Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capitalism

Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capitalism Alan Smithee 12/14/11 11:50 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/14/11 12:14 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/14/11 12:07 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/14/11 12:53 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Jon T 12/15/11 12:48 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Nikolai . 12/14/11 12:59 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Daniel M. Ingram 12/15/11 5:32 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita )( piscivorous 12/15/11 6:43 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/15/11 11:49 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/15/11 11:41 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/15/11 1:47 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita )( piscivorous 12/15/11 7:31 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Bruno Loff 12/15/11 4:57 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/15/11 9:55 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Tom Tom 12/16/11 3:15 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/16/11 10:23 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/16/11 11:21 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/16/11 11:55 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita )( piscivorous 12/16/11 11:17 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/16/11 12:02 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/16/11 6:18 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Bruno Loff 12/16/11 12:30 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/16/11 1:51 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Bruno Loff 12/16/11 3:24 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/16/11 4:32 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/16/11 6:21 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/16/11 6:28 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 12/16/11 7:17 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/16/11 7:55 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/16/11 8:08 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/16/11 11:44 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Jon T 12/17/11 1:39 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/17/11 7:33 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/21/11 12:51 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/21/11 8:33 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/21/11 9:45 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/21/11 10:28 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/21/11 3:11 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Jon T 12/21/11 8:40 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/21/11 10:51 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Jon T 12/22/11 1:52 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/22/11 7:30 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/21/11 9:51 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Bruno Loff 12/22/11 8:04 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/22/11 6:23 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/22/11 6:44 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Nikolai . 12/22/11 7:10 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/23/11 8:16 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita )( piscivorous 12/22/11 10:02 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/22/11 10:11 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita )( piscivorous 12/22/11 10:32 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/23/11 8:20 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/22/11 9:55 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/22/11 10:51 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/23/11 8:30 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 12/23/11 8:55 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 1/3/12 2:33 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Michael Urbanski 1/4/12 7:52 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 1/4/12 11:02 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Michael Urbanski 1/4/12 12:37 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Bruno Loff 12/23/11 8:27 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/23/11 8:44 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Chris G 1/4/12 12:13 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita josh r s 1/4/12 1:33 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita N A 1/4/12 4:32 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita josh r s 1/4/12 5:22 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 1/5/12 9:20 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita josh r s 1/5/12 11:30 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 1/5/12 11:45 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita josh r s 1/5/12 1:23 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Chris G 1/4/12 9:53 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita josh r s 1/5/12 8:54 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Chris G 1/5/12 10:21 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita josh r s 1/5/12 2:17 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Chris G 1/5/12 10:04 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita End in Sight 1/6/12 10:15 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita josh r s 1/6/12 11:55 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 1/15/12 8:08 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita N A 1/5/12 2:28 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Chris G 1/5/12 9:32 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Felipe C. 12/23/11 5:14 AM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Alan Smithee 12/23/11 5:52 PM
RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita Fitter Stoke 1/27/12 1:44 PM
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 11:50 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 11:36 AM

Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capitalism

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
One of my favorite contemporary philosophers and critical theorists out there is Slavoj Zizek, and the main theoretical infrastructure of his thoughts is organized by Lacanian psychoanalysis, German Idealism (particularly Hegel), post Marxism, and a kind of post Christian leftism. I own something like thirty of his books and I've read about half of them. He is a brilliant and provocative and creative thinker.

That being said, he writes pretty nasty things about Buddhism.

Indulge me while I quote him at length, for I think folks here will find this interesting. This is from an article called Revenge of Global Finance, which can be found here http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2122/

"Eastern wisdom, from 'Western Buddhism' to Taoism, is establishing itself as the hegemonic ideology of global capitalism. But while Western Buddhism presents itself as the remedy against the stress of capitalism’s dynamics–by allowing us to uncouple and retain some inner peace–it actually functions as the perfect ideological supplement.

"Consider the phenomenon of 'future shock'–the popular term for how people today can no longer psychologically cope with the dazzling rhythm of technological development and the accompanying social change. Before one can become accustomed to the newest invention, another arrives to take its place, so that increasingly one lacks the most elementary 'cognitive mapping.' Eastern thought offers a way out that is far superior to the desperate attempt to escape into old traditions. The way to cope with this dizzying change, such wisdom suggests, is to renounce any attempts to retain control over what goes on, rejecting such efforts as expressions of the modern logic of domination. Instead, one should 'let oneself go,' drift along, while retaining an inner distance and indifference toward the mad dance of the accelerated process. Such distance is based on the insight that all of the upheaval is ultimately just a non-substantial proliferation of semblances that do not really concern the innermost kernel of our being.

"Here, one is almost tempted to resuscitate the old, infamous Marxist cliché of religion as 'the opium of the people' as the imaginary supplement of real-life misery. The 'Western Buddhist' meditative stance is arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate in the capitalist economy while retaining the appearance of sanity. If Max Weber were alive today, he would definitely write a second, supplementary volume to his Protestant Ethic, titled The Taoist Ethic and the Spirit of Global Capitalism.

"Therefore, the true companion piece to Star Wars III [Note from Alan: You'll have to read the rest of the article to get why he is bringing up Star Wars] is Alexander Oey’s 2003 documentary, Sandcastles: Buddhism and Global Finance. A wonderfully ambiguous indication of our present ideological predicament, Sandcastles combines the commentaries of economist Arnoud Boot, sociologist Saskia Sassen and the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche. Sassen and Boot discuss the gigantic scope and power, as well as social and economic effects, of global finance. Capital markets, now valued at $83 trillion, exist within a system based purely on self-interest, in which herd behavior, often based on rumors, can inflate or destroy the value of companies–or whole economies–in a matter of hours. Khyentse Rinpoche counters them with ruminations about the nature of human perception, illusion and enlightenment. He tries to throw a new light on the mad dance of billion-dollar speculations with his philosophico-ethical statement, 'Release your attachment to something that is not there in reality, but is a perception.' Echoing the Buddhist notion that there is no self, only a stream of continuous perceptions, Sassen comments about global capital: 'It’s not that there are $83 trillion. It is essentially a continuous set of movements. It disappears and it reappears.'

"But how are we to read this parallel between the Buddhist ontology and the structure of virtual capitalism’s universe? The documentary tends toward the humanist reading: Seen through a Buddhist lens, the exuberance of global financial wealth is illusory, divorced from the objective reality–the very human suffering caused by deals made on trading floors and in boardrooms invisible to most of us. However, if one accepts the premise that the value of material wealth, and one’s experience of reality, is subjective, and that desire plays a decisive role in both daily life and neoliberal economics, isn’t it also possible to draw the exact opposite conclusion? Perhaps our traditional viewpoint of the world was based on naive notions of a substantial, external reality composed of fixed objects, while the hitherto unknown dynamic of 'virtual capitalism' confronts us with the illusory nature of reality. What better proof of the non-substantial nature of reality than a gigantic fortune that can dissolve into nothing in a couple of hours due to a sudden false rumor? Consequently, why complain that financial speculations with futures markets are 'divorced from objective reality,' when the basic premise of Buddhist ontology is that there is no 'objective reality'?

"The only “critical” lesson to be drawn from Buddhism’s perspective on virtual capitalism is that one should be aware that we are dealing with a mere theater of shadows, with no substantial existence. Thus we need not fully engage ourselves in the capitalist game, but play it with an inner distance. Virtual capitalism could thus act as a first step toward 'liberation.' It confronts us with the fact that the cause of our suffering is not objective reality–there is no such thing–but rather our Desire, our craving for material things. All one has to do then, after ridding oneself of the false notion of a substantial reality, is simply renounce desire itself and adopt an attitude of inner peace and distance. No wonder Buddhism can function as the perfect ideological supplement to virtual capitalism: It allows us to participate in it with an inner distance, keeping our fingers crossed, and our hands clean, as it were."

As a leftist myself, I certainly hope that Buddhism isn't a "natural supplement" to global capitalism. Although I think Zizek is clearly doing some misreading, I think that perhaps his misreadings are rooted in some of the ways in which Buddhism -- and Eastern thought generally -- have been marketed in the West, which is part of what the hardcore Dharma movement, I believe, is reacting against. I should point out, though, that I have heard Vincent Horn state that he'd like some of the countercultural connotations which Western Buddhism seems to have to go away, such that we have a more mainstream Buddhist movement in the West [of course, sometime countercultural is GOOD,such as when the culture is destructive], and I've heard Ethan Nichtern state that there is a stigma around Buddhism and money which he'd like to see go away. There are numerous other examples out there, such as Nick Jankel's Buddhist Geeks interview "Entrepreneur as Bodhisattva," or the fact that Steven Jobs claimed to have been a Buddhist http://abcnews.go.com/Health/steve-jobs-buddhism-guided-life-mantra-focus-simplicity/story?id=14682458

I guess my question is "Is Zizek right that there is no inherent contradiction between -- but, in fact -- a happy marriage between capitalism and Western Buddhism?" I always felt that Buddhism's teachings on selfish want or desire as one of the major causes of suffering seemed to say no, but what do you think?
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:14 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:05 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
I'd like to point out another argument which Zizek often makes. He points to a book titled Zen At War by Brian Daizen Victoria which documents the philosophically, ideologically supportive role Zen Buddhism had for Japanese militarism during WW2.

He particularly talks about how D.T. Suzuki used Zen Buddhism to justify the horribly bloody Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria. Suzuki wrote of the possibility of a "nondual experience, 'beyond good and evil', whereby a soldier, in the Pure Witness state, could kill someone else without feeling remorse."

Go to minute 30:50:00 of this video to hear a few minutes of him making this argument http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/63-zizek-goes-a-googling?tmpl=component&print=1

Of course, I believe that the argument which Daniel Ingram often makes about how morality, concentration, and insight are three distinct realms -- such that enlightenment in the realm of insight does not mean necessarily that you have any skill in the realm of morality -- explains a phenomenon such as the Japanese one. That being said, it is still shocking and sobering to know that Suzuki used Buddhism as a justification for remorseless killing. One might hope that, for instance, an intuitive understanding of interbeing might make one less inclined to brutal slaughter, but I guess not.

Plus, we all recognize that Daniel's ideas about the separation of the three trainings is not the most common or popularly held. There is an idea out there that by achieving enlightenment one is transformed into a morally perfect person. For instance, even a modern master as Ajahn Brahm in his book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond states that a true Arahat cannot possibly, "by nature," "store up possessions, intentionally kill any form of life, steal, perform sexual intercourse, tell a deliberate life, and act improperly out of desire, out of ill will, out of delusion, or out of fear" (241). Why do these idea persist? Certainly this idea of moral transformation upon enlightenment, or the idea that insight is impossible without moral perfection, is supported in numerous suttas. What do we make of all this?
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:07 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:07 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
For anyone interested, here is an article in which someone writes about Zizek's statements about Buddhism. I haven't read it as yet and don't have time just now, but I'm throwing it out here and I'll read it myself later...http://somethingcompletelydifferent.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/zizeks-western-buddhism-redux/
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:53 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:53 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Another point I'd like to make. It seems problematic to entirely divorce morality and insight. Why do I say this? Well, Buddhist morality seems rooted in two things: 1) those practices which make enlightenment easier (e.g. it is hard to concentrate on meditation when I'm raping and killing), and 2) those practices which are prescribed as a result of insight and enlightenment. E.g interbeing, interdependent co-origination. etc.

There does seem to be a large part of Buddhist morality which is derived from insight. For instance, some dead dude got enlightened and then told they lay folks what he perceived and how that relates to morality. Therefore, something like the eightfold path seems like reverse engineering in that, for instance, someone out theere was enlightened and then told the rest of us non enlightened how this enlightened awareness necessarily lead to certain moral precepts.

It therefore seems to me that both practice and insight do indeed tie somehow into morality and moral training. That morality and insight aren't necessarily entirely murally exclusive. However, how do we the get enlightened people supporting global capitalism or militarism or murder?

If there is no direct link between morality and insight, why has this idea seemingly been perpetuated throughout the centuries?

Just as some folks claim that there is a direct link between Marxism and gulags, and others claim that the gulags only result from a terrible misreading. Is there a direct link between Buddhist insight and Japanese militarism or is this simply a terrible misreading?

Or, perhaps an even more provactive question: Is there an element to insight which may indeed suggests that killing is "no big deal" because of the nature of no-self, imperminance, illusion, etc., which then necessitates a Buddhist morality to counteract or work against this insight?

What is indeed the connection between morality and insight?
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:59 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/14/11 12:55 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Alan Arthur Scott:
I'd like to point out another argument which Zizek often makes. He points to a book titled Zen At War by Brian Daizen Victoria which documents the philosophically, ideologically supportive role Zen Buddhism had for Japanese militarism during WW2.

He particularly talks about how D.T. Suzuki used Zen Buddhism to justify the horribly bloody Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria. Suzuki wrote of the possibility of a "nondual experience, 'beyond good and evil', whereby a soldier, in the Pure Witness state, could kill someone else without feeling remorse."

Go to minute 30:50:00 of this video to hear a few minutes of him making this argument http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/63-zizek-goes-a-googling?tmpl=component&print=1

Of course, I believe that the argument which Daniel Ingram often makes about how morality, concentration, and insight are three distinct realms -- such that enlightenment in the realm of insight does not mean necessarily that you have any skill in the realm of morality -- explains a phenomenon such as the Japanese one. That being said, it is still shocking and sobering to know that Suzuki used Buddhism as a justification for remorseless killing. One might hope that, for instance, an intuitive understanding of interbeing might make one less inclined to brutal slaughter, but I guess not.

Plus, we all recognize that Daniel's ideas about the separation of the three trainings is not the most common or popularly held. There is an idea out there that by achieving enlightenment one is transformed into a morally perfect person. For instance, even a modern master as Ajahn Brahm in his book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond states that a true Arahat cannot possibly, "by nature," "store up possessions, intentionally kill any form of life, steal, perform sexual intercourse, tell a deliberate life, and act improperly out of desire, out of ill will, out of delusion, or out of fear" (241). Why do these idea persist? Certainly this idea of moral transformation upon enlightenment, or the idea that insight is impossible without moral perfection, is supported in numerous suttas. What do we make of all this?


One possible thing to consider is that there are many takes of what 'enlightenment' and full awakening are. Even here at the DhO. THere are new ideas and experiences that may be influencing the thinking of some here. Perhaps MCTB paths are not the only way to look at development. Some takes on awakening may fall short of massive behavioral changes which could be interpreted as manifesting more a virtuous way of acting. For example, recently a lot of the pragmatic dharma crowd thought the fetter model of the suttas was myth and adhered more to the technical path model laid out in Daniel's MCTB influenced by the Visuddhimagga and Mahasi Sayadaw.. Perhaps the fetter model and the massive behavioral changes are far from being a myth.
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 12:48 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 12:48 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
Hello Alan,

I don't want to be trite with your well written, thought out and researched post. But trite is what i will probably be. sorry in advance.

have you not come to terms with mankind's ability to rationalize anything and everything? if there is a philosophy that can't be used to justify slaughter and dominion then that philosophy will soon be amended to allow for such things if the perpetrators find it necessary to do so.

Is there an element to insight which may indeed suggests that killing is "no big deal" because of the nature of no-self, imperminance, illusion, etc., which then necessitates a Buddhist morality to counteract or work against this insight?



In what way is unnecessary killing a "big deal"? Is it inherently wrong or just stupid? For someone who feels none of life's pressures, it's very unlikely that he would wantonly or greedily kill another person.

For someone who still feels pressures to be and become but has wizened up to that destructive process, wanton killing is seen as a very stupid act. How can it but lead to a becoming that is even more painful than the current one?

Only with those who have not yet seen through the process of being and becoming, can killing ever be considered an intelligent solution.

Why is it unintelligent? Why would it lead to a becoming even more painful than the current one? Is it because of guilt? Yes. It's also because of material consequences: Ones very life becomes in jeopardy due to the revenge factor, ones freedom becomes in jeopardy due to the long arm of the law, ones reputation and ability to engineer future transactions is sullied.

Let's examine guilt. Having had insights, we know that guilt is a condition. Say we are drafted by the imperial army and are forced to kill innocents or else serve a brutal prison term. Is there correct choice? Is the martyr more admirable than the conscript? Let's look at the choice. The martyr faces the very real possibility that he will spend his entire life in a cage at the complete mercy of empowered fools. The conscript faces the very real possibility that he will be forced to kill innocents and spend the entire length of the war with empowered fools but at the end he will be free should he survive. I don't think there is a correct choice. The martyr knows that his choice won't dent the war machine one bit. And the conscript knows that his participation won't prolong the war one bit. The conscript also knows that his participation will end the lives of at least a few more innocents than would have otherwise been killed had he chosen to be a martyr. But he also knows that his life is just as important and, perhaps, even more important than one innocent. He also knows that he may have the opportunity to do save or benefit a life. I don't think there is a clear choice.

So you are conscripted, think through your option with great diligence and detachment, chose to fight and kill. Would you dwell on any guilty feelings after the fact or would you choose to release them? Or maybe being fully confident in the choice you made, having no doubt, you could experience the state "'beyond good and evil', whereby a soldier, in the Pure Witness state, could kill someone else without feeling remorse."?
thumbnail
Daniel M Ingram, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 5:32 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 5:32 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 3268 Join Date: 4/20/09 Recent Posts
I realize that I am ignoring some of your questions, but to them I would say: get strong insight and see what you think of how they transformed you or didn't.

What I do wish to address is this: I view the teachings of old Uncle Sid as being much different from how he characterized them, with Zen at its worst being this really far out interpretation of them.

For instance:

I would see morality as an endeavor that explicitly assumes that causes have effects, that what we do matters, that compassion and regard for things like life, happiness, wellness, and the like of all beings is extremely important, rather than his version, in with everything is non-existent and so it doesn't matter at all.

If you read the original stuff of the Pali Canon, if would be really hard to get the impression that Uncle Sid's version of morality and this guy's conception of Buddhist morality look anything alike.

You don't find the Buddha saying things like "beyond good and evil", or "it is all non-existent so anything goes" but in fact the exact opposite.

You can hardly blame Buddhism for people using it to justify whatever they wish, just as the question "Who Would Jesus Bomb" just rings wrongly in the ear, and yet bomb they do and often in his name...

Daniel
thumbnail
)( piscivorous, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 6:43 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 6:43 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 36 Join Date: 12/8/10 Recent Posts
Is Buddhism, Western or otherwise, the Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capitalism (I'll just refer to this as globalism)? No. If you look at how Western (specifically USAian Evangelical) Christianity has been co-opted by globalism, I think it's clear that just about any religion or ideology may be diluted into something useful for globalism. While I can't quite put my finger on it (perhaps self-expression, self-making?), it seems there is something much more fundamental about globalism, that runs right through many different religions that have had contact with globalism.

To echo Daniel a bit: what Žižek presents as (Western) Buddhism is substantially different from the Early Buddhism of the Pali canon. Zen, a Japanese version of Chinese Chán, has a complex history (ditto Chinese Chán!). In its efforts to survive persecution by Shinto traditionalists, Zen became associated with the state during the Meiji period, something denoted by Imperial Zen, if I recall correctly. This led to disastrous results.

I found McMahan's The Making of Buddhist Modernism [link] very helpful in understanding how Buddhism has transformed in its contacts with Colonialism and the West. A key idea is that Buddhist Modernism isn't necessarily Western or Asian (indeed, leading Buddhist Modernists are often Asian).

