MBSR vs Traditional Buddhism

[BioSattva]

Me either Bio, if I may address you as such?

Of course .

My plan for this week is to cut out any TV I've not planned to watch

Heh - I think I'm lucky having State-run TV so that it doesn't tempt me in the slightest.

[pranna]

I'd like to address the original question here.

I really appreciate this coming up in the forum. I also believe that "religions" tend to have a spiritual truth at their core, but then get corrupted when the institution of the religion begins to pile on rules, horde power, interpret the original teachings to include odd or superstitious meanings, appoint experts and demand loyalty, etc. etc.

I suppose Buddhism is prone to getting caught up in these same issues. I think from time to time offshoots have tried to shed the nonsense and start fresh, like Zen with its "just sitting" and "one pointed" teachings.. but then over time, those end up steeped in tradition, too.. and you get what's been called, "the stink of zen" -- the rituals and stories and rules have become so heavy that the original meaning is again lost.

I appreciate JKZ's use of mindfulness in stress reduction. 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. The reason Buddhism still appeals to me, given all of the above, is that it has some major insights to share that aren't all captured in the MBSR formula. Being in the present moment non-judgementally is never going to uproot the fundamental causes and conditions that keep us attached to the cycle of becoming, or Samsara, as they call it in Buddhism. 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 don't think MBSR is going to bring about those insights. I do think that people who meditate seriously within the MBSR framework will begin to have experiences and results that go beyond the MBSR curriculum and will start to ask deeper questions. For those people, Buddhism and it's meditative tradition will be an obvious choice for further study. Some will get caught up in the philosophical conundrums, such as past lives and merit and false gurus and the like and they'll be disillusioned and look elsewhere. Some others will find what they are looking for and manage to avoid the messier issues. I've been lucky in that I've been exposed to primarily excellent teachers in the vipassana tradition. They are western teachers who haven't gotten too caught up in those issues.. but still teach meditation techniques and give Dharma talks that inspire insight.

That's my 2¢.

Peace, all!!

[Gareth]

My plan for this week is to cut out any TV

I cut out viirtually all the TV in my life about two years ago. I have to say that it has made a massive positive impact on my life.

[JonW]

"I don't think MBSR is going to bring about those insights. I do think that people who meditate seriously within the MBSR framework will begin to have experiences and results that go beyond the MBSR curriculum and will start to ask deeper questions."

That can be true for some. Since starting my mindfulness practice, I've explored a few areas that have previously held no interest for me - particularly Zen and non-duality. I find the wider aspects fascinating. But I can understand why someone would be content with MBSR and not feel the need to search outside of that. For me, it's all inseparable.

[BioSattva]

Hi pranna,

I also believe that "religions" tend to have a spiritual truth at their core, but then get corrupted when the institution of the religion begins to pile on rules, horde power, interpret the original teachings to include odd or superstitious meanings, appoint experts and demand loyalty, etc. etc.

When does a philosophy or calisthenics methodology become a "religion", however? When does Schopenhauer's philosophy, for example, which has vast overlaps with Buddhist philosophy - something he recognized and celebrated, become a religion? When does Progressive Muscle Relaxation coupled with gymnastics become a kind of religious yoga aimed at 'yoking together' man and the divine? - I would say when a God or gods are involved. It seems a religion requires supernatural content to make it a religion, rather than a 'mere' health system.

I suppose Buddhism is prone to getting caught up in these same issues.

Indeed - if supernatural content is seen as essential to the practice in some way. In fact, it has mounted up to the point whereby it seems the supernatural content has undermined the essence of the mindfulness practices alleged to be at the very core of Buddhism in most schools. A great example is the clash between anatman - the illusion of a self, and the belief in an idiosyncratic mindstream particular to each individual continuing beyond birth and death - said to retain the karmic deeds of the individual as it moves through several lifetimes.

