It’s been suggested that we may do well to take a look at specific religions in order to get a good sense of what they are like, what they offer in the way of moral guidance and meaning.
As I’ve already admitted, I know just a little about Buddhism. And maybe I know just enough to idealize Buddhism as an exemplary religion, when in fact the religion I have in mind doesn’t really exist. So, like a good anthropologist, in order to discover the truth, I traveled via my web browser to Wikipedia. And there I found that, of course, there’s more than one kind of Buddhism. The variety that has been mentioned already on this blog is Tibetan Buddhism. And, after looking into it a little, it seems that what I’ve had in mind when I think of Buddhism is Zen. But first, a general overview of commonly held beliefs among all varieties of Buddhism, as far as I know…
All varieties are supposed to be based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha, who was born in what is now Nepal and died around 400 BCE. These are his Four Noble Truths (from the Wiki):
1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
2. Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.
The Noble Eightfold Path is how to stop suffering:
1. dṛṣṭi (ditthi): viewing reality as it is, not just as it appears to be.
2. saṃkalpa (sankappa): intention of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness.
Śīla is the ethics or morality, or abstention from unwholesome deeds. It includes:
3. vāc (vāca): speaking in a truthful and non hurtful way
4. karman (kammanta): acting in a non harmful way
5. ājīvana (ājīva): a non harmful livelihood
Samādhi is the mental discipline required to develop mastery over one’s own mind. This is done through the practice of various contemplative and meditative practices, and includes:
6. vyāyāma (vāyāma): making an effort to improve
7. smṛti (sati): awareness to see things for what they are with clear consciousness, being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion
samādhi (samādhi): correct meditation or concentration, explained as the first 4 dhyānas.
A few other Buddhist concepts:
“Karma is the energy which drives Saṃsāra, the cycle of suffering and rebirth for each being. Good, skillful (Pāli: kusala) and bad, unskillful (Pāli: akusala) actions produce "seeds" in the mind which come to fruition either in this life or in a subsequent rebirth. In Buddhism, Karma specifically refers to those actions (of body, speech, and mind) that spring from mental intent (Pāli: cetana), and which bring about a consequence (or fruit, Sanskrit: phala) or result (Pāli: vipāka). Every time a person acts there is some quality of intention at the base of the mind and it is that quality rather than the outward appearance of the action that determines its effect.”
“Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. It is important to note, however, that Buddhism rejects concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul, as it is called in Christianity or even Hinduism. As there ultimately is no such thing as a self (anatta), rebirth in subsequent existences must rather be understood as the continuation of a dynamic, ever-changing process of ‘dependent arising’ (Pratītyasamutpāda) determined by the laws of cause and effect (Karma) rather than that of one being, ‘jumping’ from one existence to the next.”
I don’t want to make this post much longer, so I’ll just ask the following question: Is there a different Buddhism in the West, compared to Buddhism in the East? We obviously run into problems just saying “Buddhism” without specifying the flavor, but I may also be idealizing Buddhism because it doesn’t have a complex social history here in the United States. Micheal suggested that Tibetan Buddhism is every bit as ritualistic, socially enmeshed, and full of personalized deities as any other religion. Does that mean that someone who wants to practice Buddhism merely based on the Buddha’s teaching here in the U.S. isn’t really practicing Buddhism? (This is closer to what I understand Zen to be about.)
I suppose we could say that the presentation of Christianity in the East, or Africa, would be just as idealistic a religion because the converts would simply be focusing on the moral teachings of Jesus and the need believe just a few things (if that’s the way it was presented), without having to deal with the historical and ritualistic baggage of the Christian Church.
[Also, next weekend I’ll be attending an information session at my local Zen center to see what it’s all about…and to see if I’m idealizing something that doesn’t exist.]
