I had an interesting American Buddhist experience last night. I am currently in Singapore, and went to a New Kadampa Tradition meditation center (or centre, in Singaporean spelling). I had been there once for a day retreat, but this was just a normal evening meditation session, with two guided meditations and a talk on the purpose of meditation in-between. Perhaps I was just jet-lagged, but I found the discussion to be quite disturbing.
The discussion focused on the five stages of meditation, which include preparatory practices, contemplation (or analytic meditation), single-pointed concentration meditation, dedication of merit, and subsequent practice. I am not going to describe all of these steps (unless someone requests it), but these are traditional (at least within some Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions). What I was disturbed by wasn't the meditation approach itself, but the cultural framework around it.
For example, here is some of the language used:
First, Buddha made it clear that we should examine each proposition carefully and test its utility for ourselves, partly because everyone's path is unique. "As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it (on a piece of touchstone), so are you to accept my words after examining them and not merely out of regard for me," says Buddha in Jnanasara-samuccaya [Bht 285]. Therefore, I have a hard time with concepts that were discussed such as multiple lives, good fortune, good luck, and blessings of holy beings. These feel too much like superstition to me. I am not interested in getting more money, luck, or angels. Whether there are holy beings capable of bestowing blessings on me seems like exactly the kind of question that Buddha refused to answer in the Kalama Sutra (aka the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 63). Whether or not such things exist are "not connected to the goal" of liberation from suffering, and therefore are distractions.
Second, I am uncomfortable with claiming that the goal of meditation is to be "happy all the time." I also dislike when someone says can experience "true" happiness with one approach, as if all of the happiness you normally experience isn't real and that only they have the "truth." These ways of describing the goal seem to reinforce dualistic thinking - that things are good or bad, right or wrong, happy or distressing. I don't want to be happy all the time! Clinging to that goal will only cause me to suffer more. If we believe the goal is to find some state of "true" happiness and to maintain it, then we will be greatly disappointed. If we believe that only one person/religion/political party has Truth, we will enhance our suffering.
Ultimately, this approach to considering the benefits of meditation feels very selfish to me. We want more blessings, more merit, more fortune, more happiness, etc. These are just more of the same selfish goals that keep us unhappy!
The discussion focused on the five stages of meditation, which include preparatory practices, contemplation (or analytic meditation), single-pointed concentration meditation, dedication of merit, and subsequent practice. I am not going to describe all of these steps (unless someone requests it), but these are traditional (at least within some Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions). What I was disturbed by wasn't the meditation approach itself, but the cultural framework around it.
For example, here is some of the language used:
- The preparatory practices "prepare us for successful meditation by purifying hindrances caused by our previous negative actions, by accumulating merit (or good fortune), and by enabling us to receive the blessings of enlightened beings."
- "Meditation is a mind that concentrates on a virtuous object, and that is the main cause of mental peace....When our mind is peaceful, we are free from worries and mental discomfort, and we experience true happiness."
- "If we train our mind to become peaceful we will be happy all the time, even in the most adverse conditions....Then day and night, in life after life, we will experience only peace and happiness." (All quotes from The New Meditation Handbook, by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso)
As an American Buddhist not specifically tied to any one tradition, I have a hard time with some of the assumptions underlying these statements.
First, Buddha made it clear that we should examine each proposition carefully and test its utility for ourselves, partly because everyone's path is unique. "As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it (on a piece of touchstone), so are you to accept my words after examining them and not merely out of regard for me," says Buddha in Jnanasara-samuccaya [Bht 285]. Therefore, I have a hard time with concepts that were discussed such as multiple lives, good fortune, good luck, and blessings of holy beings. These feel too much like superstition to me. I am not interested in getting more money, luck, or angels. Whether there are holy beings capable of bestowing blessings on me seems like exactly the kind of question that Buddha refused to answer in the Kalama Sutra (aka the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 63). Whether or not such things exist are "not connected to the goal" of liberation from suffering, and therefore are distractions.
Second, I am uncomfortable with claiming that the goal of meditation is to be "happy all the time." I also dislike when someone says can experience "true" happiness with one approach, as if all of the happiness you normally experience isn't real and that only they have the "truth." These ways of describing the goal seem to reinforce dualistic thinking - that things are good or bad, right or wrong, happy or distressing. I don't want to be happy all the time! Clinging to that goal will only cause me to suffer more. If we believe the goal is to find some state of "true" happiness and to maintain it, then we will be greatly disappointed. If we believe that only one person/religion/political party has Truth, we will enhance our suffering.
Ultimately, this approach to considering the benefits of meditation feels very selfish to me. We want more blessings, more merit, more fortune, more happiness, etc. These are just more of the same selfish goals that keep us unhappy!
I was quite aware, however, as I was having these uncomfortable feelings with the way meditation was being taught that my reaction demonstrated my own biases and limitations. Why was I being so judgmental? What are my assumptions that were being pushed against? If I accepted what was being said rather than fighting it, could it give me a new insight?
I don't pretend to have any answers here. The Buddha himself gave his teachings in what seem to be contradictory ways, based largely on understanding who his audience was. Maybe we need to lure people into a regular meditation practice with thoughts of being happy all the time, because that's what will motivate them. Maybe this approach was skillfully designed, because telling them that happiness and sadness are the same thing isn't really motivating.
Let's return to the question about what is American Buddhism? In this case, it seems that my viewpoint has real trouble with things I can't see or test for myself (such as receiving blessings from enlightened extra-terrestrials), and that I don't want to escape from my situation to be in a state of constant bliss (there are drugs for that). I don't want to be saved and I don't want my life to be different from how it is. Instead, I just want to accept it, feel it, and enjoy it (including the bad parts). Nonetheless, I recognize that my biases are my biases, and they do not in any way diminish the validity of someone else's approach.
Ultimately, my discomfort with the meditation approach made it much more valuable. I'll be going back.
