Ă—

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.

Buddhism without meditation

More
14 years 5 months ago #2076 by cruxdestruct
Given the tenor of this place, I sort of assume that everyone here meditates. I was recently speaking with a friend who is a Nichiren Buddhist, and while I've never seen a Nichiren service so I can't say I have a great idea of exactly what goes on (I generally find encyclopedia entries useless for characterizing a certain Buddhist practice on the ground), one of the things she did mention is that they didn't meditate at all. Which I know is not particularly unique. I know that many schools of Buddhism have done away with sitting entirely, in favor of chanting or devotion. But I wonder if any of you have had actual experience with no-sit Buddhism. Is the chanting in these schools generally done for such a long time that one enters a mystical (if not meditative) state? Is there any discussion of wisdom, mindfulness, discernment, insight, awareness—all the mental qualities that I associate so strongly with meditation?
More
14 years 5 months ago #2077 by Ona Kiser
I've never heard of no-sit Buddhism either (except perhaps in the context of Buddhists in Buddhist countries who might just go to the temple and offer incense and so on, or do rituals for occasions like weddings and funerals, leaving meditation to the monks or priests?)
More
14 years 5 months ago #2078 by Jake St. Onge
Hi Zach. Here's my two cents, based on some reading, listening to Pure Land teachings, talking with a few Westerners who practice Pure Land, and a bit of Pure Land practice myself.

My understanding of Pure Land practice generally (of which Nicheren is one branch, and the one I'm least familiar with) is that, first off, it takes place in a Mahayana context. That means certain philosophical and existential views like buddhanature, non-duality of emptiness and form, etc. Like any path which is actually engaged experientially, there is a shift from holding a view in a philosophical/intellectual mode, to having one's experience "held" by a more existential version of said view, if I may be permitted to express it this way.

Where Pure Land often diverges from self-power Mahayana approaches is Pure Land emphasizes that me is a sentient being, pervaded by ignorance, prone to foolishness, and completely incapable (since ultimately a delusion) of "producing" awakening. The Pure Land critique of self-power is that self-power practices, such as Vipassana or Zen, can tend towards "ego" appropriating buddhanature and inflating itself with its insights into dharma. Dharma ego replaces worldy ego, in other words. This is a useful critique IMO, and one not unknown in Vipassana, Vajrayana and Zen circles. In fact, the two practices have often existed side by side-- in Chan (Chinese Zen) it's my understanding that, often, Chan is practiced in formal meditation and Nembutsu (Pure Land practice) engaged in daily life, and in biographies of Zen masters (think of Bankei) we often see both practices side by side.

Long story short I think the point is not to repeat chants to alter states of consciousness, rather it is to become so authentic as a limited, foolish sentient being, while simultaneously having faith in Amida Buddha's Vow (which invokes, experientially, insights into buddhanature), that one gradually comes to see ones total existence as a five-skandhas woven foolish sentient being, as embraced within a deeper and luminous awareness, Amida's awareness-- hence non-duality. But rather than approaching non-duality through meditative/yogic discovery of buddhanature, then seeing the non-duality of buddhanature with the five skandhas (nonduality of emptiness and form), Pure Land starts from "Form", and by becoming authenticly the five-skandhas conditioned being one is, gradually discovering that this conditioned and suffering-prone sentient-being-nature is embraced and pervaded by unconditioned buddha-nature. this is called "true birth" and is seen as non-backsliding, like stream entry or first bhumi, but different from these "attainments" as there is no hint that birth in Amida's pure land is an accomplishment, although I think a case could definitely be made for a closer parallel between birth and SE.

Hope this helps :-)
More
14 years 5 months ago #2079 by Jake St. Onge
Here's a great resource for Buddhist studies in general and the Shin school of Pure Land in particular:

http://www.shin-ibs.edu/

The Institute of Buddhist Studies is definitely a Shin organization but their journal (which is free, and excellent) is a top-notch scholarly journal IMO. They publish some great historical research on different epochs of Buddhism from archaeological, sociological, doctrinal and experiential angles-- and more. Very scholarly for the most part but some intriguing nuggets of a more wisdom/practice oriented nature too.

