How do we reconcile the differences? Well, to begin, Tom and I came to a quick agreement (he let me win) regarding the Buddha\u2019s statements on morality. The discussion goes on at Kyle\u2019s 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\u2026 At Scott\u2019s place a couple of wise young academics have chimed in with enthusiastic support.<\/p>\n
And what are the claims and counterclaims, or purvapakshas <\/span>to use a traditional Buddhist debate term (I\u2019ll paraphrase):<\/p>\n vs<\/p>\n TOM: Ohh, these sound awful dogmatic and (dare we say?) fundamentalist<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n vs<\/p>\n Kyle<\/span>:<\/span> \u201c<\/i>*Sigh*<\/i> the whole you\u2019re no Buddhist<\/b><\/i> thing again.\u201d Roughly, I drink, Westerners drink, we also break the other precepts, and yea, we\u2019re still serious and we\u2019re still Buddhists.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n vs<\/p>\n Well, nobody, it seems<\/span>. So I\u2019ll take the bate. Or I\u2019ll at least try to address some of his arguments here (I\u2019ll italicize and blockquote his words):<\/p><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n 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\u2019re understandably upset by it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a big, sweeping claim \u2013 which is fine for a blog post. But it\u2019s clearly false and sets the post off in an odd direction. Perhaps if Scott had been more specific it would have helped: \u201cnobody likes their religious identity defined by a stranger.\u201d That would be a bit safer (and seems to be where the post actually goes), but we can think of myriad ways that we\u2019re 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, \u201clook, foreigner.\u201d When I go to the doctor I enjoy being described or defined as \u201chealthy as a bean\u201d or \u201cneeding x,y treatment\u201d by this (often) total stranger.<\/p>\n What I do have a problem with are the following two things: (1) making the claim that the new, reinterpretation of Buddhism to suit \u201cWestern\u201d needs is somehow more \u201cauthentic\u201d or closer to \u201cwhat the Buddha actually taught\u201d than the \u201ccultural\u201d 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 \u201ctraditional\u201d (which implies stagnant, conservative, or backwards) as opposed to \u201cmodern\u201d (which implies dynamic, progressive, or creative).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With (1) I agree, sort of. I don\u2019t actually have <\/span>a problem with it<\/span> 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<\/span>: Nagarjuna, Asanga, Shantideva, Atisha, Shinran, Dogen, yada, yada. All engaged in this kind of rhetoric of saying \u201cthose <\/span>Buddhists\/others are wrong and here\u2019s why.\u201d Why should contemporary Buddhist teachers no longer be allowed this very Buddhist <\/span>way of inspiring practice and spurring conversation<\/span>?<\/p>\n For (2) I seem to be of the old school that doesn\u2019t see \u201ctraditional\u201d as pejorative and \u201cmodern\u201d as complimentary. (Or perhaps I\u2019m 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 \u201ctraditional\u201d way of life while another one (technically an \u201corder member\u201d in the FWBO) <\/span>blogging about a witty iPhone spoof<\/a> is an example of \u201cmodern\u201d Buddhism<\/span>. And she should be able to say this without any value judgment<\/span>. It\u2019s up to you if you want to attach value to \u201ctraditional\u201d and \u201cmodern\u201d 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:<\/p>\n 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?)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Again, sweeping and for the most part, false<\/span>. At Huayen Temple, the birthplace of this major Buddhist tradition, we found that the monks were working hard to get back to<\/span> 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 \u2018adapt\u2019 to the realities of today \u2013 begrudgingly \u2013 but the focus of their energy is not<\/span> \u201c<\/span>deliberate and creative changes to the doctrines and practices<\/span>\u201c<\/span> but rather the deliberate and creative changes to their socio-political status and rebuilding the destroyed temple so as to <\/span>get back to their traditional doctrines and practices<\/span> asap<\/span>.<\/p>\n The problem is when you make the claim that your Buddhism is more \u201cauthentic\u201d than someone else\u2019s Buddhism (because, ahem, that\u2019s the very definition of fundamentalism), and then take that added step of claiming that your Buddhism is more \u201cauthentic\u201d precisely because it is not<\/u> the Buddhism of some \u201cother\u201d Buddhist. When you make that claim, you are not only defining yourself, you are defining the \u201cother\u201d and, like I said at the start, no one likes that. So knock it off.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Again, the most authentic <\/span>Buddhists (j\/k) have long been jockeying for position, inspiring converts and followers, and\/or engaging in lively \u201cI\u2019m right, here\u2019s why\u201d debate with fellow Buddhists and I\u2019m not sure why it needs to stop today.<\/p>\n \n<\/p> In other words, feel free to define yourself and your Buddhist practice. But stop doing it as a means to differentiate yourself from some \u201cother\u201d kind of Buddhist.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My favorite personal teacher, Matt Flickstein, once led us through a meditation in which he showed us that we cannot<\/span> define ourselves except as a means to differentiate ourselves from others (Buddhist or otherwise). This is in fact what \u201cdefine\u201d means, to draw a line, to set boundaries. We cannot <\/span>define<\/span> ourselves without reference to an <\/span>other<\/span>. <\/span> 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\u2019 chapter in Buddhism as Philosophy<\/span> on \u201cEmpty Persons.\u201d) We all have labels that we and others put on us \u2013 this is useful<\/span>, as mentioned above, and thus conventionally true. It is when we identify with the labels that suffering rears its ugly head\u2026.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the end, I like Scott\u2019s post. <\/span>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 (\u201cYes yes yes yes yes!!!\u201d), 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!,<\/span> or win converts.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure.<\/p>\n I\u2019m 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: Buddhist Ethics, some Buddhist sayings on Morality, where Tom and I had a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
![](\"http:\/\/maps.gstatic.com\/intl\/en_us\/mapfiles\/iw_fullscreen.gif\")
Full-screen<\/span><\/a>![](\"https:\/\/maps.gstatic.com\/intl\/en_us\/mapfiles\/iw_minus.gif\")
Visiting 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 <\/span>and in many ways still in the T\u2019ang or Ming Dynasty<\/span>. 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 \u2018crises\u2019 have to do with keeping up their monastic numbers and lay support and preserving the Dharma<\/a> \u2013 much the same as it has been for 1000 plus years.<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7907151-3335279853632877714?l=americanbuddhist.blogspot.com\")