Is Zen Mindfulness?

[boda]

Perhaps you don't understand the question. Sacred means dedicated to religious purpose and so deserving veneration. Now let's look at just bowing. It's traditional in zen to bow before some things but not other things. A bow in zen expresses veneration (in addition to whatever else one might contrive). Clearly a zendo is dedicated to religious purpose, and indeed zen folk traditionally bow before entering a zendo. It's not traditional for zen folk to bow before entering all rooms however. They don't express veneration by bowing before entering all rooms. They demonstrate a distinction between what's perceived as sacred and what's not.

Also, if you really regarded everything as sacred the word 'secular' wouldn't even be in your vocabulary, but you've used in on this page, in a discussion that distinquishes a religious practice (and so deserving veneration) from a secular practice (not deserving veneration).

Yes, there are rooms in temples where we bow more obviously, but the true temple has no inside nor outside.

Yes, God is omnipresent and all that jazz. People of all religions are like this. And people of all religions express veneration towards that which is dedicated to religious purpose.

Sometimes we forget how sacred all of life can be. However, to the clear eye, sacred is not limited to one place, time or act, neither indoors or out.

Curious, on this page you wrote: 'One problem with mindfulness in its most secular form is that it does not seem to be the "total package".'

You see mindfulness 2.0 practitioners as lacking something merely because of it's secularness. A mindfulness practitioner could do all sorts of loving kindness practices, met meditation, feed the hungry, etc etc. They are not limited to any tradition. But nevertheless you see them as lacking something only because they have the quality of being secular.

[Malcolm]

You see mindfulness 2.0 practitioners as lacking something merely because of it's secularness. A mindfulness practitioner could do all sorts of loving kindness practices, met meditation, feed the hungry, etc etc. They are not limited to any tradition. But nevertheless you see them as lacking something only because they have the quality of being secular.

They are lacking something because they no connection with an lineage of awakening.

[jundo cohen]

You see mindfulness 2.0 practitioners as lacking something merely because of it's secularness. A mindfulness practitioner could do all sorts of loving kindness practices, met meditation, feed the hungry, etc etc. They are not limited to any tradition. But nevertheless you see them as lacking something only because they have the quality of being secular.

Oh, well, one would have to be very careful, and some elements would be difficult (although perhaps not impossible) to replace in a truly secular setting. Yes, one could add many aspects of our practices in a purely secular setting such as loving kindness, charity, equanimity, modesty and moderation, and much more.

However, where it is tricky is whether some our our most basic teachings can be replaced or reproduced without turning to what is really a deeply religious or mystical sense ... the "sacredness" of each moment with nothing to add or take away, the Noble Truths and the flowing of the little self into Emptiness, a Hua-yen like sense of deep inter-penetration and timelessness etc etc. ... in other words, the more radical medicines in our medicine bag. Even Sam Harris, in his recent book, admits to a spiritual sense in his practice.

That principle is the subject of this book: The feeling that we call "I" is an illusion. There is no discrete self or ego living like a Minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. And the feeling that there is—the sense of being perched somewhere behind your eyes, looking out at a world that is separate from yourself—can be altered or entirely extinguished. Although such experiences of "self-transcendence" are generally thought about in religious terms, there is nothing, in principle, irrational about them. From both a scientific and a philosophical point of view, they represent a clearer understanding of the way things are. Deepening that understanding, and repeatedly cutting through the illusion of the self, is what is meant by "spirituality" in the context of this book.
http://www.npr.org/books/titles/3494902 ... t-religion

If one adds all the parts of an airplane together ... the engine, the seats, the wings ... but doesn't call it an airplane, one can still see if it flies. But I wonder if one can push the "Buddhist engines" of our most radical tenets and practices to sufficient power in order to obtain lift off without really having crossed over into what is "religious".

(I am actually about to appear on a podcast interview in a couple of weeks with Ted Meissner of the secular Buddhist and Mindfulness podcasts (http://secularbuddhism.org/category/podcasts/). The theme was "Secular-Religious Buddhism - The Best of All Worlds". More on that another time. However here is a taste, my description ...)

