Buddhists, Books, and Technology

March 4, 2013 By Leave a Comment
Burma - Rangoon 2011 - young monk with a game

Rangoon, Burma, 2011. A young monk plays a video game.

The Huffington Post has a good article out today on Buddhism and technology: Om Mani iPadme Hum: Why Buddhists Get Technology.

According to Joyce Morgan, the author:

Printing is one of humanity’s great four inventions (together with paper, gunpowder and the compass).

In the West, it helped spread literacy and ushered in the Enlightenment. In the East, seekers after another form of enlightenment were instrumental in its spread. Buddhist monks grasped the value of the rapid reproduction of material — in their case sacred material — at least 600 years before the West.

They did so not just to proselytize but because of an idea central to Buddhism: creating merit. The more good deeds performed, the more merit accrued and the swifter one’s path to Buddhahood, or at least to a better rebirth.

I’m not sure where Ms. Morgan gets this list of four from, but it sounds good enough (an alternate list of top ten include 10. alcohol, 9. the internet, 8. birth control, 7. antibiotics, 6. anesthetic, 5. the printing press, 4. plumbing, 3. tools, 2. cooking, and 1. language). One year ago today, elephantjournal posted an article asking, “Is Money Humanity’s Greatest Invention?“ And here is an interesting short discussion on BBC radio about humanity’s best inventions, where it is a toss-up between the internet and the printing press.

And indeed, Buddhism did develop “cults of the book” in the early development of the Mahayana. As John Jorgensen writes in Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch: Hagiography And Biography in Early Ch’an:

… the cult of the relics almost back to the Buddha himself. The cult of the book originates with early Mahayana, in texts such as the Lotus Sutra, which went so far as to recommend the enshrining of scriptures in the stupas (along with the bodily relics?). A rivalry existed between the two cults as a means of creating sacred spaces. They could be symbolised as Dharmakaya (Corpus of the Law) versus Buddhakaya (Body of the Buddha). The b00k replaced the Buddhas speech, the relics his body.

Morgan goes on to connect the power of the book to more recent technology, including the internet:

With the internet in its infancy just over a decade ago, I encountered a Buddhist monk who, from a tiny house in Sydney, Australia, had quickly seen the potential of that emerging technology. He set up what was then the world’s largest Buddhist website. Technology has changed dramatically since, yet the aims of the website (www.buddhanet.net) remain the same: to use communication technologies to make the Buddha’s teachings widely available.

Buddhism tends to be about attention and mindfulness, calming the mind in order to see things as they truly are. These days many people see technology and ‘stuff’ in general as a force in the opposite direction, but this isn’t necessarily so. As I noted in a recent post:

No piece of technology will be intrinsically good or bad. What will matter is how we use it. It is up to us. This is the Buddha’s message.

Free Burma rally - London 2007.

Free Burma rally – London 2007. While some marchers carry signs featuring Aung San Suu Kyi , this Buddhist monk is busy on his smart-phone.

Filed Under: American Buddhism, Buddhism, Buddhist Ethics, Western Philosophy Leave a Comment

Blogging Buddhist Ethics

January 26, 2013 By 17 Comments

Pretty much my life. (Via the NY Times)

One of my new year’s resolutions this year was to focus more clearly and fully on my phd work, including here at this blog. 26 days in, and I’m ready to start (procrastination is okay).

Where were we? Oh yes, Buddhist Ethics.

To put it succinctly, I’m re-evaluating Buddhist ethics and comparing it to Kantian ethics. This is difficult because Buddhist ethics is very difficult to pin down: do we mean sila? Vinaya? Everything suggested as kusala? To simplify things I just work on the Pali Canon and the ‘early’ development of the Pali tradition: commentaries (where/when helpful), same with Abhidhamma, and the Visuddhimagga by Buddhaghosa. I’m really trying to focus on the earliest material possible; this in itself is a difficult task.

Next I’m comparing what I find (and/or create) with the ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Many people find this odd, as they have only the barest knowledge of Kant’s ethics, usually reduced to the Categorical Imperative, and that usually reduced to just the first or second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (out of 3, possibly 4 distinct formulations). It’s true that these are key to the Groundwork (hence the title of the book they’re found in) of Kant’s ethics, but there is much, much more to it.

So where are we now? (Or, where am I in my work?) I’m looking at how Buddha and Kant describe “our condition.”  I’m looking at (and for – any suggestions would be very welcome) key metaphors in the Pali canon to describe our world. Obvious ones include samsara, suffering/dukkha, the 4 Noble Truths in general, giving a description of the whole ‘problem’, ’cause’, ‘diagnosis’, and ‘path/cure’. On an epistemological level, the metaphor of bodhi, or awakening, itself is interesting. And of course nirvana and, key for my work, dhamma as a metaphysical foundation for morality.

