Comments on: Against “Western Buddhism” http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/ Part of the problem since 1976 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:35:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Jon http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-7577 Jon Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:44:26 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-7577 No, actually, I have a pretty decent understanding of Buddhism, but the actual practices of Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayna or any of the myriad of other schools of Buddhism is not what I was addressing. I was speaking to the pop-buddhism or self-help buddhism as manifested in such silliness as "zen rocks" and the annoying American tendency (present in myself for sure, no need to point it out) to syncretize only those bits and pieces of "other" religions as do not place any real demands on us. I am well aware that there are many Western (and even American) practitioners of various Buddhist schools who are very serious about there studies and practice, and I was in no way trying to attack or otherwise offend them. As to anatta, it is my understanding that all phenomena other than Nirvana obtain anatta, along with anicca and dukkha, so experience of anatta should be complete and ongoing for all who are not in Nirvana. No, actually, I have a pretty decent understanding of Buddhism, but the actual practices of Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayna or any of the myriad of other schools of Buddhism is not what I was addressing. I was speaking to the pop-buddhism or self-help buddhism as manifested in such silliness as “zen rocks” and the annoying American tendency (present in myself for sure, no need to point it out) to syncretize only those bits and pieces of “other” religions as do not place any real demands on us.

I am well aware that there are many Western (and even American) practitioners of various Buddhist schools who are very serious about there studies and practice, and I was in no way trying to attack or otherwise offend them.

As to anatta, it is my understanding that all phenomena other than Nirvana obtain anatta, along with anicca and dukkha, so experience of anatta should be complete and ongoing for all who are not in Nirvana.

]]> By: N/A http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-7576 N/A Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:44:13 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-7576 "The basic premise of this Westernized Buddhism, that instead of trying to cope with the accelerating change and upheaval of our lives we should renounce that endeavor in order to retain control of ourselves." You have a superficial understanding of Buddhism, what you regard as a premise stems in fact from experiencing anatta or "no self". Pure awareness and complete immersion are both valid solutions to life's problem. “The basic premise of this Westernized Buddhism, that instead of trying to cope with the accelerating change and upheaval of our lives we should renounce that endeavor in order to retain control of ourselves.”

You have a superficial understanding of Buddhism, what you regard as a premise stems in fact from experiencing anatta or “no self”. Pure awareness and complete immersion are both valid solutions to life’s problem.

]]> By: Jon http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-3163 Jon Tue, 08 May 2007 09:13:43 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-3163 @Rich Paul: Digging in the ground with our hands? Surely you are having a laugh. No one can be so naive as to think that my intention is a "return to the jungle". That type of primitivist thinking is far more at home in some Thatcherite collection of individuals, devoid of society; monads living by the "natural rights" or "natural laws". @LilyRose: No, I meant capital as in the current late-capitalist mode of organizing society. I have no idea what would come next, what could replace it, but it seems to me that the concept of capital becomes increasingly irrelevant as the 'means of production' become less and less scarce. It is possible, easy even, to imagine a time not too far in the future in which the capitalist system we have now is replaced by something else. I don't pretend to know what it is, but to believe that capital is somehow the end of history seems a bit naive to me... @Rich Paul: Digging in the ground with our hands? Surely you are having a laugh. No one can be so naive as to think that my intention is a “return to the jungle”. That type of primitivist thinking is far more at home in some Thatcherite collection of individuals, devoid of society; monads living by the “natural rights” or “natural laws”.

@LilyRose: No, I meant capital as in the current late-capitalist mode of organizing society. I have no idea what would come next, what could replace it, but it seems to me that the concept of capital becomes increasingly irrelevant as the ‘means of production’ become less and less scarce.

It is possible, easy even, to imagine a time not too far in the future in which the capitalist system we have now is replaced by something else. I don’t pretend to know what it is, but to believe that capital is somehow the end of history seems a bit naive to me…

