A Proud Fundamentalist Buddhist Scholar White Guy in America

I’m not sure about that title, but judge for yourself.

I want to try to tie together threads from three recent blog-conversations where well-meaning and intelligent contemporary Western/American Buddhists have come to loggerheads over practice, definitions, and the likes.

These were at:

1. Buddhist Ethics, some Buddhist sayings on Morality, where Tom and I had a brief and cordial back-and-forth.
2. The Reformed Buddhist, where Kyle defends his Buddhist identity and his (wantonly?) breaking the precepts along the way (complete with great images and video).
3. and Scott Mitchell’s discussion of definitions, authenticity, etc.

How do we reconcile the differences? Well, to begin, Tom and I came to a quick agreement (he let me win) regarding the Buddha’s statements on morality. The discussion goes on at Kyle’s blog, ranging from total agreement to wise and moderate views (like mine, j/k), and those who think his post is like a child throwing a temper tantrum… At Scott’s place a couple of wise young academics have chimed in with enthusiastic support.

And what are the claims and counterclaims, or purvapakshas to use a traditional Buddhist debate term (I’ll paraphrase):

1. ME: Morality is pretty damned important in Buddhism (from the many snippits of the Pali Canon brought together by Bhikkhu Samahita)

   vs

   TOM: Ohh, these sound awful dogmatic and (dare we say?) fundamentalist.

2. Marcus: “…if you are serious about Buddhism, you don’t drink.”

   vs

   Kyle: “*Sigh* the whole you’re no Buddhist thing again.” Roughly, I drink, Westerners drink, we also break the other precepts, and yea, we’re still serious and we’re still Buddhists.

3. Scott: Actually, I’m not exactly sure what Scott is up to. He has many (to me) connected arguments around the theme of self/other defining and authenticity and -as comes out only in the comments by fellow scholar Natalie (so it may or may not be what Scott is addressing)- academic use of labels.

   vs

   Well, nobody, it seems. So I’ll take the bate. Or I’ll at least try to address some of his arguments here (I’ll italicize and blockquote his words):

No one likes their identity to be defined or described by a third party, particularly when that third party is an anonymous total stranger. No one likes to be labeled or defined or described by someone else; and when they are, they’re understandably upset by it.

This is a big, sweeping claim – which is fine for a blog post. But it’s clearly false and sets the post off in an odd direction. Perhaps if Scott had been more specific it would have helped: “nobody likes their religious identity defined by a stranger.” That would be a bit safer (and seems to be where the post actually goes), but we can think of myriad ways that we’re described and defined (and labeled) by others and this is perfectly okay. When I was running in China, many people kindly pointed me out to their friends, “look, foreigner.” When I go to the doctor I enjoy being described or defined as “healthy as a bean” or “needing x,y treatment” by this (often) total stranger.

What I do have a problem with are the following two things: (1) making the claim that the new, reinterpretation of Buddhism to suit “Western” needs is somehow more “authentic” or closer to “what the Buddha actually taught” than the “cultural” Buddhism of some other group of Buddhists; and (2) the labeling and defining of other Buddhists from the point of view of an outsider who may or may not have had any long-term, sustained contact with that group (i.e., defining or labeling someone else, see first paragraph), and doing so in what are usually pejorative terms like “traditional” (which implies stagnant, conservative, or backwards) as opposed to “modern” (which implies dynamic, progressive, or creative).

With (1) I agree, sort of. I don’t actually have a problem with it per se as this tactic has been employed by the Buddha himself (converting Brahmins by teaching a better interpretation of the Upanishads) and by most every Buddhist teacher I can think of throughout history: Nagarjuna, Asanga, Shantideva, Atisha, Shinran, Dogen, yada, yada. All engaged in this kind of rhetoric of saying “those Buddhists/others are wrong and here’s why.” Why should contemporary Buddhist teachers no longer be allowed this very Buddhist way of inspiring practice and spurring conversation?

For (2) I seem to be of the old school that doesn’t see “traditional” as pejorative and “modern” as complimentary. (Or perhaps I’m from the all-too-new school -read Alasdair MacIntyre- in which it is exactly the opposite!) A good scholar should be able to say that a monk living on a mountain in China is following a “traditional” way of life while another one (technically an “order member” in the FWBO) blogging about a witty iPhone spoof is an example of “modern” Buddhism. And she should be able to say this without any value judgment. It’s up to you if you want to attach value to “traditional” and “modern” here. Personally it changes for me; sometimes I value tradition more, other times I love modernity and want more. But that is beside the point. It makes no sense (to me) to say, as Scott later does:

All Buddhists are modern Buddhists if for no other reason than the fact that we all live in the modern world and, therefore, need to deal with a similar set of modern crises. (Do you really think Asian Buddhists are all still living in Ming Dynasty China?)

Full-screenVisiting Jingye and Shengshou Temples in central China this summer, each accessible only by foot along steep mountain paths (Jingye did have a frightening-looking pulley system for moving in large items), I witnessed a Buddhism which was -to me- very traditional and in many ways still in the T’ang or Ming Dynasty. All of that I say without an ounce of pejorative intent. In fact these were my favorite stops. The interests of the monks we spoke to at Jingye had nothing to do with what I consider the modern world. Their ‘crises’ have to do with keeping up their monastic numbers and lay support and preserving the Dharma – much the same as it has been for 1000 plus years.

All Buddhists are in the process of reinterpreting their traditions, making deliberate and creative changes to the doctrines and practices in order to help them make sense of these troubled times.

Again, sweeping and for the most part, false. At Huayen Temple, the birthplace of this major Buddhist tradition, we found that the monks were working hard to get back to previous forms of practice and doctrine. In other words, they were trying to undo the effects of modernity (i.e. the Cultural Revolution). Of course they have to ‘adapt’ to the realities of today – begrudgingly – but the focus of their energy is not “deliberate and creative changes to the doctrines and practices“ but rather the deliberate and creative changes to their socio-political status and rebuilding the destroyed temple so as to get back to their traditional doctrines and practices asap.

The problem is when you make the claim that your Buddhism is more “authentic” than someone else’s Buddhism (because, ahem, that’s the very definition of fundamentalism), and then take that added step of claiming that your Buddhism is more “authentic” precisely because it is not the Buddhism of some “other” Buddhist. When you make that claim, you are not only defining yourself, you are defining the “other” and, like I said at the start, no one likes that. So knock it off.

Again, the most authentic Buddhists (j/k) have long been jockeying for position, inspiring converts and followers, and/or engaging in lively “I’m right, here’s why” debate with fellow Buddhists and I’m not sure why it needs to stop today.

In other words, feel free to define yourself and your Buddhist practice. But stop doing it as a means to differentiate yourself from some “other” kind of Buddhist.

My favorite personal teacher, Matt Flickstein, once led us through a meditation in which he showed us that we cannot define ourselves except as a means to differentiate ourselves from others (Buddhist or otherwise). This is in fact what “define” means, to draw a line, to set boundaries. We cannot define ourselves without reference to an other. If we define ourselves as tall, this is automatically opposed to short, and so on. The point was to recognize that we do this, that we draw boundaries and, in a sense, yes, to knock it off. Or, more realistically, to not IDENTIFY with it. (Read Mark Siderits’ chapter in Buddhism as Philosophy on “Empty Persons.”) We all have labels that we and others put on us – this is useful, as mentioned above, and thus conventionally true. It is when we identify with the labels that suffering rears its ugly head….

In the end, I like Scott’s post. I think it intelligently addresses a very real problem in certain segments of Western or American Buddhism. Perhaps his sweeping claims and generalizations are a rallying cry for those who agree with him (“Yes yes yes yes yes!!!”), and perhaps Scott is -unknowingly?- following the ancient, traditional, authentic, really really real Buddhist practice of making wild claims in order to spur on a debate, make people think!, or win converts.

I’m not sure.