I do not know much about buddism however I think from the people that have expressed a belief in buddism and the small amount of reading I have done I would make these two comments: 1. Buddism in the west has experienced the same blending of thoughts as other religions. We have "smeared" the lines of most religions here in the west (with the possible acception of Islam) We have a tendency here in the west to leave out the parts of a religion that are uncomfortable for us and add parts from other religions that make things easier and even make some up ourselves. This may be different from what you experience next weekend because the "smearing of lines" that I am speaking of tends to happen more on the individual living out of religion rather than in the actually information given out by leaders. 2. Buddism I believe stands above the other religions in terms of moral transformation (behavior modification) Christianity stands above other religions in terms of spiritual transformation. However Christianity has so mixed the two most cannot even define spiritual transformation even though that is the main teaching of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteI think it's worth mentioning that Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are both branches of the Mahayana (the Great Vehicle) tradition. This was a series of reformations that came much later in the Buddhist journey. Mahayana Buddhism was born in India (long after the Buddha lived) but really took off in China and subsequently spread to Japan, parts of Vietnam, Korea (where it was dramatically reworked) and Tibet. In the east it tended toward Zen, which was more intellectualized in line with contemporary modes of thought like Confucianism and Taoism. In western Asia it grew into the more ritualized Tibetan practice. In both cases it was retooled in such a way to be digestible by the local population.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that this sort of retooling is unavoidable. None of us practice our religions in their original form. Rituals evolve, paradigms shift and theology becomes increasingly complex. This happens up to a breaking point and then reformation takes place and ideas consolidate before the cycle proceeds. Siddhartha, Jesus, the Mahayana scholars and Martin Luther were all reformists. Inasmuch as there's not really any such thing as a 'religious reboot', all the great teachers were working within predefined boundaries and were more like reformers than outright founders of original religious thought.
The other major line of Buddhist thought is Theravada. It's seen as a direct descendant of the original school of Buddhism, though it's widely acknowledged that it looks considerably different 2,500 years after its inception. It spread from Nepal to India to Sri Lanka and then Southeast Asia. Communism went to great lengths to quash religious fervor in the old days, so the only place its 'freely' practiced is in Thailand. Here in Thailand the religious lines have been smeared as much as anywhere else. I think that's a decidedly human phenomenon that isn't unique to the West.
Just my two disjointed cents...
I've been waiting to comment on this because I didn't get a chance to visit the Zen Center until this past weekend. You can find their website at www.indyzen.org.
ReplyDeleteFor the past few weeks I've been reading Alan Watts' *The Way of Zen*. This seems to be a good introduction for someone like me. It gives a historical explanation of the origins of Zen and attempts to translate Zen for the western mind. I'm glad Derek gave that historical summary of the different Buddhist branches (much better than I would be able to provide), and Watts also explains how Buddhism was influenced by Taoism in China, which resulted in Zen. Although, as Derek pointed out, there are many forms of Zen as well. The form practiced at the Indianapolis Zen Center is Korean, and they are a member of the Kwan Um School of Zen. I think there was a specific teacher/master who founded this center, but I don't remember the name.
Anyway, I went to the practice on Sunday morning. A half an hour before it begins, there is an orientation for people new to Zen. On the day I went, there was a class from Purdue attending the practice, so there were a lot of new people that day. The practice consisted of kneeling, chanting, meditating, and listening to a dharma talk.
The kneeling activity was basically like squat-thrusts. You start standing up, with hands in a prayer position in front of you. Then kneel, lean forward, putting your forehead on the mat, turn your hands upwards toward the ceiling, and put one foot over the other. Then you get back up and put your hands in a prayer position again. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. At a pretty decent pace. We were supposed to do like 60 some of these, but if we got tired we could just bow at the waist instead. I'm still sore today, by the way. I think I did about 55.
The chanting/singing was done in Korean (I think), which we read out of a little hymnal type thing. This lasted about a half an hour. We were told that it didn't matter if you didn't understand the words.
The meditation lasted about a half an hour as well (or it felt like that--maybe it was 15 minutes), and this was probably the hardest thing for me to do. I'm not flexible at all, and finding a position to sit in for this amount of time was difficult. There's a cushion for you to sit on, and you can either sit in semi-Indian style, or kneel. My foot fell asleep, and I think I might have fallen asleep at some point as well. I did have a window to look out of, though. It was a beautiful day and there were birds in the tree right in front of me. I kept thinking that I was supposed to be like the bird. Just do the next thing I'm supposed to do, don't think, don't worry. Don't feel the pain in my knee. It didn't really work.