This doesn't mean that Žižek is entirely wrong. Buddhism has been co-opted and will continue to be co-opted. Here's McMahan on what he calls global folk Buddhism which is pretty much spot on:

McMahan:
After all, the vast majority of Buddhist in Asia are not monks... but laity whose practice of Buddhism is similarly soothing, offering comfort and accommodation to cultural norms rather than radical transformative challenge. Such laypeople blend Buddhism liberally with local spirit and amulet cults just as Americans and Europeans blend it with their cults of consumerism and commodity fetishism. The difference is that global postmodern popular culture of which global folk Buddhism is a part, with its tendency to assimilate all elements of culture to its banality is imperialistic.... Rather than the elite occupation of dismantling the self through rigorous meditation, global folk Buddhism becomes an aid in the ever-ongoing process of reflexive self-making and remaking that... constitutes self-identity in the contemporary world.... This Buddhism produces a unique material culture of Buddhist paraphernalia--beads, statues, exotic clothing--as practitioners fashion a Buddhist identity by imbibing popularized Buddhist teachings and practices, as well as consuming within a niche market of consumer goods and services. Buddha images multiply endlessly, not only in stone and metal but in printed and electronic images, no longer embodiments of buddhas themselves but advertisements for particular products, accessories to a particular lifestyle. They manifest not to answer prayers, grant wishes, and bestow good merit, as in local popular Buddhism, but to project cultural capital and, particularly in the current vogue of using Buddhism in advertising, draw actual capital. [my emphasis]


Instead deconstructing their identity, some people - they're easy to spot, displaying Buddhist clothing, decoration and paraphernalia - are busily building a Buddhist identity. (For a similar example, look at yoga as practiced in the West.)

cheers,

Matt
thumbnail
)( piscivorous, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 7:31 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 7:31 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 36 Join Date: 12/8/10 Recent Posts
A very interesting essay by Patrick Kearney, Still Crazy after all these Years: Why Meditation isn’t Psychotherapy (<http://www.buddhanet.net/crazy.htm>). It touches on the subject of how Buddhism is being distorted to make it more saleable:

Kearney:
There is a great deal of interest in Buddhist meditation in contemporary Australia, especially among psychologists and psychotherapists who seek to integrate Buddhist meditation, and in particular the vipassanâ meditation of the Theravâda school of Buddhism, with various forms of psychotherapy. The popularity of this approach is shown by the success of books such as Jack Kornfield’s A path with heart: A guide through the perils and promises of spiritual life, a runaway best-seller that has had an enormous impact on many people, including non-meditators. Indeed, Kornfield is one of the central influences behind this movement. Himself a successful meditation teacher and psychotherapist, he has inspired at least two other therapists, both of them his meditation students, to write on psychotherapy and meditation: Jeffrey Rubin, author of Psychotherapy and Buddhism: Towards an integration; and Mark Epstein, author of Thoughts without a thinker: Psychotherapy from a Buddhist perspective. As I read these books I did not feel the excitement that comes from discovering a new and culturally relevant way of encountering the timeless essence of the Buddha-dharma. Rather, I felt somewhat disturbed by what I see as a growing confusion about the nature of Buddhist teachings and a willingness to distort and dilute these teachings, apparently in order to make Buddhist meditation more saleable in our contemporary spiritual marketplace.


Daniel Ingram also criticizes this psychotherapy approach to Buddhism in his book, Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (usually referred to as MCTB here).

cheers,

Matt
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 11:49 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 11:31 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
I think I sort of went apeshit and wrote about ten thousands questions. I should have retained a specific focus but, Matt, you did a nice job of addressing a number of them.

I've ordered the McMahan book. It looks fascinating. An ideological geneology of Western Buddhism. Right up my alley. Thanks for recommending it.

That being said, and it looks like you agree Matt, but regarding Zizek's article Revenge of Global Finance, it is clear that what he is railing against is a really particular brand of hippy dippy consumer friendly psychotherapy-style generic "Eastern thought" "Buddhism" which is clearly market driven; compatible with consumer capitalism and hedonism, generally; and is the kind of thing which can be safely taught to corporate executives to help them be more productive in a busy workplace, and so on.

Zizek can be such a rigorous and deep reader of philosophers, it is sad that he trivializes and equates Buddhism with the above, not that the above shouldn't be critiqued. I think it is important to struggle to make sure Western Buddhism does not continue along in this vein and direction, and I believe that Hardcore Dharma and movements similar to it which want to go back to the core teachings and practices without all the fluff and foo foo are doing just that (keeping in mind that even these movements have been filtered through our various cultural paradigms in a variety of ways).

Regarding the second major thread of my writings above, the issue of Zen and its connection to Japanese militarism, and how Buddhism was used as a justification for murder, etc., Matt, it think your point is important, that "In its efforts to survive persecution by Shinto traditionalists, Zen became associated with the state during the Meiji period, something denoted by Imperial Zen, if I recall correctly. This led to disastrous results." All these traditions have been filtered through the various cultures that took them up and reformed/restructured them, and context is essential.

Here is a question though: Does enlightenment (say, stream entry) depend on cultural context? I mean, did the same thing occur in the mind of an enlightened person 2500 years ago as occurs now? How much does enlightenment depend of how we interpret it? Meaning, if enlightenment imparts universal truths, it should be the same kind of awareness for everyone who experiences it regardless of cultural or social context. But, since these universal insight truths then need to get expressed in human action, they get filtered through our cultural contexts and paradigms to emerge as moral practices aka relative truths, which DO depend on context and interpretation.

Is it really useful or accurate to separate universal truths (insight) from relative truths (morality)?

I am curious about this distinction between universal and relative truths and how they manifest and get expressed. The philosopher Alain Badiou has the position that there is only one kind of truth -- UNIVERSAL TRUTH. People can then become agents (actual manifestations) of this universal truth by showing fidelity to this truth by seeking to bring this truth to bear in the world, which often seeks to suppress or deny these truths in favor of the status quo. Real truths are universal -- meaning, they apply to all people and all things everywhere (you cannot say, for instance, all people should have liberty EXCEPT that nasty group of people over there, etc) -- and can only exist in the realms of science, politics, art, and love. Everything which isn't done in fidelity to a truth event is "chatter" or "opinion," which is basically worthless noise. Opinions are themselves beneath good and evil because only issues concerned with truth events can fall into the catergory of good and evil. Therefore, for Badiou, we CAN align up actions in the world with universal truths, concretely. There is then, for Badiou, an explicit connection between a universal truth and morality (a morality which is expressed by either 1) showing fidelity to a truth event [good], or 2) seeking to suppress or deny a truth event [bad]).

Here is a little of what Badiou says about morality, universal truths, etc.

"The real question underlying the question of Evil is the following: What is the Good? All my philosophy strives to answer this question. For complex reasons, I give the Good the name 'Truths' (in the plural). A Truth is a concrete process that starts by an upheaval (an encounter, a general revolt, a surprising new invention), and develops as fidelity to the novelty thus experimented. A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity (which I call his generic humanity). To become a subject (and not remain a simple human animal), is to participate in the coming into being of a universal novelty. That requires effort, endurance, sometimes self-denial. I often say it's necessary to be the 'activist' of a Truth. There is Evil each time egoism leads to the renunciation of a Truth. Then, one is de-subjectivized. Egoistic self-interest carries one away, risking the interruption of the whole progress of a truth (and thus of the Good). One can, then, define Evil in one phrase: Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests"

http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Essay-Understanding-Alain-Badiou/dp/1859844359/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

Therefore, for Badiou, there is a direct connection between morality and truth. No separation. Morality cannot exist outside of a dialogue with truth.

I guess I am trying to locate the connection -- in Buddhism -- between insight and morality. If the three universal truths of Buddhism are imperminence, suffering, and no-self, how must one FUNCTION IN THE WORLD (human actions) in such a way that one acts in direct fidelity with these truths? In what ways were the militant Japanese Zen masters NOT acting in fidelity to the universal truth events of Buddhist insight?

There are, of course, the Four Noble Truths as well. I have always thought that the truth of interbeing held the greatest promise for a Buddhist ethic.

Alain Badiou also argues that there is only the MULTIPLE as opposed to the ONE, but that is another discussion for another day...
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 11:41 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 11:41 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Here is a simple way to think about it: suffering is no fun. Not suffering is better for everybody. Actions taken as a reaction to suffering tend to not be ideal. Actions taken from a place of no suffering tend to lead to better results.

Good? Evil? Truths? --- What? How about identifying suffering and its causes, and what leads to its cessation, and then developing your mind such that suffering ceases and no longer arises?

Simple morality: don't take actions that lead to your own suffering or to the suffering of others. Be very careful when you are suffering as to what actions you take as your mind will be clouded.

(By that definition, morality becomes a lot simpler for an Arahat, as he is defined as one who is no longer suffering. Not to say that he wouldn't have more to learn about how to act for the most benefit - but his intentions will be good.)
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 1:47 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 1:39 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Here is an interesting review of the book Matt recommended called The Making of Buddhist Modernism by David McMahan. It looks like it is a text worth investigating and it is totally relevant to topics were are discussing here. Thanks again, Matt, for suggesting it!

[By the way, I'll read the article "Still Crazy after all these Years: Why Meditation isn’t Psychotherapy" later tonight when I am pretending to work...]

Reviewed by Carl Skooglund
http://imcwbeta.org/Resources/ArticleDetail/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/64/Book-Review-The-Making-of-Buddhist-Modernism-by-David-McMahan.aspx

What we experience today in the West as Buddhism – the fact that we experience it at all – is the result of its favorable interaction with what David McMahan calls the “discourses of Modernity”: the European Enlightenment, Romanticism, Transcendentalism, Protestantism/theism, democracy, feminism, scientific rationalism and psychology. The Making of Buddhist Modernism explains how these frameworks, which form the basis of the Western worldview, influenced what interpretations of Buddhism became possible for us – and impossible. It shows how Buddhism entered existing philosophical systems, was influenced by them and, in turn, influenced them. McMahan sheds light on how portions of Buddhist doctrine and practice were emphasized, augmented, ignored or suppressed allowing Buddhism to gain a foothold in Western culture.

For anyone who wants to deconstruct, disentangle and parse the divergent – sometimes contradictory – notions that fall under the umbrella term “Buddhism” this book is invaluable. It is not a Dharma book per se, but it is a critical one for today’s practitioners: it explains how what Westerners now know as Dharma came to be.

For example, in the late 1800’s, Buddhism’s proponents equated its use of direct experience as a basis of inner knowledge with the scientific method’s reliance on rationality and direct observation. By some, it was contrasted with Christianity’s emphasis on faith. To avoid being viewed as life-negating and “mechanical,” labels that burdened science, the following elements of Chinese Buddhism were highlighted and then linked with their counterparts in Western Romanticism and Transcendentalism: an appreciation of beauty, the elevation of intuition over the intellect, feeling over thought, and nature over civilization.

Western psychology played a crucial role in translating Buddhism for Americans and Europeans. For example, Carl Jung’s theories of the collective unconscious became a lens through which to comprehend the Mahayana school’s idea of universal Buddha Nature. The pantheon of Tibetan deities was perceived literally by its original adherents (and still is largely). However, its meeting with the West in the early 1900s provided psychological interpretations of the deities, transforming them from “primitive superstitions” into sophisticated portrayals of human mind states.

“Many paths, one mountain” is an expression of the centuries-old Perennial philosophy, which has held that truth is universal and all the great religions reflect some aspect of it, albeit partially. In addition, Romanticism established the notion of the individual search for truth and the freedom to devise one’s own spiritual identity. Together, these ideas laid the groundwork for eclectic approaches to spirituality in the 1900’s. They provided the license to pick and choose, as one saw fit, distinct components from among the entire range of religious traditions, as well as from distinct schools within specific traditions. In practice, this allows a Buddhist practitioner to mix Vipassana and Tibetan teachings, attend a Native American sweat lodge on Saturday, and appreciate a church service with her Christian husband on Sunday.

In one wonderful chapter McMahan charts the course of a key theme in Buddhism: interdependence. The earliest Pali scriptures established a framework of cause-and-effect, of “conditionality” that was narrowly focused – quite intentionally –on the cycle of human suffering and rebirth. The Mahayana school greatly expanded the realm of Dharma with visions of a cosmos populated by innumerable Buddhas, yet asserted the essential “sameness” of ultimate reality. These concepts met and mixed with, among other things, the Romantic notions of wholeness and inseparability, of an “interlocking order”, and the ecological musings of John Muir. What resulted was the hybrid we now know as “interdependence,” with all its connotations of existential oneness, and its activist orientation regarding social and ecological justice.

The book also explores some of influences currently impacting Buddhism: popularization, commercialization, secularization, and homogenization. For example, what happens when an ancient tradition, based on renunciation and conceived to free the human mind from craving, meets the juggernaut of consumerism?

In terms of style, McMahan’s writing is fluid, crisp and witty. The degree to which he uses philosophic terminology and esoteric concepts can be challenging (it took me three trips to the dictionary to finally remember what “hermeneutical” means). He is obviously a scholar, but he gives the layperson a good chance of understanding a very complex subject, and the insights he provides are well worth it. Again, this is not a book that teaches Dharma – but one that helps you better understand the Dharma that is currently being taught.


Carl Skooglund has been practicing Buddhist Vipassana meditation with IMCW since 1993, taught the Family Meditation class for ten years, been an IMCW mentor, sat on the IMCW board and Teachers Council, and participated in IMCW sutta study and Kalyana Mitta. In 2008 he completed the Community Dharma Leader (CDL) program of Spirit Rock Meditation Center.
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 4:57 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 4:50 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Yes, it is!

The goal of buddhism, as Slavoj Zizek so knowingly summarizes, is to retreat into the deepest recesses of your mind, wherein you will find your deepest, true self --- a feat which can only be accomplished by developing and maintaing the most placid indifference.

If one reads the founding texts of buddhism, the sutras, as Slavoj Zizek surely must have, one can find in them a hidden meaning, a sub-layer, if you will, predicting the birth and development of modern corporative virtual capitalism, and laying out the necessary global requirements for its nurture and sustainment.

Hidden beneath a message of happiness and freedom, is actually a perverse inner core, which will lure and capture all but the most prepared and lucid minds (such as Slavoj's) into voluntarily engaging themselves in an active process of distanciation from reality. The goal of the sutras (as you can find out if you read them yourself) is to enslave mankind into a state of apathic subjugation to the capitalism ideal.

The words might literally call one into a life of renunciation and peace, while actually their emergent effect is to foster a consumerist, work-driven, fast-paced, ... in one word, a bovine-like society, who has cut all their ties to "reality" (in which they no longer believe).

And for what purpose was so much effort put into the buddho-capitalistic project? Only Buddha, the true inventor of capitalism, really knows!

But now, thanks to Slavoj and other critics of similar analytical prowess, who saw the real message under the message, we finally know the truth! And we can be free of the capitalist-buddhist pigs once and for all!

ha ha emoticon thanks for that!

A misreading is not quite accurate, I'm convinced Slavoj Zizek never read the suttas so he could misread them. Have you? Though the suttas have their share of nonsense, in them I found none of the nonsense which Slavoj claims is "buddhism" (in the excerpt you pasted) anywhere in the suttas.

The core message of buddhism is about suffering, what it is, how it comes to be, what causes it to cease, and how to follow a path to promote the latter causes and put an end to suffering.

I used to have left-wing inclinations, and become thrilled at reading similar texts of social theory. Now to me they all sound like verbose opinions completely missing the point. Has Slavoj found a way of becoming completely devoid of greed? The nefarious consequences of capitalism are a product of greed...

I stopped being "left-wing" when I understood why I liked reading left-wing inclined social-theory. Of course, there is some interesting stuff in there, some of these people see things others don't... But when I looked for the psychological reasons why I — I specifically — liked doing such reading and theorizing, I found "us versus them," and "we know best" mentality all over... not the most fertile soil for improvement of society, wouldn't you say? "Tried and failed" indeed... So I am nowadays somewhat disgusted by such "social critique". Clean my own house first, put my money where my mouth is, that sort of thing.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 9:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/15/11 8:11 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
@Bruno: I'm not going to spend a bunch of time defending Zizek here since I think he is basically wrong on these points but instead of slamming him personally, or condemning left-wing social critiques generally [both of which you do, which is an unskillfull way of painting with the same brush Zizek does regarding Buddhism], my point was that we should seriously consider WHY we disagree with him since I think that there are very few folks out there who would 1) deny that certain brands of Western Buddhism seem completely compatible with global capitalism, and 2) deny that Buddhism is flexible enough that is has been used for other bad things in the past (such as justifying Japanese militarism), and 3) ask the question that if there is indeed a true difference between Buddhist relative truths (morality) and Buddhist absolute or universal truths (insight), what specifically is there within insight (absolute or universal truth) which makes co-habitation with capitalist agenda or even murder noncompatible. Are you saying that Suzuki and the Japanese masters were just stupid and didn't read the suttas? Or maybe we should reassert the connection between insight and morality, without suggesting that they may be mutually exclusive.

Also, your sarcasm regarding how Buddhism is corporatism or capitalism in "essence" isn't really helpful and is a way of just not taking the question seriously, as that is clearly not what Zizek was saying. The question is whether there is something at the core of Buddhism which makes it inherent compatible or incompatible with capitalism?

Zizek has asked the same question regarding Marxism. Is there something inherently at the core of Marxism which leads to the gulags? He thinks there may be, even though he considers himself a communist. Clearly Marx himself in his moral statements does not want or suggest gulags -- he wants liberation! -- but is there something in the economic theory which contradicts the moral aspects?

As a Marxist myself, I have to answer for the fact there were gulags, Stalinism, and failures all around. I could just say that these people were not "reading" Marx right, that they bastardized his thought. As Buddhists, we have to be honest and brave enough to answer for Japanse militarism and the fact that Buddhism was used to justify murder. As Buddhists, we have to answer for the weird pro consumption, pro hedonist forms it seems to be taking in the West. We need to be intellectually honest about it and not just joke the questions off.

"Buddhism has always been an extremely adaptable religion, and it demonstrates a protean ability to adjust itself to new cultures. Buddhism tends to take exisiting elements of a new host culture and 'buddhise' them, using them as vehicles for its fundamental insights. But cultural adaptation is a two-way process, and Buddhism is itself transformed as it moves from one culture to another. We are living through a period in which Asian forms of Buddhism as adapting themselves to the culture of the contemporary West" (Kearney 1).

I think as early as the Mahāyāna creation of the figure of the bodhisattva there was a recognition that there needed to be a supplement which would help deal with social issues, help society, etc., which maybe weren't addressed that concretely in the original Pali suttas.

Why have Thich Nhat Hanh and David Loy, amongst others, advocated for a socially active Buddhism ("Engaged Buddhism') if this aspect is and always was there in the original suttas and is and always was there in Buddhist practice from the beginning?

And, regarding the issue of cleaning one's "own house first" before turning towards society, it doesn't do a lot of good to ask people to not steal if they are starving. Or to sit and meditate to discover insight if they are being shot down in the streets. Sometimes social reform/revolution is clearly needed first. Sometimes it IS them vs us (as a Libian, or a Tunisian, or a Egyptian, or a Yemen, or a Syrian, or a Bahrainian, etc.) [or the 1% vs the 99%]. Sometimes the right path is from the outside in.

Is the path of renunciation always the right path?

Also, would or should a Buddhist run a global corporation? Why or why not? If not, then shouldn't Buddhists be out protesting every day against corporate greed? If not, then isn't Zizek correct?