I have had countless discussions with Buddhist believers of this rebirth theory and how it helps a Buddhist to transcend their sense of self (or not, which normally appears to be the case), and it has always ended with either what I call an 'Insight Throwdown' (the person challanged with the logic assumes a loftier, more enlightened position, often verified by some esteemed Buddhist teacher) and says one can only understand the situation through direct experience that they have had, or they state that without rebirth no one will be 'scared into practicing' enough unless the fear an unfortunate rebirth grips them (!).

So it's either submission to mystical authority or living a life of practice motivated by a core of fear. Reading such books as Stripping the Gurus is enough to put anyone off submitting themselves to mystical authority, and being motivated by a core of fear, rather than compassion 'for compassion's sake', seems to be counter to what the famous positive mental attitude of Buddhism is all about.

I think from time to time offshoots have tried to shed the nonsense and start fresh, like Zen with its "just sitting" and "one pointed" teachings.. but then over time, those end up steeped in tradition, too.. and you get what's been called, "the stink of zen" -- the rituals and stories and rules have become so heavy that the original meaning is again lost.

Yes, and the more distant they became from the original teachings and the more attached they were to their own cultural traditions and beliefs, the more they didn't know what could be dropped and the more various aspects became replaced, so they took risks and remained conservative in areas where they probably didn't need to be. The first Buddhist monks coming to China from India, for example, found that it was too cold to live outside, so they needed purpose-built buildings. This was a huge transition from the flexible and meagre existence the monks in India enjoyed.

I appreciate JKZ's use of mindfulness in stress reduction. 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. The reason Buddhism still appeals to me, given all of the above, is that it has some major insights to share that aren't all captured in the MBSR formula.

I think this is why Jon Kabat-Zinn says the following in Full Catastrophe Living (2005), p80:

I used to think that meditation practice was so powerful in itself and so healing that as long as you did it at all, you would see growth and change. But time has taught me that some kind of personal vision is also necessary. Perhaps it could be a vision of what or who you might be if you were to let go of the fetters of your own mind and the limitations of your own body. This image or ideal will help carry you through the inevitable periods of low motivation and give continuity to your practice.

In Mahayana Buddhist practice this vision is represented by the Bodhisattva Ideal which I wrote about relative to mindfulness practice on my blog in the post titled: Deeper Vision for Long-Term Mindfulness Practice (Part 1): The Mindful Ideal.
Mindfulness for Dummies (2010) seems to go half-way with the following statement, p37:

Mindfulness is being developed to relieve the suffering of a whole host of different conditions, from eating disorders to anxiety in pregnancy, from reducing students’ stress to speeding up the healing process of psoriasis. These are all a wonderful flowering of applications of mindfulness, but keep in mind the original purpose and vision of mindfulness as a way of relieving all suffering, both yours and others, and developing a greater sense of compassion. Such
a large and positive vision enlarges the practice of mindfulness for those who share those possibilities.

So I wouldn't say MBSR is completely separated from Buddhism in it's approach - especially Mahayana Buddhism which of course includes all of the ancient Chinese, Japanese, and Korean schools. The Bodhisattva Ideal seems to be built into MBSR through quotes like the above to hint at a potentially deeper role. As far as more Western examples of Boddhisattvas or Buddhas are concerned - humans traditionally representing the idea of having "let go of the fetters of your own mind and the limitations of your own body", it seems they have more than enough - if they want to consider them human rather than godly. Saints, Sages, Buddhas, Wise Old People, Ghandi, Gandalf, whoever, people have more than enough inspiration to help other people and feel happy and in harmony with some great ideal while doing it.

Being in the present moment non-judgementally is never going to uproot the fundamental causes and conditions that keep us attached to the cycle of becoming, or Samsara, as they call it in Buddhism. 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.

