thanks for the write-up. skillful contributions of this manner are one of the things i would like to see more of on the site, and while the structure of the up-coming wiki-fied version will be more suited for this and should, therefore, encourage such writings and discussion more, i think the initiative to participate and share will still rely crucially on individual self-motivation and (hopefully) insight.

responding to the issue of the differences in view between traditional, modern, and post-modern forms of buddhism.. can you, in brief, outline and describe how you see the views held in each form?

your article has the makings to be the beginning of a really, really big topic, but it's still too barebones for me right now. i'd like more details and specifics. what are some of the concrete narratives common to today? how are these narratives helping to integrate realisation? how about you personally? what's the history behind your View? how have the relative aspects adapted and evolved? and in response to what situations, or for tackling what purposes?

i will go and take a big think about how i've formulated my view(s) and the contexts these have occurred in, and will report back when i'm ready. anyone else, please feel free to jump in.

Well, basically and most generally, traditionalist view is delineated by myth and scripture, with rigid institutional expressions. Modernist view is based in rationality and critical thinking, with democratic organizational structures. Postmodernist view may be seen as a bold embrace of multiple perspectives in every area, which thus creates a sharp relativism. It's useful to recognize a moderate and extreme version of all three.

Each of these has had precedents before actual historical emergence on the wide scale. Nowadays there are also quite a few examples of hybrids, including sometimes all three in some way, but without distinguishing their specific features, and thus such hybrids poorly integrate the components.

Typically, a traditional Buddhism would be conservative, scripture based, proclaiming Buddha's boldness in shaking the spiritual life of his times, but quite unwilling to shake the present status quo in the way practice is done, dharma is taught, sangha is organized etc. Perpetuation of "genuine Buddhism" and purity of transmission, orthodoxy and orthopraxis - those are typical traditional fixations. ("Buddhadharma is the one and only true way," or, more humorously, "Buddha loves me, this I know, 'cause the sutra tells me so.")

Further, traditional Buddhism will regularly produce chauvinism and sectarianism, whether hard or soft, at various levels and in every sphere, from doctrine manipulation (see how many great teachers have found it necessary to criticize the teachings of other great teachers as heresy) to social policy (see Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, and other histories for examples). Sutra texts will be re-written to suit momentary needs, everything teaching will be attributed to Gautama the Buddha, and hagiographies will even today be treated as bona fide biographies etc. However, this ancient structure also generates great virtues.

(to be continued)

Again, typically a modern Buddhism, wherever appearing, would have certain deep features like evidence based investigation (not just "public" evidence, but also corroborated subjective insights), distancing from myth-based reality models, sober appreciation of human potentials, recognition of any form of ethnocentrism as a serious limitation, equal rights for women at all levels of social organization (whether secular or religious) etc. A modernist approach will often have its own fixations, that may result in things like scientism (basically, mechanistic materialism) and rigid secularism, which lend themselves to understanding in a historical and developmental perspective. ("Buddha was a proto-rational reformist, and a true individual. Later Buddhists made a religion from his teaching, and a deity from its founder.")

Postmodern Buddhism will always bring an awareness of cultural contexts and the process of meaning-making, social conditioning of knowledge and its relation to power structures (whether hidden or obvious), distrust of hierarchy in various forms etc. while its fixation will be an almost irresistible urge to reduce everything to context and every context to further context, giving birth to extreme relativism, and thus denying anything resembling a universal in any form at any level, verging on nihilism. ("Derrida said what Buddha meant. Emptiness has no meaning, and that's the meaning of emptiness.")

(to be continued)

Now, it's interesting to note that each of these paradigms is generated from a certain developmental level, by giving meaning to everything as appearing within its horizon, and it's also interesting to note that each of these levels gives something important to the whole developmental edifice, something to be retained and integrated as we move on. But to move on, we need to objectify the structure prevailing at that level and thus disidentify from it to a significant degree, which isn't a small feat as that structure is the very apparatus of interpretation and the space within which our subjectivity consolidates into a coherent and stable pattern, while providing a shared platform for exchange and mutual recognition in groups and societies.

To integrate the good of premodern, modern, and postmodern while not naively running into their fixations and fantasies, we need to distinguish their strengths and weaknesses first, identify their shadow, delineate their truth-claims, and then to formulate a flexible integrative strategy: a robust, comprehensive, and pragmatic set of principles, based on radical methodological transparency and freedom from perspectival chauvinism.