There are pdf's, videos and mp3s on various topics including the theory and practice of various schools of Pure Land available for free on the website, and last I knew you could be put on a mailing list to receive the print version of the Journal for free as well.
More
14 years 5 months ago #2080 by Ona Kiser
This brings up a related question for me - if you are a Buddhist or consider your practice to be basically Buddhist, what role does the Buddha (as concept, deity, historical person, or whatever) play in your practice?
More
14 years 5 months ago #2081 by Kate Gowen
I think what 'the Buddha' is, changes over the arc of practice. My first encounter with the story of Shakyamuni left me impressed with how much more accessible that story was, for me, than the Jesus/Christ story was-- the whole point of the JC story seemed to be: this IS NOT YOU, NO WAY NO HOW: he did it FOR you, because you're inherently incapable. The Buddha story seemed more like a kind of example to follow [and, yeah, I know there are excellent Christians who are similar with respect to the JC mythos]-- and it was always told in a way that made that point more explicitly; there were lineages of accomplished practitioners, not just tormented saints.

Maybe if I'd been born into a Buddhist culture, I'd have encountered the same demand for faith and devotion over experiential verification; but since I wasn't, I was free to explore and encounter, for instance, teachings that point out that there are stages to 'diety worship': getting a clear sense of the diety; becoming intimate with the diety; recognizing that one can manifest/ 'self-arise' as the diety; recognizing 'buddha-nature' per se. At this point, I don't care what we call 'the diety': Padmasambhava, 'The' Buddha, Kuan Yin, Tara-- or Jesus Christ or Mother Mary, for that matter. The names are connected to qualities, which are individual; but there is the underlying principle of bodhi, refracted through all the stories. Even the 'me' story; the 'you' story.
More
14 years 5 months ago #2082 by cruxdestruct
The buddha is my teacher. He is not experientially present for me, and I am not really interested in any of his personal qualities; but I have taken refuge in the dharma, which I experience through his collected teachings. So the words that he left behind are the the thing.
  • Dharma Comarade
14 years 5 months ago #2083 by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic Buddhism without meditation
I think until recently I was basically a Christian who'd at least temporarily stopped going to Church regularly who was using a Buddhist meditation technique. Even though I really doubt almost everything that is said about Jesus -- that he is the "son of God," whatever that means, that he did or said most of what is claimed, that he even existed actually -- still because I was indoctrinated into it so young (from birth basically) and because I think my initial takes on it were so pure and loving and good and magical -- I still feel a strong connection to at least the idea(l) of Jesus and the basic teachings of Christianity. And, the church I finally managed to find and to belong to and haven't attended for a couple of years is one in which someone can have the exact beliefs I have and still be accepted and feel perfectly welcome.

Lately, though, I wonder. I seem to use the term dharma a lot. I've gone on a lot of zen and vipassana one day retreats in my life and just sat at zen centers pretty often. I like "yoga," and even the idea of referring to myself as a "yogi" (which is how one could descibe Jesus maybe) and whenever I'm around or reading about all the different aspects and teachings of yoga it's all very nice. I'm getting into being a part of this "zen and recovery" sangha that meets in Modesto and my AA sponsor is a serious zen student.

So, what I'm leading up to is that I may be ready to commit to one or more spiritual communities on a more formal and more communal basis. Maybe. I think I'll go into this more in the "practice" section.

Also, I want to reiterate Kate's point. I guess Zach's point or question was really about buddhism that is more about chanting than meditation. Right? But, still, I think it is clear that most of the world's buddhists don't meditate, never meditate, and have no intention of ever meditating. Even the monks or priests. I think this meditation-heavy buddhism that so many western converts do is very very rare in Asia, and, I imagine, if you took all the European and American zen and vipassana praticioners and totaled them all up, it would be a miniscule percentage of the world's population.

I guess I didn't answer any of the questions here. Oh well. I like to write about myself, that is clear.
Anyway, if I think about it "the Buddha" as an idea, ideal, person, or whatever, doesn't mean very much to me or my practice. I'm grateful that "the dharma" exists and that it was developed so well. (but like with Jesus I doubt most of what I've read or hear about him and really think he is an amalgamation of a lot of different real and mythic figures) But, when I practice my vibe is pretty much "here I am and what is that, exactly" and the Buddha isn't really present as an idea or even as an inspiration.
  • Dharma Comarade
14 years 5 months ago #2084 by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic Buddhism without meditation
There is a good recent movie I just watched "The Education of Charlie Banks."

Most of it takes place at a small college in the northeast someowhere. A student who is constantly talking about Derrida and deconstructionism jumps off a roof in a suicide attempt.

One of the characters (not very educated) asks the well-educated Charlies Banks "what is deconstructionism?"

After he hears Banks' explanation he says, "No wonder he jumped."
Powered by Kunena Forum