There is not one “right” view of Buddhism suitable for all practitioners, and I will never claim my way as best for all. Different suffering beings may require medicines in varied mix and dosage ... However, I wish to offer a new flavor of Buddhism which avoids [the] extreme of stripped down teachings and practices reduced to such a degree that the “baby Buddha” is thrown out with the bath water, whereby many worthwhile and challenging teachings and rituals are lost due to being wrongly limited or labeled as myth and magic. ... "Religio-Secular Buddhism” means forms of practice that maintain the option of and place for certain seemingly "religious" elements of Buddhist Practice ... for example, the possibility of statues, robes, incense ... but only to the extent that each speaks to and has meaning for the practitioner, is seen to have value as a symbol or poetic expression of some greater truths, and serves as a reminder or focus encompassing teachings, thus embodying a pragmatic purpose to facilitate and enhance Buddhist Practice. ... We don't insist that others abandon their beliefs in things we reject, and we remain open minded even if skeptical and agnostic or (based on present evidence) unbelieving. However, for our own practice, we reject certain aspects of traditional Buddhism … and all other religions and philosophies … if not meeting the above tests of substantiation and relevance.

Gassho, Jundo

[boda]

You see mindfulness 2.0 practitioners as lacking something merely because of it's secularness. A mindfulness practitioner could do all sorts of loving kindness practices, met meditation, feed the hungry, etc etc. They are not limited to any tradition. But nevertheless you see them as lacking something only because they have the quality of being secular.

Oh, well, one would have to be very careful, and some elements would be difficult (although perhaps not impossible) to replace in a truly secular setting. Yes, one could add many aspects of our practices in a purely secular setting such as loving kindness, charity, equanimity, modesty and moderation, and much more.

Online, you don't come off as particularly loving, modest or moderate. Anyway, it's not replacing practices, it's merely adopting them. And I don't know why metta meditation, for example, would require one to be very careful. Has it proved hazardous when you've taught it to your students?

Even Sam Harris, in his recent book, admits to a spiritual sense in his practice.

Admits to? He literally wrote the book about spirituality sans religion.

If one adds all the parts of an airplane together ... the engine, the seats, the wings ... but doesn't call it an airplane, one can still see if it flies. But I wonder if one can push the "Buddhist engines" of our most radical tenets and practices to sufficient power in order to obtain lift off without really having crossed over into what is "religious".

Perhaps Sam Harris's book will enlighten you.

In any case, mindfulness 2.0 folk may or may not have any interest in "lift off," whatever that's supposed to be.

(I am actually about to appear on a podcast interview in a couple of weeks with Ted Meissner of the secular Buddhist and Mindfulness podcasts (http://secularbuddhism.org/category/podcasts/). The theme was "Secular-Religious Buddhism - The Best of All Worlds". More on that another time. However here is a taste, my description ...)

There is not one “right” view of Buddhism suitable for all practitioners, and I will never claim my way as best for all. Different suffering beings may require medicines in varied mix and dosage ... However, I wish to offer a new flavor of Buddhism which avoids [the] extreme of stripped down teachings and practices reduced to such a degree that the “baby Buddha” is thrown out with the bath water, whereby many worthwhile and challenging teachings and rituals are lost due to being wrongly limited or labeled as myth and magic. ... "Religio-Secular Buddhism” means forms of practice that maintain the option of and place for certain seemingly "religious" elements of Buddhist Practice ... for example, the possibility of statues, robes, incense ... but only to the extent that each speaks to and has meaning for the practitioner, is seen to have value as a symbol or poetic expression of some greater truths, and serves as a reminder or focus encompassing teachings, thus embodying a pragmatic purpose to facilitate and enhance Buddhist Practice. ... We don't insist that others abandon their beliefs in things we reject, and we remain open minded even if skeptical and agnostic or (based on present evidence) unbelieving. However, for our own practice, we reject certain aspects of traditional Buddhism … and all other religions and philosophies … if not meeting the above tests of substantiation and relevance.

Hard at work selling your brand of Buddhism. Good luck.

[DGA]

boda, why do you think anyone should take Sam Harris' book seriously? To me it looks like another rehash of Buddhism Without Beliefs, which doesn't really hold together conceptually (among other problems).

[boda]

boda, why do you think anyone should take Sam Harris' book seriously? To me it looks like another rehash of Buddhism Without Beliefs, which doesn't really hold together conceptually (among other problems).

Jundo seemed to be having some trouble distinguishing between spirituality and religion. I suggested that Harris' book might be helpful in regard to that difficulty.

[Astus]

An example of how Zen practice and mindfulness looks fairly the same.

Watch this video (2 mins) first.

