“THE NEW SCIENCE OF HEALTH AND HAPPINESS”: INVESTIGATING BUDDHIST ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF MEDITATION

Clinical and neuroscientific studies of Buddhist meditation practices are frequent topics in the news media, and have helped certain practices (such as mindfulness) achieve mainstream cultural status. Buddhists have reacted by using these studies in a number of ways. Some deploy the studies to show the compatibility of science and Buddhism, often using the authority of science to lend credence to Buddhism. Other Buddhists use meditation studies to demonstrate the superiority of Buddhism over science. Within inter‐Buddhist debates, meditation studies are used to argue for changes in practice or belief, but also sometimes to reinforce certain traditional practices. Benjamin Zeller's threefold categorization of religious groups’ attitudes toward science (guide, replace, absorb) and José Ignacio Cabezón's three ideal types of relationships between Buddhism and science (conflict/ambivalence, compatibility/identity, complementarity) contribute to analysis of Buddhist uses of scientific studies of meditation.     

Intimate distances: William James’ introspection, Buddhist mindfulness, and experiential inquiry

The recent and growing interest in ‘mindfulness’ and ‘mindfulness meditation’ across disciplines in the West presents us with a unique opportunity to reconsider whether Buddhism has anything to offer our contemporary psychological investigations. I argue that the Buddhist-inspired practice of mindfulness has potentially profound implications for the ways in which we conduct our investigations as psychologists, and that, as a style of experiential inquiry, it has at least one Western antecedent in the early introspectionist method of William James. Both are practices of becoming aware of experience; and paradoxically becoming intimately distant with our experience. I present a non-dualistic approach in which introspection and mindfulness are seen not only as psychological but also as social practices, operating simultaneously at the boundary of the individual/inner and social/outer, collapsing such distinctions in practice, and radically undermining the distinction between self and other. While there are similarities between James’ practice of introspection and mindfulness, there are also differences, and I suggest that they should not be easily conflated. Clarifying their relationship should be helpful, not only in distinguishing them from one another, but also in pointing to how mindfulness might allow a broader application than James’ introspection once did.     

《禅林宝训》伦理思想儒学化探析

《禅林宝训》反复宣说的道、利之辨以及诚信等道德规范 ,在内容乃至形式上与儒家伦理基本一致。《禅林宝训》充分吸收儒家伦理思想 ,主张儒、佛融合 ,一方面是加强丛林自身道德建设的内在需要 ,另一方面是中国禅宗人间化的客观要求。佛教的五戒十善等伦理与儒家伦理存在相似之处 ,这为《禅林宝训》充分吸收、融合儒家伦理提供了内在理论契机。     

Crossing Streams in the Dark: Religious Pluralism and Theological Education

Examining a presentation made to the Pacific Coast Theological Society in 1939, this essay identifies some of the enduring issues for theological and religious education created by the reality of religious pluralism. Addressing religious pluralism is a dialectic process moving between the two poles of disorienting otherness and analogies based on the already familiar. Both moments are necessary, and neither is final. Education in a religiously plural world requires enabling students to live in a state of uncertainty.     

森田疗法理论渊源探究

森田疗法被西方学术界誉为禅疗法。森田疗法受佛教之禅宗影响,这一点毋庸置疑。从其治疗模式可知:森田疗法虽与禅宗有所关联,但是与作为古印度佛教之源的原始佛教宗旨完全相悖;森田疗法依托于禅宗,但与禅宗修行的目的有本质区别;森田疗法与禅宗的关联主要体现在“顺应本心”、“参话头”、“守一不移”等观念上。换言之,森田疗法从根本上源于道家之自然,而这恰好与禅宗的形成中吸收了道家理念的事实一脉相承。因此,森田疗法名为禅疗法,非佛教修行法要,实则体现了道家自然之韵味,从根本上符合人类身心修养的旨趣和韵味。     