Just sayin'. I'm not trying to be provocative or cheese people off. I'm not trying to attack Buddhism. I consider myself a Buddhist. I am just trying to clarify my thinking and have concrete answers from the kinds of question Zizek asks. David Loy asks some good questions in his book Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution. These questions are in that spirit.

What will Buddhism's place come to be in the West, what must we reform, what must we keep, what must we get rid of. What are the essential core elements of Buddhism we cannot get rid of or reform without it no longer being Buddhism any more?

Is Buddhism inherently countercultural or anti-modern? Is it anti-science (the Dali Lama doesn't think so, as he stated in his book The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality)? Should Buddhism be primarily about insight or morality or both? What is the connection between insight and morality? Between insight or social engagement? Does the Buddhist truth of no-soul or imperminance mean that murder isn't such a terrible thing or even a meaningful thing (I don't think so, but apparently the Japanese militants did...)? Didn't Buddhist samurai kill? Were they just stupid or didn't they not read the suttas? What is at the core of Buddhism which is TRUE no matter what culture or time period we look at which unequivically states that murder is wrong? Or is Buddhism so malleable that it can be made to mean just about anything? If not, what are its essential truths? If Buddhism is almost infinetly malleable, do we need to supplement it with outside moral dictates from other philosophical traditions (to prevent Buddhism from ever supporting things like murder or corporatism, etc)? If that is the case, what other philosophical systems? Etc.
Tom Tom, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 3:15 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 2:54 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 466 Join Date: 9/19/09 Recent Posts
Hi Alan,

I am going to answer a few of your questions, but first, as an aside:

I read the majority of your posts and you certainly have a lot of questions. However, your questions might be geared more towards a Buddhist scholar than practitioners. Not because they will give you better answers, but because they will give you an answer that makes sense to you or that may seem better because it may be more complicated and has a lot of words. From an insight standpoint your questions appear top-level, sort of like you're watching society doing it's thing from the heavens and imagining you have a big wand you can cast to mold society in various ways. You're actually sort of doing practices on your imagined actions of humanity on the planet earth in this moment.

You're not really changing anything you're just watching it by thinking about it and pretending you can immediately change things. If you're interested in what this site is about, try switching this process from the guy with the wand over the imagined actions of humanity on the human earth to the characteristics and properties that make up your immediate experience in this moment. How is your toe feeling? Have you checked in with it?

Now to answer a few of your questions:

To be honest, I gave it a go and failed. Your questions are speaking in too many absolutes and so I couldn't come up with a good answer for any of them.

For example:
Is the path of renunciation always the right path?


Of course it isn't ALWAYS the right path. A gazelle in Africa, running from lions all day, may not have much time for renunciation either. It's apparent you're not talking about individuals here. Renunciation (in whatever form it may take) is an individual and personal process.

What will Buddhism's place come to be in the West, what must we reform, what must we keep, what must we get rid of. What are the essential core elements of Buddhism we cannot get rid of or reform without it no longer being Buddhism any more?


Who is "we"? Who is making these decisions? If you want Buddhism to be portrayed a certain way, then make a website and form a community around your ethos and/or start a club. This is Engaged Buddhism in action.

What is at the core of Buddhism which is TRUE no matter what culture or time period we look at which unequivically states that murder is wrong? Or is Buddhism so malleable that it can be made to mean just about anything? If not, what are its essential truths? If Buddhism is almost infinetly malleable, do we need to supplement it with outside moral dictates from other philosophical traditions (to prevent Buddhism from ever supporting things like murder or corporatism, etc)? If that is the case, what other philosophical systems? Etc.


The word dharma is etymologically linked to the word "law," like the laws of physics (not the laws of government). The laws of physics will always be true no matter what you wish to call them or however they may manifest. The laws of physics can be approximately described through mathematics, but never exactly. Such is the nature of words with the dharma. This is why you are not getting satisfactory answers to your questions, at least here.

Tom
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 10:23 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 10:22 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Thomas A V:
To be honest, I gave it a go and failed. Your questions are speaking in too many absolutes and so I couldn't come up with a good answer for any of them.


(To Alan: ) I found myself doing the same. Trying to write answers but not being able to come up with useful ones.

Your questions are all very high-level, dealing with very abstract concepts. Thinking about these things in the way that you seem to be thinking about them won't lead to lasting peace of mind.... but, getting your concepts straightened out can help if that allows you to begin practicing diligently.

So, before I can address your questions, I have to ask: for what reason are you asking them? What do you hope to achieve by getting them answered? What are you looking for by starting this discussion?
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:21 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 10:48 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
To be honest, I started the thread because I really respect and enjoy Zizek's writings and commentaries but his critiques regarding Buddhism have been irking me for some time. I initially dismissed them as silly but then thought that it would be more intellectually honest for me to take up the challenge of deeply considering his points and thinking them through. In philosophical terms it is simply a clarification of terms and ideas. In philosophy (or literary theory, or critical theory, or whatever) there is a continual dialectic whereby someone will bring forth an idea, someone else will deeply consider it and then challenge those aspects which need revision and/or clarification and/or rejection, and in this way the ideas continue to be polished and/or developed in a progressive fashion.

The basic, foundational supposition of a critical method -- or THE elementary philosophical gesture -- is that when an IDEA is actualized in the world -- allowed to realize itself concretely -- and something goes horribly wrong (e.g Japanese militarism and murder being defended and promoted via Buddhist philosophy, or consumer capitalism colonizing Buddhist ideas, etc), the task is not to 1) necessarily destroy the idea, or 2) to automatically assume that the problems were caused merely by faulty interpretation or implementation -- i.e. distortion of those ideas by those who tried to actualize the ideas -- but to ask oneself whether or not there was something within the IDEA ITSELF which allowed for those interpretations to exist or for those problems to manifest. By looking deeply into the heart of the idea, we can potentially develop, progress, or make stronger the idea so as to prevent catastrophies or problems from occuring in the future. If we don't, we allow for the possibility that these things could occur again and again. Since Buddhism is still in the process of flowering here in the West, the question of what direction it can and should take are indeed important.

I realize that this is a community built mainly about practice, and that is what has brought me to it -- as I have begun a committed practice -- but I thought it might also be enriching to discuss some of the philosophical aspects of Buddhism with others who enjoy such modes of discourse. Yes, it is highly abstract. I deeply enjoy developing and discussing abstract philosophical models, but for me these models have serious stakes. Buddhism has a long philosophical history but it is also about praxis (just like Marxism and psychoanalysis), and as someone deeply concerned with social justice, I am interested in discovering the connections Buddhism has or potentially has with social justice, transformation, and liberation.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:55 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:04 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm interested in the discussion only in so far as it will help you with your practice. I don't think that conclusions we'd come to here, in terms of high-level abstract concepts affecting the entire world, would be more effective at changing the world than a discussion which leads to you practicing more effectively, or being able to help others practice more effectively. I think what would be more productive than talking about these abstract things that affect the world is how "these abstract things that affect the world" affect you. Harmonious, internally-consistent, and intrinsically-pleasing conceptual synthesis will not in and of itself bring you the peace you seek... however, it can help foster a practice that will.

In particular, I'd want to focus on what is intellectually dissonant to you - for example, those critiques of Buddhism that irk you - or what is important to you - those models that have serious stakes - as those are the ones that could potentially derail a practice. If you frame the discussion appropriately, though, such as by continuously asking yourself why, exactly, these things are important to you, then it can also be a great source of insight as to where your attachments lie, and hence, what potentially causes you to suffer.

Keeping that in mind, how will this discussion affect your practice? That is to say, to what extent are the topics that you want to cover obstructing your progress?
thumbnail
)( piscivorous, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:17 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:17 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 36 Join Date: 12/8/10 Recent Posts
Speculative Non-Buddhism might interest you: Speculative Non-Buddhism http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/

Though I admit I stopped caring about most of their toing and froing months ago. Many of the criticisms are solid[0], but there are no solutions or practice, only strangely affected keening ;-)

[0] E.g., http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2011/05/19/buddhists-of-oz/ «Why does Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche dress up like a medieval Tibetan princeling? Surely he understands that he is living in a twenty-first century western democracy. Why does Lama Surya Das—a man who preaches “the natural, primordially pure nature of mind”—go by that Tibetan/Hindu hybrid name, rather than his given name, Jeffrey Miller? Why does Roshi Pat Enkyo O’Hara dress up in the glorified garb of a medieval Japanese farmer?» Hahahaha, very funny.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 12:02 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:56 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
This thread and everyone's post -- and my own ADHD-style philosophical flailings -- have already helped me clarify and direct my thoughs in innumerable ways, believe it or not, and I've discovered a number of new leads for future investigation. People are pretty thoughtful on this site, and have pretty unique perspectives, and I appreciate that.

I guess if I were to try and crystalize everything into one or two questions it would be this: How much are the moral teachings of Buddhism derived and/or connected to insight (enlightenment)?

We can probably break the moral teachings down into two main parts: 1) those moral teaching which are there simply to facilitate and/or make the practice of insight easier and/or more productive, and 2) those moral teachings (if any) which are derived directly from insight and/or enlightenment.

I would imagine that the former moral teachings (those designed to facilitate and/or make meditative practice easier and/or more productive) can be used, rejected, or reformed based on the pragmatics of what really, truly works best -- from a contemporary standpoint -- for an individual to make meditative practice more productive and enriching (achieving enlightenment).

But the latter moral teachings, those (if any) derived from the ultimate insights of enlightenment, can not and should not be rejected or reformed, because they are based on ultimate truths. These moral teachings are inextricably connected to the absolute. These should not be picked and choosen willy nilly.

What therefore, if any, are those Buddhist moral truths which are timeless and cross all cultures and historical time periods and socio/politics epochs and nodes?

Perhaps the answer is that there are no moral dictates which can be inextricably linked to the insights of enlightenment. Perhaps to even to ask the question would be to perform an error akin to wondering what morality is revealed by insights into quarks or dark matter. Maybe that is why the Japanese Zen masters promoting murder or Buddhism can mix agreeably with capitalism, because insight into impermanence or no-soul doesn't really give us knowledge of how to deal with dictators or right-wing free market ideology or abortion or war (just or otherwise) or Lady Gaga music or privacy or free speech or whether pizza or pepper spay is a vegetable..
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 12:30 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 12:30 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
I'm sorry if the sarcasm was unpleasant, it was indeed just a way of not taking what Zizek wrote seriously. Why should Zizek, or Marx be taken seriously?

Find me one instance of intelectual philosophy that brought anyone peace of mind. My sister is a professional philosopher yet quite far from anything resembling peace of mind. The only things I personally find worthwhile about buddhism are related to practice, not philosophy (as in chaining logically coherent trains of thought).

For instance, the statement "passion is suffering," which is close in spirit to the core of buddhist teaching (quite unlike the choices Zizek made to represent buddhism), is not to be taken as a philosophy: it is not a matter of "regarding passion as if it was suffering," or "seeing the logical consistency of such worldview" (which is actually quite self-consistent, philosophically speaking) — it is a matter of seeing for oneself, through consistent, laborious, attentive introspection ("meditation") that whenever passion is there, so is suffering, and when passion is absent, suffering disappears without a trace.

The defense of the statement "passion is suffering" is not to be carried out through chaining trains of thought and seeing that they are more plausible, it is to be carried out by experimenting with the practice by oneself.

Buddhism, the religion, is just another religion, I find nothing different in it than in any other religion. You have clergy, power, and money, all typical accomplices of the status quo, compatible with capitalism and communism and autocracy and monarchy. So if you are wondering if buddhism, the religion, is compatible with capitalism, the answer is obviously yes and there are many examples of that.

If you are wondering if buddhism, the practice, is compatible with capitalism, I can at least tell you that there currently hasn't been, to my knowledge, any society which consisted mostly of arhats, so we don't really know. I would speculate that the mode of economical distribution that might be chosen by such society, or the mode of logistical organization, or the mode of labor attribution, none of these would be a very relevant measure of the well being of this society's denizens, which would far surpass anything achievable (or even imaginable) by any group of people suffering the bonds of passion. Hence making the question "is capitalism compatible with buddhism (the practice)" somewhat irrelevant in my book.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 1:51 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 1:51 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
Find me one instance of intelectual philosophy that brought anyone peace of mind. My sister is a professional philosopher yet quite far from anything resembling peace of mind. The only things I personally find worthwhile about buddhism are related to practice, not philosophy (as in chaining logically coherent trains of thought)


It is my contention that philosophical inquiry -- aka critical theory -- is a method whose function is to ask questions of pre-existing systems of thought, questions which lie outside the constraints or boundaries of the existing dialogue (the "state of things"). These questions then may provoke a clarification of those ideas, a adjustment of those ideas, a rejection of those ideas, or the illumination of a whole new thread of ideas.

Whether or not philosophical inquiry has ever "brought anyone peace of mind" depends on the system to which it was bringing its critical method, and whether that system proved to be beneficial regarding the reduction of sufffering.

I tend to follow Badiou in the belief that philosophy is itself not capable of being a "truth event," but philosophy is a method which can help bring understand and clarity to truth events when they occur in the realms of science, politics, art, or love.
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 3:24 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 3:24 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Alan Arthur Scott:

It is my contention that philosophical inquiry -- aka critical theory -- is a method whose function is to ask questions of pre-existing systems of thought, questions which lie outside the constraints or boundaries of the existing dialogue (the "state of things"). These questions then may provoke a clarification of those ideas, a adjustment of those ideas, a rejection of those ideas, or the illumination of a whole new thread of ideas.


Agreed (nicely put btw), and why I previously wrote "there is some interesting stuff in there, some of these people see things others don't... " Essentially a good philosopher is one who can ask good questions, and good questions are those which haven't yet been answered, or even thought about.

Alan:

Whether or not philosophical inquiry has ever "brought anyone peace of mind" depends on the system to which it was bringing its critical method, and whether that system proved to be beneficial regarding the reduction of sufffering.

I tend to follow Badiou in the belief that philosophy is itself not capable of being a "truth event," but philosophy is a method which can help bring understand and clarity to truth events when they occur in the realms of science, politics, art, or love.


In my opinion, philosophy is a form of inquiry which is, by itself, insufficient to bring about any further improvement in society as a whole. In essence because philosophy is strongly conceptual, but the problems that ail modern society are no longer so.

Passion (the root cause of human misery) is pre-conceptual, it happens before thought in the perceptual process. To understand passion, one must observe and comprehend it at the level where it happens, at the level of bodily sensations — which concepts can point to, but can't successfully elaborate on. This has been noted by many thinkers and poets throughout the ages — love, to give a trivial example, can't adequately be described, although obviously we have a word and can point to it.

Hence, imo, no matter how much you philosophize about passion, e.g. love, conceptual elaboration, happening on the level of discourse, is pretty useless as a way to deal with the problems arising from that passion. For instance, a friend of mine, who studies philosophy of emotion, is quite unable to prevent (or even smoothly deal with) unpleasant and painful results that are consequence of his emotions.

In my experience, understanding passions at their own level (of sensations) leads to their diminishment, and hence to the diminishing of all the problems which arise together with those passions. Philosophizing, which I still do as a hobbyist, never brought me any recompense even remotely as tangible as the changes brought by meditation.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 4:32 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 4:31 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
"In my experience, understanding passions at their own level (of sensations) leads to their diminishment, and hence to the diminishing of all the problems which arise together with those passions."

I understand what you are saying here, and, for the moment, let's continue by proposing that what you said above it absolutely correct: that passion, and all those problems which arise together with those passions, can only be altered or extinguished by coming to understand those forces at the level of sensations -- not merely in an intellectual, abstract way (of course, there are those who would disagree, like Jacques Lacan, but we'll put that aside for the time being).

But here is a question: what about those constructs which cause concrete misery which are not ruled, fueled, or compelled by passions -- inhuman forces, such as corporate entities, undemocratic political systems, or laws which hurt certain groups within a society?

We need abstract, philosophical dialogue, debate, conceptualization, and questioning to alter these inhuman, passionless entities which perpetuate human suffering. Such things as the Enlightenment, empiricism, rationalism, the scienctific method, humanism, etc., have done untold good in diminishing human suffering on mass scales.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 6:18 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 6:18 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
But the latter moral teachings, those (if any) derived from the ultimate insights of enlightenment, can not and should not be rejected or reformed, because they are based on ultimate truths. These moral teachings are inextricably connected to the absolute. These should not be picked and choosen willy nilly.


Define 'moral teachings'. What is the purpose of moral teachings?
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 6:21 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 6:21 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
But here is a question: what about those constructs which cause concrete misery which are not ruled, fueled, or compelled by passions -- inhuman forces, such as corporate entities, undemocratic political systems, or laws which hurt certain groups within a society?


Corporate entities, undemocratic political systems, and a system of government including laws which hurt certain groups within a society, are all composed of human beings who are compelled by passions. They aren't forces existing in-and-of-themselves. Without passion fueling the humans composing them, these 'entities' would be harmless or not exist.

Alan Smithee:
We need abstract, philosophical dialogue, debate, conceptualization, and questioning to alter these inhuman, passionless entities which perpetuate human suffering. Such things as the Enlightenment, empiricism, rationalism, the scienctific method, humanism, etc., have done untold good in diminishing human suffering on mass scales.

What is needed is for each human to quell the passion in his/her heart. Since you cannot make anybody else do it, you can only do it yourself. So, the most direct step you can take to diminishing human suffering on a mass scale is to end suffering in yourself.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 6:28 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 6:28 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Corporate entities, undemocratic political systems, and a system of government including laws which hurt certain groups within a society, are all composed of human beings who are compelled by passions. They aren't forces existing in-and-of-themselves. Without passion fueling the humans composing them, these 'entities' would be harmless or not exist.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. I, for instance, do not see the recent economic collapse as caused by human greed, but by systemic problems inherent to our economic and political structures and codified by laws which produces greed as a byproduct. In some cases, the structures make the man. The men don't make the structures...
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 7:17 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 6:44 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
We fundamentally disagree on this point. I, for instance, do not see the recent economic collapse as caused by human greed, but by systemic problems inherent to our economic and political structures and codified by laws which produces greed as a byproduct. In some cases, the structures make the man. The men don't make the structures...

How can an economic or political structure (codified by laws or not) produce greed without humans who are fueled by passions participating in it, reacting to the circumstances, having greed arise in them, and then acting out on that greed?
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 7:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 7:54 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
How can an economic or political structure (codified by laws or not) produce greed without humans who are fueled by passions participating in it, reacting to the circumstances, having greed arise in them, and then acting out on that greed?

Imagine for a minute the insitution of slavery, as it was manifested in the US. It was a social and economic institution which was a motor force of development, which also produced a variety of relations of production and also a variety of productive forces. These in turn themselves produce a culture and a society and systems of belief and laws which coincide with them.

Imagine the slave. The slave is subsumed within the institution. The institution controls or at least greatly influences almost everything which he or she can do. The slave is a motor for the economic development of the society. A cog in the engine of economic and social production. The individual insight or enlightenment of the slave means nothing in regards to the overall influence and functioning of the institution.

Flash forward 160-180 or so years later. We now live in a globalized world of supra-nation, late capitalism, with unbelievable technological and communications systems, whereby corporate entities are now far more powerful than even nation states.

Corporate entities in and of themsevles have a power and influence far in excess to the individuals who inhabit them, who are basically interchangeable and have little to no overall control on the general functioning and drive of the institutions themselves.