Then there was a talk by one of the members. She's been doing Zen for about 15 years and her talk was basically about the importance of the practice. Throughout the morning, the person leading the practices (I don't know what to call him--master maybe?) kept emphasizing the idea that it wasn't important if you didn't understand what was being said. It wasn't important if you didn't see the point in kneeling, or if you were distracted while meditating. The important thing is that you're doing the practice, and real change is supposed to just follow from that. The woman giving the talk related a story of her first time practicing Zen. She was 20 years old at the time and she went to see someone speak in Chicago, who was a famous author at the time (I didn't recognize the name). She had read his books and she wanted to be inspired by his words. But when she went, the only thing they did was the practice. There was no inspirational talk, just chanting and meditating and so on. She felt ripped off, but on the way home she noticed that something had changed. Her behavior was different, she saw things differently. And that's the idea behind the practice. That's the point.
[Continuation of above comment.]
ReplyDeleteAfter the talk, the members served us coffee, tea, fruit, and pastries, and we had a question and answer session. The Purdue professor and several students asked questions, and the leader answered and then encouraged the other members of the Zen Center to respond as well, if they wanted to. I asked the very last question of the day, which was 3 and 1/2 hours after the morning session had begun. Basically, my question was, do you consider Zen practice to be a religion? Most of the members said no. Many of them were brought up to believe another religion and had rejected that faith. When they found Zen, and realized the emphasis was on the practice and not on what they considered to be supernatural beliefs, then they accepted it as just that--a practice and not a belief system about the supernatural. Some members actually did see it as a religion, although they felt that it was fundamentally different than other religions. One actually used the phrase "non-theistic religion" to describe Zen. That is, there is no personal god to believe in. And there is nothing sacred or supernatural about the practices.
After the question and answer was over, and the class left, I stuck around and asked one more question. Would other Buddhists, especially Asian Buddhists, deny that the Zen being practiced at this center in Indianapolis was Buddhism? The leader said, absolutely. Some Buddhists believe their form is the true way, just like most other religions have their schisms and denominations with exclusive claims. Some Protestants deny that Catholics are Christians, etc. There is also a sense that Buddhism in Asia is an ethnic phenomena, like Judaism. The leader said that he once told a Korean woman that he was a Buddhist priest, and she laughed at him. To her, it was ridiculous to think that an American could be a Buddhist priest. A Buddhist priest is necessarily from Korea.
So far, as I've learned more about Buddhism and Zen in the past month, my conception of Zen as an ideal religion has intensified, not dwindled. I think it was appropriate for Micheal to say that we should look at the specifics of religious traditions. But I think the problem was merely the fact that I should have specified Zen Buddhism. Yes it does exist. And the underlying aspects that separate it from the other religions (at least the ones I have in mind: Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are these:
1. It is not a religion of the Holy Book. There are some Buddhist scriptures that are treated as holy by some forms of Buddhism, but Zen and many other traditions do not. A Holy Book would be antithetical to their beliefs and philosophy. The truth isn't something that is given to you, and it especially isn't found in any book. It ultimately is something you have to discover yourself. Buddhist practices are to help you discover what you, kind of, already know. You have direct access to it. (As I understand it.)
2. It is not a religion that emphasizes belief in specific doctrines. Belief is not the fundamental thing you must have or do to be a member, or to be saved. The emphasis is on doing, and there's no salvation anyway, in that sense. I don't think reincarnation or nirvana are important aspects to Zen (or, I haven't come across that yet anyway).
[Continuation.]
ReplyDeleteI think Derek is right in saying that it is unavoidable for religions to be retooled when they are transplanted. And there is a good amount of evolution over time. I'm not sure I'd agree with Martilou that Zen, as it's practiced at this center, is just the easy stuff with the hard stuff taken out. This practice seems to me to be very hard to do. And it's accepted with faith. It's accepted as a package, which is followed because that's the way it was given to them originally. There's nothing sacred about the practice. But the practice is treated with reverence and followed meticulously because it's part of the transformative nature of the activity. Or, that's what is required to bring about transformation. Also, I'm not so sure that people who practice Zen at this center would characterize their transformation as moral rather than spiritual. I think spiritual transformation (as we've described it in this blog) is what they claim is happening.
Anyway, that's how I see it right now. And, just to add another book to the list I've got going for this blog, I read *Siddhartha* by Hermann Hesse a couple of weeks ago. I found it fascinating and quite moving, though I realize it's not to be taken as an accurate presentation of Buddhist teachings.