Tag Archives: Buddhist

A Meditation More Challenging

Posted by on March 23, 2012 1 comment

After a long time of being a solo practitioner and participating in in virtual Sanghas, I restarted my investigation into local Buddhist centres recently.  I’ve tried a couple previously, the Birmingham Buddhist Vihara and the Jangchub Ling centre in Cradley Heath.  Both brought interesting conversations, very friendly faces and a welcome affirmation that I was not alone.

My most recent trip was to the Dr BR Ambedkar Memorial Centre Buddha Vihara in Wolverhampton, literally a stones throw from the Mercedes dealer on the ring road.  This brought more smiling faces, a warm welcome and a much needed reminder about the physical difficulties of meditation.  If you meditate in a chair, as I tend to, you never realise just how challenging meditating on a cushion can be.  The aches in the leg muscles, the aches in the back and the constant distraction from this can make you quite glad that your sitting is over!

This took me back to something I learned many years ago from a wonderful book that started me on my somewhat intermittent journey as a meditator.  The book is called “Moon Over Water“, by a lady called Jessica MacBeth and it really is like having a patient friend walking beside you on the path.  Jessica recommended that we shouldn’t rely on always meditating on one place, or having certain incenses or clothes or an altar to hand.  The idea was that we would be able to meditate wherever we needed to (e.g. a hotel room).  The sitting I did on Sunday proved the value of her advice and I would like to add that we should also not get overly used to sitting in one position.  If used to a chair, if you can do so, try the stool or the cushion and vice versa.

The lesson I learned here is that we do need to challenge ourselves as meditators from time to time.

Why is Secular Buddhism Important? – Part 2

Posted by on March 19, 2012 No comments

In my previous post, I talked about why I think that drawing ethics from a dogmatic supernaturally inspired source isn’t really a very good idea.  In this post, I’d like to talk a little about why I think that ethics drawn from a secular source are more meaningful.  I also think that as Buddhism has a long history of doing just that, it has an awful lot to bring to the table in this process.

Why do I think this?  When we hand the responsibility over to a third party to decide our morals, or forgive us, this takes quite a lot away from us as Human Beings.  We can no longer claim to be masters of our own destinies, we cannot evolve our morality in any meaningful way and we still have responsibility for our actions.  This is because we are the ones who chose to let someone else drive and then willingly went along for the ride.

Speaking from the viewpoint of this Secular Buddhist, it’s much more meaningful to take this power back for ourselves.  Buddhist ethics are based in a clear minded view of the world in this moment, as it is.  Not coloured by dogma or beliefs, by superstitions or agendas.  We have to actually think about the issues as they are in this moment, justify what we think and why we think that way rationally and without recourse to dogma.  We have to consider the feelings of others, we must practise empathy and consider the Karma that our actions produce for ourselves and others.  This leads to a greater consideration for the humanity of others and underlines our deep and powerful connection to those around us.

It also brings me back to something I’ve covered in a previous posts, the idea of forgiveness and compassion starting with ourselves.  When forgiveness is doled out by another, we’re not required to understand or forgive and we’re not really able to, not even for ourselves.  When we are the ones doing the forgiving, we are required to understand that we’re imperfect, limited and fallible.  Coming from that position, accepting that we are flawed and imperfect, we can learn to forgive ourselves.  Once we can do that, we’re in a much better position to use that same understanding to begin to forgive others.

 

Why is Secular Buddhism Important? – Part 1

Posted by on March 18, 2012 No comments

I’ve done a very brief turn around the notion of Secular Buddhism recently.  I’ve talked a little about my view on why Buddhism is originally secular and why it’s such a good fit for the west.  I also covered very briefly how it came west, though there is a lot that can be said about that, I urge you to pursue your own research.  Accounts of the Panadura debate are available on line, and I may be able to reproduce them on this website once I’ve looked into the copyright issues.  But I haven’t been near a question.  Why is Secular Buddhism important, why am I of the opinion that it’s vital to have it?