Individual passion has nothing to do with the fact that corporations are legally mandated solely to produce wealth, regardless of who works for them. I think it perpetuates suffering to proclaim that ALL the world's problems are caused by a lack of insight, i.e. individual failing. It underestimates the power of political and economic structures and, I might suggest, is potentially undemocratic because it sets up a paradigm whereby the "enlightened" are the ones fit to rule because the masses are unfit to make political decisions for themselves because they remain "ruled" by their passions and are trapped in illusion.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 8:08 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 8:07 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
I think it perpetuates suffering to proclaim that ALL the world's problems are caused by a lack of insight, i.e. individual failing.


The suttas are unequivocal in stating that it is a lack of insight into the passions is the major cause of suffering (i.e. apart from physical pain / etc.):

Maha-satipatthana sutta:
Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

(...)

And what are the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are stress? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: These are called the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are stress.

And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.


On the rare occasion that the suttas talk about social issues, they take an even stronger position on this:

Culadukkhakkhanda sutta:
"And what is the drawback of sensuality? There is the case where, on account of the occupation by which a clansman makes a living — whether checking or accounting or calculating or plowing or trading or cattle tending or archery or as a king's man, or whatever the occupation may be — he faces cold, he faces heat, being harassed by mosquitoes & flies, wind & sun & creeping things, dying from hunger & thirst.

"Now this drawback in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"If the clansman gains no wealth while thus working & striving & making effort, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught: 'My work is in vain, my efforts are fruitless!' Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"If the clansman gains wealth while thus working & striving & making effort, he experiences pain & distress in protecting it: 'How will neither kings nor thieves make off with my property, nor fire burn it, nor water sweep it away, nor hateful heirs make off with it?' And as he thus guards and watches over his property, kings or thieves make off with it, or fire burns it, or water sweeps it away, or hateful heirs make off with it. And he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught: 'What was mine is no more!' Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source, sensuality for the cause, the reason being simply sensuality, that kings quarrel with kings, nobles with nobles, priests with priests, householders with householders, mother with child, child with mother, father with child, child with father, brother with brother, sister with sister, brother with sister, sister with brother, friend with friend. And then in their quarrels, brawls, & disputes, they attack one another with fists or with clods or with sticks or with knives, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that [men], taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge into battle massed in double array while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are wounded by arrows & spears, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that [men], taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge slippery bastions while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are splashed with boiling cow dung and crushed under heavy weights, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that [men] break into windows, seize plunder, commit burglary, ambush highways, commit adultery, and when they are captured, kings have them tortured in many ways. They flog them with whips, beat them with canes, beat them with clubs. They cut off their hands, cut off their feet, cut off their hands & feet. They cut off their ears, cut off their noses, cut off their ears & noses. They subject them to the 'porridge pot,' the 'polished-shell shave,' the 'Rahu's mouth,' the 'flaming garland,' the 'blazing hand,' the 'grass-duty [ascetic],' the 'bark-dress [ascetic],' the 'burning antelope,' the 'meat hooks,' the 'coin-gouging,' the 'lye pickling,' the 'pivot on a stake,' the 'rolled-up bed.' They have them splashed with boiling oil, devoured by dogs, impaled alive on stakes. They have their heads cut off with swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that [people] engaged in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental misconduct. Having engaged in bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct, they — on the break-up of the body, after death — re-appear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress in the future life, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.


Of course, you are free to believe it or not. However, I would suggest that a clear understanding of these issues in terms of insight is crucial in order to come to reasonably well-informed opinions on them.

It underestimates the power of political and economic structures and, I might suggest, is potentially undemocratic because it sets up a paradigm whereby the "enlightened" are the ones fit to rule because the masses are unfit to make political decisions for themselves because they remain "ruled" by their passions and are trapped in illusion.


I would suggest that this has little to do with Buddhism, but perhaps has a lot to do with other ways of looking at things that are unrelated to Buddhism.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/16/11 11:42 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
The suttas are unequivocal in stating that it is a lack of insight into the passions is the major cause of suffering (i.e. apart from physical pain / etc.

Okay, well let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that tomorrow every person in the entire world became a Buddhist and within five years of pratice every single person on the Earth had achieved the minimum of stream entry.

Would we then have a utopian society free of all suffering? Would a specific form of social organization immediately present itself as the obvious and only way to structure society? Would it be capitalist or non-capitalist? Would there be markets or no markets? Would it be a representative democracy, direct democracy, a theocracy, anarchism, feudalism, hunting and gathering, etc? Would people work in corporations, would corporations be abolished, would work be abolished? How would schools be organized? Would we continue to have children? Would it be okay to have abortions? Would homosexuality be okay? Would everyone be vegetarian? Would everyone be vegan? Would we still have punk rock shows? Would people see or create movies or fictional literature? Would we have a society free of all social class distinction? Would we have a society free of status distinctions?

Would every single problem be solved by the simple fact that every single person had achieved stream entry?

If you suspect that perhaps not every single problem plaguing humanity would be solved by stream entry, that it would not be obvious what shape the economic sphere would take, that it would not be obvious what shape the political sphere would take, that it would not be clear what shape the cultural sphere would take -- then there would continue to be sources of oppression, exploitation, conflict, and suffering.

And if oppression, exploitation, conflict, and sufffering continued, then that would mean that there is indeed a good deal to which insight cannot speak or solve. Then that would also mean that, as Daniel Ingram wrote in his book, there is a degree of mutual exclusitvity between morality (living in the world) and insight (knowledge of the absolute).

I just don't think that Buddhism -- a system of thought developed something like 2500 -- is equipped to deal with uber complex forms of social organization like transnational corporations, etc. It just isn't a system of thought which is complete unto itself, meaning, without need of supplementation by other philosophies. To state that it is -- that Buddhism has ALL the answers -- is to perpetuate the line of thinking similar to other religious and political sects which suggest that all we need is Jesus, or Allah, or free markets, or Dianetics or whatever, and everything would work out just fine...
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 12/17/11 1:39 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/17/11 12:49 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
Okay, well let's do a thought experiment.


I love thought experiments!

Let's imagine that tomorrow every person in the entire world became a Buddhist and within five years of pratice every single person on the Earth had achieved the minimum of stream entry.


good time to add my personal history and pov regarding se. in june 2010 i had a profound insight unlike any other i ever had. i labeled it se as i was reading a lot about buddhism at the time. i don't have 2nd path and i can't verify 1st path. i can only claim an epiphany regarding no-self whose effects are still with me.

as for my pov re: se - it may be an important attainment but it doesn't seem necessary if the cessation of suffering is your aim. Nor does it lead to any other insights other than vague clues that what 'you' is ain't so solid and important as what was once thought.


Would we then have a utopian society free of all suffering? Would a specific form of social organization immediately present itself as the obvious and only way to structure society? Would it be capitalist or non-capitalist? Would there be markets or no markets? Would it be a representative democracy, direct democracy, a theocracy, anarchism, feudalism, hunting and gathering, etc? Would people work in corporations, would corporations be abolished, would work be abolished? How would schools be organized? Would we continue to have children? Would it be okay to have abortions? Would homosexuality be okay? Would everyone be vegetarian? Would everyone be vegan? Would we still have punk rock shows? Would people see or create movies or fictional literature? Would we have a society free of all social class distinction? Would we have a society free of status distinctions?

Would every single problem be solved by the simple fact that every single person had achieved stream entry?



The thing about se is that it's extremely easy to ignore. In other words, you can easily go on living your life exactly as you had before if you so choose, if the cessation of suffering isn't your goal. So the short answer is no.


And if oppression, exploitation, conflict, and sufffering continued, then that would mean that there is indeed a good deal to which insight cannot speak or solve.


at least as true as far as se goes, i agree.


I just don't think that Buddhism -- a system of thought developed something like 2500 -- is equipped to deal with uber complex forms of social organization like transnational corporations, etc. It just isn't a system of thought which is complete unto itself, meaning, without need of supplementation by other philosophies. To state that it is -- that Buddhism has ALL the answers -- is to perpetuate the line of thinking similar to other religious and political sects which suggest that all we need is Jesus, or Allah, or free markets, or Dianetics or whatever, and everything would work out just fine...


I doubt you'll find much disagreement. Let's modify the thought experiment and say we all become arhats in that all craving and aversion is absent and review your question.


Would every single problem be solved by the simple fact that every single person had achieved arhatship?



yes.


But is that satisfying? probably not. so what is the greater question? do insights lead to world peace? I would say three insights lead to world peace. 1) desire causes suffering 2) desire can be reduced and eventually eliminated through practice 2a) beliefs and opinions reinforce desire 2b) awe and wonder and probably bliss and rapture as well act as an alternative to the pursuit of ones desires and 3) it is wise to practice and let go of desire.



I just don't think that Buddhism -- a system of thought developed something like 2500 -- is equipped to deal with uber complex forms of social organization like transnational corporations, etc. It just isn't a system of thought which is complete unto itself, meaning, without need of supplementation by other philosophies. To state that it is -- that Buddhism has ALL the answers -- is to perpetuate the line of thinking similar to other religious and political sects which suggest that all we need is Jesus, or Allah, or free markets, or Dianetics or whatever, and everything would work out just fine...


tibetan buddhism clearly failed the tibetan people. if hard core dharma buddhism took over america, my guess is that it would eventually fail americans, though i also suspect it would temporarily right the ship. if, however, only people who were completely without craving and aversion were allowed to be in positions of authority and there were enough of those people around then i do think we would have a utopia. our economic system would probably be a compromise of whatever the most distinguished economists could agree. our foreign policy would be a compromise of whatever our best diplomats, scholars and military experts could agree on and so on and so forth. instead of ideology, there would simply be a commitment to rational thought, experimentation, exploration of new facts as they came up and consensus building should disagreement ever take hold. such would be government if only dispassionate, intelligent people ran it.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/17/11 7:33 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/17/11 7:06 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
Okay, well let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that tomorrow every person in the entire world became a Buddhist and within five years of pratice every single person on the Earth had achieved the minimum of stream entry.

Would we then have a utopian society free of all suffering? Would a specific form of social organization immediately present itself as the obvious and only way to structure society? (...)


1) You jumped from "free of suffering" to "free of problems related to social organization", which is unwarranted.

2) Stream enterers are not free of passion. As for a world full of arahants, I cannot imagine what that would be like (and neither can you, I'm sure).

And if oppression, exploitation, conflict, and sufffering continued, then that would mean that there is indeed a good deal to which insight cannot speak or solve. Then that would also mean that, as Daniel Ingram wrote in his book, there is a degree of mutual exclusitvity between morality (living in the world) and insight (knowledge of the absolute).


I would suggest re-reading the chapters on models of enlightenment to see what MCTB's take on the result of insight is, and how it differs from the suttas' take, and how those differences might be affecting your opinion on this subject. You might also re-read the chapters on what insight is (e.g. "The Four Noble Truths") to see how it differs from the suttas, in order to understand some of the issues that are underlying this discussion.


EDIT:

I just don't think that Buddhism -- a system of thought developed something like 2500 -- is equipped to deal with uber complex forms of social organization like transnational corporations, etc. It just isn't a system of thought which is complete unto itself, meaning, without need of supplementation by other philosophies. To state that it is -- that Buddhism has ALL the answers -- is to perpetuate the line of thinking similar to other religious and political sects which suggest that all we need is Jesus, or Allah, or free markets, or Dianetics or whatever, and everything would work out just fine...


The problem that Buddhism claims to be positioned to solve is (in a simplified sense) the problem of being hurt by things...which includes being hurt by instances of social problems.

As such, a different level of analysis is required to understand and evaluate such a claim.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 12:51 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 12:51 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Here are an OUTSTANDING series of lectures by Stephen Batchelor called Deconstructing Buddhism, which address a number of the issues we discussed above!

http://www.audiodharma.org/series/12/talk/1711/
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 8:33 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 8:33 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Can you summarize Stephen Batchelor's views on what enlightenment and insight are (e.g. insight into no-self vs. freedom from suffering)?
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 9:45 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 9:45 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
Can you summarize Stephen Batchelor's views on what enlightenment and insight are (e.g. insight into no-self vs. freedom from suffering)?


I wouldn't dare to attempt to do this just yet as I have only just listened to part one of his lectures! I posted a question about his books (as well as something similar to what you asked) on another thread but then -- based on the erudition of his lecture -- simply went ahead and ordered a bunch of them anyway. After I've read a few, I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.

That being said, I've found a few quotes from some articles which may shed a little light on his project.

"The aim of Batchelor's radical approach to the Buddha's teaching is therefore to liberate it from all the nonessential trappings of 'religion' and 'spirituality' that have effectively choked off what he takes to be its no-frills revelation of the existential dilemma of human life."

"Batchelor is concerned that the interpretations and embellishments to the life and teachings of Gotama over the centuries obscure the core of Gotama's existential questions, the very style in which he posed them and intended to work them out. Batchelor believes that Westerners will be misled in solving their own existential questions if their introduction to the historical Gotama (it's hard not to make the parallel to the 'historical' Jesus) is seen through the eyes of religion, not philosophy."

Bachelor also points out the incredible diversity of ways in which Buddhism has developed in different cultures and times, such that "Within the last hundred years the teachings of the Buddha have confirmed the views of theosophists, fascists, environmentalists and quantum physicists alike. Then is Buddhism just an exotic morass of incompatible ideas, a ‘Babylon of doctrines’ as the 16th century missionary Matteo Ricci suspected? Or is this another illustration of the Buddha’s parable of the blind men who variously interpret an elephant as a pillar, a wall, a rope or a tube depending on which bit of the animal’s anatomy they clutch?"

Bachelor likes to go back to the Pali cannon for answers, as illustrated in part one of the lecture I linked to above where he discusses The Discourse That Sets Turning The Wheel of Truth.

Here are a few of his quotes:

“The Four Noble Truths are pragmatic rather than dogmatic. They suggest a course of action to be followed rather than a set of dogmas to be believed. The four truths are prescriptions for behavior rather than descriptions of reality. The Buddha compares himself to a doctor who offers a course of therapeutic treatment to heal one’s ills. To embark on such a therapy is not designed to bring one any closer to ‘the Truth’ but to enable one’s life to flourish here and now, hopefully leaving a legacy that will continue to have beneficial repercussions after one’s death. (154)”
― Stephen Batchelor, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

“[Mindfulness] is not concerned with anything transcendent or divine. It serves as an antidote to theism, a cure for sentimental piety, a scalpel for excising the tumor of metaphysical belief. (130)”
― Stephen Batchelor, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

"...meditation… exposes a contradiction between the sort of person we wish to be and the kind of person we are. Restlessness and lethargy are ways of evading the discomfort of this contradiction.”
― Stephen Batchelor, Buddhism without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening

On the difference between RELATIVE VS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, he writes "I'm just not happy with this distinction between absolute and relative. I find it somewhat dualistic. I'm concerned about the possibility of fixing a term like 'enlightenment' in any kind of absolute position[...] Awakening itself is the letting go of precisely that dividing of reality between the two poles of absolute and relative. That's why I prefer the idea of response. The response to experience through, say, insight or awakening may open up to us the depth and the profound mystery of reality, but not in a way that alienates us from the contingencies and the exigencies of the relative, ambiguous world that we inhabit. But perhaps all I'm saying is that we lack any ability within the categories of conventional language to really speak coherently about what is essentially mysterious."
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 10:28 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 10:28 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
"The aim of Batchelor's radical approach to the Buddha's teaching is therefore to liberate it from all the nonessential trappings of 'religion' and 'spirituality' that have effectively choked off what he takes to be its no-frills revelation of the existential dilemma of human life."


Can we then liberate it from the trappings of scholasticism?

This is not a sarcastic comment, and I don't mean to trivialize your interest in the scholarly aspects of Buddhism...it is just that every moment spent thinking in excess in this sort of way about Buddhism, rather than practicing, is just as pernicious and counterproductive as any doctrine or metaphysical view that has been spun off the no-frills teachings in the Pali suttas.

If one is lost in some doctrine or metaphysical view, then some time spent contemplating the difference between that and the approach advocated in the suttas would be time well-spent, but to the extent one is not, this sort of contemplation does not lead to anything helpful that I can see.

Satipatthana sutta:
"Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths? There is the case where he discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress.' He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is the origination of stress.' He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is the cessation of stress.' He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.'


In any moment, one can contemplate this, or one can contemplate metaphysical doctrines, or one can contemplate scholastic issues, or one can contemplate one's worldly problems, or...

I do recognize that you have a practice thread (and a practice), so obviously you're not spending all your time thinking about scholarly issues...however, I am interested in the value you see in the pursuit of scholarly issues, especially without having seen some of the things in practice that would better position you to comment on scholarly issues.

On the difference between RELATIVE VS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, he writes "I'm just not happy with this distinction between absolute and relative. I find it somewhat dualistic. I'm concerned about the possibility of fixing a term like 'enlightenment' in any kind of absolute position[...]


As a side note, Pali Buddhism is obviously dualistic in that respect...worldlings vs. Noble Ones, samsara vs. nibbana, etc.

Awakening itself is the letting go of precisely that dividing of reality between the two poles of absolute and relative.


That's one view.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 3:11 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 3:11 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
I don't accept that there is a great divide -- or mutual exclusivity -- between theory (philosophy) and practice. You keep suggesting that to focus on theory is somehow bad and that one should forgo such activity in light of practice. One of the points that Stephen makes is that, depending on what tradition you examine, the focus of that tradition's practice is almost always very different. So, without theory and examination, how can one know that the particular style of Buddhist practice they are practicing is the most productive one for ultimate enlightenment or moral guidance?

I should point out that my father and uncle were both Soto Zen practitioners. Whenever I wanted to bring up the Buddha, the Noble Truths, interdependent co-origination, the Pali cannon, etc., my father would criticize me for excess "philosophizing" and instruct that I should "just sit." He basically made the same criticisms you are, but from a position which marginalized much of the practices and suttas which those in the Theravada hold as important and/or vital.

However, I could not get over the feeling that there was value in the Pali cannon, in the Eightfold Path, etc., and so I kept reading, searching, and discussing. For most of my life I had no idea that there was even such a thing as insight meditation, or samadhi meditation, etc., because the Zen tradition I was raised in suggested only cushion time was important, but also only cushion time which used shinkantaza meditation.

It was only by reading and questioning that I found myself where I am now: practicing concentration meditation so that I can practice insight meditation, using the techniques of a Burmese teacher and the insights, wisdom, and suggestions of a guy named Daniel Ingram, etc.

One must understand WHAT they are practicing so as to practice skillfully, which means exploring the terrain as much as possible regarding the undertaking. This is the theory which undergirds practice. When people use the maps, they are using theory to guide their practice.

The Buddha implored that we question and seek for ourselves. That we think about what we are doing, question what is happening, and seek answers and questions which haven't been asked but need to be.

Be careful you don't set up a dualism between theory and practice which leads to anti-intellectualism and/or dogma.
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 8:40 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 8:40 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts

I should point out that my father and uncle were both Soto Zen practitioners. Whenever I wanted to bring up the Buddha, the Noble Truths, interdependent co-origination, the Pali cannon, etc., my father would criticize me for excess "philosophizing" and instruct that I should "just sit." He basically made the same criticisms you are, but from a position which marginalized much of the practices and suttas which those in the Theravada hold as important and/or vital.




Very interesting. wre you father and uncle largely stress-free or were they as uptight as everyone else?

It was only by reading and questioning that I found myself where I am now: practicing concentration meditation so that I can practice insight meditation, using the techniques of a Burmese teacher and the insights, wisdom, and suggestions of a guy named Daniel Ingram, etc.



What is the difference between your current practice and shikantaza?


Be careful you don't set up a dualism between theory and practice which leads to anti-intellectualism and/or dogma.


