[Buddha-l] Rational or mythological Buddhism and Western Buddhist lay practice

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 12:38 +0100, Mikael Aktor wrote:

> The problem, in short, is that meditation as part of virtuosi practice
> is inseparable from a virtuosi lifestyle (monastic, renunciate,
> celibate etc.), and that such practice when becoming part of a modern
> lay Buddhist lifestyle (socially and emotionally demanding in relation
> to family, job etc.) creates psychological stress, tensions,
> disappointments, and even mental problems.

This is an interesting claim. I can't help wondering whether there is
any evidence to support it. Here in North American there are numerous
clinics that have incorporated meditation practices into rehabilitation
programs for cardiac patients, drug addicts, and victims of domestic
violence. Meditation is also being introduced, with often dramatic
results, into prisons. My guess is that if meditation were suspected of
creating psychological stress, tension and mental problems, it would
quickly be discontinued in those settings. We all know that there are
people who do not respond well to meditative practices, but it does not
follow from that that no one responds well to those practices.

> And anyway, are such quietistic practices well suited to people living busy 
> lives full of all the Western mental stuff like relationships, love 
> affairs, career opportunities, divorces etc.?

If you will accept anecdotal evidence, my experience has been that
numerous people with busy lives, relationships, career preoccupations
and divorces are acquainted with dukkha. And people who are acquainted
with dukkha are often highly motivated to make use of Buddhist teachings
and practices. And, if they are telling the truth about what Buddhist
practices have done for them, many people are benefiting enough that
they recommend it to their friends.

> After all, no pali sources (as far as I am aware of) recommend
> meditation for lay people, but daana, visits to stupas and other
> devotional practices.

Heaven forbid that anything should be different from what the Pali canon
describes.

> But the modern West does not accept limitations, we demand it all:
> love, sex, career AND nirvana (or at least occasional satoris).

There is not such thing as the modern West. That is a pointless
abstraction. There are individuals. Some are as you describe. Many are
not. This is an area in which generalizations are of limited value. And
I, for one, accept that limitation.

> Suppose one is a busy Westerner, webbed in job ambitions, emotional ties 
> to family, friends, former wives, present lovers, and kids from former 
> marriages - but very much in favor of the rational, human Buddha that 
> Dan Lusthaus commends. ;-) What kind of Buddhist practice goes with 
> that?

Dan can speak for himself, and he might very well disagree with my
answer. As a Westerner with more former wives than I care to admit but
very few emotional ties to family and hardly any friends, but very much
in favor of Lusthausian (Sukha-g.rha-vaada) rationalism, I would say
that the kind of Buddhist practice that goes with rationalism is a
practice known as critical thinking, accompanied by a good deal of
observation of my own mental states and actions and reflection on the
consequences of having them. Following the precepts, and thinking about
following them more effectively, is a Buddhist practice. Being kind to
strangers, and even to friends and relatives, is a Buddhist practice.
Being mindful of the environment is a Buddhist practice. Keeping an eye
on the policies set by governments is a Buddhist practice. Doing the
four foundations of mindfulness is a Buddhist practice. All of those can
be, and usually are, part of the practice of non-monastic Buddhists I
know.

> Or does our busy Westerner have to make the (rather un-Buddhist)
> choice that in the West Buddhism is (only) a philosophy, not a
> religious practice?

I guess I was absent the day the announcement was made that you had been
appointed to tell the world what is Buddhist and what is un-Buddhist.
You're not off to a very good start, in my view, unless you can tell us
what philosophy is and what religious practice is. To be honest, I am
very slow-witted, and I have to confess that after some thirty-five
years of studying philosophy and religious studies, I don't have the
faintest idea what distinguishes philosophy from religion. Moreoever, I
have never seen much point in trying to put either of those two labels
on Buddhist theory and praxis. I just practice things that I learned
from Buddhists and am grateful for it.

> Wouldn't some kind of more emotionally engaging practice be more
> adequate - even if not fully rational?

I have never felt a need to make a choice. Being fully rational has
never impeded my emotional engagement in the least.

> Note the success of Nichiren Buddhism in the West.

Why?

> A rational, humanized Buddhism may be appealing for intellectual 
> reasons, but what does it offer on the practical side?

Every practical thing a rational humanist needs.

> And if it offers anything, does that take Gombrich's problem about a
> conflict between virtuosi and lay lifestyles into account?

Yes, and I think we can conclude that Gombrich, although a great scholar
and the son of a famous aestheticist, is sometimes wrong. I think he
missed the mark pretty widely in his ruminations about "Protestant
Buddhism." His reflections show the dangers of making a priori
pronouncements rather than examining the evidence.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico