Episode 35 - Learning, awakening & empowerment

In this episode I explore some of the issues surrounding educational methods and processes in contemporary Buddhism and suggest changes in perspective and practice that can lead to a more empowering experience for students (and teachers). It seems to me that in the development of secular approaches to Buddhist practice there is much to be learnt from the creative, transformative and egalitarian modes of learning employed within the education of artists. My comments about art education are based on my own experience as an artist and educator working in art schools and universities in the UK. This talk relates particularly to points I made in Episode 33 on creativity and mindful meditation.

Transcript

I want to begin with a note of concern regarding events in some Buddhist communities. In the recent history of Buddhism in the West there are a number of well-documented examples of abuses by teachers. In the Zen, Tibetan and Theravada traditions some teachers have been found to have broken their vows by subjecting some of their students, particularly women and young people, to abuses. The trust placed in these teachers by their students has been broken in ways that are very disturbing and damaging, both to the students and to the schools and communities of which they are members. The reverberations from these events have been felt across the Buddhist world and have damaged the wellbeing, reputation and credibility of some Buddhist organisations and institutions.

At the heart of these events lies the relationship of trust, loyalty and respect between teacher and student. This relationship, in the traditional master/disciple form, resides within a very imbalanced power structure. Almost all power lies with the teacher. The fact that many teachers in more traditional communities are men, and that many Western students are women and young people, only adds to the asymmetry in power relations. It seems to me that two obvious issues need to be explored in relation to this imbalance: one, the role of the teacher; and two, the role of the student.

In exploring these matters, I am going to contrast the master/disciple structures of teaching and learning evident in many Buddhist communities, with the structures that are commonplace in contemporary art education in the UK (and possibly elsewhere in Europe and the USA). 

If we are to avoid some of the abuses I have just mentioned, a radical rethink is required into the ways in which Buddhist practices, ideas and ethics are taught - particularly regarding the power relations involved, the desirability of developing independence rather than dependence, and a reorientation towards creative experiential learning rather than learning by rote or historical precedent.  

In contemporary art education, in my experience, the aim is to enable an individual to realise his or her artistic nature, to realise their creative potential, and to wake up to who they are and can be, as an artist. In doing so the individual develops their own distinctive identity and ‘voice,’ and contributes to their community and culture. Often this process is accompanied by a growing ease and peace of mind as the budding artist grows to live more in harmony with their own evolving nature and with the world about them.  

Within Buddhism the aspiration of educators, both students and teachers, is to alleviate avoidable suffering and to enable all beings to flourish in harmony with their environment and with their distinctive identity as individual beings. A more traditional way of saying this is to enable an individual to realise his or her Buddha nature, to awaken to the primary conditions of existence, and to live in harmony with how things are (dharma). Whichever way we articulate the goal, the effectiveness of educational processes can be ascertained by gauging to what extent they enable a person to realise her or his aspirations for self-realisation, independence and wellbeing – while also developing their aptitude for connectedness, kinship and compassion. 

This means that learning for oneself is of prime importance – that is, working out one’s own path, while taking account of, but not being reliant upon or attached to, the learning and teaching of others. At the end of his life, the Buddha’s final advice to his students was to remind them that, ‘All phenomena are subject to change - they are not lasting. Work hard to achieve your own awakening.’ In other words, we should take responsibility for our own values and understanding, rather than deferring to, or being dependent upon, the understanding and values of someone else. This process of developing independence is very empowering for individuals and, when accompanied by mindful ethics, is empowering for the individual’s community. 

In contemporary art education the development of practice is paramount. The intention of a teacher is not to produce student clones or artist followers, or artists who make art in the same style or appearance as the teacher - indeed this would usually be considered a mark of failure, something to be avoided. The focus is primarily upon enabling the student to find her or his own distinctive way of being, knowing and doing. Teaching is often done by showing, pointing and questioning, as much as by telling, instructing or informing. 

It is here, in relation to the methods and strategies used, that we begin to see differences between art education and Buddhist teaching. In Buddhism the dominant model is one of master and disciple - what in the art world is called the ‘atelier’ system, the apprentice artist working in the studio of the ‘master’, learning from their methods and imitating their style. Within the art world this model of teaching and learning has been found to be unsatisfactory and moribund, unhelpful to students who are trying to find their own voice and creative identity. In the context of Buddhism, we may currently be witnessing an equivalent reformation of educational practices.  

Given that Buddhism has developed for much of its history in societies that are rather conservative and hierarchical, often patriarchal and with a strong sense of orthodoxy, it is no surprise that the approach to teaching and learning is in many cases reflective of these ‘traditional’ values. But, just as educational methods in western societies have evolved as social structures and values have changed, so we find similar changes are required, and are beginning to occur, in the methods used in Buddhism. One strand of the ‘secular’ Buddhist movement involves exploring a number of different modes of teaching and learning in order to develop new models that harmonise with, and help cultivate, the values of a diverse and egalitarian society.