]]> By: LilyRose http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-3162 LilyRose Tue, 08 May 2007 06:04:23 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-3162 a) Had to look up "Ponzi scheme".... b) Looked up "capital" - just to make sure I had the officially correct understanding of the word. Because, you see, I thought to myself, "What?! This Jon fellow doesn't think anyone should own anything because it might lead to consuming it? Or trading it for something to consume?" I'm a bit confused. <i>Is</i> that what you are saying? The dictionary I had at hand stated that "capital" meant "money that is invested" (or at least, that was one of the meanings). "Capitalism" was defined as an "economic system based on ownership of resources by individuals or companies and not by the state". Dictionary definitions aside, though, perhaps you could explain what <i>you</i> meant by "capital"? I mean, are you advocating for "non-ownership" of any kind? c) By all means! That's a capital idea. a) Had to look up “Ponzi scheme”….
b) Looked up “capital” - just to make sure I had the officially correct understanding of the word. Because, you see, I thought to myself, “What?! This Jon fellow doesn’t think anyone should own anything because it might lead to consuming it? Or trading it for something to consume?” I’m a bit confused. Is that what you are saying? The dictionary I had at hand stated that “capital” meant “money that is invested” (or at least, that was one of the meanings). “Capitalism” was defined as an “economic system based on ownership of resources by individuals or companies and not by the state”. Dictionary definitions aside, though, perhaps you could explain what you meant by “capital”? I mean, are you advocating for “non-ownership” of any kind?
c) By all means! That’s a capital idea.

]]> By: Rich Paul http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-3161 Rich Paul Tue, 08 May 2007 04:29:26 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-3161 Moving beyond capital? That means making our living without so much as a digging stick to assist us: digging in the ground with our hands. I suppose there are people who would be satisfied with that standard of living, but count me out. Moving beyond capital? That means making our living without so much as a digging stick to assist us: digging in the ground with our hands. I suppose there are people who would be satisfied with that standard of living, but count me out.

]]> By: Bob http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-3133 Bob Wed, 02 May 2007 17:59:10 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-3133 Buddhism is about having a particular view of things and living a life consistent with that understanding. It is not about "self" or "soul" or "god", and ideas and concepts are understood as temporary aids that are to be discarded as understanding increases--that is, understanding or insight is not dependent upon words. Western Buddhism has about as much to do with the teachings of Buddha as Western Christianity has to do with the teachings of Jesus. All religions contain superstition, and the first aspects to be adopted by westerners tend to be those that are superstitious and superficial. Organized religion changes doctrine. For example, after the advent of Christianity, the concept of "heaven" proved very popular. So rather than lose market share, certain Buddhist authorities invented their own heaven--something called "Pure Land", complete with mythological dieties etc. Now that is truly an ‘ideological superstructure’. As long as people who choose to do so simply adopt a buddhist lifestyle, I don't see that there should be any problem. To some extent it is compatible with other religions, as the writings of Thomas Merton attest. Buddhism is about having a particular view of things and living a life consistent with that understanding. It is not about “self” or “soul” or “god”, and ideas and concepts are understood as temporary aids that are to be discarded as understanding increases–that is, understanding or insight is not dependent upon words.

Western Buddhism has about as much to do with the teachings of Buddha as Western Christianity has to do with the teachings of Jesus. All religions contain superstition, and the first aspects to be adopted by westerners tend to be those that are superstitious and superficial.

Organized religion changes doctrine. For example, after the advent of Christianity, the concept of “heaven” proved very popular. So rather than lose market share, certain Buddhist authorities invented their own heaven–something called “Pure Land”, complete with mythological dieties etc. Now that is truly an ‘ideological superstructure’.

As long as people who choose to do so simply adopt a buddhist lifestyle, I don’t see that there should be any problem. To some extent it is compatible with other religions, as the writings of Thomas Merton attest.

]]> By: Jon http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-3128 Jon Wed, 02 May 2007 10:50:30 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-3128 Perhaps it would be useful to know that I am not speaking of the <i>Friends of the Western Buddhist Order</i> in this post, but of the representations of "Eastern" philosophy and religion that are culturally current in the "Western" world; through self-help books, new-age bookstores, etc. Also helpful would be reading Le bouddhisme mondialisé. Une perspective sociologique sur la globalisation du religieux. By Raphaël Liogier. Paris: Ellipses, 2004, 638 pages, ISBN 2-7298-1402-7 (cloth). The important bits are the prevalence within the Westernization of Buddhism, defined as the transformation of Buddhism in reaction — tp be not positive reactions of adaptation but negative ones of identity withdrawal (p22) and that the practical distinctions between Westernized Buddhist traditions are less matters of fundamental differences than of "aesthetic choices." (p. 23-24) It is worth noting that Liogier, and myself, are in favor of the type of "Engaged Buddhism," represented by the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, and this post criticizes the non-engaged forms (both "belonging without believing" and "believing without belonging") that are missing the core feature of this ideology: its dialectic between the individual and the global, both revolving around an adapted notion of the "environment." Perhaps it would be useful to know that I am not speaking of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order in this post, but of the representations of “Eastern” philosophy and religion that are culturally current in the “Western” world; through self-help books, new-age bookstores, etc.

Also helpful would be reading Le bouddhisme mondialisé. Une perspective sociologique sur la globalisation du religieux. By Raphaël Liogier. Paris: Ellipses, 2004, 638 pages, ISBN 2-7298-1402-7 (cloth).

The important bits are the prevalence within the Westernization of Buddhism, defined as the transformation of Buddhism in reaction — tp be not positive reactions of adaptation but negative ones of identity withdrawal (p22) and that the practical distinctions between Westernized Buddhist traditions are less matters of fundamental differences than of “aesthetic choices.” (p. 23-24)

It is worth noting that Liogier, and myself, are in favor of the type of “Engaged Buddhism,” represented by the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, and this post criticizes the non-engaged forms (both “belonging without believing” and “believing without belonging”) that are missing the core feature of this ideology: its dialectic between the individual and the global, both revolving around an adapted notion of the “environment.”

]]> By: Jon http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-3127 Jon Wed, 02 May 2007 10:38:04 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-3127 <blockquote>What do you think: a) Why do you think consumerism is a problem? b) What do you think is the cause? c) What do you think might be the cure? </blockquote> a) it is a Ponzi scheme b) capital c) moving beyond capital

What do you think:
a) Why do you think consumerism is a problem?
b) What do you think is the cause?
c) What do you think might be the cure?

a) it is a Ponzi scheme
b) capital
c) moving beyond capital

]]> By: marc http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-3126 marc Wed, 02 May 2007 10:28:05 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-3126 It seems like a classic straw man argument, you define " Westernized Buddhism, that instead of trying to cope with the accelerating change and upheaval of our lives we should renounce that endeavor in order to retain control of ourselves" in a way that allows you to attack it. But Buddhism, even in the West, is less about control than acceptance. Control is imposing your will on reality. acceptance is stopping the struggle against the parts of reality you don't like. You don't escape the stresses, you accept them but within a greater perspective. Its really not ironic detachment, but immersion in something beyond just everyday consumerism. Fetishism seems a strange description of it or its adherents. But hey, you have to have some language that denotes your rebellion to cover up your underlying conformity. It seems like a classic straw man argument, you define ” Westernized Buddhism, that instead of trying to cope with the accelerating change and upheaval of our lives we should renounce that endeavor in order to retain control of ourselves” in a way that allows you to attack it.

But Buddhism, even in the West, is less about control than acceptance. Control is imposing your will on reality. acceptance is stopping the struggle against the parts of reality you don’t like. You don’t escape the stresses, you accept them but within a greater perspective. Its really not ironic detachment, but immersion in something beyond just everyday consumerism.

Fetishism seems a strange description of it or its adherents. But hey, you have to have some language that denotes your rebellion to cover up your underlying conformity.