Really? I don't think that's what the likes of the Third Chinese Zen Patriarch Sēngcàn (5th Century AD) is saying in his famous treatise, Faith in Mind (Xìnxīn míng):

"The Perfect Way knows no difficulties
Except that it refuses to make preferences;
Only when freed from hate and love,
It reveals itself fully and without disguise"

Being able to drop the judgements of good and bad - attachment and aversion - is insight into impermanence and no-self. If something is good we become attached to it, and if something is bad, we are averse to it. If life is good, we become attached to it, and seek a permanent self-view - a soul, and suddenly one has become a religious fanatic. So simple!

Attachment makes us crave permanence (i.e. non-death, or non-loss) and aversion makes us run away from impermanence (i.e. death, or loss). Attachment is getting caught up in a permanent view of self - this is why a big-shot bank manager may commit suicide when he goes bankrupt because he is 'a big-shot bank-manager' and can never be a bankrupt 'loser'.

I don't think MBSR is going to bring about those insights. I do think that people who meditate seriously within the MBSR framework will begin to have experiences and results that go beyond the MBSR curriculum and will start to ask deeper questions.

Well, I think it depends upon why they arrived at MBSR in the first place, and after having done the 8 week course, for example, whether they find some deeper vision or not as discussed above. I have begun a poll on this forum here to see what people consider their core reason for practicing mindfulness, and discuss the deeper implications of their relationship with MBSR as it stands at the moment. Feel free to join in here: POLL: Why do you practice mindfulness?

Buddhism and it's meditative tradition will be an obvious choice for further study. Some will get caught up in the philosophical conundrums, such as past lives and merit and false gurus and the like and they'll be disillusioned and look elsewhere. Some others will find what they are looking for and manage to avoid the messier issues.

Agreed - hopefully some of us who have walked some of the terrain already can point out some potential pitfalls. I still think it's safer to view Buddhism through MBSR-tinted goggles rather than drop the MBSR for what may appear 'deeper and more insightful teachings' within Buddhism. It could be a kind of self-sabotaging cop-out for people seeking to be the 'victim' of some religious perspective and not have to face reality head-on. I've heard many Buddhists, for example, say that their present suffering is due to unfavourable Karma from a past life - like it's their destiny and fate, and there's nothing they can do about it - trapped in an unlucky existential situation beyond hope, since there is no enlightened person around to lead them through the daunting forest of their suffering like there was in such-a-such period of human history. That's a shame in my opinion.

I've been lucky in that I've been exposed to primarily excellent teachers in the vipassana tradition. They are western teachers who haven't gotten too caught up in those issues.. but still teach meditation techniques and give Dharma talks that inspire insight.

Great - I have met many of them also. I even almost got ordained at one point. I just feel relieved that now there is a secular, scientifically and clinically-grounded (and therefore 'safe') route to helping people overcome their suffering which doesn't require me to wear a robe and do all other kinds of strange, seemingly unnecessary things.

That's my 2¢.

Thank you so much for exploring this.

[pranna]

BioSatta, Whew. Really got some traction on that comment thread, there..

It sounds to me like you're not actually pitting MBSR VS. Buddhism as the title suggests. You're finding the best of Buddhism in MBSR (and digging deep to make sure the insights into impermanence, no-self, and non-attachment stay relevant). Hey... I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I think what you're doing is great. If a more secular, scientific approach works better for you, then stick with it. I also read the blog post you linked to -- Bravo. What a wonderful read.

I wanted to address one thing you mentioned, because it's something I've learned this year and who knows... maybe posting it will help someone along the way. The idea that one's karma comes from the past and is therefore inescapable is missing a very key point. It is true that our present conditions are based on past causes in the sense that all interactions are long chains of causes-and-effects -- leading up to the present moment. But there is also a "simultaneous causality" -- meaning that the past may serve up the dish, but how we eat it is our choice right now. Both the causes from the past and our present moment mindfulness (or careless reactionary habits) come together to create our reality. I wrote a blog post on this, if you're interested: http://pranna.com/blog/2012/12/sequenti ... causality/

I don't have time to work through all the comments at the moment.. but I love where you're going with it.. and I think we each find our own path according to our tastes and what works for us. It is truly a shame when people abandon their search after getting turned off by some of the stickiness you mentioned.. and I know that does happen, but then I guess THAT is their path in a sense.

