel on the spiritual path; we would also not know how to understand our personal predicament and our existential condition, not to mention the potential psychological and spiritual conflicts that we might encounter along the way. Therefore, while it is sometimes said that we should learn to dispense with our beliefs at a later point on the Buddhist path, we cannot approach spiritual practices without having any viewpoints or making use of belief system."
"Buddhist meditation practices and experiences are always discussed from a particular viewpoint that is taken to be valid and true—this cannot be otherwise. From this, of course, we should not draw the dubious conclusion that the Buddhist way is the only way or that its view is superior to all other religious or spiritual traditions. It is just that the Buddhist approach to realizing the ultimate truth and discovering the sacredness of spiritual reality can only be attained through adopting the Buddhist view and following the Buddhist path. We as Buddhists do not have to regard ourselves as the sole custodians of the ultimate truth, but we have to approach our meditation practice from a Buddhist point of view. This may apply to people of other faiths who, for whatever reason, may want to practice Buddhist meditation. We cannot say, “I'm doing insight meditation, and worldviews do not matter." They do matter, and that is why developing the “correct view" comes before starting our meditation practice in Buddhism."
"The correct view (drsti) is also called the “noble view,” and the incorrect view is called the “ignoble view.” This noble view should act as a guideline for the beliefs we need to hold and those we need to discard. Through this process of refining our views, we learn how to reorient ourselves on the spiritual path and realize how appropriate belief systems and liberation are intimately related."
What do you think?
0
Comments
Faith, in the God system, is founded on fervent hope.
Faith in the Buddha system, is founded on informed confidence.
You believe things in Buddhism, because you're confident in the teachings, not because you hope there's a point to them.
First of all, I have to admit that I believe that there is such a thing as Truth and have faith that 'It' can be grasped, if not fully understood.
Secondly, we all start from where we are. This 'place' is the result of heredity, DNA, geography, culture, environment and a load of other factors. This 'place' is unique to each of us and, at the same time, fully recognisable.
Thirdly, we can look at our life as a journey or a story because our perception of time is linear, straight or curved. I use a personal myth of the desert through which we travel, from one oasis to another.
Fourth, each of us will die. This is the greatest realisation of all. Everything else pales in comparison. It is the only thing we 'must' do.
When I look at the teachings of Jesus and those of Gotama, I am struck by the fact that both of them say that the way to personal liberation is through the 'denial of a Self' and it has been my life-long quest to discover the me-that-is-not-I, not separate from Thou or That.
I find hints of method in all sorts of places: gospels, poems, music, dance, sutras,e tutti quanti. And it is method that fascinates me rather than belief structures.
Belief structures which pretend to give answers have, on the whole and after a time, failed to satisfy. It has become clear that they are weapons used to keep us in line: "believe this set of things and you are right; everything else is wrong." Religion is a prime example of this method of social control but we find the same mindset in nationalism, politics and economic theory.
Our greatest tools are reason and imagination, our greatest ally is doubt.
In the beginning, when we're not entirely sure whether Buddhism is just another feel-good ruse or not, belief and hope move students to action ... to actually sit, actually chant, actually follow a ritualized regimen. In uncertain times, belief and hope inspire intention and action.
But the more experience anyone gains, the less belief and hope are necessary. No one who knows how to ride a bike does so thinking, "I believe in riding a bike" or "I hope I can ride a bike." They just ride. Falling off is possible, but it's just par for the bike-riding course.
Experience trumps belief and hope. It's not that belief and hope are wrong or bad or somehow 'less' than something else. It's more as if they were irrelevant ... like enjoying a perfectly good baseball game while your neighbor chatters on about a trip to Arizona.
The paradox discussed in the previous thread raises its head upon the construction of a universal ultimate way.
If one is searching for an 'ultimate', the temptation is to consider that the means justify the ends to such an extent as to make the means irrelevant - this assumes that the 'ultimate' exists universally and independently of the means.
For me, my meditation practice is somewhat of a sacrament. Studying and practicing Buddhism makes my meditation much different than it was when I did it just to try to reduce my stress. It appears to be much different than other people who practice it outside of Buddhism. My mom meditates fairly regularly, but she is Catholic and in talking to her about it , I don't get the sense that meditation to her as a Catholic is the same as meditation to me as someone who practices Buddhism. Obviously anyone can meditate, and I think doing it can be good for everyone regardless of whether they believe the Buddhist religion or philosophy. Combined with what I've learned and felt in my own progression, I just get the sense that those who meditate without any real reason behind it, "don't get it." Much the same as if I were to take Communion. I can go through to motions of doing it, perhaps there would be some kind of benefit to me, but it would not be the same as a devout Catholic taking Communion.
Perhaps I was exposed to Socratic dialogue and the essays of Michel de Montaigne at too early an age but, in the end, like the latter or Voltaire's Zadig or Candide, I am left saying "Que sais-je? Il faut cultiver son jardin".
There are always some assumptions; some axioms to start with. Even if the teachings make sense on intellectual level, does it mean thay are true?
Consider the value of informed doubt.
On another level, it may be a profound insight hinting that in order for an ultimate one truth to exist, one must reject all other truths or perhaps exist in a state of acceptance of the one ultimate truth (whatever that may be) - it may be a quasi-fiction to enable an ultimate one truth.
Your brain will be thoroughly washed when you die - dont be afraid to prewash now and again - you lose only stains that will be washed one day anyway.
Do 'doubt' and 'reason' sit well with your concept of enlightenment? and if so (or not) to what degrees and how so.
All responses are conditioned! even if Mr Pavlov is no longer amongst us to empirically demonstrate it.
My concern is that 'corpse-like obedience' to a single doctrine, after however much preliminary investigation, is the bedrock of cults and totalitarianism. The appeal to authority which is the only way Yahweh wins his bet in the Book of Job or inquisitions impose their views sits ill with me.
I accept that this may well be yet another lack in me. I do not think my brain will be 'washed' when I die: it will stop functioning and rot. I know of no evidence, anecdotal or empirical, that suggest otherwise.
Doubt and Reason, together with Imagination, permit us to arrive at personally consistent conclusions, to test hypotheses and to question doctrine. From this place of uncertainty, enlightenment arises in my experience, if, to date, sporadically.
DO leads to the deconstruction to the inherency we give to appearances. But it also doesn't affirm a view.
The whole point of correct view is to help in releasing what we assert consciously/unconsciously.
meditation (concentration of the mind) clears the mind
with that clear mind
one must investigate what one has learned from sutras, talks, books of Buddhism (insight meditation)
which will lead to catch a glimpse of reality as it is
at this stage one Sees and Knows the TRUTH
but
still there is much more to do to become Enlightened
"If physical action were religious practice, then religious practice would be walking, standing, sitting, lying down, looking around, up and down."
It would seem from the above passage that the authentic practice of Buddhism consists in the effort to see into our original nature which is neither conditioned nor physical. This comports with what Ajhan Chah Thera said, "Our practice is simply to see the Original Mind."
Too much reliance of physical practices, observances, and rituals can become a serious mistake. It then becomes wrong practice.
Compare spiritual practice with physical exercise--we may choose Tae Kwon Do, for example. It doesn't mean we don't believe other forms of exercise work, but that we personally feel drawn to Tae Kwon Do. It doesn't mean anyone is forbidding us from suddenly launching into a ballet sequence, but just that we've all agreed we've come together to practice Tae Kwon Do, and that's what we're focusing on.
If we suddenly insisted on doing ballet, regularly, the teacher (and students!) might ask us to leave, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are a cult who doesn't allow freedom of choice; just that people have come together in that particular space with a particular focus in mind. If you want to do a pirouette, and the teacher suggests a spinning back kick, it doesn't mean the teacher is anti-ballet, but simply is there to teach Tae Kwon Do, and so of course is going to recommend spinning back kicks over pirouettes. A good Tae Kwon Do teacher, after seeing you do many pirouettes instead, will recommend a good ballet teacher.
Focusing on Tae Kwon Do--as opposed to exercising your human right to add ballet moves--has its benefits. With more focus, one can for example, develop the confidence that concentrating on a particular Tae Kwon Do technique brings. If you add all the ballet moves, you're getting great exercise in general, reaping the benefits of that, but not reaping the benefits of a specific focus.
It's not a matter of bad or good--exercise in general is for your benefit, and focusing on a specific exercise is for your benefit. If you go deeply into one tradition, you'll reap the benefits of depth, as well as the benefits of exercise in general.
I feel that Western, liberal society places great emphasis on breadth of experience--certainly breadth, being well-rounded, widely-read, multiculturalized, and globalized are wonderful signs that the world's people are becoming less isolationist and more open to one another.
Unfortunately I think that along with that emphasis on breadth, comes a rejection--even fear--of depth. I think this has multiple causes--we are faced with a vast array of choices, and can't make up our minds--we have so many choices, that it's very hard to make one. Also, we confuse positive feelings toward breadth with unnecessary negative feelings toward depth (they don't have to be at odds).
Again, the exercise model is helpful--an Olympic Tae Kwon Do athlete may supplement with some ballet (!) and running, for example, but still concentrate largely on Tae Kwon Do. In our modern world of Buddhism, we might be fortunate enough to take primarily one kind of teaching, but then occasionally supplement with a different kind. It would be a great shame to miss out on the benefits of depth altogether, though.