Most of your questions in this thread seem to be concerned with how buddhism can affect geo-political situation. Only this last post has anything to do with practice. (all from memory and my apoligies if i glossed over previous posts)

Furthermore, there is intellectul activity which searches for answers to pertinent problems, answers to inpertinent problems and rationalizations for pre-exisiting answers. The only problem pertinent to the buddha (as far as i know) was how to alleviate individual suffering. And in my experience, this is the only problem worth studying as nothing else can be solved anyway*

As far as dogma goes, let's examine what dogma is. It is a belief that resists testing. Theory is a belief (hypothesis) that can be tested and therefore modified. Practice is the testing of said belief. It is the testing which is most important. To test, you have to establish a belief, a hypothesis. What is your hypothesis?

*obviously situational problems should also be studied but in a specific problem oriented way and the allevation of personal stress will go a very long way in helping one effectively study these problems
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 9:51 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 9:51 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
I don't accept that there is a great divide -- or mutual exclusivity -- between theory (philosophy) and practice. You keep suggesting that to focus on theory is somehow bad and that one should forgo such activity in light of practice.


Actually, my comments were about scholasticism, rather than theory.

I agree that there are times that non-practical inquiry may be warranted...for example, if you are in the situation that you don't know what practices are effective, what practices make sense, what practices are likely to work out, what "work out" even means, etc. However, as a person interested in MCTB and apparently committed to practice along the lines of the model laid out in MCTB, in what way do you think reading Stephen Batchelor (or any other scholarly figure) will change or improve your practice? Do you think it is more likely to be valuable than spending the time that you would have allocated to reading Stephen Batchelor on practice?

As a person who has had an enormous inclination towards the kind of thinking you are also apparently inclined towards, I eventually came to regard it either as a habit around which an identity (as a thinker, as a person who knows, or perhaps merely as a repository of knowledge independent of social identity) is built...or, more insidiously, a habit which is no different than sex, drugs, gambling, video games, etc. which tempts one to indulge in exchange for a "hit" which merely fuels the craving to indulge in the future. So, I brought this issue up not because you are doing something alien to me which I feel the need to censure on account of that, but because it is something I struggled with in the past, and I suspect I may have some understanding of where you're coming from on account of that.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 10:51 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/21/11 10:51 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
@Jon T: Most of your questions in this thread seem to be concerned with how buddhism can affect geo-political situation. Only this last post has anything to do with practice

I am interested and/or concerned with the philosophical position that morality is a fundamentally separate domain than insight (the suggestion that there are relative truths and absolute truths). As my post about Alain Badiou and some of the others I wrote illustrated, I believe that it is this kind of separation which possibly lead to something like the Japanese Zen community justifying war and murder (morality was left out to dry). Stephen Batchelor -- I was surprised to hear and read -- is also interested in this idea (I posted a quote where he mentions this, and he discusses it in the first of the lectures I provided a link to), and hesuggests that the apparent separation of insight and morality (or absolute and relative truths) was not the invention of the Buddha (as it is never stated in the Pali canon) but was later added by others. If indeed we reaffirm the connection between moral practices and insight practices as inseperable and interconnected -- and the practice of morality is the practice of social engagement and social interaction -- then one's practice of insight MUST ALSO entail social engagement in order to be fully realized. For how can one claim to be enlightened (and truly understand suffering) if one does not engage socially to help alleviate the suffering of others (physical, mental, or otherwise)? The question of whether morality and insight are connected or mutually exclusive, whether there are indeed absolute truths and relative truths, is therefore a question of how one should practice, which is answered by one's philosophical position (theory).

Regarding my father, my father felt less stress and suffering when he was practicing, but, as he was inconsistent with his practice, the benefits would drain away, as he was never "enlightened" and therefore a lack of suffering was never "hardwired" into his brain. y father has a profound love of "sitting," however, and claims he gains great benefit from the practice. Regarding my uncle, I never formally asked him if he was enlightened, but I know that the practice of meditation helped him overcome a lifetime addiction to alcohol, and later became an outstanding and creative painter, eventually producing hundreds and hundreds of works, some of which still decorate the Evanston Zen Temple. My uncle inspired me in numerous ways, and encouraged me to read, which I can't help but feel helped point me in the direction of studying English at university. My father became a botanist, and has a profound love of the natural world, and he moved into a cabin in the forest for a couple decades, all of which inspired me.
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 1:52 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 1:52 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
The question of whether morality and insight are connected or mutually exclusive, whether there are indeed absolute truths and relative truths, is therefore a question of how one should practice, which is answered by one's philosophical position (theory).



I see. Morality is an invention of bronze age social activists. It was designed to tame our animal passions. It failed miserably. It did suceed in adding to our individual identities and even our tribal identities. In this way, morality causes much suffering. In the absence of emotional desire, moral laws and precepts are redunandant and not even considered. The first part of that was conjecture, the second part is based on the hypothesis I am currently testing in my own practice.


Your uncle and father seem like interesting people. There is a good chance, I'll be in chicago sometime next year.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 7:30 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 7:13 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
If indeed we reaffirm the connection between moral practices and insight practices as inseperable and interconnected -- and the practice of morality is the practice of social engagement and social interaction -- then one's practice of insight MUST ALSO entail social engagement in order to be fully realized. For how can one claim to be enlightened (and truly understand suffering) if one does not engage socially to help alleviate the suffering of others (physical, mental, or otherwise)?


If you are interested in the suttas' position on morality and what it entails, then you should read the suttas, as their position is fairly unique (as they encourage people to drop out of society and become monks, whereas most of their teachings on positive social engagement are for laypeople who are not taught practices that lead to enlightenment).

EDIT: Another significant point is that the suttas, in discussing morality, emphasize intention rather than outcome...in fact, I'm not sure I can think of a case where the suttas talk about social engagement in the outcome-based way that we in the modern day tend to think about it.

This is fairly typical:

Kakacupama sutta:
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 8:04 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 8:04 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
As a person who has had an enormous inclination towards the kind of thinking you are also apparently inclined towards, I eventually came to regard it either as a habit around which an identity (as a thinker, as a person who knows, or perhaps merely as a repository of knowledge independent of social identity) is built...or, more insidiously, a habit which is no different than sex, drugs, gambling, video games, etc. which tempts one to indulge in exchange for a "hit" which merely fuels the craving to indulge in the future.


How did it go again? "Nail. Head. Hit."? Yeah emoticon ...
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 6:23 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 6:20 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
End in Sight:
As a person who has had an enormous inclination towards the kind of thinking you are also apparently inclined towards, I eventually came to regard it either as a habit around which an identity (as a thinker, as a person who knows, or perhaps merely as a repository of knowledge independent of social identity) is built...or, more insidiously, a habit which is no different than sex, drugs, gambling, video games, etc. which tempts one to indulge in exchange for a "hit" which merely fuels the craving to indulge in the future.

..


Sounds like an anti-intellectual cop-out, as if you've devised the perfect formula for ignorance regarding what is happening in the world.

The pursuit of truth and understanding is rarely a habit in people, and to compare study, intellectual curiosity, questioning, debate, and the pursuit of knowledge with videogames and drugs is sad, frankly.

Okay, you think you've got all the answers and need nothing more. Great. You never want to read a book outside the Pali cannon again. Lovely. You think you've eliminated all suffering by tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. Knock yourself out. But it sounds like you belong in a monastery. Your position is not one of someone actively engaged in social reform or involvement, where "worldly" knowledge, facts, theories, and philosophy are needed.

Perhaps the next time I'm teaching high school kids how to read I can just tell the students they shouldn't bother because to learn how to read figurative language is to perpetuate the delusion of the "identity" which is a "repository which knows." Sorry, but some of us have to live in the world where the rest of humanity dwells and the world isn't going to stop moving just because you've decided it is unskillful to engage in "scholastics" (egg-headed stuff, presumably).

Also, guess what, to read, to question, to learn, to challenge oneself and to challenge ideas is unsettling. Fundamentally unsettling. That is the point. Sometimes it causes suffering. Sometimes you have to stir the pot. Sometimes you have to challenge the status quo, which can be upsetting and disconcerting for those happy with how things are. I would rather be unsettled and aware that I was wrong, as opposed to naive and think that I was right. Remember that the oracle told Socrates that he was the wisest man in Greece simply because he was willing to admit that "I only know that I know nothing."
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 6:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 6:43 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
You know, I posted an entire article by Zizek, I posted a video of Zizek, I posted an article someone responding to Zizek, I posted material about the book Zen at War, I posted a review of the book The Making of Buddhist Modernism, I posted an entire lecture series by Stephen Batchelor, I posted a bunch of material about Alain Badiou, and I spent 45 minutes finding quotes and material about Stephen Batchelor because someone asked me to summarize this thought...

...no-one read and responded to the Zizek article, no-one watched and responded to the Zizek video, no-one read and responded to the article where the person responded to Zizek, only one person commented regarding the topic of Zen masters justifying Japanese aggression during WWII, no-one commented on Badiou and his conception of truth compared to the Buddhist conception of truth, no-one responded to the "Buddhist Modernism" review, no-one watched and responded to the Batchelor lectures, and no-one is interested in discussing the quotes and summaries I posted regarding Batchelor.

If you are interested in the topics I am bringing up, please respond to the topics: Read the article, watch the clip, listen to the lecture..and respond. But please don't waste my time by endlessly criticizing me, asking for clarifications, asking for summaries, etc and so on ad nauseam. Examine your motivations and if all you want to do is tell me to stop thinking so much please save it. I am feeling like K from Franz Kafka's novel The Trial -- everyone seems to believe I am guilty of something terrible but I have yet to be formally charged with a crime...

I started this thread in good faith and with the intention of having interesting discussions about issues related to Buddhism. Please stop trying to turn it into a "Let's criticize Alan Smithee because clearly his questions must be causing him to suffer" session, or a "I've been in the same intellectual rut you were once in whereby I asked lots of questions but then I learned better and let me tell you about it" session.

Thanks for your concern. But that is not the focus of this thread.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 7:10 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 7:05 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
You know, I posted an entire article by Zizek, I posted a video of Zizek, I posted an article someone responding to Zizek, I posted material about the book Zen at War, I posted a review of the book The Making of Buddhist Modernism, I posted an entire lecture series by Stephen Batchelor, I posted a bunch of material about Alain Badiou, and I spent 45 minutes finding quotes and material about Stephen Batchelor because someone asked me to summarize this thought...

...no-one read and responded to the Zizek article, no-one watched and responded to the Zizek video, no-one read and responded to the article where the person responded to Zizek, only one person commented regarding the topic of Zen masters justifying Japanese aggression during WWII, no-one commented on Badiou and his conception of truth compared to the Buddhist conception of truth, no-one responded to the "Buddhist Modernism" review, no-one watched and responded to the Batchelor lectures, and no-one is interested in discussing the quotes and summaries I posted regarding Batchelor.

If you are interested in the topics I am bringing up, please respond to the topics: Read the article, watch the clip, listen to the lecture..and respond. But please don't waste my time by endlessly criticizing me, asking for clarifications, asking for summaries, etc and so on ad nauseam. Examine your motivations and if all you want to do is tell me to stop thinking so much please save it. I am feeling like K from Franz Kafka's novel The Trial -- everyone seems to believe I am guilty of something terrible but I have yet to be formally charged with a crime...

I started this thread in good faith and with the intention of having interesting discussions about issues related to Buddhism. Please stop trying to turn it into a "Let's criticize Alan Smithee because clearly his questions must be causing him to suffer" session, or a "I've been in the same intellectual rut you were once in whereby I asked lots of questions but then I learned better and let me tell you about it" session.

Thanks for your concern. But that is not the focus of this thread.


This might be the wrong forum for this type of discussion. Not saying it shouldn't happen, but I think people here are geared and leaning very much toward practice, practice, practice. You might be fighting an uphill battle here, Alan, wanting people to really engage in the intellectual discussion you wish them to engage in.

Personally, I'd prefer to see more posts in your other practice thread, as that is what I'm interested in. No doubt, that is what the majority of yogis here are interested in too. Have you tried asking these questions in a forum like the dhammawheel? You might get a better response. Maybe not. Not many threads that are so intellectually inclined surface on this forum. For obvious reasons. Perhaps you could try and make your questions relate to how people practice, make it so they can relate it to their practice? Perhaps you can relate it to your own practice?

Nick
thumbnail
)( piscivorous, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 10:02 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 8:50 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 36 Join Date: 12/8/10 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
...no-one read and responded to the Zizek article, no-one watched and responded to the Zizek video, no-one read and responded to the article where the person responded to Zizek, only one person commented regarding the topic of Zen masters justifying Japanese aggression during WWII, no-one commented on Badiou and his conception of truth compared to the Buddhist conception of truth, no-one responded to the "Buddhist Modernism" review, no-one watched and responded to the Batchelor lectures, and no-one is interested in discussing the quotes and summaries I posted regarding Batchelor..


I think this is a bit unfair. I did read and respond to the Zizek article. I have also been responding at length on Batchelor in a separate thread. Earlier in this thread you wrote:

Alan Smithee:
This thread and everyone's post -- and my own ADHD-style philosophical flailings -- have already helped me clarify and direct my thoughs in innumerable ways, believe it or not, and I've discovered a number of new leads for future investigation. People are pretty thoughtful on this site, and have pretty unique perspectives, and I appreciate that.


So I don't think you thought it was all bad. I will again direct you to Speculative Non-Buddhism. This is a pragmatic practice site, not a critical theory approach to Buddhism site emoticon
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 9:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 9:54 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
Bruno Loff:
End in Sight:
As a person who has had an enormous inclination towards the kind of thinking you are also apparently inclined towards, I eventually came to regard it either as a habit around which an identity (as a thinker, as a person who knows, or perhaps merely as a repository of knowledge independent of social identity) is built...or, more insidiously, a habit which is no different than sex, drugs, gambling, video games, etc. which tempts one to indulge in exchange for a "hit" which merely fuels the craving to indulge in the future.

..


Sounds like an anti-intellectual cop-out, as if you've devised the perfect formula for ignorance regarding what is happening in the world.

The pursuit of truth and understanding is rarely a habit in people, and to compare study, intellectual curiosity, questioning, debate, and the pursuit of knowledge with videogames and drugs is sad, frankly.


Is my analysis of the motivations that led me to such behavior sad, or is having such motivations sad?

Apart from the possibility that either or both of these things are sad, what of the possibility that my analysis is true?

Apart even from that, it is not as if my opinion is some radical, renegade thing. One may find echoes of it in all sorts of places...and if you (conversant in the Western academic tradition) wanted to pursue this line of thought, a good beginning-point (touching on this issue as well as many other interesting issues) might be here:

[quote=Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil]It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument. (...) To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of really scientific men, it may be otherwise—"better," if you will; there there may really be such a thing as an "impulse to knowledge," some kind of small, independent clock-work, which, when well wound up, works away industriously to that end, WITHOUT the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part therein. The actual "interests" of the scholar, therefore, are generally in quite another direction—in the family, perhaps, or in money-making, or in politics; it is, in fact, almost indifferent at what point of research his little machine is placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a chemist; he is not CHARACTERISED by becoming this or that. In the philosopher, on the contrary, there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS,—that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other.

Okay, you think you've got all the answers and need nothing more. Great. You never want to read a book outside the Pali cannon again. Lovely. You think you've eliminated all suffering by tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. Knock yourself out. But it sounds like you belong in a monastery. Your position is not one of someone actively engaged in social reform or involvement, where "worldly" knowledge, facts, theories, and philosophy are needed.


Perhaps I have been unclear...you began by asking about the relationship between insight and other things, to which both Dan Ingram and I suggested that you would be better positioned to comment on the matter if you attained insight in the first place.

Dan Ingram:
I realize that I am ignoring some of your questions, but to them I would say: get strong insight and see what you think of how they transformed you [i.e. regarding moral behavior] or didn't.


And so, the comments I have made and the advice I have given you are completely in-line with helping your inquiry along. Further, as you have asked for practical advice in another thread, and as you are just beginning with the method of practice described in MCTB, I thought you would benefit from hearing from yet another person here that scholarly inquiry does not help one attain insight, in case that was not clear to you. Further yet, I shared some personal details regarding my own experience with the mode of thinking that you appear to be interested in...a mode of thinking which I have explored fairly well in my life, over a long period of time, and found (in the specific context of trying to understanding my own life and trying to understand the nature of a well-lived life) to be 1) a cause of further delusion and 2) an addictive habit masquerading as a hallowed sacrament of the humanistic tradition.

As such, I would say that the style in which you have responded to me is quite unwarranted...indeed, the best purpose of the DhO would be to serve as a gathering of friends, who employ the principle of charity in reading each others' comments, rather than a place to argue with little cause as the basis for argument.

So, with all that in mind, are you interested in exploring any of the issues I've mentioned anew?
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 10:11 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 10:11 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
But please don't waste my time by endlessly criticizing me, asking for clarifications, asking for summaries, etc and so on ad nauseam. Examine your motivations and if all you want to do is tell me to stop thinking so much please save it. I am feeling like K from Franz Kafka's novel The Trial -- everyone seems to believe I am guilty of something terrible but I have yet to be formally charged with a crime...


Having re-read this thread, I am not sure why you think you are being criticized. I would suggest that, on a more charitable interpretation, various people are trying to have a conversation with you, but it is a conversation leaning more towards practical issues, as the DhO is a fairly practical place, and the interests of many members lean in that direction.

As "asking for summaries" is apparently aimed at me, I will point out that the summary I asked for was regarding Stephen Batchelor's views on insight and enlightenment, not on his views on Buddhism in general.
thumbnail
)( piscivorous, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 10:32 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 10:32 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 36 Join Date: 12/8/10 Recent Posts
I am having difficulty recalling Batchelor's notion of Enlightenment. I recall him somewhere suggesting that he now downplays the significance of whatever realizations he might have attained, but he doesn't get into what these might have been. He lived as a monk in both Tibetan and Korean Seon (Zen) traditions. He also mentions doing some Goenka body scanning. He refers to sitting 10 hours each day as a Seon monk, but it's safe to say that he does not regard himself as enlightened.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 10:51 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/22/11 10:51 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
And so, the comments I have made and the advice I have given you are completely in-line with helping your inquiry along.


In re-reading some passages from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil in order to find the one I earlier quoted, I was reminded of some things he wrote that illustrate this issue quite well.

Nietzsche:
With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds—namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." ONE thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "one thinks"—even the "one" contains an INTERPRETATION of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the usual grammatical formula—"To think is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active; consequently"...


Nietzsche advocates further insight practice, sticking with bare experience as much as possible instead of one's interpretation of it...

Nietzsche:
Philosophers are accustomed to speak of the will as though it were the best-known thing in the world; indeed, Schopenhauer has given us to understand that the will alone is really known to us, absolutely and completely known, without deduction or addition. But it again and again seems to me that in this case Schopenhauer also only did what philosophers are in the habit of doing—he seems to have adopted a POPULAR PREJUDICE and exaggerated it. Willing seems to me to be above all something COMPLICATED, something that is a unity only in name—and it is precisely in a name that popular prejudice lurks, which has got the mastery over the inadequate precautions of philosophers in all ages. So let us for once be more cautious, let us be "unphilosophical": let us say that in all willing there is firstly a plurality of sensations, namely, the sensation of the condition "AWAY FROM WHICH we go," the sensation of the condition "TOWARDS WHICH we go," the sensation of this "FROM" and "TOWARDS" itself, and then besides, an accompanying muscular sensation, which, even without our putting in motion "arms and legs," commences its action by force of habit, directly we "will" anything. Therefore, just as sensations (and indeed many kinds of sensations) are to be recognized as ingredients of the will, so, in the second place, thinking is also to be recognized...In the third place, the will is not only a complex of sensation and thinking, but it is above all an EMOTION, and in fact the emotion of the command. (...) "Freedom of Will"—that is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order—who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his own will that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful "underwills" or under-souls—indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls—to his feelings of delight as commander.


