Michael D. Writes:
> Zizek’s whole point was that no matter what one assumes
or comes to see as the goal of human striving -- material
goods, bodily pleasure, political change, etc. -- a Buddhist
would reject the goal as simply another form of attachment
or thirst (trishna) for the world.
No, she would not. That is wrong. Buddhists do not renounce the world. A Buddhist does not unattach from the world, but just from desire. A Buddhist continues to have desires (which is part of a human rebirth), she just does not attach to them when trying to fulfill them.
> Buddhism does see attachment/trishna/desire/clinging/greed/
craving/lust is any human’s response to the impermanence of the
world -- Attachment is man’s (mistaken) way to gain an illusory
sense of permanence.
You are mistakenly stringing together concepts here that are totally separate. Clinging to desire is the mistaken path. Pursuing desire in accord with the Eightfold Path is not.
> Instead of clinging to the transient world, the Buddhist strives to accept
the imperfection, impermanence, and interconnectedness of the world.
Of course, the Eightfold Path echoes this sentiment most directly in
(2) Right Aspiration -- the true desire to free oneself from attachment/
rishna as well as its alternate forms dvesha/hatred and avidya/ignorance.
The three steps of the Eightfold Path, related to morality, the shila and the
three steps of meditation, samadhi, seem to me to be ways of escaping the
attachment to the world, which would be ways of fully effecting Right View
and Right Aspiration.
But you make a basic mistake when you you write "seem to me ways of escaping attachment to the world." Many people inculcated in Western ways of thinking often have this problem. Since they do not practice Buddhism, but only read about, they cannot understand that Buddhism requires a radical re-engagement with the world, not a distancing.
> In this way, I see the Eightfold Path as a way to escape trishna for the goal
of nirvana, which essentially seems to be enlightenment as a release from
samsara, that is, from human’s trishna/thirst for any positive goal in the world.
But remember an individual cannot achieve nirvana unless all sentient beings are liberated since all sentient beings are interdependent.
> Striving for any particular goal would not, then, fully recognize the impermanence/imperfection/interconnectedness of the world.
Of course it would. To know that the world is impermanent etc., does not mean that one should not strive to end suffering. Impermanence is part of being alive.
> Buddhism might indeed be a “technology to reduce suffering,” but it is a
technology that has an implicit and ultimately conservative metaphysics.
The Buddha said his teaching was not a metaphysics. What is conservative about ending suffering, injustice and cruelty?
> To be able to use the technology, one has to read the manual, so to speak --
that is, one must buy into the Buddhist “theology/philosophy” on the nature of
existence in order for the technology to be effective in reducing suffering.
The technology works whether you believe in the philosophy or not. You should try it.
Also, if you believe it is wrong, please critique and show me where it errs.
> So, even though Buddhism does not assume the Good is another form of suffering
per se, it would see the kind of striving for change which would be required to effect
any positive Good as a kind of attachment to an ultimately impermanent and imperfect
universe and oppose to this striving a resignation from the world.
Wrong. Your assumption that Buddhism would see striving for justice/social change as bad is incorrect. See Thich Naht Hanh and Engaged Buddhism.
> In this sense, isn’t it paradoxical/contradictory to be a self-identified “Buddhist activist”?
Not at all. Again, read Thich Naht Hanh.
> When Hollywood types (who I shouldn’t even have to name) start publicizing their
Buddhism, Buddhism becomes a pop-phenomenon.
The pop-phenomenon is the publicizing of a person's adoption of Buddhism, not Buddhism itself.
> Even though Buddhism recognizes the interdependence of all existence, meditation is
a technique of placing oneself in proper relation to one’s desire/thirst/attachments. Thus,
the practical effect of Buddhism is to create an “inner distance.”
The practical effect is to heighten one's awareness of one's complete interconnection with all of existence. It is not about inner distance.
> It is this practical effect which allows the Buddhist (especially Zen, as the quotes I placed
in my last post note) to “do his duty” without considering the way in which he, has a freely
choosing human being, is actively contributing to the suffering of others.
The purpose of Buddhism is to heighten one's awareness of one's relation to all existence, from which will flow a reduction in harmful behavior since the person now realizes that any harmful behavior he commits will affect him as well because of the interdependent nature of reality.
> Which is to say, once one comes to see that the world is impermanent and inevitably
imperfect and that “attachment and clinging to desire is the source of suffering” as
Brian wrote, the practical result is an attitude of indifferent tolerance to one’s surroundings
rather than one of radical intolerance.
Wrong again. To be indifferent is not to be Buddhist, since if one is indifferent to existence one is indifferent to oneself, since a person is interrelated to all of existence.
