pranna wrote:I got to thinking that any system that points to the absolute - and provides a means or path by which one may reach it (merge with it, end up in heaven, return to it, etc) may fit the definition of religion.
Looking back to my initial post to you above you will see I said "It seems a religion requires supernatural content to make it a religion", which is not something which automatically brings gods or God into the equation. Many philosophers have introduced systems which point to the absolute. Their ideas have never been considered a religion.
Science and everyday simple stuff is not at all far away from traditional zen teachings - the ancient Chinese Daoists were very keen observers of the natural world, and sought to simplify and 'lighten' their world so that they could have a freer, easier, and more efficient life. They seemed to be aware of the potential that stress had to shorten one's life and practiced simplicity and living in harmony with the dynamics of their natural environment in order to reduce their stress. Everyone knows zen and simplicity traditionally go hand in hand even before they even start MBSR. This is another big difference between Buddhist schools - Theravada and Vajrayana tend to go for much more complexity than Zen (Chinese Ch'an).
Complexifying the world with layers of consciousness, karmic subtle energies, various heavenly realms, etc., does not seem conducive to living a more stress-free life. MBSR can get a little complicated at times when one begins talking about the various feedback loops between mind and body, but using tension dynamics to unify it all keeps things simple enough in my opinion.
Returning to this point that you maintain:
pranna wrote:I really think that mindfulness is a great practice and one of the keys to ending suffering -- but I don't think it's sufficient in and of itself...Seeing clearly moment to moment is very powerful, but to be truly free on that larger scale, one needs to have some insights into impermanence and no-self.
I presented a logical stance on this previously - lets discuss the details of what I said before instead of repeating the same opinion if you are interested in questioning it, rather than 'preaching' it so to speak.
Regarding notions of an 'absolute state' - consider what unfolds as peoples' MBSR practices deepen. 20 minutes can be a struggle, but then 30 minutes can feel Ok after a while, and then 45 minutes is fine - MBSR mindfulness practice naturally deepens (especially with physically still 'formal' investment) with daily dedication and adherence to the core methodology. If one draws a line through this data - from 20 mins struggle, to 30 mins ok, to 45 mins fine - to identify a trend, then that line extends into the absolute, does it not? It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate the process off into infinity - to know that one can be more and more accepting of difficulties as life goes on until there are no more 'sufferable' difficulties left.
So of course MBSR points to the absolute - experientially. It doesn't need to pronounce some lofty ideal, MBSR practitioners can imagine for themselves where the practice can lead - to less and less stress, judgement, and more acceptance of 'what is' - that ends in liberation from all suffering - no anger, and no anxiety. Again; simple and easy. No 'higher states', no 'special powers of reasoning', or whatever terminology which can impose hierarchy, psychic authority, or existential control within a group.
What JonW states about MBSR bringing a kind of unspoken freedom holds value in the sense that as long as one has experience in MBSR and has heartfelt conviction in the daily practice, etc., then one could be said to be 'already enlightened' so to speak - they can see their enlightenment within themselves and the experiential understanding of the MBSR process can easily deliver them there - that trending line they have drawn through the data provided by their deepening practice points to Buddha. This understanding has been referred to within Buddhism as the mind which has awakened to the way - it is a kind of enlightenment in itself, since it can see the 'other shore', and knows how to construct and steer a raft to that place.
Practicing accepting 'what is' is a recognition of the problems associated with duality, again; experientially. I'm sure many Buddhists will be bamboozled by this experiential emphasis because often they have considered (like many Theravada scholar monks who do not practice seated mindfulness meditation but consider themselves Buddhists) that they can 'read themselves along the Buddhist path'. This is impossible and actually counterproductive. Shunryu Suzuki, in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, has the following to say in support of this experiential MBSR daily practice approach as being deeply profound without the need for being explicit about intentions or what enlightenment 'is', p100-101:
More important than any stage which you will attain is your sincerity, your right effort. Right effort must be based on a true understanding of our traditional practice. When you understand this point you will understand how important it is to keep your posture right. When you do not understand this point, the posture and the way of breathing are just a means to attain enlightenment. If this is your attitude, it would be much better to take some drugs instead of sitting in the cross-legged position! If our practice is only a means to attain enlightenment, there is actually no way to attain it! We lose the meaning of the way to the goal. But when we believe in our way firmly, we have already attained enlightenment. When you believe in your way enlightenment is there. But when you cannot believe in the meaning of the practice which you are doing in this moment, you cannot do anything. You are just wandering around the goal with your monkey mind. You are always looking for something without knowing what you are doing. If you want to see something, you should open your eyes. When you do not understand Bodhidharma's Zen, you are trying to look at something with your eyes closed. We do not slight the idea of attaining enlightenment, but the most important thing is this moment, not some day in the future. We have to make our effort in this moment. This is the most important thing for our practice.
MBSR is perfectly in line with this, as far as I am aware. Yes, enlightenment can be 'sighted' through the experiential trend of one's deepening practice, and achieving that enlightenment will help the greatest number of people, and pursuing that is noble and rewarding in itself so one doesn't need to be 'convinced into it'. It just happens of it's own accord. What is more essential is sticking to the simple method. Schools like Theravada and Vajrayana have not traditionally been good at promoting that idea and so have not apparently been so 'useful' to society - as the saying goes; "The proof is in [eating] the pudding". Zen has been successful in providing effective results into the modern age. Look at JKZ's Buddhist teachers - Shunryu Suzuki, Thich Nhat Hanh, Seung Sahn - Japanese, Vietnamese, and Korean Zen - all of whom inherited teachings from the origin of Zen - China. There is something to be said for that, and also the unsung hero(s) of MBSR and Zen's orgins - LaoTsu of Daoist Sage fame, and his disciples. Daoism apparently influenced Zen Buddhism a lot during its formative period. We can save that for another thread, however.
pranna wrote:The way the old school writings break down experience into it's parts - something like "seeing" becomes a whole chain: the eye, forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling born of eye-contact, perception and consciousness. This is awfully boring -- until it's not!! In reading this material and reflecting on it and allowing it to sink in... I feel my meditation has gotten much finer.
This is all fine - of course Buddhism can provide additional teachings and framing of practice and perception so that an MBSR practice can deepen. This is no evidence of Buddhism's 'authority', and therefore evidence of why one's primary alliegance should be to Buddhist teachers rather than MBSR teachers with regards to reducing stress and therefore suffering, however.
pranna wrote:Not just stress reduction, but freedom from attachment, freedom from suffering, freedom from the endless cycle.
MBSR points out that stress we suffer comes from attachment - from the endless cycle of judging thoughts which keep us clinging to certain unhealthy things and running away from healthy things. I don't think Buddhism adds anything extra to this view. Stress is just the modern word for what Buddhists call suffering. Suffering is unaccepted inevitable pain, and we become mentally over-stretched - stressed - when we do not 'work with' the inevitable pains of life and accept them. There is natural stress on the body in whatever one does, but MBSR points to the mind being at the root of unnecessary stress. Our bodies are geared up for the necessary stuff and we can relax into dealing with it effortlessly. The unnecessary stuff, however, is what will cause us to suffer if it is not worked with via MBSR.
Often religions can assert that they are the same as psychology or philosophy, sharing certain terms; building up a shared image of reality, and then suddenly doing a kind of subtle 'switch', playing on any superstitious beliefs or lack of confidence in the listener. Religions; apparently rooted in supernatural phenomena, have a huge propensity to hypnotise people and extract energy and resources from them - albeit while providing some kind of effective service, but once such formulas are established, it is only a matter of time before people who are very familiar with such systems exploit the resource and energy delivery mechanisms for grotesque levels of personal gain.
Looking into the recent scandal involving the the leader (and lineage-holder of a Japanese traditional Zen school) of the incredibly lucrative 'Big Mind™' apparent zen hypnotism movement in the US is evidence of how things can go quite wrong, for starters. That was probably the largest-scale modern 'Western Zen' movement comparable to MBSR. A glaring difference is the use of traditional, mystical, and ambiguous terminology, mixed with Western psychology. I have firm conviction that for any of this incredibly powerful Zen stuff to be kept pure and effective, it must all be kept simple, clear, 'Everyday' (Gareth you can pay me later
), and scientific as much as possible. Allow any opening for the power-hungry to creep in and they will - it's inevitable due to the projectable potential gains.
. Discussions can only take place as long as people are willing to discuss things, though, of course, otherwise posts can take on the appearance of a dictation. That said, I am happy for you to make any statement or contribution to this topic - it can only broaden my view, and I have really enjoyed exploring your angle with you.