Given that experiencing and thinking for oneself is a key aspect of Buddhist practice, it is important that the process of awakening (the process of learning) is student-centred. In this context the relationship between individuals should be one of mutual respect and kinship – a situation in which everyone is a student and a teacher, each person learning from those around them and in this way helping everyone to grow towards realisation (the basis of a learning community or sangha). Those with a lot of experience help those with less, and everyone learns from the fresh perspectives of new students. The interactions between teachers who are also students, and between students who are also teachers, is mutually beneficial - encouraging active, dynamic, experiential learning. This is potentially very different to the relationship between disciple and master, or follower and leader – which is often a lopsided relationship of attachment, dependency and deference.  

As in art education, it would be good if Buddhist learning could be described as a sequence of dialogues between participants rather than as a series of monologues centred on the words, opinions and values of the teacher. Everyone, students and teachers, are active participants in the collective enterprise of learning. Transactions between participants are conducted on the basis of exchanges of experience, knowledge and ideas between individuals – all of whom have a voice and a need to be taken seriously. The learning culture should provide a supportive and open forum within which dialogues are encouraged in as many different forms as possible. Such a forum for learning is empowering for everyone, rather than being a space in which teachers are empowered and students are disempowered. 

Alan Watts, writing half a century ago about the aims of what he calls, ‘therapeutic learning’, highlights two key factors in any transformative learning process: ‘First, the transformation of the inner feeling of one’s own existence; and second, the release of the individual from forms of conditioning imposed upon him [or her] by social institutions.’ (Watts 1961: 18) This doesn’t seem very far from Buddhist aspirations to alleviate avoidable suffering, and to cultivate self-realisation and the flourishing of all beings.

This flourishing, and the enlightenment, liberation or peace that is so necessary to human development, can only be realised by letting-go of craving and habits of thought and action – habits that hinder development and growth. Similarly, creativity, which is a manifestation of human flourishing, is not something that needs to be learnt or added to our being, rather it is a way of being that is most immediate and ready-at-hand, often realised by unlearning, unknowing, letting go. Paradoxically, the process of realising by letting go may require a very systematic discipline: for instance, in Zen, the disciplines of koan study, or of intensive meditation; or, in an art context, the discipline of drawing a human being or a stone over and over again in order to see the human being or stone as if for the first time – what Lawrence Weschler refers to with the memorable phrase, ‘seeing is forgetting the name of the thing one sees.’ (Weschler 1982) 

Within the arts, and in Buddhist practice, the need to cast off old assumptions, habits and knowledge, ‘unlearning’, is often as important as learning. This shedding of a skin of habits can be a powerful and transformative process, leading to a sense of renewal and empowerment. The practice of mindful awareness (for instance, zazen or vipassana) can be seen as a process of paying close attention to all that arises in our embodied mind, without adding a commentary or making judgments, and without clinging to experiences as they flow through us. Letting go becomes a key strategy in changing our relationship to experiences and to the world. Through non-attached attention we dissolve the chains of reaction and habit that build up year by year, enabling us to see things with fewer preconceptions and prejudices. We learn new ways of being by letting go of old ways. By unlearning and unknowing we dissolve the rigid boundaries and responses of our acquisitive ego-self and discover a more fluid and open identity that is in closer harmony with how the world is. 

Awakening as an artist, and as a Buddhist, is a radical process involving the questioning of received opinions, dogmas and assumptions – about who we are, and about the fluid nature of existence.  The practices of mindful meditation and koan study, for instance, can be considered as processes in which questioning, learning and unlearning are woven together into a radical transformative practice. The practitioner lets go of assumptions, preconceptions and habits - letting go of the acquisitive, clinging, habit-formed self – realising instead her or his unique nature, always growing and adapting to changing conditions. The experience of oneself as a rather rigid, habit-formed person of relatively fixed identity, can be transformed into a refreshing experience of the self as a fluid, dynamic entity, endlessly forming and re-forming – growing in imagination, insight and responsiveness.  

Mindful meditation, the art of awakening, is a powerful mode of transformative learning that has been tested over the centuries and continues to be an effective practice at the heart of any Buddhist learning community. But it is worth noting that this exploratory mode of learning can easily be impeded by overly structured courses with prescriptive rules or taboos grounded in dogma. It is important that the growth of creative awareness is nurtured within an educational structure that is egalitarian, flexible and open to revision as participants themselves grow in experience and understanding. The development of a creative learning community, free of dogma and deference, seems to me to be an essential condition for the cultivation of individual and collective flourishing. While the practice of zazen, or other forms of mindful meditation, is empowering in itself, it also helps to cultivate collective understanding, compassion, responsibility and peacefulness – all of which can contribute to the creation of a dynamic and egalitarian society. Hopefully, in this way an ethics of respect, kinship and mutual independence can be deployed for the benefit of all beings and for our planet. 

Thank you for listening and bye for now.

Bibliography

Watts, Alan. 1963. Psychotherapy East and West. New York: Mentor Books.

Weschler, Lawrence. 1982. Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees. Berkeley: University of California Press.