(to be continued)

This is great stuff and I hope you continue Hokai!

Hokai, thanks for putting this up, and prisoner thanks for the great questions. This is a very interesting topic.

How does a postmodern Buddhism make room for a postmodern Christianity, Islam, etc.? Or does that occur at a more abstract or higher level?

Specifically, at what point is there some kind of terminology or View that allows (but does not attempt to force) individuals of other traditions at a certain level of development to 'join in'. I am not thinking in terms of a comprehensive model like Wilber but more a 'meta-view'(does that term fit?) that provides the space for individual vantage points (for example: a Christian, a Sufi, and a Buddhist) to have a common language that is tradition neutral and yet allows meaningful interaction. What would you call something like that?

Chuck,

Great question. I think the best answer we have at present is to develop a secular language of awakening that leaves out most of the tradition-specific terminology that people tend to get hung up on. For example, if a particular system is said to merge a yogi with Allah, not too many Christian will want to get on board. I think that Shinzen Young has done an excellent job devising a secular terminology, but it's too early to tell whether or not it will catch on.

There is at least one issue we're likely to run in to if we secularize the dharma, and that is the fact that it will probably only appeal to those who are at least functioning from a Modern/Rationalist worldview. Those who are functioning from a pre-Modern worldview would probably be less likely to adopt a secular terminology. There are large populations of people in this world who see the world in a pre-Modern way, which may not be a bad thing in itself. It just makes communicating across the lines of tradition/religion more difficult.

I hope my response is "on topic" enough. Let me know.

Jackson

chelek,

are you thinking of something like the ability for people who have clear differences in their view to be able to communicate anyway? cos if so, i find that much more appealing, and infinitely more likely to happen, than a comprehensive, top-heavy wilber-ish model becoming some universal standard.

one question as i see it is, how much irrelevance will one be willing to put up with in order to to talk to people from different traditions? it may simply not be fruitful much of the time (hence, no point in attempting to force it). even within the same backgrounds, different people have different agendas and the notion of a common language presupposes enough pre-existing similarities between desires and intentions. i'm not sure a language that is tradition neutral can exist.. it seems an unavoidable reality that the cross-traditional languages will emerge as the result of social and contextual bargaining between the parties involved. which traditions are more adaptive? who bargains better? that's what will define the language used and thus the interactions had.

regarding the differences between traditional, modern, and postmodern perspectives, im starting to wonder if the latter two are newer, more adaptive facades for the former, or something which the former expresses most clearly and straightforwardly. my hunch is any perspective that strays too far from traditionalism, either in name or in function, will find itself quickly out-competed and effectively silenced.

Hokai: My apologies if this topic does not fall within 'Fundamental View'. I am interested to hear your view on this.

awouldbehipster: The problem I see with any one individual developing such a terminology is that no matter how well intentioned they may be it will always be colored by that individuals point of view. Further, it will always be labeled with (for example) “that's shinzen youngs terminology”. I think it would need to be developed collaboratively by individuals from different traditions that have realized the truth from the point of view of their own tradition and are also at a developmental level (post modern?) that would allow them to accept the validity of other traditions/views. I think it would have to emerge over time, be open, adaptive. Much like an open source design.

prisoner: “are you thinking of something like the ability for people who have clear differences in their view to be able to communicate anyway?”

Exactly – and I share all your concerns about it. At least, from a certain level of experience, we would have a language that has been developed collaboratively. It would have to be simply available. Take it or leave it or present your own ideas about it (I am assuming a certain level of experience- a whole other tricky issue). Maybe more a collection of commentaries on a central theme that help to translate that central theme to different traditions.

There is already much mixing for sure – going back a long time. But it seems that that has been more on an individual level where someone has spent time within another tradition to really learn their terminology in order to be able to translate it. On this topic though I confess ignorance. I suspect Hokai has a much better sense of this.

-Chuck

Hi Chuck,

The tricky thing is that even if the language were developed by a group (in an open source way) rather than individual, it would still be labeled as the language of that particular group. What seems to be called for here isn't a language by an attitude, and that is probably even more difficult to cultivate. Tarin wrote, “are you thinking of something like the ability for people who have clear differences in their view to be able to communicate anyway?” That to me implies an approach to or attitude toward communication, which does have something to do with worldview but is not limited to it. For example, how many fundamentalists do you know who would even consider this kind of dialog?

