The Middle Way
Is it wise to cut ourselves off more from the world and seek enlightenment on our own? How can it be, when the whole point is that all humanity is in reality one great indivisible being, and the divisions and separations and distinctions between one person and another are only illusions? Isn’t there something self-contradictory about the idea of pursuing enlightenment in isolation from other people?
and Alan replied
I have occasionally tested the waters of various religions. When I looked at Buddhism, I found myself dissatisfied with something that seemed to me essential to Buddhist metaphysics: a sense that enlightenment consists of turning inward, away from the world. My own spirituality is inspired by the world and the wonders in it; to turn away from this feels to me like betraying something important.
and I was confused ‘cause both of these presumed a great number of things that had nothing to do with the Buddhist spirituality with which I’m familiar (not that Scott claimed to be referring to Buddhism, per se.)
In the Buddha’s own story he explicitly rejects asceticism and withdrawal from the world.
Only a small minority of modern Buddhists are Theravada Buddhists, who state as a goal of their practice the attainment of enlightenment and escape from the Wheel of Life. Most are Mahayana Buddhists (which includes Zen and Tibetan Buddhism) who, instead, aspire to Bodhisattva-hood, where a Bodhisattva is one who is committed to returning to the Wheel of Life to assist in the liberation of all living beings.
To become a Buddhist one takes refuge in the Buddha, takes refuge in the Dharma, takes refuge in the Sangha. The Dharma is the body of Buddhist teachings, and the Sangha is the community of Buddhists. Without participating in a community, you’re not a Buddhist.
Like most religions this side of Judaism, Buddhism includes a monastic tradition. But nowhere does Buddhism suggest that everyone should be a monk, or live like one. Secret remote mountain monasteries are the stuff of pulp fiction, Madame Blavatsky’s channeling, and old self-help books — actual Buddhist monasteries are explicitly conceived as a part of a greater sangha, supported by, and giving support to a community.
There are dozens of organizations of socially engaged Buddhists , but as Phillip Russell Brown notes :
It is strictly speaking incorrect to see Buddhism as “engaged” or “disengaged”. There is simply Buddhism and it is by its very nature “engaged”. So when we speak or socially engaged Buddhism” we are in fact implying that a significant degree of “engagement” is part of the particular Buddhist practice being discussed
The heart of Buddhism is to be present in the moment. This is the exact opposite of withdrawing from the world. It includes learning to quiet the chatter of monkey-mind so that you actually have the opportunity to experience the world as it is. It’s not about not taking enjoyment in material pleasures, it’s about being able to do so without being caught up in comparing it to past experiences, wondering how long it’ll last, regretting the end of the enjoyment you know is coming, worrying about whether you’ll have that experience again, and how soon, etc., etc.
It’s about not being attached to pleasures, not about avoiding pleasures. And freedom from attachment doesn’t mean detachment. It means freedom.
Eat the strawberry. Carry the woman across the river. Eat when you are hungry; sleep when you are tired.
I think you're posing a falso dichotomy here. You can be present in the moment among people or alone in a meditation cave. Fact is, some of the meditation techniques in advanced Tibetan buddhism (for example, it's the one I know most about but I'm sure this applies to others as well) are very difficult at first and you're simply not going to be able to do them while juggling the demands of a job and a family and a normal social life. Yogis are regarded as specialist workers, in a way, technicians of the mind. They are regarded as doing this work for all sentient beings - that's why people traditionally bring them food and tea (or, in the west, retreat money) to make their work possible. Many such people (not all) emerge after a number of years to teach and guide. I know a man who did two three-year retreats back-to-back; he's now married with a daughter; I know a woman who did one such retreat after she had been married for some years; she's still married. Both of these people tour and teach meditation. It's not too ludicrous to take the time to learn how do to these things before you teach. But those who stay in retreat and do not come out into the world are regarded with just as much reverence, and maybe more.
Posted by Kate M. on April 16 2003 07:06
The tension is there in Christianity, too. Even those of us in denominations that Do Not Do monasticism run into people with the idea that we should be withdrawing from the world individually and focusing on our own something-or-other. ("Navels" is the word my brain automatically provides, but I know that's not what they'd say.) And everyone needs a break and some quiet time -- Jesus ran off into the wilderness away from the Keystone Cops crowding of the disciples a couple times -- but he came back. Like the Buddha.
I think it's easier for humans to understand a physical change (I was here in the city, and now I'm out there on a mountain somewhere) than a mental/spiritual one, and sometimes that makes it easier to effect a mental/spiritual change *with* a physical one. But it seems clear to me which is more important.
Posted by Mris on April 16 2003 07:27
[This is in reply to Kate's comment -- Mris snuck in while I was writing it.]
There were two different thrusts I was replying to... that spiritual practice is about selfishly turning away from others and isolating oneself, and the idea that Buddhism in particular labels the distractions of cultural life as implicitly bad things to be avoided. I was trying to cover a lot of territory, and it was late, and I was tired, and I got sloppy. You're right, of course, that one can be present in the moment alone in a cave, and that Buddhism includes techniques involving physical isolation.
But, as you say, they're a sort of specialist worker, and the greater context still involves service to others.
The points I really meant to get at are that the Buddhist view of spiritual practice isn't selfish (heck, it's self-destroying!), and that Buddhism in no way considers the distractions of societal life to be implicitly bad and to be avoided. These distractions can be challenging; avoiding them sometimes to see what thoughts and feelings arise in their absence can be a valuable exercise; but to label them as bad and to avoid them because they're bad is directly contrary to the point of Buddhist practice.
Posted by Zed on April 16 2003 07:48
In a sense, Buddhism says we're doomed from the split second after we perceive something and our brains make the choice "good/bad/indifferent". All the fancy practices can be construed in a sense to be intended to break down this reflex we all share. Once you get even a taste of how free you are when you're no longer devoting most of your mental cycles to that stuff, though, you're on your way.
Posted by Kate M. on April 16 2003 16:32