Richard Ollier has recently published an essay in the Journal of Global Buddhism "Dharmavidya’s Engagement with Hōnen: How a Contemporary British Pureland Buddhist Teacher Retrieves his Japanese Spiritual Heritage"*

It is a good academic article and, of course, interesting for me to read. I discovered that I am a post-secular Buddhist (but not a post-"secular Buddhist"). Well, I suppose that is true. Also that I reaffirm that Buddhism is a religion while undermining the academic understanding of the category "religion". I suppose that that is true as well. In fact, the article is very good all round.

The only point where I would quibble is on the references to mindfulness. Richard says that outside Asia Buddhism is now more or less synonymous with mindfulness but that in my approach that mindfulness is hardly mentioned and that mindfulness is not part of my understanding of Buddhism. What he means is correct, but this way of putting it is not. In fact, mindfulness is absolutely central to my approach to Buddhism, it is just that my understanding of what mindfulness is is quite different from what is generally put about in the West these days. I assert that my mindfulness is the real mindfulness and the common sort is a distant derivative psychological exercise that has lost the function that it had when Buddha deemed it a factor of enlightenment.

How I understand it is the way almost any scholar would have understood it a few decades ago, which is the same way as the people who originally chose the word mindfulness to translate sati (Pali) or smtiri (Sanskrit) understood it, namely as the practice of keeping something holy in mind. In particular, what a Buddhist keeps in mind is the Buddha and the Buyddhadharma. It makes no difference if this is a samghogakaya Buddha such as Amitabha or Quan Shi Yin or Manjushri. The point is that the core of Buddhism is refuge and keeping refuge in mind is Buddhism. All other practices reduce to or are built upon this one. Mindfulness is refuge.

In Pureland Buddhism, this takes the practical form of reciting the nembutsu. Nembutsu means "mindfulness of Buddha" since butsu is Buddha and nem is mindfulness. Pureland and all forms of Amidism are therefore practices of mindfulness in the original sense. All the other factors of enlightenment rest upon this foundation.

What is contemporaneously called mindfulness is something different. It is an alertness exercise. Such an exercise can have its uses, but it is a long way distant from what Shakyamuni was talking about.

* Journal of Global Buddhism Vol. 19 (2018): 43-59
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1494233

Views: 53

ITZI Conference 2019

Subscribe to ITZI Conference Newsletter

* indicates required

Blog Posts

SUCCESSFUL FIRST ELEUSIS SEMINAR

Posted by David Brazier on March 15, 2019 at 16:59 2 Comments

We have just had our first Eleusis Seminar on the theme of the Philosophy of Taoism.

Sixteen people took part and from immediate feedback it seems to have been a great success.

We shall do more.

There is a second meeting of a more open kind this evening.

PODCAST

Posted by David Brazier on February 27, 2019 at 11:59 0 Comments

This is a podcast on Buddhism and Buddhist psychology

Interviewer: Kaspalite Thompson
Speaker: myself

GROUP

Posted by David Brazier on January 11, 2019 at 9:43 3 Comments

I’ve always been interested in groupwork. Recently I’ve been facilitating a rather challenging group. It includes an older man who is enjoying his retirement, an outdoor type who does not say so much but clearly regards the other members as wimps, a writer who has an irritating obsession with etymology, one I think of as the wanderer whose life problem seems to be that of never having learnt to settle down, who tells endless entertaining stories of travels, love affairs and so on, and I was…

Continue

© 2019   Created by David Brazier.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service