Integral Western Buddhism

[Aaron Owsley Manier]

In approaching the issues and pitfalls that must inevitably be faced to develop Western Buddhism beyond the egocentric coopting of boomeritic tendency, I want to echo Ken's chapter from Integral Spirituality, which right off the bat places view at the center of any authentic form of Buddhism. One of the main points of the views of Buddhism, the majority of the great wisdom traditions, as well as the integral model itself, is the interconnectedness and mutuality of all caused, created, and manifested form. As a result, bodhisattva activity through working with others to increase compassion and awareness and enable further grounding in bodhicitta is not an exercise of promoting one's own individual identity. An individual identity falters in the midst of perpetually shifting form, and the solidity of this identity can only rest on a conceptual touchstone of mental construction. However, as Traleg emphasizes in IS, it is incorrect to assume that "conceptuality must be dispensed with from the very beginning." So right view, in the case of an authentic non-dual wisdom, carries with it a conceptual framework of non-conceptuality and compassion arising from the ever-changing space of non-ego.

In light of this, how has the view of Buddhism, and indeed spiritual/developmental pursuits in general, become a property of one's conceptual identity? Why do statues of Buddha rest in high places of non-practitioners right next to their autographed pictures of Billy Ray Cyrus? And what needs to be done to remedy this situation?

It's no surprise to anyone actually reading this that we live in an incredibly materialistic culture. Our quest for possessions spills over into lifestyle, and often spiritual pursuits. While this might be a motivation for individuals to begin to take steps on the path, this view only furthers the strength of one's separate self sense and could be counterproductive towards the path itself. Indeed, these materials are essential foundations for the creation of a conceptual identity. In order to cut through this distorted view, a Western Buddhism needs to work to dissolve this solid self-conceptualization through a Western (conventional and post-conventional) lens. To most efficiently begin the development of insight, the practice and study should continually emphasize the playing out of self-no self/empiness-form, even if the emphasis is more intellectual and less experiential. This is why the work of Genpo Roshi, and others who have developed sudden practices for awakening to causal or non-dual states, is so essential to the Western view. By getting folks pried away from their discursive minds early on in the path, the unfolding of that understanding can continue to develop properly and whiddle away at those identity constructs. Patrick Sweeney, who has been presented as an integrally guided teacher, and his Kagyu Madhamudra practices carry with them similar sudden realizations as the Big Mind Process. However, while this sudden realization can be incredibly beneficial to begin to integrate a sense of right view, the gradual aspect of the unfolding of the path must be simultaneously emphasized. Just because an individual has a satori in a few hours doesn't mean they are enlightened. This takes time, discipline, and effort.

Unfortunately, this notion of identity constructs seems to expand from the individual into the community. I've observed that sanghas of older, more seasoned practitioners will grow complacent and arrogant, feeling they possess some knowledge that is esoteric, elusive, and pointing towards enlightenment. While there is certainly strength in the nature of their experience and the teachings they can give, fundamentally there is a materialistic identity formation present within this complacency. I am a seasoned practitioner, I know all of these wonderful things about the nature of the mind, I am a living representative of the Buddha. So what? What is being done with that? Knowledge is not action. Praxis is the key to true transformation, both individually and collectively, ethnocentrically or worldcentrically. As a result, Sanghas should be continually pressing their boundaries, evolving to better fit the modern concept of spiritual materialism, while at the same time holding dear to the view that this work is not for a solid identity, be it on a individual or sangha-wide level. Certainly the Wilberian model can be a great map for beginning to expand the notion of what Buddhism in the West is and should be doing.

Another important aspect of the Integral view applied to Buddhism and spirituality is the separation of psychological/emotional health (shadow elements) and spiritual pursuits. There's already many great discussions about this among the ISC teachers, and I look forward to seeing how these two realms of integral practice continue to develop and inform each other. My two cents: Meditation is not therapy. It should not be viewed as something to make a person better, healthier, more fit, ready to greet the day. While there might be some level of these benefits occurring, to hold this view of meditation practice runs the risk of coopting the practice for self betterment, and I emphasized the pitfalls of that view earlier. However, the ability to let go of a solid self sense is certainly, from my experience, very valuable to the therapeutic process, as it allows the space for repressed emotions and identity structures to rear their ugly heads authentically and genuinely. Meditation can help develop awareness of psychological issues, but doesn't really get to the root of them effectively. And, as some teachers have argued, dissolving a solid sense of self if that sense of self isn't the most stable can actually be an incredibly dangerous thing. Given the Western emphasis on psychological health as an integral part of the cultural landscape (particularly in the US), a Western Buddhism needs to address psychological health and spiritual unfolding separately while at the same time making sure to emphasize the value of psychological development as a part of the path.

These are just some thoughts that I posted on Integral Life. I'm very excited about finding OSI!


Cheers,

Aaron

[Mike Redmer]

hey Aaron I totally agree with what you said concerning combining sudden awakening practices and gradual by emphasizing both. But I respectfully disagree when you say that

"Meditation is not therapy. It should not be viewed as something to make a person better, healthier, more fit, ready to greet the day. While there might be some level of these benefits occurring, to hold this view of meditation practice runs the risk of coopting the practice for self betterment, and I emphasized the pitfalls of that view earlier."

Meditation DOES have proven health benefits both physically (lowers blood pressure, aids concentration and stamina during exercise etc.) and emotionally (happier, slower to anger, generally less suffering all round etc.). Though I agree it's not the whole picture. I would say, so what if people just want to do meditation for "self betterment"? Regardless of their motivations, I think we could all benefit from people who were less angry and generally happier. It's not ideal but I'll take it. David Lynch is a good example of this, he tries to sell TM meditation because of it's seemingly materialistic benefits (ie. you'll get what you want out of life, be more productive etc.). I think it's great! Go for it David! Make it mainstream! Make it cool! Have Nike sell meditation mats! It's my opinion we just need people becoming more in tune with their interiors however shallow or deep it may be.

But like you alluded to in your piece, meditation has an effect of whittling away ones identity and deepening. I think we should be encouraging everyone to meditate no matter their motivations. One's intentions mature as their worldview develops. And like Ken says meditation helps to move people through the stages faster.

But where I see a needed aspect of growth in Western Buddhism or just Buddhism in general, and tell me what you think about this, is emphasis on consciousness studies in general. Because although we have some what decent maps of enlightenment in the various mystical traditions, the whole "field" is in terrible need of an upgrade. What really is Enlightenment? Do different types of meditation practice produce different types or flavors of Enlightenment? Are some "better" than others? Is there a faster, better way of attaining Enlightenment? I believe these are the questions that Buddhist, along with other mystical traditions and scientist should be addressing in the next couple years.

What do you think?