TAKING REFUGE IN MINDFULNESS

Buddhism is essentially an education – some have called it an 'educational system' – as well as a praxis consisting of various ideas, teachings, practices, activities and ways of understanding ... as opposed to ‘beliefs’ ... for Buddhism is not a 'belief-system.'  Shakyamuni Buddha said, 'Do not believe, for if you believe, you will never know. If you really want to know, don't believe.'

A Buddhist is said to ‘take refuge’ in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, but what does it mean to ‘take refuge’? Well, let me start by telling you what the words do not mean.

What follows is very important. Taking the Three Refuges is not about faith or belief ... nor ‘salvation’ as that word is usually understood in Christianity.  No, ‘taking refuge’ involves not faith or belief but a healthy, empirically-based confidence and affirmation based on both personal experience and objective knowledge.

‘Taking refuge’ is not some act or posture of weakness or cowardice whereby one seeks to retreat or withdraw from the pressures of life and seek 'shelter' elsewhere. On the contrary, ‘taking refuge’ is an act of direct, mindful engagement with life itself ... in all of its fullness.

The threefold affirmation of ‘taking refuge’ involves various undertakings and commitments, as well as notions, of:

·    returning [to one's 'true nature'], ‘coming home,’ ‘finding one’s home,’ 'dwelling in,' and ‘being at home with,’

·    reliance, adherence, and ‘holding on to,’

·    spiritual discipline in the forms of ‘giving up’ and ‘letting go’ of certain things ... as well as establishing or laying foundations for future growth and development, and

·    ‘finding,’ 'learning,' 'abiding,' 'being at one with,' and understanding.

The original Pali words of the ‘Triple Gem’ (or ‘Three Jewels’ or 'Three Refuges') – that is, the three ‘I take refuge’ lines – when translated literally, read, ‘I will undertake to find my home in ... .’ Expanding on that idea, in the Infinite Life Sutra the Buddha taught us to 'dwell in the wisdom of true reality.' And what is that? Well, we all share a common life 'entity' – life itself, that is, the very livingness of life. Each one of us is part of life's self-expression. (The word 'self,' here, means self-actualizing.) Now, Buddhists refer to that common life 'entity' as the Dharma-body.

Insofar as the Buddha is concerned, ‘taking refuge’ involves turning one’s back on one’s attachments - which include such things as fixed or inflexible ideas and opinions - and delusions in order to return to, and rely upon, a state of awareness and understanding. As I have said many times before, there is no need to believe when there is understanding. (The very word 'Buddha' – a Sanskrit word – means both awareness and understanding.) Further, it is not a matter of blindly following Shakyamuni Buddha. On the contrary, it is written in the Kalama Sutra that Buddha asked his ‘disciples’ not to believe certain things simply because he said them, or because they were commanded by so-called holy books. No, we are to ‘prove’ all things, and, as I have said many times before, there is nothing to ‘believe.’ What a relief! What a blessing!

Insofar as the Dharma is concerned, ‘taking refuge’ involves giving up various erroneous views about ‘self’ ... including the very notion of ‘self’ itself ... and relying upon a right view of things, that is, seeing things with choiceless awareness ... as they really are. (The word 'Dharma' refers not only to the teachings of the Buddha but also to things, events and phenomena – in fact, everything in the universe, hence the connection with mindfulness in the form of both awareness and understanding.)

Insofar as the Sangha is concerned, ‘taking refuge’ involves turning one’s back on the methods and weaponry of worldly conflict, discord and disharmony, and relying upon and drawing strength from the community of learning, that is, the fellowship of likeminded people. Metaphorically speaking, and more importantly, 'taking refuge' in the Sangha refers to purity of mind and harmony in life.

Taking the Three Refuges means committing oneself to a certain praxis and lifestyle. It is not a matter of being ‘saved’ by the Buddha. We must ‘save’ ourselves, that is, the persons we are, by moving from a ‘sense of self’ to a ‘sense of Being [or "Be-ness"].’ Yes, Buddhism is based upon the principle that we can change our lives by changing the way we see our ‘selves’ and others. It is a means of ‘self-deliverance.’ (No, not in that other sense!) There is no need for any outside saviour.

