Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun (see also "We're Cool!") has another interesting commentary, this time on Buddhism and psychiatry. He notes that for the past several years all manner of prominent Buddhists and prominent psychiatrists and psychologists have been coming up with Buddhist-related practices to promote good mental health hygiene.
Todd makes two points. One, he says, the psychotherapists don't acknowledge that "ideals such as compassion, respecting human dignity, overcoming negative emotions and practicing awareness" are also found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "Practicing loving kindness, for instance, is the central teaching of Jesus and the church."
That's true, but (1) Christianity itself often seems to need reminding of the loving kindness thing, and (2) the Abrahamic religions for the most part (there are exceptions, such as Sufism) have forgotten whatever practices they might have had to enable mindfulness, release negative emotions, etc. In other words, these things aren't just valued in Buddhism; Buddhism has specific ways to do them that the Abrahamic religions either never had or have forgotten. This is one reason Christians such as Thomas Merton have sought out Buddhists for instruction.
Todd's other point comes from a Theravadin monk named Thanissaro Bhikkhu who calls the blending of Buddhism and western psychiatry "Buddhist romanticism" and says the western psychiatrists are watering down Buddhism. And I can see some validity in that.
However, Thanissaro Bhikkhu loses me here --
Thanissaro argues Buddhist-oriented therapists are making a mistake by stressing goals such as interconnectedness, wholeness, spontaneity and "oneness," which he sees as western spiritual and philosophical values. ... Thanissaro believes true Buddhists are required to seek detachment from the world.
Wow, do I ever disagree with that, especially the part about detachment. But maybe this is a Theravada-Mahayana distinction. Mahayana emphasizes interconnectedness; nothing is really separate. We all inter-exist with each other. This is not a "western" view of Buddhism, but a Mahayana one.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu is definitely a hardcore Theravadin, so it doesn’t surprise me to read that his take on Buddhist practice is so heavily polarized toward the ideal of renunciation. I’d like to read/hear Thanissaro’s original words on this, though, rather than Todd’s interpretation.
You’re right in stating that interconnectedness is hardly just a Western philosophical value. I find it hard to believe that Thanissaro would be naive enough to dismiss this fact, which is why I’d like to read the source material.
Interesting story. Thanks!
While your point about the Abrahamic religions having all but forgotten whatever methods they might have once had for achieving mindfulness is a point well taken, nevertheless you might be selling these faiths a bit short. First, all three had or have mystical sub-movements in which meditative states are sought (not just Sufism) and second, all three emphasize concentration on prayer. Prayer, of course, is directed toward the Deity–nevertheless, at its best prayer becomes a mindful state that carries over to the rest of life. The Jewish practice of reciting a blessing over things that are beneficial or necessary for life, e.g. the blessing over bread, is meant to create a mindful sense of gratitude. I think that Buddhism has these faiths beat by a mile when it comes to mindfulness training, but mindfulness development is nevertheless present in the Abrahamic faiths when you look for it.
Another subject that is just loaded.
I doubt that the bhikkus’ point here is accurately described. Hardcore or not, his opinion should meet certain logical standards or they are not Buddhist. Lots of words that could be interpreted many ways, even in that paltry quoted paragraph.
Ignatius Loyola might have a thing or two to say about Christianity and mindfulness but the Jesuits lost themselves in BS semantics (and more!)hundreds of years ago.
Early Christianity resembled the dharma teachings so much that I can’t believe more has not been made of this.Unfortunately these were all labeled heretical in the 3rd century. Lots of great Christian monks but too many died burned at the stake by their own church.
I agree – a real shame that whatever Thanissaro Bhikkhu said was paraphrased by the author rather than quoted – who knows what he actually said.
“Thanissaro believes true Buddhists are required to seek detachment from the world.”
Actually, he was misquoted. The point is that a lot of Western dharma is actually rooted in the thought of the Romantics rather than anything in the Pali Buddhist sutras (although the Mahayana stresses things like “oneness of existence). For those who aren’t aware of it, Theravada and Mahayana have never really been logically compatible and don’t really conceive of “enlightenment” or “nirvana” in the same way:
“Although some non-Theravadin Buddhist texts insist that happiness can be found by abandoning one’s smaller, separate identity and embracing the interconnected identity of all interdependent things, this teaching cannot be found in the Pali canon. The instability of conditioned processes means that they can never provide a dependable basis for happiness. The only true basis for happiness is the Unfabricated.
The Pali discourses are quite clear on the point that the fabricated and Unfabricated realms are radically separate. In MN 1 the Buddha strongly criticizes a group of monks who tried to develop a theory whereby the fabricated was derived out of the Unfabricated or somehow lay within it.”
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.html#part3-h
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
James — While it is true that Theravada and Mahayana don’t define enlightenment and Nirvana in quite the same way, the Mahayana teachings are more subtle than they might seem on the surface, and are not exactly as Thanissaro describes them.
Hi Brothers
Seems like buddhism.about.com could be a great forum for me
I am ecstatic to have stumbled upon it.
Who knows what happens next… All I know is: “Remember to always be yourself. Unless you suck.” — Joss Whedon :
Lol!
Anybody do Textiles
Looking forward to a good long membership here!
South Carolina,Jamestown
it seems the very ‘problem’ with this discussion is of a ‘religious’ nature. This or that ‘canon’ is right or wrong. The Buddha said to investigate the teachings of different teachers and decide for yourself if their ideas are workable and make sense. The minute it descends into this is right, that is wrong, it reminds me of other theistic religions that many Buddhist followers are desperately trying to avoid. Remember compassion and humility. It will lessen the need to be ‘right’. It will only encourage you to do the right actions and have right intention. There is no way to be ‘wrong’ if you work to end suffering. Keep it simple. Buddhism was not meant to be a religious debate, but a ‘challenge’ to yourself to be awake. Thank you for sharing brothers and sisters……….
There’s a bit more to it all than just “making up your own mind” and “challenging yourself to be awake.” I agree it is not about doctrine, but it is about practice, and practice isn’t just something you do with your rational mind.
for online with confident