-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Jon Johanning
> But the problem is with your statement that " 'modern' Buddhists infuse
their Buddhism with modern worldview and modern assumptions." That
seems to imply that there is something called "Buddhism" which
crystallized back in Asia in the old days, which gets "imported" into
the West like a shipload of ginseng or something, and into which
"modern" folks inject their world view and assumptions. For once, I'm
taking a leaf from the pomos and arguing that this essentialist view is
all wrong. Buddhism is what people who take refuge in the Buddha (the
technical definition of what a "Buddhist" is) make of it. It has no
fixed essence.
** I wouldn't dream of arguing otherwise. If it is more convenient, I'll stop using "Buddhism" altogether and only refer to specific Buddhists in specific locations at specific times. I'll ask you to do likewise. This also means discarding "Buddhism is what people who take refuge in the Buddha make of it." This is a generalisation about Buddhists - and it is important to be specific, right? (because there is no essence... not even the refuge). Or, we can continue this conversation using relatively problematic short-hand... only drawing attention to generalisations that one of us feels is problematic.
>> My point is this: the moon is based on the finger pointing at it. I don't
think all Buddhists, despite using the word Dharma, are talking about the
same thing; Dharma is a religious concept, not a reality.
> Sorry, Ken, but you're wrong. All Buddhists *are* talking about the
same thing: what really is, reality. You are perfectly welcome to your
idealist metaphysics, in which reality is what people think it is, but
that's not the Dharma (as I understand it, anyway). You are arguing
with Brian that you can know all about Buddhism by studying it as an
academic, but you're wrong. Your idealism makes you think it's
impossible to get in touch with a non-conceptually-mediated reality,
but that's because you've never actually done some practice.
** You see, that's the problem. You're an insider to Buddhism, so you take Buddhist teachings seriously. Just like the Christian who says, "It doesn't matter, when Jesus returns you'll all burn." I don't think all Buddhists have the same conception of Dharma... each finger is pointing at a different moon so to speak. This isn't idealism... it's simply a secular and careful approach to the study of religion. That I think the doctrines of the Trinity and of Dharma are 'otherworldly' is part of that secular imagination. I readily admit that secularity has its prejudices and problems - but at the very least philosophical criticism isn't bound and determined by religious tradition in the way that most forms of Buddhism are. What's Buddhism without Buddha? Not much. What's science without Newton? - improved! And, to make matters worse, I have engaged in some rather limited Buddhist exercises... and I do think non-conceptual reality has an epistemological element --> but this is for a theory of aesthetics to explain.
> To a lot of you religious-studies types, meditation is something weird
and exotic, like meditating on rotting female corpses, that you can
quote to your students and say, "See what weirdos those Buddhists are?"
and share a chuckle with them. I know that livens up a boring lecture
hall no end. I used to labour in those halls myself, and I know how much
the prof has to strain to keep the students awake. But in fact, most
Dharma practice is not nearly so exotic as that. The most common
beginning practice (and not just beginning) is to sit (on a cushion or
a regular chair, doesn't matter) and count your breaths -- when your
mind strays from the counting you go back to "one." Another one is to
take a koan like Joshu's "Mu" and put it in your belly.
** Just to clarify: I didn't use this example when I taught, I will use it when I teach a course on death thought because it relates to how human beings view and understand death. When I covered Buddhism I examined the ritual significance of hair - and I am very much aware that in most of my classes I have Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Native Americans, Hindus, Sikhs, along with a host of New Agers. I don't chuckle about this stuff. That men use women's bodies through processes of objectification, as a means to enlightenment, is horrific, not amusing. BTW --> I've been using a Buddhist meditation technique for years. I quiet myself on those anxiety-prone days, sit in a chair, sense the world around me, calm my breathing, and count down from 100, once, twice, and thrice. I also use it to fall asleep... I usually make it to 93 before I'm out. I've also tried "writing" - first thing in the morning you write out 3 pages. I found that works pretty well too... neither work half as much as "the talking cure" though.
>> Thanks. Do you mind if I keep this example on file to help explain to my
students what "expedient means" is? This is my data.
>Yes, I do mind your talking about me as "data" all the time. Am I a
bacterium on your microscope slide, or something? I'm trying to have a
discussion about real things, and you keep pulling this academic
"Professor of World Religions" act on me. You're not in the classroom
now.
** No, you're right, I'm not in the classroom. And I am discussing real things. I've already indicated that I'm not interested in debating the nature of Dharma, or the validity of Buddhist precepts. That's the philosophy of religion, or the psychology of religion (the translation of 'religion' into an academic discipline) or some sort of inter-faith dialogue (which I've never understood). I'm not interested in doing this because I don't see the world this way. I'm interested in studying religion, and that means collecting stories, information, narratives, and so on from people who are "religious." I'm obviously being a twit when I call you my data... its a rhetorical strategy that seeks to invigorate the discussion. It is honest though. If it helps, I'll readily admit that I'm your maya, or is that mara?
> ** I suspect this is hagiography, that would be my initial impression. I
haven't done the research on the historiography of Buddha
> Well, maybe you should. The hagiography, I think, is the stuff about
his speaking as soon as he was born, being able to walk on water and
swim through the earth as though it were water, flying up to the
heavens, touching the sun and the moon, etc. The kind of extravagant
imagery that folks in those cultures used to praise people they greatly
admired as gurus.
> The descriptions of him as a human teacher, though of course idealized,
don't strike me as hagiography. Undoubtedly he was not as perfect as
the tradition portrays him, but he did keep it up for about 40 years,
and must have been a pretty impressive guy to have touched off a
movement that lasted over two thousand years and spread over several
continents. Still, he was clearly not a "Son of God" like Jesus was
reputed to have been, just a human teacher.
** Again, I would disagree. Given what we know about oral traditions and the redaction of texts, the imaginary and the real cannot be sorted out. The mythos and logos are ever intertwined. Even the earliest documents are the work of cultural memory, memories that are re-created according to familiar and larger cultural scripts. And, Jesus never referred to himself as the Son of God, if he spoke of it he used the term "son of man" (which essentially means friend, neighbour) [obviously interpreted differently by the Xians). But... I haven't done the research. Eventually I hope to... not as a professional but as an interested party trying to familiarise myself with the terrain.
>>** Well, grrr...umm... Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on getting
> to define "creed" or "belief." As a scholar I draw from other theoretical
> frameworks to enlarge or diminish the range of material that would or
> could be classified under such concepts. Again, this is an emic and etic
debate.
> Yes, scholarly words like "emic" and "etic" sound great in the Academy,
but I don't think they apply here. Christianity and Buddhism are
fundamentally incompatible on this point, and not only you "religious
scholars," but a lot of ordinary folks, don't understand this.
** They absolutely apply. You're an insider to Buddhism, I'm an outsider to Buddhism (not part of a Buddhist community). I study Buddhism as an outsider... Buddhist insiders are my partners in dialogue and my object of study. In any event: the scholar is not bound by the terms of the insider for their conclusions. Just because the insider says they aren't engaged in ritual behaviour doesn't mean they aren't engaged in ritual behaviour... (image if we took that attitude towards the government... it would be Ben Kenobi all over again... "these aren't the droids you are looking for...").
>You can say that both X-ty and Buddhism are "religions," and therefore
can be compared in their "creeds" and "beliefs," but that's like saying
that water and oil are both liquids at room temperature, so they
conform their shapes to any container in which they are placed (as does
mercury, in fact). But that's about as far as their similarities go.
For starters, Buddhism doesn't have any Creator and Ruler of the
universe. So it doesn't have anybody to be worshipped, as X-ty has.
Therefore, all of the worshipping rituals and practices X-tians do have
no (I repeat, *no*) correlates in Buddhism. They might look similar to
an outside scholar
** Right... but "religion" isn't defined as "a belief in a Creator." Some idiots used that definition long ago... but being idiots and all it only appealed to a relatively uninformed group. Contemporary definitions are far more complex, tentative, somewhat utilitarian, and often conflicted. My definition is closer to that of Clifford Geertz: religion as worldview. But I don't extend to this any worldview... I like it rather cautiously to cultural tradition, certain kinds of memory scripting, and the manipulation of anthropological impulses (experience, expectation)... with a nod to some concept of the future, sometimes with a utopian motif, and a minimal idea of transcendence, and some sort of tradition with narratives or a ritual basis for the transmission of the tradition... Ok, I just made that up... but it's close to how I define religion. I'm more anthropological than anything else. Back to the creeds: the term "religion" was a term invented by and for Christianity. It is almost absurd to try to use the term to describe anything other than Christianity. Despite its ancient origins in Greece... Christianity hammered the idea of "religion" into this static thing. It is easy to say "religion does not exist" but it is far more difficult to refuse to classify family resemblances to Christianity as being "religious" (however problematic the term is). No doubt you know that the term "Hindu" is an imposed designation... there is no such thing, it's an outsider description and many strongly object to it. But let me say this: why are the four noble truths NOT viewed of as a kind of creed? I understand the formulation of the four noble truths in language is a conceptual project... and that non-conceptual reality is where it is at.... but Christian don't worship the creed, they worship God... so a similar principle seems to be at work...
>It also doesn't have a creed like X-ty's. For most of the history of
that sorry religion, you could be persecuted in various interesting
ways, including being burned at the stake, if you didn't accept
whatever official set of beliefs your particular gang of spiritual
capos defined for you. Nowdays, they have mostly put away the firewood
and torches, but a lot of them certainly tend to get very upset when
their beliefs are challenged. (Even Quakers can be somewhat perturbed
by this; I grew up as a Friend, so I know from experience.) Nothing
like that can be found in the Buddhist world (except for a few tiny
exceptions here and there -- there are nuts in every group).
"Non-clinging to concepts" is what the Dharma is all about, whereas
X-ty clings to its concepts so strongly that it will combust you for
denying them -- or depose you as a bishop if you dare to act contrary
to the divinely inspired words of Saint Paul vis-a-vis gays. That's
what I call clinging, man!
** Are you saying that because Buddhists have historically engaged in less torture and violence than Christians that one should become a Buddhist? That would look great on a poster! ("We've killed less that you, join us!"). Surely I jest... one of my former profs was a Quaker... a pretty good stream of non-violent action in that bunch... not quite ahimsa... but, you know, not bad. The Jains have an even better track record though. If you have any interest in Christianity, try reading Burton Mack, The Christian Myth... or at least the last few chapters. Mack argues that Christianity is a monocromatic culture: intolerant, arrogant, singular... but he links it to the social imagination of Jesus... which is what makes his work interesting. Jesus is the Lone Ranger, Captain Kirk, Superman... the cosmic Christ... king of the universe... then Mack links to this US foreign policy... But, I must say, I'm not in this for the experience. I'm in it for the concepts. For the experience I work on being a good communicative lover, cook, ride my bike, canoe, and read (usually in that order, too).
> BTW, about metaphysics: after you consult with your medieval historian
colleagues on the question of medieval folks enjoying their rolls in
the hay, you might have a chat with your philosopher colleagues about
the subject of realism vs. idealism. You may find that there are more
philosophers than Gadamer and Hegel. :-)
I just found this article on men and sex in the tenth century. I'll report back soon!!!!
ken