What does it really mean to accept Buddhism?
I was tempted to embark on this monologue after a discussion I had with a much respected and valued colleague a few days ago. It arose after I made a statement that you have to practise meditation if you call yourself a Buddhist. He hotly contested this and stated that nowhere in the Buddhist text is this so stated. He did not accept the arguments I put forward and I now wish to “state my case” on my Blog so that I could share my ideas with friends and colleagues.
In my view, what the Buddha taught was a solution to a problem which he recognised as Universal. This is big, he is talking about ultimate Truths and not just a recipe for a happier life. When he stated what is known as the Four Noble Truths, it was a solution which he developed purely through introspection and reflection. This is very different from traditional evidence-based theories which could be verified through experiment. Buddhism is very experiential and cognitive.
The first noble truth is that there is Dukkha (loosely translated as suffering, or more appropriately unsatisfactoriness) in this World and this is the main reason why we can never experience lasting and permanent happiness in this World. If this is not accepted as true, there is absolutely no point in going further into the doctrine unless it is just from curiosity or as an intellectual exercise. It is not my intention to speak for the proposition and outline the case for Dukkha.
If the first truth is accepted even provisionally (“tell me more, I am interested”), then the second and third truths follow naturally. The second being the truth on the origin of dukkha and the third being that it is possible to end suffering. The Final or fourth truth is the Truth of how to stop suffering, which is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path (itself in three parts of 2,3 and 3 items for each part).(Wisdom or Panna, Virtue or Sila and Concentration or Samadhi)
If the four truths are accepted as a reasonable working hypothesis, then the scientific materialists will ask the natural question, “what is the evidence that this is true?”. The first 3 truths could appeal conceptually to a lot of people by just applying to their own life events and concluding that it seems a reasonable hypothesis. The whole approach is very familiar to me as a Doctor as this is exactly what I would do with a patient.That is, look at the symptoms, determine the causes after reaching a diagnosis and then prescribe the medicine.
A lot of questions will arise even at this stage. What is happiness? Who am I and are we discussing my future happiness or my current happiness or both? Does this teaching require the acceptance that death is not the end and that there is something beyond? If one accepts that death is not the end, then what are we referring to as a continuation in some form after death? Are we composed of a physical body and soul and is it being said that the soul soldiers on from one body to another? How is this compatible when Buddhism apparently also states that there is no permanent unchanging immutable soul? Are the rewards of a Buddhist life directed to an afterlife or can results be experienced in this life? Again, this is not the place to expand on these very important questions.
(2) He accepts that it is true and accepts that the truth is not open to traditional scientific methods of verification. He seeks no further clarification and follows the Path or some elements of the Path (He refers to He/She).
(3) He accepts that it is true and accepts that the truth is not open to traditional scientific methods of verification but also accepts that reflective introspection and concentrated inward thinking could sharpen his mind giving him the ability to self-realise what the truth is. This is a big step away from how we usually acquire knowledge and formulate theories. The Western approach is looking out of ourselves and the idea that we have a mind with inherent powers to “see” things and understand what happens around us and “awaken” is new, although not totally, as some of the great scientific thinkers such as Einstein probably could have experienced it. Debatable? Yes of course. It is indeed a Mind-body-brain problem. At this stage, it is just a faith that such practice will enable him to see the truth, and he is willing to train his mind and to see for himself whether this happens. He accepts on faith that he has the potential. He looks at it like somebody who is told that in order to see the stars, he needs a telescope and provided he puts in the required effort, he can acquire it and then see the stars. No amount of reading and “education” will give him that telescope.
(4) He accepts that it is true and accepts that the truth is not open to traditional scientific methods of verification but also accepts that reflective introspection and concentrated inward thinking could sharpen his mind giving him the ability to self-realise what the truth is. At this stage, it is just a faith that such a practice will enable him to see the truth, and he is willing to train his mind and to see for himself whether this happens. He accepts on faith that he has the potential. He looks at it like somebody who is told that in order to see the stars, he needs a telescope and provided he puts in the required effort, he can acquire it and then see the stars. No amount of reading and “education” will give him that telescope. But unlike the previous example, he also understands that the deep understanding and awakening he is seeking cannot occur by meditation or “Bhavana” (more appropriate than meditation which is now loosely used to describe any kind of mental concentration exercise), alone. The 6th 7th and 8th steps in the Path cover the aspect of Meditation but it is important to understand that the 8 steps in the Path are not sequential. They are intertwined and interconnected. The spiritual awakening promised by following the Path can occur only if all aspects are covered. One who has virtue and wisdom must also have Concentration; sila, samadhi are essential for the practice of panna). Unless this happens, although meditation will achieve mental states and understanding of different levels, which are “supernatural”, true awakening or enlightenment cannot occur. The person who meditates regularly and intensely, may experience glimpses of the Path but will after a variable length of time, come back to base but for the Enlightened one, it is a Path of no return, and what it is like to be in that state and “who “experiences it are beyond our human capacity to comprehend. But it is my understanding that the post enlightened state is not tantamount to "nothing". It is not nihilistic.
Now I come back to my theme. If you truly accept that Buddhism explains our existence and how unsatisfactory it is although there are temporary highs, and that death is not the end, and that there is permanent salvation by following the Noble Eightfold Path, then it is incumbent on you to follow it. If you truly believe in the Medicine that will cure you, isn’t it folly not to take it? Adherence to the Path and indulging in Mental training including meditative practices (6th 7th and 8th steps chiefly) because you have accepted that you have the innate capability to attain Enlightenment and escape forever from this existence (samsara) is what you would do if you truly accept the Buddhist solution. I call such a person a Type A Buddhist follower.
But there are other options.
You could accept the Buddhist solution purely through Faith, and not through self-realisation as above. You could adopt a more leisurely journey and have smaller expectations such as just a happier life in this existence, being better armed to deal with the inevitable problems and misfortunes that surely lie waiting and in the next birth, hope for a decent one in a good family. You will, therefore, lead a life adhering to the 5 precepts, the odd retreat and meditation session and basically a “good” moral life. Within you, you may even harbour the thought that “maybe in my next birth, I will be ready to tread the Path more assiduously”. This is a perfectly understandable attitude but not the one adopted by a person who really wants to achieve enlightenment and end this samsaric existence. I call this type of person a Type B follower
Ultimately, the problem I posed at the beginning and debated with my friend may be down to semantics. You may argue that both Type A and Type B are practising Buddhists and while Type B does not practise Meditative practices, he is still following Buddhist principles. My contention is that you don’t even need to be a Buddhist if your expectations are limited and you are not actively seeking enlightenment, which the Buddha says, is possible to attain in this existence.
I am reminded of a sermon I heard recently at the Buddhist Vihara in Manchester. The venerable priest posed the question, "as a Buddhist, what should be your aim?". His answer was "Nirvana".
Mahendra
29th January 2018.
Manchester. UK