慈心禅在心理学视角下的应用

随着正念在西方心理学界的流行,慈心禅作为另一种颇具应用潜力的传统佛教禅修方式,正受到越来越多心理学家的关注。系统的慈心禅训练可以培养积极情绪、缓解消极的情绪反应,而即时的慈心禅练习也可以作为一种情绪调节策略。慈心禅可有效提升自我同情,培养对他人的共情能力和积极态度,此外还可辅助某些疾病的治疗。除进一步深入已有方向,未来研究可更多借鉴佛教视角提出新课题,如对慈心进行有效测量,探索慈心禅所诱发情绪的特殊性质,干预愤怒、嫉妒等负性情绪并探索慈心禅的应用方式与条件等。     

佛教的善的思想的心理诠释

佛教的宗旨是众善奉行诸恶莫作,认为人的先天本性无分善恶,亲近善知识能形成善的心理,亲近恶知识会形成恶的心理。佛教相信善有善报恶有恶报,鼓励人们行善积德。佛教认为欲望是恶的根源,控制欲望,通过戒定慧、八正道等方式能达到善的心理状态。佛教关于善的先天本性的观点、善恶形成的思想以及善的自我修养方法符合心理学的有关规律。佛教的崇善理念及善的修养思想对于构建社会主义核心价值观的友善价值准则具有积极意义。     

Nietzsche as ‘Europe’s Buddha’ and ‘Asia’s Superman’

Nietzsche represents in an interesting way the well-worn Western approach to Asian philosophical and religious thinking: initial excitement, then neglect by appropriation, and swift rejection when found to be incompatible with one’s own tradition, whose roots are inexorably traced back to the ‘ancient’ Greeks. Yet, Nietzsche’s philosophical critique and methods - such as ‘perspectivism’ - offer an instructive route through which to better understand another tradition even if the sole purpose of this exercise is to perceive one’s own limitations through the eyes of the other: a self-destruktion of sorts. To help correct this shortcoming and begin the long overdue task of even-handed dialogue - or contemporary comparative philosophy - we will be served well by looking at Nietzsche’s mistakes, which in turn informed the tragic critic of the West of the last century, Martin Heidegger. We may learn here not to cast others in one’s own troubled image; and not to reverse cultural icons: Europe’s Superman, and Asia’s Buddha.

从"理学别派"到士人佛学——由明清思想史的主题演进试论近代唯识学的思想特质

The best representatives of the self-reflection of xinxue 心学 (the School of Mind) and its development during the Ming and Qing Dynasties are the three masters from the late Ming Dynasty. The overall tendency is to shake off the internal constraints of the School of Mind by studying the Confucian classics and history. During the Qing Dynasty, Dai Zhen had attempted to set up a theoretical system based on Confucian classics and history, offering a theoretical foundation for a new academic movement that gradually suspended issues studied by the School of Mind. But the suspension of these issues does not mean they were resolved. For Peng Shaosheng, xinzong 心宗 (the Doctrine of Mind) has emerged from a bottleneck in the development of the Confucian yi li zhi xue 义理之学 (doctrine of meanings and principles): The only way to find the transcendent connection between the doctrine of meanings and principles and the Dao was through the internality of belief. In this case, the Lay Buddhists, represented by Peng Shaosheng, Wang Dashen and Luo Yougao, as lixue biepai 理学别派 (Alternative School of Principles), played the role that the School of Mind had undertaken in the late Ming Dynasty, thus becoming a shelter for the Confucian doctrine of meanings and principles. To a certain extent, the revival of weishixue 唯识学 (the Consciousness-Only School) during modern times was simply a continuance of the “Alternative School of Principles”. It took over the Lay Buddhist theme of the doctrine of meanings and principles of the Qing Dynasty and tried to construct a new pattern of learning for Confucian classics that matched up with the doctrine of meanings and principles, offering a model of integration for the reconstruction of the Confucian tradition. Translated by Huang Deyuan from Zhexue yanjiu 哲学研究 (Philosophical Research), 2007, (9): 51–60