Nietzsche again advocates further direct insight, and yet, ironically, the phenomena he is describing appear to be phenomena which many meditative traditions understand at a deeper level than he does, which he could have come to understand if he pursued yet a further level of insight...but which he probably would not come to understand by any method apart from insight (such as explanation, speculation, logical argumentation, etc.). As such, if he wanted to pursue a discussion about this issue, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that he pursue meditation in order to better position himself to comment on it in the first place.
Felipe C, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 5:14 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 5:01 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 221 Join Date: 5/29/11 Recent Posts
I remember these discussions in the communities of Buddhism and philosophy of reddit.

To answer your main question and to summarize the apparent dichotomy between practice and philosophy, I can point to a pair of aspects, in which I see that Zizek makes false assumptions based precisely in his lack of practice and insight {ie, he doesn't know what he's talking about, at least not entirely}

One huge assumption is that indifference is the opposite of consideration and caring. I remembered that, from a Audiodharma podcast, Gil Fronsdal, a renowned western vipassana teacher, said that the opposite of indifference is equanimity. With the latter, we care about everything; with the first, we don't care about anything.

Another assumption that he makes is that in Buddhism there is no morality, in the sense that -he seems to think- it does not put some values above others. Despite the Buddha does not indeed categorize actions and intentions as good and bad, he does categorize them as skillful and unskillful in relation to their capacity to cause suffering. An example of exalted values are the paramitas.

Actually, part of the Western Buddhism scene conserves the 'activist' and 'social concern' characteristics of the west. For example Michael Brownstein on MEDITATION AS A SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY and I can't find other article by one of those beatnik poets who wrote about Buddhism and activism. Anyway it's called engaged Buddhism. These approaches take Buddhist practice as a tool and a first step to be a better reformer of the social world.

On the other hand, Mr. Zizek maybe refers to a trend of pop-Buddhism, maybe a new age tendency in the West to consume Buddhism like people often also consume Yoga: superficially; one session a week; perhaps hearing the Dharma as a confirmation bias, finding elements to justify their actions and feeling good about themselves. As others already said, this dilution is inevitable in any religion, doctrine, philosophy or organized thought, and therefore its cause lies in the human condition itself and not in 'Buddhism' or whatever.

So, it seems that Zizek is just being reductionist due to his lack of understanding of Buddhism, specially in the practical aspect. But I can't deny that it is fun to just say things, specially in pop-philosophy articles like this.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 5:52 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 5:52 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Felipe Cavazos:
I remember these discussions in the communities of Buddhism and philosophy of reddit.

To answer your main question and to summarize the apparent dichotomy between practice and philosophy, I can point to a pair of aspects, in which I see that Zizek makes false assumptions based precisely in his lack of practice and insight {ie, he doesn't know what he's talking about, at least not entirely}

One huge assumption is that indifference is the opposite of consideration and caring. I remembered that, from a Audiodharma podcast, Gil Fronsdal, a renowned western vipassana teacher, said that the opposite of indifference is equanimity. With the latter, we care about everything; with the first, we don't care about anything.

Another assumption that he makes is that in Buddhism there is no morality, in the sense that -he seems to think- it does not put some values above others. Despite the Buddha does not indeed categorize actions and intentions as good and bad, he does categorize them as skillful and unskillful in relation to their capacity to cause suffering. An example of exalted values are the paramitas.

Actually, part of the Western Buddhism scene conserves the 'activist' and 'social concern' characteristics of the west. For example Michael Brownstein on MEDITATION AS A SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY and I can't find other article by one of those beatnik poets who wrote about Buddhism and activism. Anyway it's called engaged Buddhism. These approaches take Buddhist practice as a tool and a first step to be a better reformer of the social world.

On the other hand, Mr. Zizek maybe refers to a trend of pop-Buddhism, maybe a new age tendency in the West to consume Buddhism like people often also consume Yoga: superficially; one session a week; perhaps hearing the Dharma as a confirmation bias, finding elements to justify their actions and feeling good about themselves. As others already said, this dilution is inevitable in any religion, doctrine, philosophy or organized thought, and therefore its cause lies in the human condition itself and not in 'Buddhism' or whatever.

So, it seems that Zizek is just being reductionist due to his lack of understanding of Buddhism, specially in the practical aspect. But I can't deny that it is fun to just say things, specially in pop-philosophy articles like this.


I think the beatnik article you are refering to is this one, Gary Snyder's "Buddhist Anarchism"
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/garysnyder.htm

Your point that the opposite of indifference is equanimity, and how in Buddhism there is no evil or good but rather skillful and unskillful, is really interesting and well noted. Skillful and unskillful would refer to the reduction of suffering, whether through insight or the 8 Fold Path presumably. If people rationalize the harmful things they do as being unharmful, I suppose that is the problem of the individual and not Buddhism...
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:16 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:16 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Alan Smithee:
You know, I posted an entire article by Zizek, I posted a video of Zizek, I posted an article someone responding to Zizek, I posted material about the book Zen at War, I posted a review of the book The Making of Buddhist Modernism, I posted an entire lecture series by Stephen Batchelor, I posted a bunch of material about Alain Badiou, and I spent 45 minutes finding quotes and material about Stephen Batchelor because someone asked me to summarize this thought...

...no-one read and responded to the Zizek article, no-one watched and responded to the Zizek video, no-one read and responded to the article where the person responded to Zizek, only one person commented regarding the topic of Zen masters justifying Japanese aggression during WWII, no-one commented on Badiou and his conception of truth compared to the Buddhist conception of truth, no-one responded to the "Buddhist Modernism" review, no-one watched and responded to the Batchelor lectures, and no-one is interested in discussing the quotes and summaries I posted regarding Batchelor.

If you are interested in the topics I am bringing up, please respond to the topics: Read the article, watch the clip, listen to the lecture..and respond. But please don't waste my time by endlessly criticizing me, asking for clarifications, asking for summaries, etc and so on ad nauseam. Examine your motivations and if all you want to do is tell me to stop thinking so much please save it. I am feeling like K from Franz Kafka's novel The Trial -- everyone seems to believe I am guilty of something terrible but I have yet to be formally charged with a crime...

I started this thread in good faith and with the intention of having interesting discussions about issues related to Buddhism. Please stop trying to turn it into a "Let's criticize Alan Smithee because clearly his questions must be causing him to suffer" session, or a "I've been in the same intellectual rut you were once in whereby I asked lots of questions but then I learned better and let me tell you about it" session.

Thanks for your concern. But that is not the focus of this thread.


This might be the wrong forum for this type of discussion. Not saying it shouldn't happen, but I think people here are geared and leaning very much toward practice, practice, practice. You might be fighting an uphill battle here, Alan, wanting people to really engage in the intellectual discussion you wish them to engage in.

Personally, I'd prefer to see more posts in your other practice thread, as that is what I'm interested in. No doubt, that is what the majority of yogis here are interested in too. Have you tried asking these questions in a forum like the dhammawheel? You might get a better response. Maybe not. Not many threads that are so intellectually inclined surface on this forum. For obvious reasons. Perhaps you could try and make your questions relate to how people practice, make it so they can relate it to their practice? Perhaps you can relate it to your own practice?

Nick


Actually, I just started a full blown practice thread on the "concentration" page. I am going to be diligent about posting my thoughts and questions, progress and setbacks, regarding my daily meditations, and it will solely concern practice, methods, and tactics :-)
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:20 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:20 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
)( piscivorous:
I am having difficulty recalling Batchelor's notion of Enlightenment. I recall him somewhere suggesting that he now downplays the significance of whatever realizations he might have attained, but he doesn't get into what these might have been. He lived as a monk in both Tibetan and Korean Seon (Zen) traditions. He also mentions doing some Goenka body scanning. He refers to sitting 10 hours each day as a Seon monk, but it's safe to say that he does not regard himself as enlightened.


I'll have to get back at ya on this one, piscivorous. I just ordered four of his books, so after I've read a few I'll post some more thoughts about them. From the lecture it appears to be the case that he thinks the point of Buddhism -- after you've stripped away all the religion -- is to end suffering, particularly through the application of the 8 Fold Path, which he discussed as central to what the Buddha stated directly in the Discourse Which Set the Wheel of Truth Turning. He didn't mention his own enlightenment in the lecture, but that wasn't the focus of the lecture either. I will read Confessions of the Buddhist Atheist first, as that has a lot of his experieces and so forth in it...
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:27 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:27 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
End in Sight:
As a person who has had an enormous inclination towards the kind of thinking you are also apparently inclined towards, I eventually came to regard it either as a habit around which an identity (as a thinker, as a person who knows, or perhaps merely as a repository of knowledge independent of social identity) is built...or, more insidiously, a habit which is no different than sex, drugs, gambling, video games, etc. which tempts one to indulge in exchange for a "hit" which merely fuels the craving to indulge in the future.


How did it go again? "Nail. Head. Hit."? Yeah emoticon ...


Alan:

I didn't meant this to be an accusation of any kind.

Actually it was more like a recognition: what EIS was describing sounds all-too-familiar emoticon I was the Nail, and it was my Head the hammer Hit.

I am prone to...

... endless conceptual speculation without any tangible improvements in well-being ...

... getting involved in intelectual disputes over ideas ...

... getting passionate in defense of dispassion, or angry in defense of world peace ...

... falling in love, with a thorough conceptual understanding of why and how love sucks ...

... just to give some examples. Part of the problem is that the affective layer is overlaid in the "thinking" parts of the brain: conceptual cognition is effectively distorted by emotion (trivial common-sense, you'll agree?). If one needs to be passionate in defense of an idea, imho, it means that the idea isn't a very good one.

I thought the excerpts by Nietzsche were terrific, thanks for that EIS.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:30 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:30 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
Alan Smithee:
Bruno Loff:
End in Sight:
As a person who has had an enormous inclination towards the kind of thinking you are also apparently inclined towards, I eventually came to regard it either as a habit around which an identity (as a thinker, as a person who knows, or perhaps merely as a repository of knowledge independent of social identity) is built...or, more insidiously, a habit which is no different than sex, drugs, gambling, video games, etc. which tempts one to indulge in exchange for a "hit" which merely fuels the craving to indulge in the future.

..


Sounds like an anti-intellectual cop-out, as if you've devised the perfect formula for ignorance regarding what is happening in the world.

The pursuit of truth and understanding is rarely a habit in people, and to compare study, intellectual curiosity, questioning, debate, and the pursuit of knowledge with videogames and drugs is sad, frankly.


Is my analysis of the motivations that led me to such behavior sad, or is having such motivations sad?

Apart from the possibility that either or both of these things are sad, what of the possibility that my analysis is true?

Apart even from that, it is not as if my opinion is some radical, renegade thing. One may find echoes of it in all sorts of places...and if you (conversant in the Western academic tradition) wanted to pursue this line of thought, a good beginning-point (touching on this issue as well as many other interesting issues) might be here:

[quote=Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil]It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument. (...) To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of really scientific men, it may be otherwise—"better," if you will; there there may really be such a thing as an "impulse to knowledge," some kind of small, independent clock-work, which, when well wound up, works away industriously to that end, WITHOUT the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part therein. The actual "interests" of the scholar, therefore, are generally in quite another direction—in the family, perhaps, or in money-making, or in politics; it is, in fact, almost indifferent at what point of research his little machine is placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a chemist; he is not CHARACTERISED by becoming this or that. In the philosopher, on the contrary, there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS,—that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other.


Okay, you think you've got all the answers and need nothing more. Great. You never want to read a book outside the Pali cannon again. Lovely. You think you've eliminated all suffering by tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. Knock yourself out. But it sounds like you belong in a monastery. Your position is not one of someone actively engaged in social reform or involvement, where "worldly" knowledge, facts, theories, and philosophy are needed.


Perhaps I have been unclear...you began by asking about the relationship between insight and other things, to which both Dan Ingram and I suggested that you would be better positioned to comment on the matter if you attained insight in the first place.

Dan Ingram:
I realize that I am ignoring some of your questions, but to them I would say: get strong insight and see what you think of how they transformed you [i.e. regarding moral behavior] or didn't.


And so, the comments I have made and the advice I have given you are completely in-line with helping your inquiry along. Further, as you have asked for practical advice in another thread, and as you are just beginning with the method of practice described in MCTB, I thought you would benefit from hearing from yet another person here that scholarly inquiry does not help one attain insight, in case that was not clear to you. Further yet, I shared some personal details regarding my own experience with the mode of thinking that you appear to be interested in...a mode of thinking which I have explored fairly well in my life, over a long period of time, and found (in the specific context of trying to understanding my own life and trying to understand the nature of a well-lived life) to be 1) a cause of further delusion and 2) an addictive habit masquerading as a hallowed sacrament of the humanistic tradition.

As such, I would say that the style in which you have responded to me is quite unwarranted...indeed, the best purpose of the DhO would be to serve as a gathering of friends, who employ the principle of charity in reading each others' comments, rather than a place to argue with little cause as the basis for argument.

So, with all that in mind, are you interested in exploring any of the issues I've mentioned anew?

I appreciate that you have been simply stating your views with no ill intent. Your advice regarding practice have been helpful and is appreciated. I guess the issue was simply that some of the views I have encountered thus far have been, for lack of a better word, exotic, and from a certain perspective, a challenge to respond to skillfully. Study and critical discourse is fundamental to my identity and happiness, and to challenge that is to challenge my self-identity and understanding of how to function in the world. I am not about to give up reading and thinking, questioning and engaging in theory, but if I am able to achieve steam entry at some point in the future, it shall be interesting to see if my views on any of these matters changes in any fundamental way, eh?
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:43 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:
Bruno Loff:
End in Sight:
As a person who has had an enormous inclination towards the kind of thinking you are also apparently inclined towards, I eventually came to regard it either as a habit around which an identity (as a thinker, as a person who knows, or perhaps merely as a repository of knowledge independent of social identity) is built...or, more insidiously, a habit which is no different than sex, drugs, gambling, video games, etc. which tempts one to indulge in exchange for a "hit" which merely fuels the craving to indulge in the future.


How did it go again? "Nail. Head. Hit."? Yeah emoticon ...


Alan:

I didn't meant this to be an accusation of any kind.

Actually it was more like a recognition: what EIS was describing sounds all-too-familiar emoticon I was the Nail, and it was my Head the hammer Hit.

I am prone to...

... endless conceptual speculation without any tangible improvements in well-being ...

... getting involved in intelectual disputes over ideas ...

... getting passionate in defense of dispassion, or angry in defense of world peace ...

... falling in love, with a thorough conceptual understanding of why and how love sucks ...

... just to give some examples. Part of the problem is that the affective layer is overlaid in the "thinking" parts of the brain: conceptual cognition is effectively distorted by emotion (trivial common-sense, you'll agree?). If one needs to be passionate in defense of an idea, imho, it means that the idea isn't a very good one.

I thought the excerpts by Nietzsche were terrific, thanks for that EIS.


I apperciate the clarification. I had a slight shit fit. I happens from time to time. Not very often. But sometimes ;-)

Now, there are skillful and unskillful ways of engaging in an intellectual discourse. The scientific method is a kind of dialetic whereby individuals or groups say they've done something or disproved something, then tell others about it, then others either disprove, revise, or confirm their findings. Nothing wrong with that! However, not all things are confirmable via the science method -- such as ethics, or how to make a really yummy stir fry, or how much taxes people should pay, or how to love well, etc. Before something turns into a science it always started as philosophy. I think the key is to engage in discussion and debate and thought, but in a way which promotes clarity of thought. That is why I do it. There is not instruction manual for how the world should be won. A person has to study deeply, and far and wide to gather all the information they need to lead a semi-informed existence.

I think the key you are looking for is how to engage in debate, and/or critical discourse, without getting upset, angry, disgusted, etc in the process. The is a skill indeed, but one which can be arrived at with training and practice. Most people are used to fighting, not discussing and/or debating...

By the way, love doesn't suck :-)
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 12/23/11 8:55 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Alan Smithee:
I appreciate that you have been simply stating your views with no ill intent. Your advice regarding practice have been helpful and is appreciated. I guess the issue was simply that some of the views I have encountered thus far have been, for lack of a better word, exotic, and from a certain perspective, a challenge to respond to skillfully. Study and critical discourse is fundamental to my identity and happiness, and to challenge that is to challenge my self-identity and understanding of how to function in the world.


Very understandable...no harm done. emoticon

I am not about to give up reading and thinking, questioning and engaging in theory, but if I am able to achieve steam entry at some point in the future, it shall be interesting to see if my views on any of these matters changes in any fundamental way, eh?


The interesting thing is, to the extent that identity-making and addictive behavior are subdued via practice, thinking and theorizing become what they ought to have been all along...simple, useful tools.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/3/12 2:33 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/3/12 2:33 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Chris Hedges is someone whose ideas I really appreciate. He is critical of the liberal establishment but he isn't from the rightwing. He has spent a lot of time in war zones and has reported on the suffering of people as a result of war. He is critical of the "New Atheist" movement but he also wrote a book about what he calls the "Christian Fascist" movement in the US. He is a supporter of the Occupy movement and has been arrested a few times as a result. He isn't a "Marxist" but he is opposed to transnational corporations and what he calls "ruthless totalitarian capitalism." He is blisteringly critical of Obama and Clinton and sees them as in essence no different than republicans. He opposes "Obama-care" but is not opposed to genuinely socialized healthcare. He believes the system in the US is hopelessly corrupt and bascially fucked and needs to be replaced, and only populist struggle acting outside the system can do it. He was trained at a seminary but doesn't define himself as recognizably Christian. He is kind of like a crankier, more globetrotting Noam Chomsky. Although not a pacifist in the absolute sense, he opposes violence in 99.99% of cases, and this is part of the reason why he supports the Occupy movements (they are nonviolent). He does believe that only a mass populist movement can ever hope to break the chains of corporate dictatorship, which is also what I believe. I am posting an amazing interview which is three hours long in which he gets to speak freely about innumerable different issues. It is worth a listen. I still wonder what Buddhism's place will be in a struggle to free ourselves from corporate dictatorship and "ruthless totalitarian capitalism"

Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zotYU21qcU

Here is also a link to a powerful article he wrote called "Finding Freedom in Handcuffs"
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/finding_freedom_in_handcuffs_20111107/
Michael Urbanski, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 7:52 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 7:52 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 3 Join Date: 1/18/10 Recent Posts
Hi Alan and everyone,

I am new to the forum but have been struggling with the questions related to the intersection between Eastern and Western (practice of) philosophy for some years -- I’m currently finishing a PhD dissertation on Deleuze, Foucault, Badiou and Zizek, and the relationship of what we traditionally think of as abstract philosophy/theory to change (including change in consciousness).

Here is a link to an academic paper I recently wrote for Deleuze Studies journal in which I tackle some of the issues touched upon here – the intersection of theory and practice, the nature of abstraction, practice as theory, etc.

http://michaelurbanski.wordpress.com/the-logic-of-the-virtual/

Please feel free to comment.

Michael
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 11:02 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 10:48 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
Michael Urbanski:
Hi Alan and everyone,

I am new to the forum but have been struggling with the questions related to the intersection between Eastern and Western (practice of) philosophy for some years -- I’m currently finishing a PhD dissertation on Deleuze, Foucault, Badiou and Zizek, and the relationship of what we traditionally think of as abstract philosophy/theory to change (including change in consciousness).

Here is a link to an academic paper I recently wrote for Deleuze Studies journal in which I tackle some of the issues touched upon here – the intersection of theory and practice, the nature of abstraction, practice as theory, etc.

http://michaelurbanski.wordpress.com/the-logic-of-the-virtual/

Please feel free to comment.

Michael


I'm going to give your article a read, although I am by no means a Deleuze expert, as I've only read Anti-Oedipus, as well as Badiou's book on Deleuze called The Clamor of Being. The main theoretical contention Badiou has with Deleuze in that book regards the conflict between the one vs the multiple. As we know, Deleuze championed the one whereas Badiou champions the multiple.

I found Badiou's thesis very convincing, along with such books as Being and Event, etc., which posit the multiple as (via set theory) ontology.

I wonder what you make of many Buddhists valorization of "non-duality," seemingly a kind of Advaita Vedanta conception of the "one" above all things (by implication, above the multiple), or is something else going on here? I sort of cringe when I hear such non-dual language because I fear it may be contradicting Badiou's discovery that only the multiple exists. With Buddhism's focus on interdependent co-origination, the aggregates, the "four" truths as opposed to the "one" truth, no-soul as opposed to the soul, impermanence as opposed to permanence, etc., one might theorize that the Buddha had developed a non-closed, non-single, non big "T" Truthy philosophy of the multiple.

Here is a description made by Terry Eagelton of Badiou's thought: "The Event is that miraculous occurrence which surges up from an historical situation to which it simultaneously does not belong. Events for Badiou are [...] utterly original happenings founded purely in themselves, pure breaks and beginnings which are out of joint with their historical ‘site’, in excess of their contexts, sprung randomly and (as it were) ex nihilo from an established orthodoxy which could not have foreseen them [...] Being in Badiou’s view is an inexhaustible multiple, which comes to us in recognizable chunks or distinct situations only through the operation of being ‘one-ed’ or provisionally unified by a human subject. Otherwise, it is as infinitely inaccessible to us as Kant’s noumenal sphere. In the presence of an Event, however, it is as though the ‘inconsistent multiplicity’ which this counting-as-one conceals bursts momentarily out again, granting us a privileged glimpse of the disorderly infinity of pure Being. Events are explosive, ineffable exceptions to the rule, epiphanies of truth entirely without foundation. (Trouble with Strangers: A Study of Ethics, 260-61)

Also, many buddhists seem to want to separate what they call relative and absolute truths, which further makes me cringe because Badiou claims that truths are things to which we have access via fidelity to a truth event (truths -- when they occur -- are both relative and absolute simultaneously). That being said, I have heard such Buddhist scholars as Stephen Batchelor on numerous occassions state that the distinction between absolute and relative truths are simply never made by the Buddha in any of the suttas and was a later invention.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts...
thumbnail
Chris G, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 12:13 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 12:13 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 118 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
Bruno Loff:

Find me one instance of intelectual philosophy that brought anyone peace of mind.


See my thread from a couple of years ago:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/100266

Unfortunately, this orientation that I had toward the world was lost at some point. I fell into depression, anxiety, obsession, fighting with my emotions, etc., and had long periods of horrible day-to-day experiences. I still haven't fully recovered. So in my case the effect was only temporary. To date, Buddhism has not brought me the substantial, lasting relief I am looking for - indeed it may have contributed to the cause of these experiences - although I have hope it will.


I'll add an additional thought though: freedom from suffering is not the only good in this world. If all humans did was to find freedom from suffering, and then lead reclusive or otherwise actionless lives, not exercising the faculties which make them uniquely human (re: Aristotle's Ethics), but merely subsisting until death, then this would be far from an ideal state of affairs, in my opinion.

The pursuit of objective knowledge and understanding - the exercise of the intellectual faculties - is a good which is independent of whether it leads to a reduction in stress. However, when successful, it does in fact have its own accompanying pleasure, and can indeed lead to reductions in stress. (Although there may be instances in which it can lead to the opposite as well.)

Buddhism, by which I mean the doctrine expounded in the Pali canon and summarized in the noble eightfold path, concerns itself exclusively with individual freedom from stress. But, while important, this is hardly a comprehensive approach to human life and human flourishing.
Michael Urbanski, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 12:37 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 12:37 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 3 Join Date: 1/18/10 Recent Posts
Hi Alan,

Thanks for your reply.

I think the main point of contention for Deleuze-Badiou is the nature of abstraction – what does it mean to say that something is non-concrete (abstract) and/or possible? This is a key point because we tend to think of the possible as pre-existing the actual, or as actual without existence. For Deleuze, to alter the conditions of the real rather than merely possible experience — to get through to real reality — we must recast the “possible conditions of experience” (Kant, Hegel) as something that is both completely unlike and yet even more, not less, real than the actual — the real conditions of possibility of the actual. This directly undermines the Hegelian dialectic, where the Synthesis (change), or the movement whereby the transcendental actualizes itself as the empirical, is one step removed from real reality because negation (or identity derived from difference) is a rational — and hence an abstract — rather than a real movement.

Here Deleuze’s non-representational philosophy has been confused with Analytic philosophy, particularly with Wittgenstein’s and Badiou’s. But while for Deleuze, as for the neo-rationalists, thinking cannot be abstracted from socio-linguistic practice, the latter, from the point of view of the vitalist Deleuze, make the key mistake of positing the transcendental as immanent to the actual material and symbolic forms, rather than immanent as these forms. This is the perhaps inadvertent effect of anthropomorphizing ontology by grounding it in socio-linguistic practice (Wittgenstein, but also Derrida) or mathematics (Badiou). By re-conceptualizing “text [as] merely a small cog in extra-textual [i.e. vitalist] practice” (Deleuze, 1973) and treating all abstract generalities as in need of rather than as the means of explanation, thought, for Deleuze as for Foucault, becomes truly immanent: a vitally alive, non-abstract, a-historical, a-signifying movement-singularity, a power.

It is in this sense, I think, that philosophy for Deleuze is not so much about whether the One of the Multiple is true (although it still retains this speculative character in Badiou), but about whether the thinking subject who thinks along either lines can succeed in overcoming who they think they are. And since the thinking subject in Badiou is in effect abstract (as per my paper), it cannot overcome itself because it wants to find what it is looking for on the same level as it itself occupies – it sees both itself and its method as an abstraction, an idea. This kind of theoretical thought simply cannot produce enough intensity to trigger an ontological “event” – it ends up being needlessly speculative rather than existentially transformative (for all his talk about transformation, Zizek is very much guilty of countless pages of all-too-cute speculations).

All this has interesting consequences for science, for example: if Deleuze has indeed formalized the kind of thought-practice-method that assassinates simultaneously both the subject and the object, the condition and the conditioned – the thought that cannot be thought, as writes Nietzsche – he has at the same time discovered a recipe for creating the perfect conditions for “the event” or for the paradigm shift in science (shift in perception in DhO talk). It’s a scary ... thought.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 1:33 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 1:33 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
Buddhism, by which I mean the doctrine expounded in the Pali canon and summarized in the noble eightfold path, concerns itself exclusively with individual freedom from stress. But, while important, this is hardly a comprehensive approach to human life and human flourishing.


I think that this is true, but I also think that the Buddha only addressed the end of suffering because he recognized that under no conditions can samsara be made into something good, it is all just a mass of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness and everything achieved here is superficial. This is definitely not something people would like to believe and i have gone back and forth on it a lot, I've always been interested in government and economics, but lately I've started to lose that interest, believing that nothing worthwhile can be achieved in the world other than the personal end of suffering and helping others to that end. So maybe, in his view, this is a comprehensive approach to human life and flourishing, as nothing of any worth can possibly be achieved other than nibbana. I think he'd definitely approve of the world you described where everyone led reclusive actionless lives aimed only at ending suffering.

I think that the difference essentially hinges on whether one believes in rebirth and parinibanna or not. If yes, than the only way in which good can be done is the good done to beings, and thus the highest good is the end of personal suffering for each of these beings. In a world without rebirth I can see that one might look at the issue in life as improving the world, or maybe society, because when society/humankind and the world/universe are the potentially permanent things and beings are impermanent things that pass through it, the ultimate good is the perfection of society and the world; whereas if beings are potentially eternal and society something that exists as an effect within this mass of beings, the ultimate good is personal happiness for each being.

I share the Buddha's position here, belief in rebirth+parinibanna included. Partly this is because i have developed a strong faith in the buddha, partly it is because of some quantum physics stuff that points to non-physical minds, partly because in his paradigm i actually understand what the completion of the entire purpose of the universe would be (everyone in nibbana), but i don't know what a perfect world or society would look like.
thumbnail
N A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 4:32 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 4:32 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 157 Join Date: 7/10/11 Recent Posts
josh r s:
In a world without rebirth I can see that one might look at the issue in life as improving the world, or maybe society, because when society/humankind and the world/universe are the potentially permanent things and beings are impermanent things that pass through it, the ultimate good is the perfection of society and the world

In Buddhism, nothing is permanent, unless you also discard that bit of the dogma, and that would really leave very little.

Both humankind and the universe are definitely impermanent both from the Buddhist point of view (with or without rebirth) and from the modern scientific perspective. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty pessimistic about this.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 5:22 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 5:11 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
well, the part you quoted was my description of the worldview in a basic sense without rebirth, so i assume you meant to quote my next part about the converse situation in which the beings were potentially permanent (the buddhist view). note that i said potentially permanent, not permanent. meaning that the process of dependent origination is self-sustaining and it is up to each being to end the process for himself.

Both humankind and the universe are definitely impermanent both from the Buddhist point of view (with or without rebirth) and from the modern scientific perspective. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty pessimistic about this.


all conditioned things are impermanent from the buddhist point of view yes, but again in that case you mentioned i was talking about the other point of view. also, i didn't mean literally that the other point of view takes the universe to be eternal, but that it takes society to be the lasting thing with people who go through it as the short-lived things.


so to try and rephrase:
There are two different contradicting worldviews.

The first is the one in which there is society which will exist indefinitely through which human beings pass before dying (forever). In this worldview it makes sense to move towards a perfect society.

The second one is basically the converse where the beings continue indefinitely and they create a society as an impermanent structure during their continuing lives. Here, because the beings continue after death, and the "society" (figurative) is an event that happens within this larger, eternal realm of "beings," it makes sense to aim for perfection the permanent not the impermanent thus everyone goes for parinibbana.
thumbnail
Chris G, modified 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 9:53 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/4/12 9:53 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 118 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
There are many things in your post to discuss, but let me selectively reply to avoid spending an inordinate amount of time doing so. You said

josh r s:
I've always been interested in government and economics, but lately I've started to lose that interest, believing that nothing worthwhile can be achieved in the world other than the personal end of suffering and helping others to that end.


And also

whereas if beings are potentially eternal ... the ultimate good is personal happiness for each being.


I don't think I agree with your line of reasoning exactly, but here is an observation:

Are you aiming at happiness or the end of stress? For happiness, whatever it might be, would seem to be something good over and above the mere absence of stress. I don't think one can consider the mere absence of a bad thing to be a good -- it is at best neutral. Only that which exists may be given the label good. In this context it would be life without stress. Is life without stress good or valuable? I think so. Is it possible? I also think so. I'm not sure if this does or does not agree with the traditional Buddhist doctrine. But I think it agrees with the experience of some people from these forums (Trent, at the least, and probably Tarin too). For instance:

Trent H.:

The point is that the loss of survival instinct does not mean a predilection for foolishly insalubrious activity or any sort of desire to toss away one's life. It is quite simple: I like being alive.


If happiness is possible, what is the best or most complete happiness? According to one line of reasoning, this would be one in which we make the full use of our uniquely human faculties. I also, tentatively, think this this is only possible in the absence of stress. (Again from learning about Trent's experiences, and from my own observations about how stress interferes with my cognitive abilities.)
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 8:54 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 8:54 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
I don't think I agree with your line of reasoning exactly

are you waiting to explain that until after we get done with your observation?

Are you aiming at happiness or the end of stress? For happiness, whatever it might be, would seem to be something good over and above the mere absence of stress.


I keep running into problems with my own lack of experience here, and find myself speculating so bear with me. My lack of understanding is based on not knowing whether impermanence ceases to be an issue when craving ceases. Does it still matter that things cease even when there is no craving for their existence (even in attenuated forms like the attention wave)? Does it matter that things arise when there is no craving for their disappearance? I mean this as a separate question to the mere fact of pleasure and pain, which arahants still experience, but in addition to the pleasure and pain is there a separate suffering inherent in change of any kind? Would an arahant experience suffering in any form if experience was a simple oscillation between two different forms of pleasure?

If there is suffering inherent in impermanence without craving, then your spectrum model of suffering and happiness is inapplicable, because then there is no such thing as happiness as absolutely all changing experience is suffering, and so the only complete release from suffering is an experience in which absolutely no aspect changes at all.

If the suffering inherent in change is wiped out with the end of craving, then the only suffering that remains is pain, with pleasure being happiness. If this is true then the only suffering of impermanence is the emotional desire and aversion which is directly painful, thus there is a simple spectrum of pain-pleasure in experience.

I really am not sure here. The main issue is the apparent stress of the attention wave. It is suggested by others here with more experience that the movement of attention creates a form of suffering on top of the existing experience of pleasure and pain. Is this additional form of suffering another sensate/mental/emotional pain? Or is it somehow suffering in a way different than feelings of pain?

Based off of my own experience, i can't say how suffering could exist independent of pain (there is an intuitive sense for me that impermanence is automatically unpleasant but this could be due to aversion and desire generated by change i.e. just more pain), but based off of the reports of others and suttas, my best guess is that it does, and that this type of suffering ends with nibbana.

I wrote a really really long post including speculation based on each of these alternatives, but I'll hold off until that issue is settled....
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 9:20 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 9:20 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
josh r s:
The second one is basically the converse where the beings continue indefinitely and they create a society as an impermanent structure during their continuing lives. Here, because the beings continue after death, and the "society" (figurative) is an event that happens within this larger, eternal realm of "beings," it makes sense to aim for perfection the permanent not the impermanent thus everyone goes for parinibbana.


Is there an intuition that makes this view (if rebirth happens, that beings are eternal) seem plausible to you? If so, I assume it is something like "there is a single consciousness that experiences all this, and which would continue forever if rebirth happens".

If so, I strongly suggest examining that intuition during meditation to see if you can tell how it arises, or if you can tell how that intuition is not the endpoint of some kind of analysis nor an indubitable fact, but is simply some kind of experience that arises and is very convincing. The intuition is something that should lose some hold after MCTB stream entry (it seems to be more prevalent, according to some people's description, in the post-A&P pre-path period), and looking at it directly can help undermine it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html
thumbnail
Chris G, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 10:21 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 10:21 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 118 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
josh r s:
I don't think I agree with your line of reasoning exactly

are you waiting to explain that until after we get done with your observation?


No -- I hope you don't mind. I attempted to write a response but wasn't coming up with anything I liked in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe I'm a bit slow when it comes to writing posts. Also, the reasoning in that post was not nearly as clear to me as it is in your new post.

josh r s:

If there is suffering inherent in impermanence without craving, then your spectrum model of suffering and happiness is inapplicable, because then there is no such thing as happiness as absolutely all changing experience is suffering, and so the only complete release from suffering is an experience in which absolutely no aspect changes at all.

If the suffering inherent in change is wiped out with the end of craving, then the only suffering that remains is pain, with pleasure being happiness. If this is true then the only suffering of impermanence is the emotional desire and aversion which is directly painful, thus there is a simple spectrum of pain-pleasure in experience.


This is a very good question, and you put it wonderfully clearly.

First, I'm not totally sure what the suttas say. From what I've read they do seem to take the position that freedom from stress only comes both after "the holy life is fulfilled" (nibanna) and the body dies (paranibanna). But I think it would take some study to make a good case. To they really say that everything in life is inherently stressful and the only peace comes with non-existence? Or do they merely say that all conditioned things are unsatisfying (i.e. cannot satisfy one's craving) and that peace comes with the end of craving, and that this is possible here and now in this life? Maybe you or someone else could consider researching this and writing an article ...

(And moreover, which suttas make which claims? Some could date from earlier periods and more authentically represent the Buddha's teaching. Others could have been modified, written after the Buddha's death, introduced errors, etc.)

Second, concerning the experience of people today, you wrote:


I really am not sure here. The main issue is the apparent stress of the attention wave. It is suggested by others here with more experience that the movement of attention creates a form of suffering on top of the existing experience of pleasure and pain. Is this additional form of suffering another sensate/mental/emotional pain? Or is it somehow suffering in a way different than feelings of pain?


As I understand it the attention wave is something which is gone in the PCE and AF. It has craving as its root. The attention wave is not the movement of attention, is more like the volitional redirection of attention, and the distortion of one's sensory experience, due to affective impulses (or "being"). When being ceases, so does the attention wave.

Trent's position is clearly that life a positive thing sans-identity. The position of the AF trust is the same. Perhaps other very advanced practitioners can chime in here. (End in Sight, Nikolai, Tarin, Daniel, ...)


Based off of my own experience, i can't say how suffering could exist independent of pain (there is an intuitive sense for me that impermanence is automatically unpleasant but this could be due to aversion and desire generated by change i.e. just more pain), but based off of the reports of others and suttas, my best guess is that it does, and that this type of suffering ends with nibbana.


Well my (limited) experience is different, that sense-perception is actually generally pleasant (save for physical pain), and it is only craving/affect which sucks. Have you experienced a PCE? I agree with the Actualism viewpoint here.


I wrote a really really long post including speculation based on each of these alternatives, but I'll hold off until that issue is settled....


A good decision, I think, as there is plenty of content here already.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 11:30 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 11:23 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
josh r s:
The second one is basically the converse where the beings continue indefinitely and they create a society as an impermanent structure during their continuing lives. Here, because the beings continue after death, and the "society" (figurative) is an event that happens within this larger, eternal realm of "beings," it makes sense to aim for perfection the permanent not the impermanent thus everyone goes for parinibbana.


Is there an intuition that makes this view (if rebirth happens, that beings are eternal) seem plausible to you? If so, I assume it is something like "there is a single consciousness that experiences all this, and which would continue forever if rebirth happens".

If so, I strongly suggest examining that intuition during meditation to see if you can tell how it arises, or if you can tell how that intuition is not the endpoint of some kind of analysis nor an indubitable fact, but is simply some kind of experience that arises and is very convincing. The intuition is something that should lose some hold after MCTB stream entry (it seems to be more prevalent, according to some people's description, in the post-A&P pre-path period), and looking at it directly can help undermine it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html


indefinite doesn't mean eternal, just that there is no definite end. beings are potentially eternal, they could continue through rebirth forever unless they attain nibbana. this is according to the suttas and in no way related to anything i've experienced.

in MN 9 it says this:
Sāriputta: Now what is ignorance, what is the origination of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, and what is the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance?

Not knowing in terms of stress, not knowing in terms of the origination of stress, not knowing in terms of the cessation of stress, not knowing in terms of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: this is called ignorance. From the origination of effluents comes the origination of ignorance. From the cessation of effluents comes the cessation of ignorance. And just this noble eightfold path is the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance...

Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns ignorance in this way, discerns the origination of ignorance in this way, discerns the cessation of ignorance in this way, & discerns the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished irritation-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am,' having abandoned ignorance, having given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to stress in the here & now, then it is to this extent that the disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view, one whose view is made straight, who is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma, and who has arrived at this true Dhamma...

