I can categorically state that I am not a Buddhist even though I can associate with many of the Buddhist practices. I would like to look into each of the practices and reflect how they relates to my own understanding and practice of mindfullness. But before I do that let me qualify why I am not a Buddhist. The first is that I do not agree with the supposition of Buddhism that suffering is a key concept and that we need to escape from this world in order to escape suffering. In my view this material world is a place filled with opportunity for the growth and development of the human being on all levels of existence: material, psychic and spiritual. Consequently my main departure point from Buddhism is not in their methods but rather in the fundamental assumption of the nature of the material world. Where the Buddhist sees suffering as the foundational problem that must be addressed my view sees self-mastery as the fundametal challenge. Selfmastery that leads to living a a beautiful life fully. Maybe a closer imagination will show however that I have more in common with Buddhism than what might be suggested by this preamble.
That being said lets look at Buddhist practices starting with the Satipatthana. The concept of sati as it relates to remembering is a familiar concept for me as a student of GI Gurjieff. Gurdjieff had firstly promoted self observation in that we need to learn to observe our thoughts, emotions and sensations as part of our normal day to day operations, secondly he emphasised a self-remembering where it is remembered that there is an “I” or an observer that is observing what is being experienced, felt and thought. So rather than sitting down and practicing “bringing to mind” Gurdjieff taught a practice of continually striving to practice self observation and self remembering on a continual basis. However while it seems that sati is founded on the notion of non-dualism between mind and body, Gurdjieff seperated the body, emotions and mind first before attempting to redirect them to function as a unity. The whole argument of Gurdjieff is that these “component” are not functioning correctly in normal human beings and therefore need to be rectified to work in conjunction towards optimal being. The aim of Gurdjieff is therefor not avoidance of suffering but rather to develop a consciousness that stop man from operating mechanically like an automaton. For Gurdjieff the foundational problem is mechanicalness or the lack of consciousness rather than suffering. The focus of Gurdjieff on the body, emotions, thought and ultimate observer fits well with the four meditations of Buddhism on the body, feelings, thoughts and mental events. I am not yet sure to what degree the last of the components mentioned by each shares in terms of definition and meaning.
I can appreciate it that the Satipatthana puts Sati (Mindfulness) alongside elements like concentration and wisdom. Indeed almost all the traditions that I have encountered places concentration as a fundamental building block towards any notion of increasing mindfulness. Wisdom is maybe the ultimate goal of enlightenment depending on how one decides to define it. The point is that all the traditions I have encountered concurred that ultimately some type of state of wisdom will be attained through the practice of mindfulness.
I concur fully with the idea that sati (mindfulness) works together concepts like sampajanna (discrimination) and appamada (conscientiousness) which is clearly in alignment with my own concept of mindfullness defining it as a increase both of our consciousness and conscience. In my own practice the two concepts are totally interlinked and has to work in conjunction. In Gurdjieffian theory it is not as apparent but Gurdjieff places the focus on growing both in knowledge and being. Stoics focus on mindfulness of what they can control but balance it with the concept of virtue. It seems therefore that most of the schools of thought I adopted as useful and coherent with my own viewpoints will concur that mindfullness must happen in conjunction with some type of moral cauldron that guides and shapes the blooming of mindfullness.
I came across similar notions that that of vipassana (insight meditation) and smatha ( calm- abiding meditation) in Rosictrucian ontology. Within Rosicrucian ontology there is the concept of active meditation that relates to vipassana and passive meditation which relates to smatha. Often in practice active and passive meditation is practiced in conjunction as two complementary rather than two seperate forms of meditation. From this perspective in my own experience concentration meditation seems to focus the mind on something specific while Insight meditation allows the insight to emerge naturally from the brain without placing any particular outcome expectation to the mind. As a practice active meditation is used to focus the mind on a particular focus point through conscious effort while passive meditation releases the mind to allow the subconscious to blossom and raise clear thought to the foreground to provide insight. As much as concentration is foundational to mindfullness, so is it also important that mindfulness a sense of equanimity or peace or calm result from mindfullness. Equanimity provides the balance and harmony within the mind that allows it to deepen the practice of mindfulness.
I can relate well with the idea that Zen Buddhism expound that the human mind is natrually pristine and clear – containing the perfect Buddha nature. Within Gurdjieffian teachings there is the concept of the central or true “I” which is the observer that is neither our thoughts, emotions or sensations but that aspect that is aware of them all. In Rosicrucian ontology it relates to the concept of “the Master within” or in other occult traditions “the guardian angel” which are seen as as some concept higher than normal thinking. In Christian mysticism it is often referred to as a Christ consciousness. Zen buddhism with its practice of allowing mental events and activities to arise and pass without infolving ourselves seems again closely related to my idea of passive meditation where the conscious mind discard its own thought process to become totally receptive to receive thoughts from the subconscious mind. It seems that Zen buddhism also moves towards the goal of a profound sense of peacefulness. Passive meditation shares the idea with Sikantaza as a discipline to just observe whatever arises from a metacognitive standpoint without judging or analysing it but rather to allow it to freely present itself. Many Western traditions as well as the Rosicrucian ontology adds the concept of contemplation into its fold as a later means to process the insight that was gained through passive meditation and is an important link between active meditation and passive meditation to gain practical insight that can effect our quality of life in a measurable format as the scientific approach would like to see.
From this brought analysis of the Buddhist tradition and its approach to mindfullness it is clear that in means and methods there is much that I can relate to on a superficial level. If one looks deeper into these concepts some additional differences might become clear. However on face value some basics are in common e.g. the need for concentration and a resulting condition of peacefulness and consequently a type of active and passive consciouness that works in conjunction to facilitate mindfulness. Although I cannot claim to be a Buddhist we have much in common and much. Maybe I should not be to quick to judge or draw conclusion fit I do not know enough.
zeal4living