Taking the Three Refuges means experiencing ‘a feeling of being at home in the universe,' which was Professor William James' definition of 'religion.' Wonderful words – a feeling of being at home in the universe. Taking the Three Refuges is not something you do just once, although in order to become a Buddhist it must be done – that is, affirmed – with deliberate intent and with some formality (even if it be done privately by you alone) on the very first occasion. (Undertaking the Five Precepts is also part of Buddhist 'initiation' and practice.) No, taking the Three Refuges is something you do on a daily basis and from one moment to the next ... mindfully.

In certain sects or denominations of Buddhism – for example, Shinnyo-en – the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha are conflated. (In all traditions of Buddhism, it is acknowledged that, although there are three 'jewels,' they are all set in a 'single crown.') Thus, the Buddha is said to be ever-present in his teachings (the Dharma) and in the community of learning and practice (the Sangha). I like that idea. It is a bit similar to the Christian teaching that Jesus is ever-present in both the Word of God (the Bible) and his Church (the 'Mystical Body of Christ'). Jesus is reported to have said, 'The person who has seen me has seen the Father' (Jn 14:9). Buddha is reported to have said, 'The person who sees the Dharma sees me.' Fascinating.

Then there is what is known in Buddhism as 'Buddha nature,' that is, the 'Buddha within.' Now, not all Buddhists assert that there is such a 'thing' as ‘Buddha nature,’ but for the most part I find the idea quite attractive. As I see it, ‘Buddha nature’ is not a ‘soul’ or ‘self’ but simply the inbuilt potentiality we all have as human beings to ‘awaken’ to our true being ... as fully awakened or enlightened human beings. In that regard, the Sixth and Last Patriarch of Chán (Zen) Buddhism, Master Dajian Huineng, made it clear that 'taking the Triple Gem' simply meant returning to one's true, innate 'Self-Nature.' (In Esoteric Christianity there is the idea of the indwelling 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' [Col 1:27 (NKJV)], which some see as the Christian 'equivalent' to what is called 'Buddha nature' in Buddhism.)

Thus, ‘taking refuge’ in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha means resorting to the practices by which Shakyamuni and others since have achieved ‘enlightenment’, that is, total freedom from the ‘bondage of self.’ It means finding within those three things, and within the person each one of us is, the teacher, the teaching, and the community of learning and practice that will enable us to ‘wake up’ and ‘stay awake.’ Mindfulness was the form of meditation that the Buddha Shakyamuni successfully used to achieve enlightenment. Yes, there are other forms of meditation – even within Buddhism – but mindfulness is the only one which has the ‘imprimatur,’ so to speak, of the historical Buddha (who otherwise taught us innumerable 'ways of practice'). That’s good enough for me. Anyway, I find it works ... and that is the way Buddhism is supposed to ‘work’ as well. It’s entirely a matter of direct experience and empirical proof.

In this short YouTube video the Rev. Koyo S Kubose of Bright Dawn Institute for American Buddhism demonstrates how to ‘apply’ the Three Jewels in one’s meditation practice:

Now, as Richard Nixon used to say, let me make one thing perfectly clear. You do not need to become a Buddhist to ‘wake up.’ Any person who is prepared to ‘come home’ in the sense described in this blog is, for all intents and purposes, a 'student of the Triple Jewels,' and is able to find within their own personhood all they need to become free from the bondage of self. So, come alive, wake up ... and stay awake ... mindfully.

RELATED POSTS

BIGOTED BUDDHISTS

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BUDDHISM

A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

JESUS OR BUDDHA? WHO’S ‘BEST’ FOR TODAY’S WORLD?

MINDFULNESS IS A PATHLESS LAND

For much of my life I have fought an inner – and at times also an outer – battle of sorts as regards my attitude to, and participation in, religious bodies and organizations. To some extent, the battle is an ongoing one. It is this – should I, or should I not, involve myself in institutional religion? Part of me sees value in participating in the activities of organized religion and part of me doesn’t. It’s as simple as that.

Regular readers of my blogs and some of my other writings (eg this address here) would be aware that the teachings of Krishnamurti (pictured left) have had, and continue to have, a great impact upon my life and my thinking, and it was Krishnamurti who, in an historic and oft-quoted speech delivered at Ommen, Holland on 3 August 1929 proclaimed that religious organizations cannot lead us to Truth.