Keep up the good work, brother.

[BioSattva]

I think what you're doing is great. If a more secular, scientific approach works better for you, then stick with it. I also read the blog post you linked to -- Bravo. What a wonderful read.

Thanks

The idea that one's karma comes from the past and is therefore inescapable is missing a very key point. It is true that our present conditions are based on past causes in the sense that all interactions are long chains of causes-and-effects -- leading up to the present moment. But there is also a "simultaneous causality" -- meaning that the past may serve up the dish, but how we eat it is our choice right now. Both the causes from the past and our present moment mindfulness (or careless reactionary habits) come together to create our reality.

I think you may be talking about co-dependent arising, what Thich Nhat Hanh calls 'interbeing'. For me, this teaching gives me conviction in my lack of self-nature in the sense that, say, if I am eating an apple, and half of it remains in my hand - in that moment, what part of the apple is 'me'? The apple is being converted into 'me' in my belly, and not only the apply, but the tree the apple grew upon, and the tree came from the sunshine and the clouds and . .. oh shit, the whole universe.... Who am I again? What should I be doing?

'I' am a seamless part of the whole universe, so 'I' doesn't do anything individually - it doesn't die and it isn't born, since death and birth take place in the realm of interbeing - the realm of no self nature - so I needn't have fear of anything; everything is as it should be, and I can just enjoy the ride - as long as I have the skill to remain on the vehicle(!). The teaching grounds me in this way - when I remember it...

Keep up the good work, brother.

I really appreciate your comments - your heart and brightness is very tangible in your writing.

I want to say one or two (hopefully last) things about Buddhism and it's established doctrines while we are on the topic, and that is that Buddhism started out as an oral tradition reciteded by multiple people at the same time, because it's more difficult for an individual to change the teachings that way. Gautama Buddha didn't want it to be written down. Later on, it was written down, and who knows whether, if Gautama Buddha had been around, he would have approved.

Sri Lanka holds the oldest copies of Buddhist teachings in the world - the Theravada tradition. In the same way that Christianity has the New Testament, and many gospels, such as the Gospel of St Thomas which suggests Jesus was married, etc., were left out, it seems the case that ancient Buddhist traditions cherry-picked written teachings and practices which fitted their own view - quite possibly for political means. It is widely understood how the Romans used the New Testament to unify their empire, for example. So along the way there has been plenty of opportunity for Buddhism to have become warped. Even the carved figures of the Buddha seem to be against the original doctrines - since the earliest material focus was apparently an empty seat. I find this incredibly intriguing to contemplate from the perspetive of modern MBSR; there is a kind of resonance there, it seems.

As much as the various gospels making up the New Testament give different descriptions and accounts of the same phenomena, it seems the ancient Buddhist scriptures could have been prone to such 'pollution'. Take for example, the idea that Gautama reacted against the prevailing Vedic notion of the reincarnation of a soul - a person's true 'self' - moving up or down the divinely-created 'caste' scale based on Karmic deeds. He apparently made it very clear that this was not the case, since there is no inherent self-nature within an individual, and therefore no caste or existential 'pigeon-holing' possible. It seems he didn't do such a good job at teaching this, however, since he also apparently confirmed that idiosyncratic karmic 'seeds' continue between many lives of an individual person, and thus pointed to an idiosyncratic individual mindstream travelling between various bodies. How that was supposed to undermine a belief in a soul that can be pigeon-holed is mind-boggling.

Before someone mentions it, studies which record children reporting past life expriences often report based upon their cultural paradigms - for example, if it is thought that gender cannot change between lives, then children don't report past lives of a different gender. That points to nurture rather than nature. What could easily be causing people to want rebirth to be so real is that any kind of rebirth is better than death. Even though they will not be around to suffer death (they may suffer illness or accident, but after they die they will be gone), they fear it. Mindfulness tackles this with interbeing and the no-self it points to; death is a false concept in the sense that something disappears or that we experience it.

