Buddhist Meditation
The following paper is concerned with the relationships between Buddhism and meditation, and further, between Buddhist meditation, prayer and ritual. The nature and application of Buddhist meditation is what is at issue here therefore I locate the English term ‘meditation’ within a Buddhist context and explain how it relates to its consequent Sanskrit, Pali, and Prakrit terms. I argue that both the phenomenology of Buddhist meditation and the varied non-phenomenological and scriptural depictions must be combined to gain an adequate understanding of Buddhist meditation. The relationship between Buddhist meditation and prayer and ritual in general are also explored. I look at a contrast between these three phenomena and also examine their similarities, arguing that through these relationships Buddhist meditation, therefore, becomes a superior vehicle than prayer and ritual.
Using the English word ‘meditation’ can be problematic when applied to the numerous ‘meditation’ practices found within the various Buddhist traditions. The word ‘meditation’ is used to translate various and often unrelated terms from the Sanskrit, Pali, and Prakrit languages, the languages in which Buddhist scriptures were first recorded (Friedlander 2002, p. 13). Friedlander identifies three key terms that are translated as meditation, these are dhyāna (ध्यान), samādhi (समाधि), and bhāvanā (भावना) (Friedlander 2002, pp. 13-15). I will look at the meaning of each of these terms in turn.
Dhyāna is defined by Monier-Williams (in Friedlander 2002, p. 13) as ‘meditation, thought, reflection (esp.) profound and abstract religious meditations’. Friedlander (2002, p. 13) furthers this definition claiming that ‘…dhyāna relates to fixing the mind upon a particular subject’. These two definitions, however, do not go far enough in outlining this concept as it is presented within Buddhist traditions. The Pali term for dhyāna is jhāna which has particular Buddhist import. Buddhagosha Thera’s Samanta-Pāsādikā agrees that jhāna shares with dhyāna the quality of ‘fixing the mind upon a particular subject’, however jhāna goes further. Buddhagosha Thera argues for a connection between the term jhāna and the verb jhāyati which means ‘to burn’. Through the burning of oppositional states and oppositional qualities, and the burning of the passions, one is able to think clearly upon a suitable object (Mahāthera 1962, pp. 23-24). Jhāna is therefore both a process of developing the mind from a lower to a higher level and the fixing of the mind upon a particular subject or object.
Samādhi, as defined by Monier-Williams (in Friedlander 2002, p. 13), is the ‘putting together, joining or combining with…intense application or fixing of the mind on, intentness, attention…concentration of the thoughts…’. Monier-Williams also rightly identifies samādhi as the fourth stage of jhāna (Friedlander 2002, p. 13). There are also certain ethical implications of samādhi within various Buddhist literature. The Dhammasangani claims that samādhi is not just concentration but right concentration with Buddhagosha Thera’s Visuddhimagga explaining that right concentration is informed by, or perhaps even defines, morality with such right concentration, samādhi, leading to liberation (Mahāthera 1962, p. 18). Samādhi, like jhāna above, is a multifaceted term. Phenomenologically it is a mental process of concentration, however, it is also a process of developing a particular mental state, an ethical mental state that leads one towards liberation.
Bhāvanā is quite a different term from samādhi and jhāna altogether with bhāvanā, in a basic sense, meaning mental development (Friedlander 2002, p. 14). Any meditation that involves the development of the mind is therefore termed bhāvanā. Bhāvanā is used in Buddhist literature to illustrate the phenomena of meditation whereas its verb, bhāveti, describes the act of training the mind (Mahāthera 1962, p. 25). Almost anything perceptible can be the object of the verb bhāveti and it is common to see terms such as jhānam-bhāveti and samādhim-bhāveti (Mahāthera 1962, pp. 25-26).
These three terms, whether understood individually or in composite, are inadequate for gaining a complete understanding of Buddhist meditation. Buddhist meditation has a unique and defining goal that must be recognised to completely understand the phenomena; that goal is enlightenment or nirvāna. Buddhist meditation, whether dhyāna, samādhi or bhāvanā, is always a process on the path to nirvāna (Mahāthera 1962, pp. 1-5).
From a cursory reading of the above definition of meditation from a Buddhist perspective there seems to be two primary points of comparison between Buddhist meditation, prayer and ritual. It may be claimed that Buddhist meditation is solely a mental activity whereas both prayer and ritual may manifest in various material forms. This reading, while possibly in alignment with the above presented definition, is certainly not the case for Buddhist meditation may involve material processes in its practice. Meditation practices such as mantra meditation, japa-bhāveti, the utilisation of material objects, such as in jhāna and via mandalas, and gestures, mudrās, are quite common (Friedlander 2002, p. 37; Harvey 2005, pp. 260-266). Secondly, it may be argued that Buddhist meditation, prayer and ritual all have a common defining goal. This is perhaps a little too strong a claim to argue for as both prayer and ritual may have short-term material benefit as their goal whereas Buddhist meditation is, as mentioned above, always a process on the path to nirvāna. I feel, as I’ll outline below, that this last position just needs a little refinement. There are fundamental differences between Buddhist meditation, prayer and ritual, however, there are also some relevant similarities.
Edward Conze states in his book Buddhist Meditation (1972, p. 11): ‘As prayer to Christianity, so meditation is here the very heartbeat of [Buddhism]‘. Conze is outlining Buddhist meditation by identifying it with prayer (and perhaps, we can say, rituals from other traditions too). A phenomenological comparison is not being made here but a comparison based upon the fundamental importance of each faith’s central doctrine. This, however, is as far as this line of thought can go. Utilising the same logic it could be argued that ‘as film to a camera, so meditation to Buddhism’ for a camera cannot function without film and neither may Buddhism function without meditation. While such an argument does effectively show that Buddhism without meditation is not Buddhism it lacks in defining the particular relationships Buddhism has to meditation and therefore prayer and ritual.
What Buddhist meditation, prayer and ritual do have in common is their direction for they are all located within the natural, material, world but aim their practices towards a spiritual, or at least non-material, direction. Prayer is directed towards the non-material such as a prayer from a Christian tradition directed towards Jesus or perhaps Elohim, and ritual too is directed towards the non-material such as the ritual bathing of the Shiva Liṅgaṃ in certain Hindu temples (Walls 1998 pp. 115-117; Weightman 1998 p. 289). Buddhist meditation, while perhaps not being directed towards a certain divinity does aim toward the cessation of material being, a non-material direction, in other words nirvāna.
One further point that does need to be made regarding the relationship between meditation, prayer and ritual, Illustrated by Friedlander (2002, p. 37), is that meditation perhaps developed through internalising certain practices that were current in India at the time. Practices such as some rituals and invocations may have become incorporated into the processes of meditation. Perhaps one reason for this was so meditation practitioners could equate the importance and validity of their teachings and practices with those of the temple priests (Friedlander 2002, p. 35). Flood observes that within the Hindu, or more correctly Brahmanical, tradition a transition from ritual and prayer towards meditation occurs, from the Vedic relationships between srauta ritual and the cosmos towards the Upanishads and the contemplation of the meaning of such relationships. The import shifts from the correct performance of ritual and repetition of mantra to a correct understanding of their meaning and their significance (Flood 1996, p. 84). Meditation, therefore, becomes a superior vehicle than prayer and ritual.
As I have shown the English term ‘meditation’ is therefore inadequate in its application in explaining the various Buddhist ‘meditation’ practices. I have identified numerous limitations in the use of the single term ‘meditation’ in describing individual Buddhist practices such as dhyāna, samādhi, and bhāvanā. However, if meditation is perceived as a composite term, and understood, further, through the goals of these three Buddhist practices, then it is sufficient in explaining the phenomena. The exploration of the relationships between Buddhist meditation, prayer and ritual, both relationships of similarity and relationships of difference, further elaborated upon the historical, phenomenological and intrinsic qualities of Buddhist meditation concluding, most importantly, in the observation that Buddhist meditation is therefore a superior vehicle than prayer and ritual.
References
Conze, E 1972, Buddhist Meditation, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London.
Flood, G 1996, An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Friedlander, P 2002, REL22: Buddhist Meditation Traditions, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Harvey, P 2005, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne.
Mahāthera, V 1962, Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice, M. D. Gunasena & Co., Ltd., Colombo.
Walls, A 1998, ‘Christianity’ in John Hinnells (ed.), The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions, Penguin Group, Camberwell, pp. 55-161.
Weightman, S 1998, ‘Hinduism’, in John Hinnells (ed.), The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions, Penguin Group, Camberwell, pp. 261-309.
