During March 2014, in preparation for my year of contemplative practice, I outlined the Buddhist inquiry questions, shown in in Figure 4.3 and detailed in Appendix 6; I had not operationalised them in this way before. These are questions that Buddhist teachers had guided me to use in my practice since 2004 when I became a lay Buddhist. In November 2014, I encountered Osmer’s (2008) Four Task Method when Trinale (2014) presented a paper on Buddhist practical theology at an International Symposium for Contemplative Studies. When I compared my Buddhist inquiry questions with Osmer’s framework, I was struck by the similarities, and I, therefore, support arguments by Trinale (2014) and Sanford (2014) that Buddhist theological inquiry is compatible with Osmer’s (2008) Four Task method: descriptive-empirical (what is happening), which is a deep exploration of experience with a calm, mindful presence; interpretation (why is it happening) coming to a wise explanation and understanding as to why something has occurred; normative (what does it mean) drawing on theology and taking an interdisciplinary approach in the inquiry and pragmatic (how might we respond) responding with discernment and skilful action and reflection.
As I discussed in Chapter 3, the framework of Buddhist inquiry questions have not been devised as a research tool or technique but form part of my regular meditation and contemplative practice. Rather than getting tangled up in language, questions and over analysing, Buddhist inquiry is concerned with developing openness, curiosity, acceptance, understanding and insight. This involves a rich process of developing awareness of and investigation into what arises, what changes and the physical, mental and emotional reaction to phenomena (Amaro, 2010). Whilst proliferation and rumination are understood to be unhelpful, not all thought is viewed as a hindrance. In Buddhism, mental activity conducted in a calm and focussed way, involving reflections or inquiry that cultivate discernment, are viewed as skilful responses. When the key aspects of Buddhist inquiry and the various reflective cycles are compared (Figure 4.3), there are commonalities between Buddhist inquiry, Osmer (2008) and Trinale’s (2014) models of theological reflection, Gibbs reflective cycle and the general critical reflection questions that I use in therapeutic practice. It is heartening to see the common ground here between Buddhist and Christian theological reflection, which could encourage interfaith and cross-discipline dialogue.
Figure 4.3. Comparison of Buddhist, Theological and Psychological Reflection
Sources: Sumedho, 1987; Gibbs, 1988; Hanh, 1988; Schön, 1991; Osmer, 2008; Sucitto, 2011; Kittisaro, 2014b; Trinale, 2014; Amaro, 2015
In Theravada Buddhism, meditation practice entails Samatha and Vipassana meditation. Samatha allows calmness and tranquillity to arise in the mind and body; it brings a sense of steadiness and ease through attitudes of openness, attentiveness in listening and observing with a mix of focussed and open awareness. When Samatha is established, the conditions are created for engaging in Vipassana (insight meditation). This is an opportunity to see experience clearly, to notice, explore and investigate what is present. When there is a deep experience of Vipassana “there is a change of heart that comes from seeing things in a different way” (Amaro, 2012).
One of the main criticisms of introspection is that it is too self-focussed and unreliable (Costall, 2006). However, if conducted skilfully, reflexively and contemplatively, the opposite is true because to look inward in such a way allows the possibility of gaining a deeper understanding of experience, patterns or habits of mind (Ekman, 2005; Wallace, 2002) and learn from body sensations that can provide access to tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1962). Importantly it can provide the conditions in which to cultivate self-
Buddhist Inquiry in My Contemplative Practice Osmer’s Four Task Method (2008) Trinale (2014) Gibbs Reflective Cycle (1988) Critical Reflection questions: In and On action (Schön, 1991)
What is this? Descriptive- empirical (What is going on?) Critical Description Feelings What do I know? How do I know? Where is the evidence? What is the cause and effect? Interpretation (Why is this going on?)
Evaluation What is the purpose and effect of this engagement? What are the
consequences?
Normative (What ought to be going on?)
Normative Analysis Is there another explanation? What skillful response is needed? Pragmatic (How might we respond?) Pragmatic Conclusion and Action What learning or insight has arisen?
Furthermore, sharing these inner experiences in written form transforms the private into public. This becomes a reflective dialogue for the writer as well as the reader and provides the potential space to air silenced voices, “Reflexivity enables the recognition of social, institutional and political contexts in which the practitioner operates… Writing can aid an analysis and engagement with social and political realities” (Graham, Walton and Ward, 2005, p.45). This process of deep inquiry also “depends upon not knowing. It depends upon us being open and ready to not know. It depends upon us, allowing mystery and letting the knowing arise out of that” (Amaro, 2010, p.267). This reminds me of a phrase by Schön that I have always enjoyed, and experienced frequently “much reflection-in-action hinges on the experience of surprise” (Schön, 1991, p. 56).
The model in Figure 4.4 overleaf is an extension of Figure 3.1; it illustrates the interactive and multifaceted nature of the inquiry process in my Buddhist practice and incorporates psychological and theological reflection. It shows the inquiry process of gently setting intention, this creates conditions to develop awareness through mindfulness, openness and curiosity, and helps establish a quality of presence, which can allow insight to arise. The process outlined could be perceived as iterative and flowing in a circular direction but in practice, movement can be bi-directional. The four segments are purely for illustrative purposes, in reality all aspects are deeply interconnected. I have included the two boxes summarising psychological and theological reflection in the insight part of the process because engaging in these cycles at this point can bring awareness, understanding and discernment and they are important elements of my praxis.
Figure 4.4. Model of Buddhist Contemplative Inquiry encompassing Theological and Psychological Reflection
Theological Reflection
Buddhist Inquiry:
What is this?What is the cause and effect? What are the consequences? What skilful response is needed?
Trinale:
Critical, normative andpragmatic reflection.
Osmer’s Four Tasks:
Descriptive-empirical, Interpretive, Normative, Pragmatic
Psychological Reflection
Schön:
Reflection In and On Action
Gibbs Reflective Cycle:
Description, Feelings, Evaluation, Analysis, Conclusion, Action