]]> By: LilyRose http://jontillman.com/2006/12/01/against_western_buddhism/#comment-1049 LilyRose Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:22:18 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2006/12/against_western_buddhism.html#comment-1049 Agreed. Many people shop for a religion (or a church, for that matter) much as you would shop for anything else, and then go home and add it to their 'closet'. Feeling stressed out, perhaps they read in a magazine how yoga or meditation might help, and go sign up for a class or take out a book from the library on it, adding it on to their lives. Very much "me-based" thinking: What's good for me? My health, my well-being, my sanity, my quality of life, etc. etc. Humans are remarkably self-centred. Or, not so remarkably. After all, life forms, in general, are (self-centred). Survival and all that. Humans, however, have an additional puzzling quirk in that, generally speaking, most would not terribly appreciate being called "self-centred". They wouldn't like it. It would be a tiny bit derogatory to them, and very likely they would take offense and become defensive. Interesting, isn't it? This little idea that they shouldn't ought to be, or do, something or other, and yet they go on doing and being it in spite of themselves. And they don't particularly like others pointing this out to them, either, thankyou very much. Anyway, I ought to stop rambling on about myself. :) Seriously, though, upon the subject of hypocrisy, how many people do you think would come out squeaky clean upon a careful examination? Especially an evaluation by anyone who's actually lived with them? (Though, by the bye, I actually hadn't intended to accuse anyone of hypocrisy per se. I think there are many, many people who are honestly seeking the truth, and a better way to live. Lots just have a hard time letting go of what they've already fought for and won. I am no different.) Consumerism. Capitalism. More of those "isms" out there than you can shake a stick at..... That's social science for you, I guess, eh? :) Again, I agree with you. The "stuff" is not the problem, so much as it is a symptom of an attitude or inner condition. Accumulating stuff. Using it. Throwing it away. Why DO we do it? Thinking out loud here, I think accumulation of possessions may well be rooted in that deep, probably instinctive fear of starving to death or dying of exposure. Very self-protective. Keeping a little bit of food and clothing about us and building a shelter. Now that's just common sense. Perhaps with increases in wealth and 'buying power' ("power" may be a key word here) - and an increase in stuff to be bought - this condition, this disease, of Consumerism begins to become problematic. It's kindof fun to buy things. It does give one a certain sense of power, and control, in one's life. It can become something of a serious addiction, after a certain point. Again, one must pause to ask the question, "Why?" ConsumerISM. Here's a conundrum. So, at what point does one cross the line from being a consumer (which we all are), to being a consumerIST (if that's a word, and if that's the right word to use there)? What do you think: a) Why do you think consumerism is a problem? b) What do you think is the cause? c) What do you think might be the cure? (Maybe you've written the answers to all that, but I'm new here and haven't read everything yet. And now that I've written all that I've just written I have to go make supper.) PS. I'm trying to (3) Be more funny. (and still make some kind of sense) Did it work? At all? Agreed. Many people shop for a religion (or a church, for that matter) much as you would shop for anything else, and then go home and add it to their ‘closet’. Feeling stressed out, perhaps they read in a magazine how yoga or meditation might help, and go sign up for a class or take out a book from the library on it, adding it on to their lives. Very much “me-based” thinking: What’s good for me? My health, my well-being, my sanity, my quality of life, etc. etc. Humans are remarkably self-centred. Or, not so remarkably. After all, life forms, in general, are (self-centred). Survival and all that.

Humans, however, have an additional puzzling quirk in that, generally speaking, most would not terribly appreciate being called “self-centred”. They wouldn’t like it. It would be a tiny bit derogatory to them, and very likely they would take offense and become defensive. Interesting, isn’t it? This little idea that they shouldn’t ought to be, or do, something or other, and yet they go on doing and being it in spite of themselves. And they don’t particularly like others pointing this out to them, either, thankyou very much. Anyway, I ought to stop rambling on about myself. :)

Seriously, though, upon the subject of hypocrisy, how many people do you think would come out squeaky clean upon a careful examination? Especially an evaluation by anyone who’s actually lived with them? (Though, by the bye, I actually hadn’t intended to accuse anyone of hypocrisy per se. I think there are many, many people who are honestly seeking the truth, and a better way to live. Lots just have a hard time letting go of what they’ve already fought for and won. I am no different.)

Consumerism. Capitalism. More of those “isms” out there than you can shake a stick at….. That’s social science for you, I guess, eh? :)

Again, I agree with you. The “stuff” is not the problem, so much as it is a symptom of an attitude or inner condition. Accumulating stuff. Using it. Throwing it away. Why DO we do it?

Thinking out loud here, I think accumulation of possessions may well be rooted in that deep, probably instinctive fear of starving to death or dying of exposure. Very self-protective. Keeping a little bit of food and clothing about us and building a shelter. Now that’s just common sense. Perhaps with increases in wealth and ‘buying power’ (”power” may be a key word here) - and an increase in stuff to be bought - this condition, this disease, of Consumerism begins to become problematic. It’s kindof fun to buy things. It does give one a certain sense of power, and control, in one’s life. It can become something of a serious addiction, after a certain point. Again, one must pause to ask the question, “Why?”

ConsumerISM. Here’s a conundrum. So, at what point does one cross the line from being a consumer (which we all are), to being a consumerIST (if that’s a word, and if that’s the right word to use there)?

What do you think:
a) Why do you think consumerism is a problem?
b) What do you think is the cause?
c) What do you think might be the cure?

(Maybe you’ve written the answers to all that, but I’m new here and haven’t read everything yet. And now that I’ve written all that I’ve just written I have to go make supper.)

PS. I’m trying to (3) Be more funny. (and still make some kind of sense) Did it work? At all?

]]>