The differences between various Buddhist doctrines within different schools - for example, Bodhisattva (Mahayana) vs Arhant (Theravada) should be evidence enough that there was some jiggery-pokery going on. It doesn't really matter who wrote their teachings down first, and thus had the earliest books; that is no indication of purity. The point is that there are big doctrinal differences, and thus the purity of teachings within Buddhism is always questionable.

Hopefully what I have been writing here will go some way towards illustrating the minefield laid out before any MBSR practitioner wishing to hand over the essence of their practice to Buddhist teachers. I still maintain that it is far safer to view Buddhism through MBSR, and to look for what supports MBSR, rather than undermine MBSR through esoteric, very possibly minsinterpreted or warped ideas.

[pranna]

Bio Sattva,

Yes, yes. I still agree that religion is messy, especially when it manifests itself over long periods of time. The messy-ness causes confusion. The confusion leads to doubt. The doubt causes abandonment of the whole enchilada - or a lot of fighting among factions. Either way, it isn't a good thing.

I was thinking of your question from the prior post: What makes a system into a religion? You suggested that a "god" may be involved (While Buddhism says there isn't a "god" I'm not sure if "Lord Buddha" fits that descriptions for you or not. I don't use "Lord Buddha" EVER in my thinking or writing, but you do see it in the old school writings). 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. Buddhism teaches liberation from suffering, release from the wheel of samsara, nirvana. I think that qualifies. Some suggest it's not actually a religion, but I think by this definition it probably is. You've suggested MBSR has some pointers that suggest deeper values and long-term practice but in my experience it stops short of suggesting an absolute. I'd love to hear your thinking on this.

Why do I like Buddhism? I've been very inspired by reading zen stories and koans, zen literature (the Suzukis and the Watts books and zen flesh and bones, etc), the Path-with-Heart kind of stuff, and I've recently really started enjoying translated works from the Theravada tradition. I've avoided getting into any formal Teacher/Student relationships, but I love retreats, weekly dharma talks and sitting groups, and reading well-written books. I find that even with some of the confusing/confused philosophy debate that can arise -- there is a real richness to the stories and teachings. There is a heartfelt and sincere pointing to something that lies beyond our typical, sterile view of the world. There is the sense that suffering can end; can be brought to an end, through careful observation (mindfulness) and insight (into impermanence, no-self, clinging-as-cause-of-suffering, etc). 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. I have become aware of more and more subtle experience. Many many things that are easy to overlook become objects of attention. My mindfulness has gotten much deeper - and it's allowed me to see into things like clinging and attachment - to see them in their parts and how they function. The whole mess of knots and tangles that keeps us from being free is finally being inspected closely - and this allows for the possibility of freedom! Not just stress reduction, but freedom from attachment, freedom from suffering, freedom from the endless cycle. The concept that attachment (clinging) leads to suffering is the heart of Buddhism - and seeing clearly enough to bring awareness to attachment and releasing it leads to freedom. Getting a taste of this freedom is a very powerful motivator.

As I said before, I don't want to convince you to change your path. I know from your blog writing that you've read a ton, thought about this a lot, and have come to a comfortable conclusion for yourself in terms of your practice. That's awesome. You're certainly in good hands with Mindfulness. I just want to point out that Buddhism may have some value for people who are inspired to look deeply at experience and can use the motivations and frameworks to better understand themselves, be kinder with themselves and the world, and eventually orient themselves towards release.