This is just a small part of what Krishnamurti had to say on that day:

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path.

The statement, ‘Truth is a pathless land,’ has always troubled me. What does it mean? If there is ‘land,’ it must surely be possible for there to be, or to create, one or more paths over that land. Of course, it always occurred to me that Krishnamurti was speaking metaphorically, but what did he actually mean? Well, it was only recently that I read what follows:

Truth is perfect and complete in itself. It is not something newly discovered; it has always existed.

Truth is not far away; it is ever present. It is not something to be attained since not one of your steps leads away from it.

The great Zen master Dōgen (pictured right) wrote those lines. Reading them was an epiphany for me. It is quite likely that I had read them before, but reading them recently was a real ‘awakening’ for me. Truth is ‘not far away’ but ‘ever present.’ Further, it is ‘not something to be attained’ because  ... yes, you are Truth in the sense that Life is Truth, and you are an integral part of Life’s Self-expression or Interbeing. Life cannot other than be. You cannot be less than life. Never.

That’s it. There is no path. There is no need for a path. There is nowhere to 'go.' You are already 'there.' That is why some Buddhists speak of the ‘ever-present Buddha Nature,' the ‘ever-present Buddha Mind,’ and the 'Ever-Present Buddha.' That is why some progressive and esoteric Christians speak of the 'Cosmic Christ,' the 'Mystic Christ,' and the 'Living [or Master] Christ' (as opposed to the historical Jesus). The words don’t matter a damn. What is being described, among other things, is a state of being in which there is an emptiness of what has been referred to as ‘self-nature.’ We move from a ‘sense of self’ to a ‘sense of Being’ ...and even to a sense of Non-Being, difficult though that may be to understand. Indeed, it is incapable of being understood or described in a rational sense ... but it can be experienced. How? Well, by the regular practice of mindfulness. That's one way.

Mindfulness involves the choiceless awareness of what is ... from one moment to the next. Mindfulness is a conscious participation in the livingness of life in the recognition that Life is manifesting itself at all times in you ... and as you.

Now, having said all that, is there any place at all for organized religion? In my view, yes. If Truth is everywhere present – and even Krishnamurti acknowledged that – then it must be capable of being ‘experienced’ (if that be the right word, and I suspect it isn’t) in religious organizations and the like. You cannot be less than Life or Truth ... wherever you are or go. Further, participating in the rites, ceremonies and rituals of organized religion can be quite transformative if one approaches it in the right frame of mind.

However, we need to be very careful here, because it seems inherent in the nature of organized religion – or perhaps in those who occupy positions of religious authority and power – for there to be a tendency to assert that Truth lies outside of us when, as I see it, we are the embodiment of Truth.

I know what I am now going to say is heresy to conservative Bible-believing Christians, but I don’t care. I am proud to be a heretic, and I don’t mind being called one. You see, the word ‘heretic’ comes from a Greek word meaning ‘one who chooses.’ I choose to be different. I choose to affirm what, in good conscience, I see as the true position in relation to any matter. As I see it, Jesus was a heretic as well, which is one of the reasons people rose up against him. Now, Jesus’ purported utterance, ‘I and the Father are one’ (Jn 10:30) [TNIV], is not an expression of his being, or claiming to be, God or the Son of God in a unique or exclusive sense. No, that is not how I see it. To me, Jesus is saying, in effect, ‘I am one with life itself – the very ground of being. There is no separation between the person that I am and the source and fountainhead of life itself. Not one of my steps leads away from life, which is truth.’

The difference between Jesus and most of us is that he was fully and mindfully aware of his true spiritual identity – at all times and in all places. For the most part, we live and act mindlessly ... and are thus only half-alive at best.

Mindfulness is a state of ‘at-one-ment’ with Truth ... that is, with all that is. Mindfulness is a 'pathless land.'

RELATED POSTS

KRISHNAMURTI AND THE TRUE ESSENCE OF MINDFULNESS

NANSEN KILLS A CAT

THE MINDFUL MIND OF NO-MIND

YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE

 

NANSEN KILLS A CAT ... MINDFULLY!

