General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
Some of you may find the following article interesting regarding the secularisation of meditation in the States specifically and the West more generally.
Experts say the major change in how meditation is viewed in this country in the last two decades is that it’s been detached from its religious roots. The streams of new people coming to meditate are doing it as part of their K-12 class in public school or for treatment of chronic pain; no mention of the hereafter or Buddhism to be found.
So what do you think of the secularisation of meditation? Do you think that it is a good thing? Why or why not?
kind regards
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Ben wrote:Some of you may find the following article interesting regarding the secularisation of meditation in the States specifically and the West more generally.
Experts say the major change in how meditation is viewed in this country in the last two decades is that it’s been detached from its religious roots. The streams of new people coming to meditate are doing it as part of their K-12 class in public school or for treatment of chronic pain; no mention of the hereafter or Buddhism to be found.
So what do you think of the secularisation of meditation? Do you think that it is a good thing? Why or why not?
kind regards
Ben
Seems to me that the more awareness the better. How could it possibly hurt?
imo the real dharma arises from practice not from a book.
The problem i see is that if you do it with any diligence, it will at some point or other get weird. Having some tradition to fall back on can be really important at those times. On the whole tho it seems encouraging. I cant see how the world could fail to be a better place, a place with less suffering and less delusion, with more meditatiors in it.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
Actually, the article reminded me of concerns that I had regarding some within the secular mindfulness movement. I read my wife's copy of 'The Happiness Trap' which seemed to be taken straight from an SN Goenka ten-day course and yet I felt what (The Happiness Trap) lacked was any emphasis on sila. How does one develop samadhi (self mastery) and panna (insight/actualization) without first or alongside the development of behavioural impulse management (sila)?
Yet, at the same time mindfulness entering the mainstream has got to be a good thing for so many people.
kind regards
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Good topic. IMO all this secular meditation is the 'micca' or 'not dhamma' path mentioned in the mahacattasarika sutta- which also states how to convert it into the 'samma' or Right (noble eightfold) path.
As it happens, I spent a few hours today at a come-and-try yoga participation day and went to a talk on yoga's own eightfold path - which lines up pretty neatly with the Buddha's, for historical reasons which don't matter much in this context. What makes it relevant to this thread is that yoga is also being secularised, as a purely physical practice. Today's speaker said - and I agree - that people do often focus on the one aspect of the path that they need most at the time; that doing so is not ideal but will do them no harm; and that anyone doing so for long enough will realise that they need to progress in the other aspects to balance their one-sided practice, so the problem is almost self-correcting.
That said, I do feel it is important that the teachers, even at this very simplified introductory level, do have some notion of where it can lead and what other factors support it or impede it.
Ben wrote:
So what do you think of the secularization of meditation? Do you think that it is a good thing? Why or why not?
kind regards
Yes, without a doubt.
With no disrespect to anyone I am an atheist and I believe the world would be better off without many things from many religions, including Buddhism. I like to think that everything authentic from Buddhism came from meditation and I see meditation as being the primary source of value. I think more people will try secular mediation and that is great because they can get so many wonderful results.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
David N. Snyder wrote:
Imagine the Buddha-Dhamma without Buddha, without Sangha and left with just half-Dhamma.
I guess it depends on what exactly one means by "sangha". Take Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's definition:
SANGHA
Now we shall consider the word "Sangha." In everyday language, the word "Sangha" refers to the community of monks who wear the yellow robe and wander from place to place. This is the Sangha as it is understood in everyday language, the language of the unenlightened person who has not yet seen the Truth. In Dhamma language, the word "Sangha" refers once again to the Truth, to the Dhamma itself. It refers to the high qualities, of whatever kind and degree, that exist in the mind of the monk, the man of virtue. There are certain high mental qualities that make a man a monk. The totality of these high qualities existing in the mind of the monk is what is called the Sangha.
The Sangha of everyday language is the assembly of monks themselves. The Sangha of Dhamma language are those high qualities in the minds of the monks. The Sangha proper consists of these four levels: the strearn-enterer (sotapanna), the once-returner (sakadagami), the non-returner (anagami), and the fully perfected being (arahant, worthy one, undefiled by any egoism). These terms, too, refer to mental rather than physical qualities, because the physical frames of these people are in no way different from those of anyone else. Where they do differ is in mental or spiritual qualities. This is what makes a person a stream-enterer, once returner, non-returner, or arahant. This is how the word "Sangha" is to be understood in Dhamma language. http://wfbhq.org/index.php/principle-of ... -language-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If we take this definition, do you think these "high mental qualities" called sangha can be developed by meditation alone?
I can't help but feel that the increased familiarity with meditation trumps all. The stage has been set thus that anyone who feels they might want to delve deeper is able to do so at their own pace. I tend to think that it's all the same path anyway, the same mountain. Whether one's walking in the lush green foliage of its lower, broader reaches, or one dwells in the thin air of the high passes. It's all due to one's temperament and proclivities.
The real "sin" would be to disqualify Mindfulness meditors as being not fully worthy, somehow. So, yeah, "the I in me" thinks it's a good thing.