Jackson

Chuck: "How does a postmodern Buddhism make room for a postmodern Christianity, Islam, etc.? Or does that occur at a more abstract or higher level?"

This is obviously a complex issue, but at an early postmodern level there would be an appreciation of other paths' capacity to produce authentic realization, but their respective claims - either doctrinal or contemplative, i.e. conceptual or mystical - would remain rather incommensurable. At a more mature postmodern level (actually post-postmodern, to be accurate), there would be an open possibility of admitting not just compelling similarities, but defining actual states and stages that are more or less universal. Yes, a meta-view fits nicely with this kind of consideration. What Wilber has offered in "Integral Spirituality" (2006) gives great hope that such a meta-view is not just possible but actually emerging already among at least some proponents of great traditions.

I wouldn't say we need a "tradition neutral" language at all. Some sort of lingua franca is already in place, anyway. What we need is a host culture that can accommodate and provide space for such conversations, language being just one dimension or refraction within that cultural space. Once we have that, proponents of each tradition will freely engage as long as they come from a developmental level capable of engaging such exchange and interested in finding a post-denominational identity common to all participants. Contemplatives have always been and remain the most likely candidates.

(cont.)

But this line of inquiry certainly deserves a thread (or, actually, half dozen threads to start with) of its own. It's hard enough to integrate the traditional, modern and postmodern in one tradition without making a mess. Doing that means naturally going beyond these three horizons and their meaning-making strategies, even those of "making place" for other traditions. Those who have done that in Buddhism would have absolutely no obstacle in communicating with those who have done that in Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam. The language itself should be the least of a problem.

Raimon Pannikar has made great contributions to this subject.

See:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/gehall/Hall_Panikkar.htm
http://them.polylog.org/1/fpr-en.htm

This is from Panikkar (if you must, replace "God" with "Reality" or see #8):
1. We cannot speak of God without having first achieved an interior silence.
2. Speaking about God is a discourse that is sui generis.
3. Discourse about God is a discourse of our entire being.
4. It is not a discourse about any church, religion, or science.
5. It is a discourse that always takes place by means of a belief (every use of language conveys one or another belief).
6. It is a discourse about a symbol, not about a concept.
7. Speaking about God is, by necessity, a polysemic discourse.
8. God is not the only symbol to indicate what the word “God” wishes to transmit.
9. It is a discourse that inevitably completes itself again in a new silence.

Hope this helps.

Hokai,
Thanks for the links. I had not heard of Raimon Pannikar before.
"..The meeting point is neither my house nor the mansion of my neighbour, but the crossroads outside the walls, where we may eventually decide to put up a tent--for the time being." - what a beautiful line. I guess I have some reading to do....

We all have some traditional kinds of views and some other views as well. It may be advisable, all things considered, to make efforts to sidestep or at least mediate if not prevent a competition of views and instead slowly build a consensus of thought that is careful not to take on any unnecessary preconceptions.

Apart from the fundamental view I have been thinking about at least two or three larger but vital components of a complete dharma which must be in harmony with fundamental view. For a 21 century dharma that comes from the dharma and not from limited conception of dharma. I take it that we are all in agreement at least that the dharma of which we are all made is accessible to us all to some extent and therefore can be confirmed to various extents.

The thing I see most useful and most valuable to this group is a complete (in some manner) inventory of dharmas/dhammas. This along with a complete analysis of these dharmas in four modes as is traditionally done and perhaps the application of a contemporary logic or madhyamaka.

Also vital is a vinaya, discipline or perhaps more suitable here something in two parts. First a training program complete with an inventory of models and techniques. Something we are perhaps focused on here in terms of the inner work but disinclined to engage with as fully in terms of the outer work. By the outer work I mean secondly ethics which should probably be the final but also imho a vital aspect to be hammered out. I think an ethics that comes from dharma and not from culture is more possible now than it ever was and this is where a mindset free from mushrooms but not without a highly refined moral compass could really accomplish something remarkable that could prove a contribution to human beings as a whole far beyond the confines of this group itself. That would be a long range goal but I think taking things step by step we could actually make real and steady progress in many of these areas.