Now what are effluents, what is the origination of effluents, what is the cessation of effluents, and what is the way of practice leading to the cessation of effluents?

These three are effluents: the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of effluents. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of effluents. And just this noble eightfold path is the way of practice leading to the cessation of effluents...

Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns the effluents in this way, discerns the origination of effluents in this way, discerns the cessation of effluents in this way, & discerns the way of practice leading to the cessation of effluents in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished irritation- obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am,' having abandoned ignorance, having given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to stress in the here & now, then it is to this extent that the disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view, one whose view is made straight, who is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma, and who has arrived at this true Dhamma.


the process is circular
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 11:45 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 11:42 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Where does the intuition that there is a being that might be continually reborn (rather than an impersonal process that might causally continue) come from?

A line of dominoes continues to tip over once the first is set in motion, but (even if the line is potentially infinite) there is no sense in which any particular thing continues on forever...one domino falls, then another domino falls...

My point is not doctrinal, but practical...the intuition about there being something that continues over time is generally rooted in a kind of experience that can be aggressively looked at and analyzed in order to obtain MCTB 1st path.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 1:23 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 1:23 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
Where does the intuition that there is a being that might be continually reborn (rather than an impersonal process that might causally continue) come from?

A line of dominoes continues to tip over once the first is set in motion, but (even if the line is potentially infinite) there is no sense in which any particular thing continues on forever...one domino falls, then another domino falls...

My point is not doctrinal, but practical...the intuition about there being something that continues over time is generally rooted in a kind of experience that can be aggressively looked at and analyzed in order to obtain MCTB 1st path.


EiS, although you said your point was practical, I don't want to derail this theoretical discussion with a direct pointing session. I'll respond to your point as it applies to what I was saying. I do have that intuitive sense, but I am working on things (samadhi) other than understanding it, and I have tried to directly understand it with little result, I tried it again just now, didn't get anywhere. No end in sight.

Anyway, in the theoretical sense, your point about the impersonal nature of the DO processes above referred to as "beings" is irrelevant. Whether there are potentially eternal impermanent processes which include birth and death from which suffering is created, or a "personal" (whatever that means) being dies and is born over and over again until nibbana, my essential point is that the "ultimate" goal of a world of potentially eternal beings is for each being to reach nibbana i.e. for each impersonal process of DO to end with nibbana. In a world of beings who are born having never existed before and die to never exist again, the "ultimate" goal that each participant contributes to is the improvement of the world through which they pass, because their individual happiness is essentially meaningless, as the moment they die it doesn't matter in any way forevermore, but the society continues.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 2:17 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 2:09 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
Chris G:
josh r s:
I don't think I agree with your line of reasoning exactly

are you waiting to explain that until after we get done with your observation?


No -- I hope you don't mind. I attempted to write a response but wasn't coming up with anything I liked in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe I'm a bit slow when it comes to writing posts. Also, the reasoning in that post was not nearly as clear to me as it is in your new post.


no worries

First, I'm not totally sure what the suttas say.


Here is one, from MN 147

As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "What do you think, Rahula — is the eye constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."


Unequivocally stating that inconstancy is stressful

But I think it would take some study to make a good case.


I think it's fairly uncontroversial from a sutta-study perspective the "first arrow" isn't removed until parinibbana, I'd value someone who's ended the attention wave's opinion on whether impermanence is still stressful in and of itself based on their experience.

To they really say that everything in life is inherently stressful and the only peace comes with non-existence?


Nibbana is said by the buddha to not be accurately described by either non-existance, existence, both existence and non-existence or neither-existence nor non-existence.

MN 72:
"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata exists: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."


All of this is coming from the pali canon, and I don't know much about issues of authenticity within the actual pali canon, only with the later ones, are there any known systematic issues with the pali canon? I know some have said that the mahjima nikaya is the most reliable source, i try to stick to that.

As I understand it the attention wave is something which is gone in the PCE and AF. It has craving as its root. The attention wave is not the movement of attention, is more like the volitional redirection of attention, and the distortion of one's sensory experience, due to affective impulses (or "being"). When being ceases, so does the attention wave.


My question here is still whether the impermanence is stressful in some inherent way, not in the indirect way that ceasing and arising can create desire and aversion which are painful in and of themselves. As arahants have lost desire and aversion, do they suffer due to impermanence still, in the theoretical "direct" way? If so, I don't understand this form of suffering, i don't see how suffering can exist in any other way than as pain (whether affective or physical), including the pain of aversion and desire which arise due to impermanence.

Is the distortion suffering, even if it is just distortion of a pleasant sensation? Does the distortion make the sensation relatively more painful, or is there something inherent separate from pleasure and pain?

(This would help clarify whether all of life whether good or bad (as it is impermanent) is automatically suffering and the only escape is parinibbana.)

Well my (limited) experience is different, that sense-perception is actually generally pleasant (save for physical pain), and it is only craving/affect which sucks. Have you experienced a PCE? I agree with the Actualism viewpoint here.


I think I have, it was brief and i didn't really investigate it. Certainly it was relatively better, as is true of the near-PCE relaxation of tension I get into nearly every time I sit in meditation. From that perspective I didn't seem to care about impermanence, which makes me think it's only a problem when cessations create desire and arisings create aversion. However, my discernment is relatively untrained and I am sure there is plenty of suffering that I don't perceive clearly as suffering.

Trent's position is clearly that life a positive thing sans-identity. The position of the AF trust is the same. Perhaps other very advanced practitioners can chime in here. (End in Sight, Nikolai, Tarin, Daniel, ...)


I'm sure that it is relatively better than life previously, just as 4th path is better than 3rd, 2nd better than first, 1st better than nothing, equanimity nana better than dukkha nanas. The buddha said that parinibbana is relatively better than nibbana.

Anyway, to bring the focus back to my original point: One worldview is that society is the ultimate and beings pass through, the other that beings are the ultimate and society impermanent. In the first people within this greater society might work on their individual happinesses as a secondary purpose, in the second people might, out of both compassion and self-interest, create a relatively pleasant abiding of improved society with the ultimate aim being parinibbana.

The question about impermanence troubling arahants is only vaguely relevant (but still interesting) because if pleasure/pain are their only remaining issues, there's more reason to create a good society, especially when we are talking in the ultimate, long-term sense.
thumbnail
N A, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 2:28 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 2:28 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 157 Join Date: 7/10/11 Recent Posts
Chris G:
From what I've read they do seem to take the position that freedom from stress only comes both after "the holy life is fulfilled" (nibanna) and the body dies (paranibanna). But I think it would take some study to make a good case. To they really say that everything in life is inherently stressful and the only peace comes with non-existence?


I'm not sure if this is exactly suffering in the Buddhist sense but this way of thinking makes sense to me. Consider: why do you ever move? If you were perfectly content with the way things are, you would never do anything - is that not what peace means? But such a state is just not compatible with being alive. You're almost always doing something, and the root cause of every action is discontent with your present state.
thumbnail
Chris G, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 9:32 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 9:32 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 118 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
N A:
Chris G:
From what I've read they do seem to take the position that freedom from stress only comes both after "the holy life is fulfilled" (nibanna) and the body dies (paranibanna). But I think it would take some study to make a good case. To they really say that everything in life is inherently stressful and the only peace comes with non-existence?


I'm not sure if this is exactly suffering in the Buddhist sense but this way of thinking makes sense to me. Consider: why do you ever move? If you were perfectly content with the way things are, you would never do anything - is that not what peace means? But such a state is just not compatible with being alive. You're almost always doing something, and the root cause of every action is discontent with your present state.


Organisms seek nourishment, to reproduce, etc. There is movement involved, but I'm not sure there needs to be discontentment. If I drop a stone from the top of a building, it does not fall because it is discontented. The addition of awareness would not seem to necessitate discontentment. Only emotion would.
thumbnail
Chris G, modified 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 10:04 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/5/12 10:04 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 118 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
josh r s:

Here is one, from MN 147

[...]

Unequivocally stating that inconstancy is stressful


Ok, that's helpful, thanks.


Nibbana is said by the buddha to not be accurately described by either non-existance, existence, both existence and non-existence or neither-existence nor non-existence.


Point well taken, but it's certainly not worldly existence. There is no more coming to birth, nothing further for the sake of this world, etc.


My question here is still whether the impermanence is stressful in some inherent way, not in the indirect way that ceasing and arising can create desire and aversion which are painful in and of themselves. As arahants have lost desire and aversion, do they suffer due to impermanence still, in the theoretical "direct" way? If so, I don't understand this form of suffering, i don't see how suffering can exist in any other way than as pain (whether affective or physical), including the pain of aversion and desire which arise due to impermanence.

Is the distortion suffering, even if it is just distortion of a pleasant sensation? Does the distortion make the sensation relatively more painful, or is there something inherent separate from pleasure and pain?

(This would help clarify whether all of life whether good or bad (as it is impermanent) is automatically suffering and the only escape is parinibbana.)


Perhaps someone else will chime in.



Anyway, to bring the focus back to my original point: One worldview is that society is the ultimate and beings pass through, the other that beings are the ultimate and society impermanent. In the first people within this greater society might work on their individual happinesses as a secondary purpose, in the second people might, out of both compassion and self-interest, create a relatively pleasant abiding of improved society with the ultimate aim being parinibbana.

The question about impermanence troubling arahants is only vaguely relevant (but still interesting) because if pleasure/pain are their only remaining issues, there's more reason to create a good society, especially when we are talking in the ultimate, long-term sense.


I'll leave this discussion about society for others.
End in Sight, modified 12 Years ago at 1/6/12 10:15 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/6/12 10:15 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Chris G:
Perhaps someone else will chime in.


The suttas do indicate that there is something stressful about change in itself, but also seem to indicate that arahants are happy with their condition, and happy in it: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.10.than.html (among other examples)

My impression is that, in the suttas, the state of an arahant involves a mix of stressful and unstressful qualities, the former from conditioned existence, the latter from nibbana; and the former drop away at parinibbana.

My personal, nondoctrinal experience is just that life gets better and better as practice deepens, and theoretical questions about whether there is anything good about things as they are don't occur to me very much, except that craving always leads to and is suffering of some kind. The suffering inherent in change I don't have much idea about; whatever it may be, I assume it is very subtle compared to other kinds.
thumbnail
josh r s, modified 12 Years ago at 1/6/12 11:55 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/6/12 11:55 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 337 Join Date: 9/16/11 Recent Posts
I'll leave this discussion about society for others.


I'm ok with ending the conversation here too, I was merely responding to your statement that the buddha's approach wasn't complete because it was only focused on the end of suffering, and that it would lead to a society of actionless reclusive lives; however, from the buddha's perspective, this is a comprehensive approach, and such a society would be ideal, if you take as a premise that beings will continue indefinitely in samsara and that samsara is always inherently stressful.
thumbnail
Alan Smithee, modified 12 Years ago at 1/15/12 8:08 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/15/12 8:08 AM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 310 Join Date: 4/2/10 Recent Posts
“I couldn’t possibly write something that would reflect the true depths of my aversion to everything that exists. Assuming that anything has to exist, my perfect world would be one in which everyone has experienced the annulment of his or her ego. That is, our consciousness of ourselves as unique individuals would entirely disappear. We would still function as beings that needed the basics—food, shelter, and clothing—but life wouldn’t be any more than that. It wouldn’t need to be.”

"Doing anything just seems plain stupid, which in my opinion it ultimately is [...] But if you’re going to do anything, you must be in an irrational state of emotion, and without this irrationality your life is just numbers: how long, how much, how many, how far. Emotion gives an illusory focus and meaning to our lives. When the feeling is gone, so is that sense. This sense is a motivator yet it also fools you into thinking that something is important when it’s not in the least important, except as an engine for your meaningless life."

http://theteemingbrain.wordpress.com/interviews/interview-with-thomas-ligotti/
thumbnail
Fitter Stoke, modified 12 Years ago at 1/27/12 1:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 1/27/12 1:44 PM

RE: Is "Western Buddhism" The Hegemonic Ideology of Global Capita

Posts: 487 Join Date: 1/23/12 Recent Posts
Ok, I managed to read the original posts and SOME of this exchange. I’m a philosopher by training. I’ve read some Zizek, though I’ve read a lot more Marx and assorted German philosophers. Here’s my two cents:

There’s always going to be a lousy fit between ancient ethics and modern capitalism. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Aristotlean ethics or Buddhist ethics. I think ancient ethics is, from a certain point of view, always going to be anti-capitalist.

The reason is that ancient ethics assumes there are multiple ends in life, not just one, whereas capitalism assumes the opposite. Microeconomics is based on something called the theory of marginal utility, which is in turn based upon a form of utilitarianism. The basic idea here is that all actions have just ONE end, and that’s increasing your happiness or your satisfaction. It’s just a question of the quantity of the happiness, but the happiness is the same across all actions. In the 19th century, Jevons, Menger, and Walras managed to transition from this idea of maximizing utility to the idea that people rank goods in order of how much they produce this happiness or satisfaction, and the “marginal” use of any of these goods is what determines their price. This had the advantage of overcoming a problem since Adam Smith’s time called “the paradox of water and diamonds”. It also had the advantage of collapsing exchange-value into use-value, which makes it appear as though capitalism is natural. It had the disadvantage of being a more-or-less inaccurate account of human action and motivation (according to most contemporary philosophers and psychologists, at least).

The upshot of this in modern society is that we have a tendency to think that there’s only one thing that has value: money. This is just the flip side to the utilitarian idea that there’s only one reason to perform an action: to increase the quantity of satisfaction. There are many different sorts of things we can possess or aim for, but they can all be made equal to one another in terms of their price. This is really common in education, for instance. People look at higher education solely as a means of making money, so this has a deleterious effect on things like liberal arts education that don’t make you a lot of money. This also turns your students into grade-grubbing, self-entitled sacks of shit. There was an article in Salon about 10 years ago called “The Big Lie” which talks about this. I used to make all my students read it to no avail. You can probably find it if you do a Google search.

If you go back to ancient times, it’s quite different. No one really believed you could derive exchange-value from use-value until the 19th century. Marx held them separate, but so did Ricardo and Smith, and pretty much every thinker going back to Aristotle. Aristotle was well aware of capitalism, or at least the idea of creating things in order to sell them on the market. He was critical of such trade, because he felt that it ignored the inherent qualities of things, and therefore it resulted in inferior goods. He said (paraphrasing from the Nicomachean Ethics) that you could either make a hammer solely for the purpose of hammering (and hence make a really good hammer), or you could make a hammer to be sold on the market (and hence make an inferior hammer). But there was no way to make a hammer that was both a quality hammer and that would fetch a good price.

If this sounds really weird, it should, and it gives you an idea of just how different the ancient worldview was from the capitalist worldview. The idea is simple: you can’t serve two masters. Something can only truly serve one end, not two. And the end an action serves dictates entirely what sort of an action it is: a skillful action or an unskillful one.

You find the same ethics and underlying metaphysics of action in Buddhism. Why have right view vs. right intention? Or right concentration vs. right speech? Why not just have an idea of rightness itself and apply it to many actions? “An action is right if it has enough of this quantity of rightness!” Because that which makes view skillful is different from what makes intention skillful. That which makes concentration skillful is different from what makes speech skillful. Each has its own end. And those ends, in turn, are different from what makes other actions skillful.

And this begins to speak a bit to your question about the separation between insight and ethics. By ancient standards they have to be separate, because each goes after a different end. Ingram makes a big deal out of the separate gold standards for these practices, and there’s definitely support for that. More on that later.

But again, this idea of having different ends contradicts capitalism the same way Aristotlean ethics did. Capitalism more or less flattens all actions into one type of action, measured by how much you get paid for them, or measured by the price the product of that action will fetch. The difference between A and B is not qualitative; it’s quantiative. It’s a value or a price.

This is why young people fret so much over what to do with their lives and whether they’ll make money doing it or not. Every young person has felt the opposition between the capitalist understanding of reality and the natural/ethical viewpoint. And it’s a commonplace view that you can’t buy happiness, though despite all that, capitalism is based in part on the idea that you can.

So in a sense, every time you invoke ancient ethics, you’re invoking natural, qualitative ends against the purely quantitative, unnatural end established by capitalism. If you look up the work of Scott Meikle, he’s a Marxist who talks a lot about this. But the idea is also in Leo Strauss, which is why there are some leftists who really like Strauss. It’s an implicit critique of capitalism even to raise the question of ethics.

Now, does that make ethics radical? I’m not sure. Marx would have a problem with that. I personally doubt whether ethics on its own is radical or revolutionary. But I also doubt Zizek is right that Buddhism is inherently pro-capitalist.

I understand where Zizek is coming from. He’s responding to Buddhism as a cultural phenomenon in the West, and there it really is implicated in subjectivism and passivity, just like the rest of New Age woo. It’s radical individualism writ cosmic. And issues of ethics, meditation, and the rest are all mushed together so that virtually nothing is done skillfully. When I see people with their Buddha figurines and their “namastes”, I sometimes want to puke. But obviously Buddhism itself cannot be reduced to that.

There’s a lot more to be said about the connection between Buddhist ethics and Buddhist meditation. It’s clear that ancient people took intent, concentration, speech, action, etc., to all be different acts aiming toward different ends. To excel in one requires things that are different from excelling in the other.

However, it’s obvious they also saw a connection between these things; otherwise they wouldn’t have been included under the same noble eightfold path. There’s no beating around the bush here. These eight things, taken together, are supposed to end suffering. Not just these four things or these seven things or these eight things plus those over there. The whole package is necessary to destroy suffering. So clearly there’s not just a connection between these things. There’s a -necessary- connection between them.

Why just these eight things and no others? I don’t know. I’m not a Buddhism scholar. But that’s obviously how the early Buddhists thought about it, and it’s obviously how a lot of Buddhists afterward thought about it, since it’s still part of the tradition. Understanding and evaluating their connection is a large, possibly worthwhile project.

From my own, limited, practical point of view, I can say that both ethics and meditation have mindfulness in common. You can’t do concentration without mindfulness. You can’t do insight without mindfulness. You can’t do ethics without mindfulness. I don’t take this as a “teaching”. It just seems to me to be true. I could be wrong.

Mindfulness is more than a common element. It appears to lead naturally into each training. If I’m mindful enough, the three characteristics show up. If I’m mindful enough, my attention will remain with my object and not wander from it. But mindful awareness is also often a “softer” or more compassionate awareness that lets things show themselves as they are. I think this leads to ethics. Buddhists are not the only ones to recognize this. Heidegger and Levinas seem to, too.

Also, I find that I have trouble doing concentration or insight practices if I’m too hard with myself. When I run into walls with meditation, I back up and make sure there’s enough heart in what I’m doing. I approach myself and my practice with more care and loving-kindness, and it always helps. Is it in theory possible to just push oneself through insight and concentration without those ethical aspects? Maybe. From my own experience, it seems difficult or impossible, though.

This is not to say that the ends of ethics, insight, and concentration are now confused. They’re separate ends, but it’s also clear that the ends might reinforce the means leading to one another. Thich Nhat Hanh talks about this a little in the introduction to his book For A Future To Be Possible.

Anyway, there’s a lot more I could say, especially on the subject of Buddhism and Western philosophy. The business about whether reality is subjective or not and how Buddhism plays into that is interesting. There’s also the stuff about how philosophers and other historical figures are appropriated in moments of political decision and how Buddhism (or Marxism or whatever) could be used for reactionary purposes. But I think I’ve gone on enough.

Breadcrumb