Are you familiar with the Zen kōan ‘Nansen kills a cat’? If not, let’s ‘pass’ it now! It goes like this:

The monks of the eastern and western Zen halls were quarrelling about a cat. Nansen held up the cat and said, ‘Monks, if one of you can say a word, I’ll spare the cat. If you can't, I’ll put it to the sword.’ No one could respond so Nansen finally slew it. When Jōshū came back in the evening, Nansen told him what had happened. Jōshū, took off his straw sandals, put them on top of his head and left. Nansen said, ‘If you had been there I could have spared the cat’ (Mumonkan, Case 14).

The kōan is in two parts. The first part concludes with the words, ‘... so Nansen finally slew it.’ Let’s look at the first part first. (‘First things first,’ after all!)

So, the monks of the two halls – note the sense of ‘duality’ in that – are quarrelling ... about a cat. Are we not like those monks? Arguing about something as ordinary as a cat? (It has been suggested by some commentators that the monks may have been arguing about something supposedly more important ... like, whether the cat had buddha-nature ... but it doesn’t really matter. They were arguing ... and getting nowhere fast.)

We are told that each person has their own particular ‘story’ ... their own version of truth. This is supposed to lead to less quarrelling, but all it has led to is more subjectivism, relativism, dualism ... and quarrelling!

Worse, we quarrel, not just amongst ourselves, but also within our own minds. We live in internal discord and dis-ease. There is, for example, the ‘me’ that wants to work, and the ‘me’ which doesn’t. There is the ‘me’ that wants to exercise, and the ‘me’ which doesn’t. There is the ‘me’ that wants to smoke, and the ‘me’ which doesn’t. There is the ‘me’ that believes all life is one, and the ‘me’ which thinks that ‘I’ am separate from ‘you’, and so forth. Yes, the ‘I’ engages in seemingly endless internal dialogue with the hundreds of warring ‘me’s’ which we mistakenly take for our supposedly real ‘self’.

In the kōan no-one could ‘say a word’ which could put an end to the quarrelling. Does that come as a surprise to you? Can words really solve things? Come now. So Nansen kills the cat with a single stroke of his sword. A violent act. In many ways, quite unBuddhist ... despite the famous admonition, ‘If you meet the Buddha, kill him’ (which is very sound advice) ...but don’t take the kōan too literally. Nansen effects a dramatic end to all the useless arguing.

We must do likewise! Not literally kill the cat, but put an end to the constant toing and froing in our conscious minds. Yes, we must cut off all mindless thinking, and ‘still’ the mind so that it simply observes ... rather than rushing hither and thither, and going back and forth, endlessly and mindlessly. The regular practice of mindfulness is perhaps the most effective way of ‘slaying the cat’.

Now, let’s look at the second part of the kōan. What is the meaning of Jōshū’s putting his straw sandals on top of his head? At least one important commentator has referred to the old Chinese practice of putting one’s sandals on one’s head as a show of mourning. Maybe. Whatever it ‘means’, it is simply Jōshū’s spontaneous Zen-like response to the story.

Most commentators assert that both Nansen and Jōshū wield swords, even though there is no specific mention of Jōshū carrying, let alone wielding, a sword. Yes, it is said that Nansen wields the sword that kills, while Jōshū wields a sword that ... gives life! That’s right. Nansen's sword cuts through all thought and all notions of dualism while Jōshū’s sword leads the way forward. Jōshū shows how we are to live in a ‘place of no-thought’. We must act. How very Zen!

Now this is ‘clever’. We are the cat. The cat is the non-existent sense of self which must be slain. If the kōan is to be ‘solved’ Nansen must not only kill the cat but also himself, the monks, and ourselves as well. We are the cat ... and Nansen ... and also Jōshū! Amazing stuff, this Zen.

Whether in the course of formal mindfulness meditation or going about our daily lives, we will encounter mental ‘traffic’ of all kinds. What are we to do? Become an active participant – indeed, the ‘star’ – of our own ‘mental movie’? That’s so easy to do, isn’t it? No, just ‘observe’, ‘note’, and (if necessary) ‘label’. See the mental ‘traffic’ for what it really is ... just the noise of old monks arguing. Become aware, once again, of your breath. Then put your ‘straw sandals’ on top of your head ... and do what needs to be done in your daily life. If you do that – that is, act mindfully – then, as Nansen said in the kōan, the cat can be spared.

‘Nansen kills a cat.’