Many people also scoff at the idea that the Buddha had anything to do with metaphysics. This is simply an over-generalization of the Buddha’s refusal to answer certain metaphysical questions. This may also hinge on defining ’metaphysics’. I take it as a set of beliefs or theories regarding that which goes beyond the world of sensation, generally relating to the foundation for or ultimate nature of the world of our experience.* And the Buddha does clearly talk about the conditioned world (loka/lokiya) of our experience and some further, higher (lokuttara) realm (see the PED for a brief discussion and references).

While the ‘higher realm’ here could be understood as simply the end of the path without any transcendent implications, that fails to explain the binary nature of the term’s use in comparison with worldly, conditioned experience. There is something fundamental that happens as one enters the higher path (one literally becomes a sotapanna, a stream-enterer). And there is something fundamental that happens at the further point of (full) awakening, bodhi. Ven. Yuttadhammo explains this a bit here:

YouTube Preview Image

Why call the person at a key stage in the path a ‘stream-winner’ (or ‘enterer’)? Why a stream? Is this a reference back to the (?) Upanishad in which the true self (atman) is said to be a stream flowing toward the sea (brahman)? Or perhaps, though less likely, it is a reference to the quenching of thirst experienced here (thirst being the second noble truth and the cause of suffering). That will be explored, along with other key metaphors, in future posts.

Filed Under: Buddhist Ethics 17 Comments

Two Buddhisms, Authenticity, Abortion, and Universal Love

January 22, 2013 By 27 Comments

These are a few of the topics, essays, and projects you should know about this week.

First, the Two Buddhisms story. I’ve written about this quite a bit and consider Charles Prebish, the man who coined the term, to be a good friend. Today he passed me the link to a new blog post by Suwanda H J Sugunasiri, a Sri Lankan scholar in Canada, who discusses the use of these and other categories. Give it a read. Let me know what you think.  

~

Next, Bhante Sujato is launching a project seeking to better define which of the Buddhist texts that have come down to us are most likely to be authentic.  This is another area of research close to my heart, so I’m excited to see what comes of it.  My current research is focused on reconstructing the ideas of the Buddha (cf. Gombrich’s What the Buddha Thought), so having good reason to privilege certain texts over others could prove to be very helpful.

Some people are skeptical about just how well we can reconstruct “early” Buddhism, but when faced with the evidence of growing textual and archaeological work, this skepticism often begins to shade into conspiracy theory, somewhat like (as Bhante points out) climate change deniers: “we can’t know for sure, therefore doubt it all.” Luckily, the vast majority of scholars focusing on early Buddhism assume “that the main body of soteriological teaching found in the Pali Canon does go back to the Buddha himself.”*

If we try to discover the original meaning of the Buddha’s sermons, we need to know what cultural knowledge and presuppositions he shared with his audience. We must admit, I fear, that we cannot know very much about the Buddha’s interlocutors or about what his audiences were thinking or taking for granted, and to that extent some of what he meant may be lost to us. We may however be slightly better off in this respect than were the authors of the Pali commentaries. Even if we know little of the Buddha’s cultural milieu, in some cases our knowledge of historical linguistics and of parallel (mainly brahminical) texts allows us to know things the commentators did not – as Norman’s work has amply demonstrated.**

Gombrich’s style seems to focus on contextualizing the ideas of early Buddhism vis-a-vis other traditions for which we have evidence in the same timeframe. He then finds the ones that are most “brilliant,” again vis-a-vis what would have been the Buddha’s contemporaries. These include the ethicisation of karma (kamma); removing it from the ritual context of the Brahmins and the physical context of Jainism; his reversal of the connotations of “fire” – which was exalted in Brahmanic culture and again tied to ritual, but used by the Buddha to describe greed, aversion, and delusion.

Speaking historically, if it wasn’t “the Buddha” who came up with these revolutions in thought (and there are countless more examples), then who ever did come up with them would be deserving of the title.

The skeptical retort that perhaps they were composed separately over a period of many decades or centuries just doesn’t make much sense when you sit and read them. At times, there are odd phrases or teachings -and these stand out for just this reason- but as a whole, the teachings do read as having a common voice. This is necessarily a bit subjective, but it’s also inter-subjective in that anyone can sit down and spend time with the nikayas and decide for him/herself. Having done this myself, I find theories about monks creating the Pali texts out of thin air some time after the  Buddha -if he ever existed- to be right up there with ideas about faked moon landings and Obama’s birth certificate.  Again, while there are inconsistencies, omissions, and additions, these are to be expected in such an ancient tradition. The tricky part, and one of the very interesting ones, imho, is just what Sujato is doing: figuring out just what is likely to be authentic and what isn’t.