Then compare the followings from a discussion in a Zen group:

A quote from Dan Leighton initiated the discussion:

"Zazen is not about something else - when we sit, in our regular daily practice, we just sit, it's not about reaching some other state of being or mind, or experience, or understanding in the future. Just this is it. We see what's actually happening in this body/mind here and now, quite apart from our stories about who we are or what the world is or what we want to get from practising - it's not about something else - we're not practising to get some other place in the future - the point is just to enjoy the next breath, or the breath that's happening right now. To appreciate our uprightness or to appreciate our expression of Buddha's murdra right now. ... It's ACTUALLY this... we sit upright like buddha. and that's the point, we are not sitting to get something else, if that was the meaning of our zazen then it would just be another business transaction. It's hard to get this because that's how we think of our lives, we think we're doing something to get something else out of it. "

So I asked how it is different from blankness. Someone replied:

"this is not about 'blankness' this is about dynamically allowing ourselves to be present in every instant. It is very much part of the bodhisattva path. This was part of a talk on dogen and the lotus sutra - talking about the part of the sutra which discusses the myriad bodhisattvas coming up from under the earth - he quotes Dogen saying "the family style of all buddhas and ancestors is to first arouse the vow to save all living beings by removing suffering and providing joy. Only this family style is inexhaustibly bright and clear".
The things you bring up about feeling hungry and eating, or being mindful of others is not irrelevant at all, but during zazen... the most important thing is zazen.
I'm reminded of a thing Taisen Deshimaru infamously said "When you're doing zazen, don't think about sex, when you're having sex, don't think about zazen""

Another person's explanation:

"When you finish Zazen, take the Zafu with you.
I was once told that sitting is like a launching pad, once we get up from the Zafu, keep yourself in the buddhas space and being present all day.
Also, when you practice Gongfu tea you must be totally present in every single thing you do or you'll ruin your tea. Every single movement and gesture is vitally important. Bring the gongfu practice into every action in waking life is a lure expression of being "this just is" So, when doing gongfu, practice Gongfu. When taking a shit, shit gongfu. When brushing your teeth, brush gongfu. When eating, eat gongfu. When chanting, chant gongfu. When sitting, sit gongfu. When frak, frak gongfu."

[Sara H]

I think one thing that's important to remember on this post, is that "Zen" is often, erroneously used interchangeably with "Zen Buddhism" and "Zazen Meditation"

And it's important to use those terms separately because we are talking about two different things.

Zen Buddhism, obviously, is far more than just mindfulness. Right Mindfulness is only one step of the Eightfold path, and even if one were to equate meditation with mindfulness (which I will explain why that's incorrect in a moment), Zen Buddhism does far more than just meditation as a practice. The Precepts are fully half of our practice, along with many other aspect such as the Dharma, ceremonial, etc.

Now what about mindfulness itself? Is mindfulness the equivalent of Zazen meditation? The answer is no.

This is because in Buddhism, all "mindfulness" is not what we are practicing. Buddhism specifically distinguishes between "Right Mindfulness" and wrong forms of mindfulness, and we do recognize wrong forms of it.

The Buddha said Right Mindfulness is:

"One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.

"One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.

"One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness.

"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.

"One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-1

Okay so, for example, lets take in mind an example of Right Mindfulness with regards to Right Action.

The Buddha said that Right Mindfulness with regards to this is:

"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness."

So, in order to understand what is wrong mindfulness in this context, we also need to understand what is wrong action, in this context. So what is wrong action? Well, the Buddha said that wrong action is:

"One discerns wrong action as wrong action, and right action as right action. This is one's right view. And what is wrong action? Killing, taking what is not given, illicit sex. This is wrong action."

So, Right Mindfulness, in this context is using mindfulness to refrain from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct.

And wrong mindfulness, in this context, is using mindfulness to participate in killing, stealing or sexual misconduct.

This applies to all areas of the Noble Eightfold Path as well.

Essentially, Right Mindfulness in Buddhism, is keeping the Precepts, and specifically, refraining from the wrong conduct that they prohibit.

Right Mindfulness in Buddhism, is using mindfulness to refrain from these kinds of conduct.

So, when we meditate in Zen, we are using meditation, along with keeping the Precepts, to further Preceptual action and conduct.

Obviously, someone using mindfulness to do conduct that is not Right Conduct from a Buddhist perspective, would not be doing Right Mindfulness.

For example, Raytheon, is a military contractor that has a mindfulness program. But they make weapons for killing, which is something that is considered wrong livelihood by Buddhism, not to mention killing is breaking the Precepts and wrong action.

Somebody using mindfulness for that purpose would not be doing Buddhist practice, nor would they be practicing Right Mindfulness according to Buddhism. Same with a sniper using mindfulness to help them be a better sniper.

[boda]

Somebody using mindfulness for that purpose would not be doing Buddhist practice, nor would they be practicing Right Mindfulness according to Buddhism. Same with a sniper using mindfulness to help them be a better sniper.

So to be clear, anytime a Buddhist practitioner has wrong speech, view, resolve, action, livelihood, etc., they are not doing Buddhist practice. If that's the case, why do they call it practice?

[Sara H]

Well Buddhist practice, is training with the intention to teach oneself to refrain from those things.
That's why it's called a practice.

It's not "you must do this perfectly all the time, or you're not doing Buddhist training".

But there is a big difference, between training to "teach oneself to refrain from" and simply using mindfulness techniques do for wrong means such as killing or making weapons.

[boda]

Well Buddhist practice, is training with the intention to teach oneself to refrain from those things.
That's why it's called a practice.

So a practitioner must have unfaltering intention or it's not Buddhist practice... or maybe intention is practiced also.

But there is a big difference, between training to "teach oneself to refrain from" and simply using mindfulness techniques do for wrong means such as killing or making weapons.

I don't think anyone uses mindfulness techniques to kill or make weapons, actually. Except maybe samurai or kamikaze pilots?

[Sara H]

Yes, they do. As I mentioned previously, Raytheon, which is a weapons manufacturer, has a mindfulness program, and snipers in the military also have been known to use mindfulness.

And this applies to any other form of wrong livelihood or wrong conduct.

Whether mindfulness is Right Mindfulness or wrong mindfulness depends on what it is being used for.

[boda]

Yes, they do. As I mentioned previously, Raytheon, which is a weapons manufacturer, has a mindfulness program, and snipers in the military also have been known to use mindfulness.

And this applies to any other form of wrong livelihood or wrong conduct.

Whether mindfulness is Right Mindfulness or wrong mindfulness depends on what it is being used for.

For the sniper it's being used to stay alive, essentially. That's wrong?

For the Raytheon worker, perhaps it will help them find greater compassion, and a more wholesome job.

[Sara H]

I can only answer your question from a Buddhist perspective.

Buddhism does not consider all forms of mindfulness to be "Right Mindfulness"

The Buddha specifically distinguished between wrong forms of mindfulness, and Right Mindfulness.

We don't consider any and all forms of "mindfulness" to be good in and of themselves.

Mindfulness is considered a tool, and like many tools it can be used for harmful or helpful purposes.

However, in Buddhism, "Right Mindfulness" has a specific meaning, as does wrong mindfulness. And we do recognize that wrong mindfulness exists.

Just like there is Right Action and wrong action, so too is there Right Mindfulness and wrong mindfulness.

Not all actions are Right Action, and not all mindfulness is Right Mindfulness.

[boda]

Secular mindfulness as described by Jon Kabat-Zinn:

• Mindfulness means maintaining a moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment.
  
  Mindfulness also involves acceptance, meaning that we pay attention to our thoughts and feelings without judging them—without believing, for instance, that there’s a “right” or “wrong” way to think or feel in a given moment.

I suppose you are saying, Sara, that you believe there is a right or wrong way to think or feel in a given moment.

[Dan74]

I think what Sara is saying is very plain to see. Mindfulness can be put to good uses and bad uses. On its own, it is close to neutral - it can help Wall Street sharks and bodhisattvas. Just because a Wall St shark using mindfulness may realise the folly of his pursuit, doesn't make mindfulness a complete path.

Without the broader Buddhist view (not just of the ethics, but other important Dharma) it doesn't make for a spiritual path.

[boda]

I think what Sara is saying is very plain to see. Mindfulness can be put to good uses and bad uses. On its own, it is close to neutral - it can help Wall Street sharks and bodhisattvas. Just because a Wall St shark using mindfulness may realise the folly of his pursuit, doesn't make mindfulness a complete path.

Without the broader Buddhist view (not just of the ethics, but other important Dharma) it doesn't make for a spiritual path.

Sara wrote that secular mindfulness is not "the equivalent of Zazen meditation."

And you are wrong that secular mindfulness groups exclude ethics. Not knowing even that, how can you come to the conclusion that it can't be a complete path? I suppose you would first need to define what a complete path is.