Hindrances to meditation
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 16 minute read This excerpt is from Chapter 10 and follows on from The Dhyanas. Morality By morality the Buddha doesn’t mean conventional morality, but the natural morality that consists in first seeing, and then bringing into being, the conditions that actually lead to happiness in experience. Hence morality is keenly tied to the practice of mindfulness, in particular the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, thus: Mindfulness of the body We usually think of morality as being concerned with curbing our desires so that we do not do harm, and promoting beneficial outcomes, but Buddhism has a broader remit, because there are conditions other than these that have a positive or negative bearing on suffering; the body is one. I feel that many Buddhists are vague about this; they do not view the state of their body as an ethical issue, only their intentions. As a result, they may wilfully disregard their bodies’ state, and, as a result, when they come to meditate will effectively waste much of the session fighting their body, rather than getting on with the meditation. Although the monk can in theory practice mindfulness of the body in all situations, in practice it is most easily developed in sitting meditation, in which new input is reduced to a minimum, allowing the bodily state of the meditator to gradually become apparent and be dealt with. By allowing his body to sit in a balanced way so that its’ bones take its’ weight, and its’ muscles relax in the knowledge they are supported, the mind will experience the singular, stable, reassuring physical presence of the body. Thus, the monk achieves the best conditions to support mental concentration and absorption; this is why the meditative state is so stable (no will is involved in maintaining it; only natural conditions that support concentration). It is only when this balance is not maintained that his mind is forced back from its’ singular focus to the world of bodily concerns. His ability to maintain his posture is supported or constrained by the energy levels in his body. Morality in the sphere of the body includes making sure that his energy Is neither sluggish nor over-stimulated. Counteracting bodily energy that is sluggish In life in general it is obviously extremely important that we have constant access to good physical energy, if we are to contribute anything substantial to the ‘world community.’ Shantideva puts it bluntly in relation to ‘The perfection of vigour’: ‘Without vigour there is no merit, just as there is...
The Buddha of fearlessness
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 8 minute read This excerpt is from the chapter ‘Safetyism,’ and explores its remedy in the fearless qualities of the dark green Buddha Amoghasiddhi (‘Unobstructed Success.’) Fearlessness So, what is the remedy for Safetyism? Obviously, fearlessness: a quality that the Buddha was known for. Vessantara: ‘On another occasion the Buddha’s cousin, Devadatta, in a fit of jealousy, bribed someone to let loose a wild elephant against the Buddha. We can imagine the scene: people scattering in all directions; Devadatta perhaps hidden somewhere out of harm’s way where he could watch events; the great beast rushing, maddened, towards the one still figure in a mud-dyed yellow robe. It is an extraordinary contrast. The elephant out of control, head tossing, trunk waving, furious; the Buddha still, erect, serene. … As the beast came towards him, the Buddha suffused it with maitri, loving-kindness. Nothing could have entered that enchanted circle of love around the Buddha and maintained thoughts of violence. The mad elephant discovered it was bearing down on the best friend it had in the world. Gradually its charge slowed to a walk, and it reached the Buddha docile and friendly. In this incident we could say that elephant met elephant, for the Buddha was often described as being like a great elephant because of his calm dignity and steady gaze. Perhaps elephant met elephant in a deeper sense too. The Buddha, having gone far beyond dualistic modes of thought, did not feel himself a separate, threatened identity opposed by the huge creature bearing down upon him. His maitri (love) came from a total feeling for, and identification with, the charging animal.’[1] Fear is not overcome by bravado: ‘… ultimately (fearlessness) can come only from insight into Reality. At that point we realize the illusoriness of the ego which we feel for. In particular, fear of dying, the primary fear of which all other are reflections, disappears. … The double vajra reminds us that fearlessness comes from a full and balanced development of all sides of ourselves. Without that, we shall always have a weak side, a vulnerability that we fear for, and keep having to protect. Even more, we shall have an unexplored aspect, an area of uncharted terrain within, whose characteristics we may experience, projected onto the outside world, as people and situations that are unpredictable and threatening. … It is all too easy to keep developing one’s strengths, and to try to make use of them in all situations. Some people even manage to become totally identified with a single talent or a powerful position. From the spiritual point of view...
Guilt
Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book… © Mahabodhi Burton 15 minute read This excerpt is from the chapter ‘Woke As Old Testament Religion’ and goes into guilt in all its forms, including Buddhism’s view of where guilt is helpful and where it is not. An accelerating trend in taking offense In 2008, Christian Lander joked in Stuff White People Like that being offended was something a certain brand of white people enjoyed, alongside attending film festivals and wearing vintage T-shirts. Today, such a person hearing that joke would likely: ‘launch into a hissing tirade about how there is nothing funny about people trying to dismantle the prevalence of white supremacy and all whites’ “complicitness” in it. If he were to write that book today, Lander would be unlikely to include that joke, which is an indication of the extent to which there is something in the air that we hadn’t seen until quite recently.’[1] A critical mass of white liberals no longer quietly pride themselves in knowing they need to be offended about certain things, ‘but now see it as a duty to excoriate and shun those (including black people) who don’t share their degree of offense. To some, all of that may sound like mere matters of manner and texture.’[2] Third Wave Antiracism, McWhorter claims, harms black people in the name of its guiding impulses: in insisting that it is racism when black boys are overrepresented among those suspended or expelled from schools for violence, ceasing to suspend or expel perpetrators only leading to violence persisting and a declining skillset among the young black population, which white liberals are complicit in. The high priests of Woke today: Joel Kotkin’s Clerisy (See Chapter 3) tell us just how we should speak and think. Religion, McWhorter contends, has no place in the classroom or elite university, nor in our codes of ethics, nor in delineating how all members of society are to express themselves, and ‘almost all of us spontaneously understand that and see any misunderstanding of the premise as backward.’[3] ‘Yet, since about 2015, a peculiar contingent is slowly headlocking us into making an exception, supposing that this particular new religion is so incontestably correct, so gorgeously surpassing millennia of brilliant philosophers’ attempts to identify the ultimate morality, that we can only bow down in humble acquiescence.’[4] The liberal middle-classes are often fully unaware of just what they are doing: ‘Question these people for real and they howl as if having a finger pulled backward. But it isn’t that they don’t want their power taken away: The Elect see themselves as speaking truth to power, not as occupying it....
Visitors since 20 March 2024
Users Today : 34
Users Yesterday : 23
This Month : 492
Total Users : 13919Subscribe via Patreon
Subscribe to my YouTube channel