The answer, I feel comes down to awareness and the willingness to see.  Humanity has many religions, depending on where you draw the line this number can vary.  These religions for the most part draw their authority from their particular god, so I see them as drawing their moral authority from an source outside provable and verifiable reality.  This effectively means that anything can be passed off as morality and go unchallenged as once you subscribe to religion your incentives are to support the status quo.  Want an example?  The Catholic Church frowns on the use of birth control, this from a religion that is widespread in some of the poorest areas on the planet!  The most effective thing the Catholic Church could do for these areas is allow condoms and other contraception.  This would reduce population pressure and the strain on already poor families, it would also reduce the spread of AIDS and other diseases all of which would benefit these communities no end.

For a second example, I’ll move along to Homosexuality.  According to the doctrines of many religions Homosexuality is a sin, pure and simple.  Buddhism, tends to vary depending on where you are but as far as I am aware the Buddha was silent on this.  There are a number of stones thrown at Homosexuals by the religious (remember “he who is without sin”, anyone?), this isn’t the time to get into it in depth but I’ll make one comment.  Homosexuality has been observed in 450 species in the wild on Earth, Homophobia in only one.  You can say the same about religion come to think of it, same species too, odd that isn’t it?

In my opinion, because of doctrine, the Catholic Church can’t allow any of this to be challenged.  The doctrine of Papal infallibility means that to admit that they were wrong would be to shake the bedrock, this is something they cannot have.  I’ve already expressed my views on the consequences of that before.

Buddhism in the West

Posted by on March 16, 2012 No comments

My previous two posts have continued a short theme I wished to explore.  They’ve hopefully explained why I consider Buddhism to be Secular and provided a very quick overview of how Buddhism came to the West.  So here we are, Buddhism is in the western world and according to some sources is the fastest growing religion (I use the term as a shorthand) in many countries, maybe even the whole western world. [1] [2] [3] [4]

I think Buddhism has come to fit the western world very well.  Buddhism is finding that in many places it fits very well with modern science.  Indeed the attitude of questioning and verifying things for yourself that the Buddha speaks of to the people of Kesaputta in the Kalama Sutra is not at all antagonistic to the scientific endeavour.  I’ve posted verses 4 and 10 from the above link in order to bring them directly to your attention.

4. “It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.

10. “Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.

The above isn’t the only thing Buddhism has to offer that fits it with an increasingly secular west, you will find Buddhist meditation centres in many western cities.  Theravada centres, Zen centres and New Kadampa centres among just a few.  The teachings of Buddhism offer a powerful potential antidote to the stresses, strains and challenges of modern life.  They allow a person to find a sense of peace in our high-tech materialist society without making you feel inherently sinful or unworthy.  For me, as for many others here in the west, this is a huge part of the appeal.

References

[1] – Buddhism fastest growing religion in west.
[2] – Buddhism is fastest growing religion in English jails over past decade.
[3] – Buddhism: Ancient faith experiences and explosion of growth in US.
[4] – Why is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in Australia?

 

How is Buddhism Originally Secular?

Posted by on March 14, 2012 No comments

I’d like to expand on a couple of things I said in my previous post, this first one regarding Buddhism itself.  I said that Buddhism was originally, a fairly secular thing.  You could be forgiven for looking at the Buddhist world, with it’s Devas and Dharma Protectors and other things and thinking that I’ve lost the plot.  On the face of things, I wouldn’t blame you, but let’s look a little closer.

The Buddha himself is quoted in the Dhammapada as not being very impressed with religions that preach salvation, this first quote shows exactly what I’m talking about.

No one saves us but ourselves, no one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path, but Buddhas clearly show the way.

The Dhammapada, 165.

This is the first quotation, but there is a second one that I’d like to share that specifically deals with the reasons that the Buddha says people go to temples and holy places.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.

The Dhammapada, 188

The Buddha is setting a theme, that one cannot find salvation or a refuge from suffering in sacred places or in the hands of another, whether that person is a human or a deity.  I can see this setting the scene for an attitude of Agnosticism if not outright Atheism.  I interpret it as Agnosticism as the Buddha didn’t directly comment on the existence or not of gods, at least as far as I know.  I say Buddhism is secular as when dealing with things in an Agnostic manner, if you don’t have any evidence to prove a thing exists or is true, you simply behave as if it doesn’t exist or is untrue.  In the case of the divine, this defaults in my view to a secular manner.

Secular Buddhism

Posted by on March 13, 2012 5 comments

Buddhism is something with a long history.  As far as I’m aware, it started about 2600 years ago and has migrated through a new of countries.  Along the way, it picked up various traditions, practices and other paraphernalia.  It also picked up a lot of religious baggage, including gods, spirits and demons, though this can vary a lot in quantity and lineup depending on where exactly you happen to stand.

Of course, as we know Buddhism eventually came to the west.  This is an interesting story in itself and when I can actually finish looking into it I’ll write up my understanding of it.  On coming west, Buddhism met western secularism and I think something very special happened.  The important thing to remember is that Buddhism was originally a quite secular thing, but during its travels that seems to have gotten lost, at least to my eyes.  Upon coming west, the path was set that would start to dust away the accumulated layers of it’s travels and leave an entirely secular system of ethics.

In Buddhism we have perhaps the only system of ethics and self development that has stood the test of time and does not draw on the authority of a hazily defined and unproven supernatural system for its basis.  The importance of this cannot be overstated, in my opinion.  This is also the beginning of subject that I’d like to delve deeper into in future posts.

The Riches of Agnosticism

Posted by on January 11, 2012 2 comments

I was considering this after writing my recent post on my views about God. I remember that in his book “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins has a chapter on “The Poverty of Agnosticism”. He takes aim at Agnosticism and tries to demolish it as a valid position, I think he goes too far and that we need to look again.

Agnosticism is more than a simple “I don’t know”, when come at from the point of Buddhism that “I don’t know” gains a vitality and an urgency that is easy to miss. It’s not a wishy washy form of indecision, but a potent statement of humility acknowledging honestly our uncertainty in a world of constantly changing phenomena and events. When everything we try to grasp is constantly shifting and changing, how can we stand on a firm bed of knowledge? When we draw on the Dharma, we rediscover our Agnosticism from the knowledge that all the things we know are just mental constructs of a changing reality, not reality itself. They’re imperfect maps to a shifting and impermanent territory.

It’s easy to say that things are proven and settled, but consider the discovery of Continental Drift. The discoverer, Alfred Wegener, had to overcome the disbelief of his peers; in part due to the fact that some of their supporting theories were plain wrong and also because he wasn’t a Geologist. In fact, even though it was discovered in 1912, it wasn’t accepted until the 1960s. [1] They thought they knew, they were unable to see that they might be wrong, that’s part of my point

In the realm of belief and faith, things are always being interpreted differently by different people and groups. This isn’t limited to one faith, it has caused some fairly awful rows in the past and has even caused sub-sects and new faiths to bud off from existing religions. The differences can extend to every area of doctrine, from the nature of the divine through to . Now, this stuff was being argued over when the Buddha walked the Earth 2600 years ago. It’s not been resolved since then, to be honest, my feeling is that it’s not going to be. This looks like another area where people are refusing to admit that they just don’t know.

The solutions, I feel, is based on an honest acknowledgement of our limitations. The idea that some things may be beyond the ability of the Human mind to grasp is anathema to many, but it may well be more truthful than we’d like to admit. As the Masai wisdom says “One head cannot contain all knowledge”. In the light of all of this, how can our position be anything other then to step away from this constant bickering and engage with the mysteries of the world with an honest “I don’t know”?

[1] The Science of Discworld, page 128-129.