> Why else, as Zizek points out, would Japanese corpratism endorse the Zen attitude?
Well, Zizek is not too bright about Buddhism as I pointed out before. Corproate Zen (as I wrote earlier) has no relation to Buddhist practice since it eliminates the Eightfold Path.
Zizek does the same to justify his argument.
> Why else, as Zizek points out, would Zen endorse Japanese corpratism/militarism?
Zen does not endorse it. People misuse Zen in order to promote corporatism/militarism. You and Zizek do not seem able to grasp the difference.
> First Brian argues that “there is no inner distance” which results from Buddhism.
Then he argues -- in the same post! -- that Buddhism is NOT about there being
“no reflexive distance.”
To a Buddhist there is no contradiction here. I do not see your problem.
> However, if Buddhism endorsaes “not stopping one’s mind,” which was the point of
the quotation from Ishihara Shummyo, it also effectively prohibits any reflection
Why? You can not stop the mind, be totally engaged in the moment and still achieve reflection. It is one of the basic principles of Buddhism.
> in my (limited) experience, activism is actually served, rather than harmed, by man’s ability
to reflect upon existence (though this doesn’t mean, of course, that one should ONLY reflect
upon existence).
In meditation one does not stop the mind so as to allow reflection on the true nature of existence to occur. It is when a person stops the mind through clinging that reflection is thwarted.
> Zizek’s point in relating the Shummyo quote to the Suzuki quote is that any belief system
endorsing the ‘total immersion in the now’ without reflection on existence is a belief system
which works extremely well for social control.
Well, again Zizek is mistaken. Being totally immersed in the now does not preclude reflection. In fact, total immersion in the now leads to the highest degree of reflection.
> Both Brian and Zizek see Buddhism as an instrument/technique. The definitions
seem to diverge when Brian’s caveat is added that Buddhism is one used to reduce
suffering, while Zizek’s caveat is that Buddhism is ethically neutral, rather than
ethically positive.
Again, Zizek is mistaken. If Buddhism is ethically neutral why did the Buddha teach the Eightfold Path to end suffering. If it were neutral, Buddhism wouldn't give a shit about suffering.
> Of course Buddhism claims to reduce suffering! But it sees suffering as arising from
attachment to the world (see quote from Brian above)
You quote me and then you still get it wrong. You quote me as saying: "attachment and clinging to desire is the source of suffering." I never wrote that attachment and clinging to the world was the cause of suffering as you state. One seeks unattachment from desire, not the world. One in intimately involved in the world by staying in the present moment.
It is both sloppy thinking and argumentation to put words in my mouth and then criticize me for what I did not say.
> Buddhism, then, is a technology which reduces attacment to the world -- and in doing so,
becomes ”ethically neutral.”
As I will not type for the umpteenth time: Buddhism does not reduce attachment to the world.
> This has nothing to do with “stripping away the Eightfold Path” -- because at the heart of
the Eightfold Path is the prajna of Right View and Right Aspiration which Zizek, I think, is
addressing.
Buddha did not elevate any of the eight right practices above any of the others. Once again you are interpreting Buddhism in a specific way to make your point. You are manipulating Buddhism in much the same way the militarists did in Japan to justify militarism.
> Of course, it does mean that a re-reading of the shila, but my point is that the points
made in the shila should be grounded in a different metaphysics than Buddhism because
of the way that Buddhism reduces down so easily to (1) a perspective that degrades radical
striving to change the world as a form of attachment/thirst and (2) an ‘ethically neutral’
perspective insofar aqs it can philosophically ground corpratism/militarism.
Again, it only reduces down because your sloppy thinking distorts what Buddhism is about.
> I’m interested in hearing from Brian, of course, exactly in what respect I’m not in touch with
Buddhism generally or the Pali cannon in particular, though I understand if he wants to
discontinue this topic, since LBO isn’t in my experience a place for discussions of theology.
You are out of touch on some very basic levels. You keep mistaking unattachment from desire for unattachment from the world. You also see hierarchies in the Eightfold Path that are not there. As for inner distance, you have yet to grasp how meditation brings you in deeper contact with the world, rather than distancing you from it. This leads you to being unable to understand how stopping the mind hurts reflection rather than helping it.
> I contrast Buddhism’s metaphysics with that of the Western Enlightenment: I feel that only
a politcs rooted in the tradition of rationalism . . .
What is irrational about Buddhism? Buddha always said rationalism was vital on the Buddhist path.
Once you get a firmer grasp of Buddhist basics, you might try reading Nargajuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Path and The Foundations of Dharmakirti's Philosophy by John Dunne. Also reading the Journal of Buddhist Ethics may help to give you a perspective on Engaged Buddhism.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister