Meditation and Everyday Life are Not Two Separate Sides of Buddhism

In the following paper I analyse the relationships between meditation and everyday life as it applies to Buddhism. I provide a brief analysis and definition of the three complicated terms this paper depends upon, ‘Buddhism’, ‘meditation’, and ‘everyday life’, and I examine how the relationships between these concepts relate to Buddhism. I argue that meditation and everyday life are both necessary aspects of Nirvana and must, therefore, not be considered as two separate sides of Buddhism.

The two terms ‘meditation’ and ‘everyday life’ are inadequate, as-they-are, as key terms for an academic study. Meditation, as it is used in translating Buddhist literature, is a translation of at least three terms with three very different meanings (Friedlander 2002, pp. 13-15). The term Everyday life is even more deficient as it undoubtedly refers to numerous patterns of being experienced variously across cultural and social landscapes. If we were to assert that there were at most three distinct modes of everyday life (a position that most would find incredibly difficult to accept), then in comparison with the three varieties of meditation illustrated above we would be faced with twenty-seven very different relationships.

Obviously these terms need to be limited and more explicitly defined for the following paper to have any bearing upon reality. I will therefore impose the following restrictions upon these terms as they occur in this paper¹. Both terms will be limited to how they manifest within a Buddhist world-view. Meditation will refer to the phenomena of Buddhist meditation as a process that is undertaken leading to Nirvana; meditation may include a single instance or a relationship between dhyāna (ध्यान), samādhi (समाधि), and bhāvanā (भावना) (Friedlander 2002, pp. 13-15). Meditation in this essay will therefore be a teleology. Everyday life will be presented as a general term that relates to the upkeep of social systems and individual well-being; everyday life may also refer to those social and cultural norms and practices that an individual may engage in that are not strictly necessary for well-being. These limitations are strict enough for the focus of this study but they do have limitations of their own. A Buddhist world-view, for example, is a very general term that would undoubtedly be interpreted differently between Hinaynāna and Mahayāna traditions, to name but two (Cousins 1998, pp. 387-388). The scope of these distinctions is beyond this short paper, however, the import of the relationship between meditation and everyday life is not limited by these differences.

It is explicitly stated in the satipaṭṭhāna sutta, for example, that to practice meditation one must ‘go to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, [sit] down with…legs crossed, [keep the] body erect and…mindfulness alert’ (Friedlander 2002, p. 56). This view of meditation is also reflected in non-Buddhist traditions (Friedlander 2002, p. 57). What is being advocated for here is that the meditation practitioner must situate himself or herself in a location that is removed from everyday life. Everyday life is social and mercantile, necessary aspects of everyday life such as farming, cooking, raising children and interpersonal relationships are all negated in the above outlined practice of meditation. This argument, however, doesn’t hold any weight even if the definition of the practice of meditation given above is the only way that we may conceive of Buddhist meditation (it’s not and I’ll elaborate on this position below).

The practice of meditation need not be explicitly restricted to locations that are either physically or figuratively removed from one’s everyday life. The satipaṭṭhāna sutta, a section of which I quoted above, outlines what is known as Insight Meditation. From a phenomenological perspective, Insight Meditation, at least in the contemporary world, is not a solitary practice. Groups of meditators often gather to practice Insight Meditation together (Friedlander 2002, p. 57). It may be argued, however, that these group meditations are removed from one’s everyday life. A meditation retreat is where much of modern Insight Meditation occurs (Harvey 2005, pp. 297-299). The term ‘retreat‘ seems to imply that the meditation practitioner is retreating from his or her everyday life.

There are, of course, other forms of Buddhist meditation that don’t involve any form of retreat. Meditation such as Japa Meditation (chanting meditation) can be effectively practiced in almost any location (Williams & Tribe 2006, pp. 196; 223-225). Other forms of meditation aside, however, Insight Meditation need not be conceived as excluding aspects of everyday life. Relationships, it may be argued, are a fundamental aspect of everyday life. One’s family life and working or student life, for example, is fundamentally composed of interpersonal relationsips. Insight Meditation can effectively enhance these relationsips and thus be thought of as a fundamental aspect of everyday life. The practice of Insight Meditation may be practiced in groups, as mentioned above, creating new relationsips or enhancing those relationsips already developed. Further, via proper instruction the meditator may realise a deeper understanding of these relationships, particularly as they relate to a Buddhist world-view (Harvey 2005, pp. 252-253).

Perhaps I’m being a little unfair to the many lay Buddhist practitioners of meditation. Perhaps it could be argued that lay practitioners may not have the same teleological goals as their sangha counterparts. Meditation for lay Buddhists could possibly be a process that may be persued for its many material ’side-effects’ such as a calm mind and therefore be more easly intergrated into everyday life. Whatever the level or social status of the meditation practitioner, however, if meditation is practiced properly (as outlined in the scriptures) then the same results are likely to be achieved. It is these results that I will now explore in relation to everyday life.

I mentioned above that the practice of Insight Meditation may lead to enhancing relationships and, more importantly, realising the proper Buddhist import of these relationships. Wouldn’t this result, a correct Buddhist realisation of relationsips, in fact negate the validity of these relationships as mere temporary illusions? Wouldn’t this then demand that meditation was entirely different from everyday life as we know it? In short, no. This is just plain bad logic that an adequate understanding of meditation and everyday life would illustrate. Meditation, like everyday life, is not a static phenomena; nor are both meditation and everyday life entirely uniform. In fact, both are so intrinsically linked within a Buddhist world-view that a figurative explaination of one could potentially explain the other.

Both meditation and everyday life progress from a lower stage to a higher, more detailed stage. Everyday life begins with birth, progresses through all the stages of human development that, along with some other factors, shape the individual who then ultimately dies. Meditation is similar in that the meditator begins with very simple, almost juvinile, meditation techniques that are based upon the meditator’s nature. The meditator progresses through stages of development, increasing the complexity and profundity of the meditation techniques until the goal, the end, is reached and the meditator reaches Nirvana (Prebish & Keown 2006, pp. 114-133). Conceived in this way both meditation and everyday life are very similar in ontological terms. Further, meditaton is a practice that is informed by everyday life. Were everyday life not apparent then meditaton, at least as we can concieve of it, would not be possible.

A final point that I would like to make is related to the claim I presented above arguing that meditation, in a sense, negates everyday life, that it highlights the absurdity of many of the aspects of everyday life. This is perhaps a little to strong a claim to advocate. To be sure, when one reaches Nirvana everyday life is transcended, perhaps necessarily so. However, this process, the teleology of meditation, does not just transcend aspects of everyday life but certain meditation practices too. Each stage of meditation transcends earlier stages of meditation in much the same way that each stage of meditation may transcend certain aspects of everyday life (Prebish & Keown 2006, pp. 114-133). Further, the goal of meditative teleology is Nirvana which doesn’t just transcend everyday life but meditation too. It is therefore entirely illogical to claim that meditation and everyday life are separate aspects of Buddhism for they are both necessary conditions on the path to Nirvana.

Even though it may appear, prima fascie, that meditation and everyday life are two fundamentally different practices I have shown that they are both necessary aspects on the path to Nirvana. I have demonstrated that arguments based upon the physical location of the practice of meditation are fallacious in arguing that meditation is separate to everyday life, particularly the everyday life within a Buddhist world-view. I have also outlined that teleological arguments, arguments that claim the process and goal of meditation is fundamentally different to that of everyday life, are similarly falacious. Both meditation and everyday life are inextricably linked in the lives and world view of Buddhists.

1. I don’t, however, advocate that these are the only way these terms can be conceived of and applied.