The case against "Buddhism"

[Kokuu]

Hello all

This sounds like an interesting, if controversial, book, by someone with a long history of involvement in different forms of Buddhism as well as academic study.

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-case-against-buddhism

There seems to be a rise in the number of articles and pieces finding fault with parts of western or traditional Buddhist practice and, while I do not agree with all (or even many) of them, I do find it useful to see what people have to say and see if there is any truth in it. This particularly the case for authors of practitioners of long experience.

One of his key concerns seems to be the adding of an extra layer of story to what we perceive as part of Buddhist belief or explanation, and this is something we repeatedly address in Zen, but it is well worth being reminded of.

Sadly, this particular volume is priced around $100 for the the hardcover edition so doubt it will be anything I get around to looking at anytime soon.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Hoseki]

Hi Kokuu,


I thought it was an interesting read but I didn't find enough to get a sense of his overarching argument. Who decides what Buddhism is anyway? Its been my experience with practitioners of religions is that they don't engage with the texts and history in a even way. That is different aspects or beliefs are emphasized above others. At the end of the day religions are practiced in communities of people so their isn't really a true version of a religion. When one introduces a new set of ideas from one community to another if its going to take root change needs to take place. At least that's my arm chair opinion I might feel differently after I read the book.

Gassho
Hoseki
Sattoday/LAH

[Junkyo]

Hi Kokuu,

It was an interesting read for sure.

It seems to me that the author is caught in a battle between orthodoxy and secularism within buddhism.

It is true that many groups here in the west tend to be on the more secular side of the fence, it's not good or bad, it just is what it is. The same can be said of groups that are more traditional and orthodox in their practice.

I have always found that each person is at a unique place in their spiritual path and that their spiritual needs will differ from others. So perhaps it is positive that there are many ways to practice as it allows more people to approach the dharma in their own way.

For some reason the article also reminds me of Nagarjuna's 2 truths doctrine of relative truth and ultimate truth. Both existing simultaneously and both true.

I suppose ultimately all of these ideas are "empty"! And yet at an everyday relative level they van also seem so important.

I think it should also be noted that the author is writing from a scholarly perspective (as far as I can tell) and not from the viewpoint of a practitioner (though he has practiced).

At some point I will likely read the book and try to gain more insight into his perspective.

Thanks for sharing!

Gassho,

Rob
SAT

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

I have heard several long interviews with Mr. Wallace and read some of his stuff.

In my opinion, he is one of those intellectuals whose tangled post-modern ideas, often provocative for provocations sake, are offered primarily so that the author can amuse himself and others with the sound of the wheels spinning in his own head. A look at a couple of quotes in the interview, seeming to say much but actually saying very little, will make the point:

Randy Rosenthal: In the introduction to your book, you argue that “Western Buddhism must be ruined.” What do you mean?

Glenn Wallis: It’s obviously provocative to say Buddhism must be ruined, but it’s not what people think. It doesn’t mean you need to annihilate this and be done with it.

A ruin is not annihilated structure. It is transformed. It is returned to its natural condition. It’s still a beautiful, profound structure that is uplifting and inspiring. It no longer functions as a place of commerce or bureaucracy. That’s the idea of a ruin.

Western Buddhism must be radicalized — stripped of the pretension, of the principle of “sufficient Buddhism.” It just becomes raw cultural material that human beings can work with.

An important idea in your book is “sufficiency.” What do you mean when you use that word?

The principle of sufficient Buddhism says simply that in the end it must be the Buddhist idea that prevails. It must prevail over other forms of knowledge that might be better in the situation. Some people apply this thinking to addiction theory, saying that everything you need to understand about addiction is in the Buddhist teaching of the Four Noble Truths.

Buddhist institutions operate as edifices to protect the Buddhist sufficiency. If you take away the principle of sufficiency, all of a sudden Buddhism doesn’t seem to necessarily have the goods. All these other forms of knowledge appear — biology, psychology — and then Buddhism comes into dialogue with them.

And this leads to your concept of non-buddhism. What is “non-buddhism”?