 ~

Third, go read Richard’s excellent article on being a Pro-life, Pro-choice Buddhist in 40 years after Roe. His sentiments run very closely to my own.

First, I must clearly state that personally I believe that taking another person’s life, including that of an unborn person, is simply wrong in any and all circumstances –even in self-defense. I believe that way because killing another person represents an outcome one has hurled him or herself toward through a series of extraordinarily poor decisions that could have been interrupted just about anywhere along the way.
He goes on, however:
…despite my personal belief that taking someone’s life, including that of the unborn, is always wrong and never without consequence, I will fight to ensure that abortion is kept legal and easily accessed.
To impose my personal belief on another person about whom I know nothing about, about whose life challenges I know nothing about, strikes me as a supreme form of righteousness that frankly makes me sick.

~

Finally, is a NY Times article posted over at ‘s blog, Dhamma Musings called Is Universal Metta Possible?  The premise of the article is that -contra Buddhism (and Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer) – love is biological and thus finite, therefore any kind of universal love or goodwill is just folly. Stephen Schettini, the Naked Monk, wrote something very similar recently, stating “I’ve given up on universal love.” Schettini writes:

In my religious days I tried very hard to be a good boy and love everyone. It sounded fine in theory, but the fact was, people annoyed me. Again and again I found myself faced with two bad choices: to deny my feelings and pretend to care, or to accept them and not care at all.

I’m not as cranky as I used to be but still, I can’t imagine a world in which everyone loves each other.

This calls to mind -or should I say, following the NY Times article, “this triggers so many neuron-firings in my brain”- my studies of Philosophy of Mind. Yes, love has biological correlates that can be relatively well-charted and studied. But it also has phenomenological properties – qualia – that cannot, I would argue, be so easily reduced. The arguments from biology simply don’t belong in the realm of moral aspiration in this way. It’s like saying there are always limits to how high a person can count, therefore infinity is a silly concept.

Schettini’s article is very much about being honest with your emotions, which is a very good point. But I think the author of the NY Times piece goes to far. Both are very good reads.

*Gombrich,”Recovering the Buddha’s Message,” in T. Skorupski (ed.) (1990) The Buddhist Forum: Vol. I. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, pp. 5-30.

**Gombrich, “The Buddha’s Book of Genesis,”  Indo-Iranian Journal 35 (1992):  159-78.

Filed Under: Academia, American Buddhism, Buddhism, Buddhist Ethics, Western Philosophy 27 Comments

Is this the first ever Buddhist Social Media “Code of Conduct?”

January 17, 2013 By 9 Comments

The following was posted today on the  Facebook page of the popular Bhutanese teacher and filmaker Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche:

SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDELINES FOR SO-CALLED VAJRAYANA STUDENTS

If you think or believe that you are a student of Vajrayana—whether or not that’s true is another matter—but as long as you think you are a Vajrayana practitioner, it becomes your responsibility to protect this profound tradition.

It’s important to maintain secrecy in the Vajrayana. The Vajrayana is called ‘the secret mantra yana’ because it is intended to be practiced in secrecy. It is not secret because there is something to hide, but in order to protect the practitioner from the pitfalls and downfalls that ego can bring to the practice. In particular, practitioners tend to fall prey to “spiritual materialism,” where their practice becomes just another fashion statement intended to adorn their egos and make them feel important, or have them feel that they’re part of a ‘cool’ social tribe, rather than to tame and transform their minds. When practiced in this way, the Vajrayana path becomes worse than useless.

Also, the Vajrayana teachings are ‘hidden’ in the sense that their meaning is not apparent to someone who has not received the appropriate teachings. It’s like a foreign language. Because some of the imagery and symbolism can seem strange or even violent to the uninitiated, it’s generally recommended to keep it hidden so that it doesn’t put off newer practitioners, who might develop wrong views about the Buddhist path in general and the Vajrayana path in particular.

While posting on social media, please bear in mind that you are not only posting for your own reading pleasure, but to the whole wide world who most likely don’t share your amusement over crazy photos, nor your peculiar adoration and fantasies of certain personalities you call as guru.

Given this, here are some suggestions I offer fellow so-called Vajrayana students about how you can protect yourself—both by avoiding embarrassment and by protecting your Dharma practice—and also protect the profound Vajrayana tradition:

(1) Maintain the secrecy of the Vajrayana (this includes secrecy about your guru, your practice, tantric images, empowerments you have received, teachings you have attended, etc.)

- Don’t post tantric images: If you think posting provocative tantric images (such as images of deities with multiple arms, animal heads, those in union, and wrathful deities) makes you important, you probably don’t understand their meaning.
- Don’t post mantras and seed syllables: If you think mantras and seed syllables should be posted on Facebook as mood enhancement and self-improvement aids, a makeover or haircut might do a better job.
- Don’t talk about your empowerments: If you think images from your weekend Vajrayana empowerment are worthy of being posted up next to photos of your cat on Facebook, you should send your cat to Nepal for enthronement. Unless you have obtained permission from the teacher, do not post any photo, video or audio
recording of Vajrayana empowerments, teachings or mantras.
- Don’t talk about profound/secret teachings you may have received: Some people seem to find it fashionable to hang words like “Dzogchen” and “Mahamudra” in their mouths. If you have received profound instructions, it is good to follow those instructions and keep them to yourself.
(2) Avoid giving in to the temptations of spiritual materialism and using Dharma in service of your ego (do not attempt to show off about your guru, your understanding, your practice etc. Likewise, do not speak badly of other practitioners or paths.)

- Don’t share your experiences and so-called attainments: If you think declaring what you think you have attained is worthwhile, you may have been busy bolstering your delusion. Trying to impress others with your practice is not part of the practice. Try to be genuine and humble. Nobody cares about your experiences in meditation, even if they include visions of buddhas, unicorns or rainbows. If you think you are free of self deception, go ahead, think again.
- Don’t boast about your guru: No matter how great you think your guru is, it would probably serve better for you to keep your devotion to yourself. Remember that being buddhist is not joining a cult. If you think your guru is better than another’s, you probably think your equanimity and pure perception are better than another’s.
- Don’t attempt to share your so-called wisdom: If you think receiving profound teachings gives you license to proclaim them, you will probably only display your ignorance. Before you “share” a quote from the Buddha or from any of your teachers, take a moment to think if they really said those words, and who the audience was meant to be.
- Don’t confuse Buddhism with non-Buddhist ideas: No matter how inspired you might be of rainbows and orbs, and how convinced you are about the end of the world, try not to mix your own fantasies/idiosyncracies with Buddhism.
- Be respectful to others: Without Theravada and Mahayana as foundation, there would be no Vajrayana. It would be completely foolish of Vajrayana practitioners to look down on or show disdain towards Theravada and Mahayana. If you think attacking other buddhists will improve Buddhism, do a service for Buddhism, take aim at your own ego and biasedness instead.
- Don’t create disharmony: Try to be the one who brings harmony into the sangha community with your online chatter, instead of trouble and disputes.
- Always be mindful of your motivation: Please do not attempt to display “crazy wisdom” behaviors online, just inspire others to have a good heart. If you think you are posting something out of compassion, try first to make sure you are doing no harm. Whenever you can’t let go of the itch to post something, make sure that it helps whoever who reads it and the Dharma.

All in all it sounds great: be a bit humbler and use your precious human life wisely. If you want to lead by example, make the example that of simply being a good person, not your latest recitation count or that time you got “this close” to this or that lama. Perhaps similar guidelines can be created for Zen, Theravadin, and other practitioners.

And now the nit-picking (from the perspective of a non-Vajrayana scholar): The bit about Theravada being a foundation for Vajrayana is a bit historically incorrect. What he probably means is Hinayana, which in Vajrayana teachings refers to a “lower motivation” rather than to any historical or existing “school” of Buddhism. Theravadins rightly protest(ed) to being identified with this lower motivation and would just as rightly protest to their school being described as a foundation for Vajrayana.

One of the comments on the facebook page was along the lines of “oops, I shared this.” Should it be shared? Or is it secret? Is it itself a Vajrayana teaching that can lead to “spiritual materialism?” Did Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche really say it? Another commenter states that there are youtube videos of major lamas chanting “secret” mantras. Are they violating this rule by allowing video/audio recording or supporting its dissemination? The question seems to be, “where is the clear line between Vajrayana and open Buddhist teachings?” Or rather “is there such a line?”

If there is line, do teachers make it clear – telling students to not share notes from this point forward or to turn off recording devices?

Are certain mantras or images inherently secret? Or do they “become” Vajrayana by virtue of empowerment or some other process?

Filed Under: American Buddhism, Buddhism, Buddhist Ethics, Tibetan Buddhism 9 Comments
« Older Posts