I keep hearing that you're concerned about the paradox you see in the no-soul vs. karma doctrines. I understand the philosophical quandary there. It's delicate for sure. It can lead to all kinds of posited fabrications, like a "storehouse of consciousness" and "transmigration". The Metaphysical discussions are always going to lead to some unsupported assertions because who can talk about that stuff with authority?? Nobody I know. Sometimes I think those things are best understood as metaphors. Sometimes I simply think we don't understand the fabric of reality well enough to know if there are contradictions inherent in those ideas or not. I say take them all with a grain of salt... if there is value in them, soak up the value. If there is only confusion, leave those concepts alone. This is why I'm happy with my Western Vipassana teachers.. they don't tend to dwell in the metaphysical stuff -- they deal with what is coming up in practitioner's experience.

Loving the talk, by the way.

Deep bows from your similarly-thinking-yet-considers-himself-buddhist friend,
Dw

[JonW]

Boy, this is a great thread and I wish I had time to reply properly.
So, just for now...

"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 pondered those comments long and hard. I appreciate your take on it but I'm not sure I agree. I've talked to people who practice mindfulness and they admit that they're not too concerned with the "mindfulness" element of it. In other words, they use it purely for relaxation. They seem perfectly happy with that. Maybe that's as "free" as they want to be or need to be right now. I wouldn't want to judge them for that.
If we "get" mindfulness at all (because, let's face it, there are those don't get it at all), then surely we all take to it differently in some way. Just taking the people on this forum, we all seem to have a different take on it, however slight those differences may seem.
When talking about the 8-week course, Jon Kabat-Zinn is fond of saying that the ninth week of the course is the rest of our lives. During that long ninth week, mindfulness can take us in all kinds of directions. Of late I've found myself reading and thinking a lot about nonduality, for instance. Mindfulness led me into nonduality and I do find it fascinating. But I'd stop short of saying that anyone "needed" to have an insight into nonduality to be truly free. Isn't it possible for someone to feel free simply by practicing mindfulness? Do we discover nonduality when we're good and ready for it? Just as we find mindfulness when we're good and ready?
It's the idea of anything being sufficient or insufficient in and of itself that slightly troubles me here. As though mindfulness itself isn't capable of taking us deep enough. Because, for some people, clearly it is enough. For now. And surely this is all about NOW, whether we're talking about Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, mindfulness, nonduality, or any other label we care to put on being attentive to life in this moment.
That's just my take on it. For now.
All good things, Jon

[pranna]

Jon,

Thanks for your comments, and again, I don't think I disagree with your points. I simply want to represent another of the facets of the conversation. I think some people are perfectly at home with Mindfulness as taught in the MBSR classes and they'll get a lot out of them for the rest of their lives -- reducing their suffering, bringing a level of acceptance and peace that is clearly beneficial to themselves and those around them. If clarity, presence and ease of being is the goal, then mindfulness is the tool of choice.

I jumped in here because the thread started by comparing MBSR and "Traditional Buddhism" and seemed to point out the pitfalls of the latter. I can give an understanding nod to those points, but also wanted to bring the perspective that Buddhism is a rich tradition with a lot to say on the subject of mindfulness and meditation and that it shouldn't be abandoned straight away simply because the metaphysical issues present challenges. (Many paths that could be considered under the buddhist umbrella have much of the richness without the paradoxical bits). And for those that have the inclination to want to dive deeper into the metaphysical underpinnings - to explore emptiness, suchness, nirvana and the likes.. then there's plenty of material for them to turn to -- if they aren't already turned off to it.

Bottom line is that I wanted to make sure the discussion wasn't missing the buddhism advocate. Some people here (in the "long-time [meditation] practitioners" forum) may very well end up exploring what the Buddha, and not just JKZ, had to say.

And your point about the silliness of stating anything that's "necessary" OR "sufficient" with regards to this entire topic is well taken. Buddhist concepts aren't absolutely required for enlightenment. Other traditions have their methods. Some people may get there without any method at all. But the Buddha taught a method that was aimed squarely at liberation and I think it's highly informative and well thought out.

I guess it's pretty clear where I stand on the topic. Hope I'm not boring everyone to death.

Peace to all.