Non-buddhism is simply Buddhism minus the principle of sufficiency. It’s not anti-Buddhism, it’s not a not-Buddhism. It’s not an un-Buddhism. It’s a Buddhism inscribed by this lack of sufficiency. It’s Buddhist material that offers resources for human beings who are trying to navigate life. You could apply it to anything, so long as you leave out the sufficient imperative that I think Buddhist teachers operate under — the idea that Buddhism has all the goods, that it doesn’t have to be placed in dialogue with other forms of thought.

It is also a strawman argument, for I don't know many if any modern teachers, east or west, who say that Buddhism should not be in dialogue with other forms of thought, or inspiring and liberating.

He is also quite contradictory, seemingly against the modernization of Buddhism which often entails abandoning many traditional ideas (such as literal "rebirth"), but also is critical of traditional ideas such as the insistence of rebirth. Which one is it?

Impermanence is a Real. Death. These are profound truths about the nature of human existence. And we can’t operate on them. We can’t operate on death. We can only construct fantasies about what happens afterwards. But we can’t replace the actual fact of the Real of death — the disappearance, the return into inorganic matter.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Hoseki]

I have heard several long interviews with Mr. Wallace and read some of his stuff.

In my opinion, he is one of those intellectuals whose tangled post-modern deas, often provocative for provocations sake, are offered primarily so that the author can amuse himself and others with the sound of the wheels spinning in his own head. A look at a couple of quotes in the interview, seeming to say much but actually saying very little, will make the point:



It is also a strawman argument, for I don't know many if any modern teachers, east or west, who say that Buddhism should not be in dialogue with other forms of thought, or inspiring and liberating.

He is also quite contradictory, seemingly against the modernization of Buddhism which often entails abandoning many traditional ideas (such as literal "rebirth"), but also is critical of traditional ideas such as the insistence of rebirth. Which one is it?



Gassho, J

STLah

Hi Jundo,

Post-modernists tend to be very critical of overarching all encompassing narratives. Given the number of sects of Buddhism I don't know how much of an overarching narrative Buddhism has. Some insist in rebirth and others like us here don't really bother with it that much. So Wallace will have to craft a version of Buddhism (an overarching narrative) that he can hold up to be Buddhism and turn around and deconstruct that idea. Which makes sense if your going to put forth an argument but I'm skeptical that his overarching narrative will really be able to capture the variance of Buddhism. Are the different sects branches of a tree or are they new trees (children) of the first tree?

At least those are my thoughts on the matter.

Gassho
Hoseki
Sattoday/LAH

[Jinyo]

Hi there,

when I was exploring buddhism - I guess 8 years ago now - Glen Wallis's blog was one of the early sources I stumbled on. I quickly realised that it
was precisely what I didn't need my coming from a background of research in Philosophy - particularly Continental. I found the discussion highly academic
and therefore mentally exhausting. Continental philosophy/deconstruction/post-modernism is a language unto itself - no doubt interesting/mind expanding and in my own case seductive. But - IMHO - its adding a lot of complication on top and not particularly helpful to the simplicity of practice.

However - his web site looks interesting - and I'm sure the book is too - it's just I can't help feeling time would be better spent sitting.

Gasho

Jinyo

ST

[Jundo]

[Tairin]

However - his web site looks interesting - and I'm sure the book is too - it's just I can't help feeling time would be better spent sitting.

This is wise. There are many potential rabbit holes to be explored but I almost always come to the same conclusion.


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Jakuden]

Just read this... yeah... all our systems and ways of expressing the ineffable are incomplete at best, and pure fantasy at worst. So we sit.

Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday/LAH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jinyo]

... so I couldn't resist dipping my toe in (old addictions die hard ) and I thought this review explained things a bit more,

https://posttraditionalbuddhism.com/2018/11/22/a-review-of-a-critique-of-western-buddhism-ruins-of-the-buddhist-real/

and also listened to a podcast where Wallis discusses 'darkness' (ie. mental) which I thought was thought provoking and made me think again how
the mindfulness movement can be seen as a product of Capitalism (keep the workers, students and everyone else 'happy' and accepting).

I can see there's a lot in what he has to say but the fact the book is so expensive I find a contradiction because he bemoans the fact that buddism doesn't attract enough people who can apply intellectual rigour to their practice ( pretty condescending view) -
but so much of the intellectual rigour is so difficult and off putting and not easy for folks to access.

Gassho

Jinyo

[Rosui]

Well, as Tetsugen Roshi used to say the Dharma and Religion are really two different things.
I don't think I'd be bothered by someone that said Buddhism is wrong. I might agree with them.
A lot of scholars don't have a practice background or a teacher and even a little mistake change a lot.
Maybe their idea of Buddhism is wrong so Buddhism is wrong.
Good Job everyone that participated in Ango. I was gone for a bit so, good to see y'all again.

Gassho
Rosui

[Shoki]

I'm sure Wallis is a learned scholar with impressive knowledge and credentials. But these intellectual calisthenics make my eyelids droop. No disrespect but there are a dozen other things I prefer reading.

Gassho
ST/LAH
James

[Doshin]

I'm sure Wallis is a learned scholar with impressive knowledge and credentials. But these intellectual calisthenics make my eyelids droop. No disrespect but there are a dozen other things I prefer reading.

Gassho
ST/LAH
James

Yes

I admit to being shallow in this area. I just sit...

Gassho
Doshin
St

[Jundo]

...
and also listened to a podcast where Wallis discusses 'darkness' (ie. mental) which I thought was thought provoking and made me think again how
the mindfulness movement can be seen as a product of Capitalism (keep the workers, students and everyone else 'happy' and accepting).

Some criticisms of Buddhisms may be justified.

Wallis is not the only fellow to point out that modern, western Buddhism is "enabling" capitalism, or allowing practitioners to be good consumers and cogs in the machine by allowing us to "accept what is" (i.e., the present state of society and our middle class lifestyles). Another fellow who has offered this criticism is a philosopher named Slavoj Zizek:

“According to Zizek, what he calls ‘Western Buddhism’ is the ‘perfect ideological supplement’ to capitalism. He believes that the emphasis in ‘Western Buddhism’ on meditation encourages Buddhists to create an inner distance from the ‘mad dance’ of modern capitalism, to give up any attempt to control what’s going on, and to take comfort in the view that all the social and economic upheaval in the world today is ‘just a non-substantial proliferation of semblances that do not really concern the innermost kernel of our being’. Zizek’s claim implies that when faced with injustice, pain, and suffering in the world today, Western Buddhists take cover in their meditation practice in order to avoid the full impact of this reality.” (page 3-4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkTUQYxEUjs

Here is a fairly short article by Wallis regarding Zizek's views on this ...

https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2011/05/04/slavoj-zizek-heresy-western-buddhism-and-the-fetish/

There is much truth in that. However, I would offer these rejoinders:

-1- Capitalism has many problems and excesses (excess consumerism, feeding desires and excess consumption, remaining inequalities, harm to the environment to name a few problems), but also has brought great human achievements and rising standards of living for most people compared to past centuries. The system needs great reforms, but not abandonment or destruction.

-2- Buddhism, throughout its history, has never really been a vehicle of social change. The original message was that this world was rather unfixable, and Buddhism traditionally existed in class-divided, feudal kingdoms and empires from India to China to Tibet to Japan where the Buddhist folks had no choice but to accept the existing system. If any monks presented too much of a threat, the kings and lords had few compunctions about burning down the monasteries, scattering or killing all the monks inside. Perhaps their monasteries (which had a great emphasis on communal living within) were attempts to literally "shut the doors" on the outside world of politics and inequality.

-3- Nonetheless, many Buddhists these days are "engaged" and socially conscious, and are pushing for reforms of society's inequalities and injustices. Many Buddhists are doing about as much as anyone can (maybe much more than average) to work for fixing this planet. Our practice not only numbs us, but makes us aware of a more basic "suffering" at the heart of the human condition that we are working hard to remedy for all sentient beings. Perhaps we are just as engaged as these "philosophers" who seek to fix the world with their words.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Anka]

Jundo,

I found your word choice in item 3 interesting when it comes to the practice "numbing" us. Please correct me if I interpreted it incorrectly.

This is the correct wording for how I particularly feel after a period of more dedicated practice. Like there is a buffer between my own emotional state and the things happening around me. I know it has been talked about on the forum before. People having some trouble with others thinking they don't care or are even depressed because of this numbing.

I don't want to derail the thread because it has been wonderful thus far but did want to speak about something that jumped out at me.

James F
Sat

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk