REL22 Weeks One and Two

I've just finished the content for week two of REL22: Buddhist Meditation Traditions and it's actually been quite fascinating.  I do have to reiterate, however, that I'm a little disappointed that Peter Friendlander is no longer taking the course.  Peter's taken a position at NUS Singapore so Professor Greg Bailey is taking the course this semester.  I've not had any contact with Greg yet so I can't offer any comments upon how that aspect of the course will develop but it still remains that Peter is a great teacher and will be sorely missed.

The aim of week one's content was to provide a broad definition of Meditation.  For once I'm actually in agreement with the majority of the material this week.  Week one's material is broken into the following sections:

• Theory and Practice
• Buddhist and non-Buddhist Meditation Traditions
• Definitions of Meditation
• Indian Language Terms for Meditation
• Meditation and 'Well-Being' in the West
• Meditation in Liberation in India

The two most fundamental aspects of this week, in my opinion, are the section on language and the section contrasting 'Western' meditation with 'Eastern' meditation.

The term 'Meditation' is actually a translation of various different words and concepts found in numerous Indian languages.  Three words/concepts have particular importance in that they are all different and they are all translated as meditation.  It is easy to see, therefore, how confusion can arise. 

The first Indian word translated as meditation is Dhyàna which refers to fixing the mind on a particular subject.  I would like to explore just what is meant by 'subject' in this case but as the text is introductory the translation is all that is given.  Some questions that I have relating to 'subject' are along the lines of what sort of entity is 'subject' and how do we define and explain our relationship with it.

The second Indian word translated as meditation is Samàdhi which Monier-Williams (1987, p. 1159) translates as: 'putting together, joining or combining with' and 'intense application or fixing of the mind on, intentness, attention' and 'concentration of the thoughts, profound or abstract meditation, intense contemplation of any particular object (so as to identify the contemplator with the object meditated upon...)'.  What's interesting here, to me at least, is the section in brackets, it seems to me that Samàdhi, in this context at least, is a transitive verb.  This is particularly interesting relative to the definition above of Dhyàna which seeks a subject to contemplate.  Is the transitive object of Samàdhi the same as the subject of Dhyàna?  I've got no idea but I would like to explore this relationship a little further throughout the course.

The third Indian word translated as meditation is Bhàvana which relates to mental development.  This is spoken of as comprising two parts in Theravàda Buddhism, development of tranquility (samatha-bhàvana) and development of insight (vipassana-bhàvana).  Now the text hasn't gone into much detail on providing examples of Bhàvana but one similarity jumps out at me instantly, a similarity between virtue ethics, particularly Aristotle's virtue ethics, and Bhàvana's mental development.  Maybe there aren't any similarities here but both seem to possess similar goals, at least overtly.  Hopefully this is something that I can return to further on in the course.

The section that contrasts 'Western' and 'Eastern' meditation was particularly interesting.  The material that was presented reinforced ideas and observation of mine relating to this topic, particularly as I work in an 'Indian' business and I'm a Vaisnàva.  To put it basically 'Western' traditions and interpretations tend to focus on 'this world', or perhaps more properly put 'natural world', results such as wealth and health.  One participates in meditation and/or Yoga for results that are advertised as almost immediately apparent.  'Eastern' traditions, on the other hand, focus upon the liberation from the natural world.  There may be natural world benefits but these are of secondary concern and should be thought of as almost side-effects.  An interesting contrast and one that is necessary as Buddhism is no longer just an 'Eastern' phenomena.

The aim of week two was to provide a broad outline of Indian meditation traditions and was organised as follows:

• The Origins of Meditation in India and the Vedas
• Asceticism and Meditation
• Breath Control, Mantra Repitition and Visualisation
• The Internalisation of Sacrifice
• Fundamental Questions

This week's content was fairly straight forward.  It did, however, provide an interesting comparison between early Indian meditative traditions and Shamanistic traditions.  I don't really see much of value in this comparison but it was interesting.  The section on the internalisation of sacrifice was also quite interesting however I feel that the particular analysis was taken out of historical context, perhaps even with a Buddhist perspective.  There is much in the Indian literature that disagrees with such internalisation theories. 

What most interested me was the Fundamental Questions section.  These questions are presented in verse one of the Rg Veda as follows:

Then neither Being nor Not-Being was,

nor atmosphere, nor firmament, nor what is beyond.

What did it encompass?  Where?  In whose protection?

What was the water, the deep, unfathomable?

Obviously interesting questions for a philosophy student and questions with obvious linguistic potential too.  Defining 'it', 'what' and 'where' are questions that have been very divisive within Indian philosophy and questions that, obviously, have arisen elsewhere and shaped many world views.  Looking at this quote from a linguistic perspective and contrasting it to sections of the Rig Veda, particularly 10.125, that describe how language doesn't just shape reality but actually gives birth to reality would be an interesting project.

All in all an interesting couple of weeks with some great potential for development over the next couple of months.