Hey Guys,
My interview is up at the Secular Buddhist Podcast. This is the kind of thing that gets me in trouble from the left and right, so enjoy!
If you want to read more, here is my little "Manifesto of Religious-Secular Buddhism" that I sent Ted before the interview, and summarizes what it is about ...
Gassho, J
SatToday
---------------------------
RELIGIO-SECULAR BUDDHISM
The Best of All Worlds
by Jundo Cohen
The Best of All Worlds
by Jundo Cohen
We are “Religious” … believing that the world as it is, this life and all reality are somehow sacred and to be cherished, that a sense of wonder, mystery, trust and gratitude regarding “all this” is not out of place even for modern peoples. Furthermore, our practice is to see through and transcend the common surface appearances of this life and world which may delude human beings in their greed, anger and divisive thinking.
We are “Secular” … firmly rooted in ordinary society, skeptical of beliefs and traditions founded primarily in rumor, religious imagination and unquestioning faith, rejecting tenets without basis in the world as it is. Nonetheless, we believe that many traditional teachings, stories, ceremonies and practices yet have value and power, do not conflict with modern scientific and historical understanding, and thus should be preserved.
We are “Buddhist” … as we seek to uphold core teachings of Buddhist tradition, while turning away from secondary tenets arising primarily in superstition, ignorance or unsuited to modern times. In rejecting fantasy and fictions within many ancient Buddhist beliefs, the power of Buddhist teachings to free sentient beings is preserved. We also believe in our obligations to live ethically, avoiding anger, violence and excess desires in keeping with the Precepts, with social awareness directed toward the good of society and this world.
Throughout the centuries, myriad approaches to Buddhism have evolved based on the needs and tastes of myriad practitioners. Some find power and truth in very traditional beliefs and stories, maintaining literal belief therein. Other practitioners find many of those same beliefs and stories to be superstition, ungrounded in the actual workings of the world and unnecessary to their own Buddhist practice. At the extremes, some of the former group may engage in a kind of “Buddhist fundamentalism,” believing that “if the Ancients say so, thus it is so.” At the other extreme, many modernists have sought to offer flavors of practice so stripped of myth, ritual and arcane traditions that, sometimes, even mention of “buddha” is dropped away.
There is not one “right” view of Buddhism suitable for all practitioners, and I will never claim my way as best for all. Different suffering beings may require medicines in varied mix and dosage (even placebos and the mere promise of hope at times). Certainly, throughout its history, Buddhism has flowered in countless ways, via the interpretations of countless individuals, as envisioned through their views and beliefs. That will always continue, and simply reflects the genius of the human mind to create endless artistic, philosophical, literary and religious expressions.
However, I wish to offer a new flavor of Buddhism which avoids both (1) what may be baseless myth, unfounded superstition, primitive magic and historical ignorance among traditional Buddhist practices, and (2) the opposite extreme of stripped down teachings and practices reduced to such a degree that the “baby Buddha” is thrown out with the bath water, whereby many worthwhile and challenging teachings and rituals are lost due to being wrongly limited or labeled as myth and magic. In fact, many ancient legends maintain great value and truth even if wholly or partly ahistorical fictions, many of our most potent and challenging teachings do not contradict or conflict whatsoever with modern and scientific understanding (in fact, many may be seen as supported by modern discoveries), and a long list of our most beautiful, ancient customs and practices have understandable value and meaning even in this day and age.
I believe that it is possible to maintain beliefs that, as best we can, are freed of superstition. I demand that there be some credible evidence and basis … beyond rumor, anecdote, hearsay and supposition … to rely on claims and assumptions about reality which purport to be true. More is demanded than simple blind faith in the assertions of ancient books or ancestors, even the alleged words of the Buddha himself (assuming his actual words can be known). It is time to recognize that many of the beliefs of ancient men and women, even of the Buddha himself, may have been the narrow and ill-informed views of people limited to knowledge as it existed in centuries past. Their values and assumptions may have been those of their times and cultures. For some of us, there is need to discard fictions and foolish suppositions in the light of modern evidence. For some of us, many of the changes and developments of so-called “Buddhist Modernism” are worthwhile reforms and reformulations which not only changed, but may have improved and strengthened, past Buddhist approaches in important ways.
On the other hand, we need not go to excess in rejecting all that is old and hard to fathom merely for being old and hard in ordinary thinking, and we should not make the mistake of turning Buddhism into little beyond some form of therapy or relaxation technique robbed of so many ancient treasures. Thus, I propose that we maintain the best of all possible worlds, what may be called a “Religio-Secular Buddhism,” representing one “Third Way” to bridge important issues and difficulties facing Buddhism as it comes to the West.
“Religio-Secular Buddhism” means forms of practice that maintain the option of and place for certain seemingly “religious” elements of Buddhist Practice … for example, the possibility of statues, robes, incense … but only to the extent that each speaks to and has meaning for the practitioner, is seen to have value as a symbol or poetic expression of some greater truths, and serves as a reminder or focus encompassing teachings, thus embodying a pragmatic purpose to facilitate and enhance Buddhist Practice. For example, one might keep a painting, a statue or a ceremony not on the basis that there is some mysterious mystical power or claimed supernatural magic worked in the thing or act itself, but because such stands as a symbol for, reminder and celebration of tradition and the teachings so embodied (not unlike, for example, a national flag, song, historical legend and civic ritual standing for a democratic people, society and its imparted values). We might maintain incense, chanting or bowing simply for their role in creating a psychological state of removal from worldly concerns in a certain space and time through the olfactory, auditory or other physical senses. Hard to credit beliefs may be reinterpreted in ways which give modern relevance (such as the reinterpretation, common in the Zen world, of Siddhi mystical powers as encompassing the seemingly ordinary wonders of “offering a smile, drinking water, breathing”). One might maintain an old legend or ancient hero (even while recognizing that the story may have no legitimate historical foundation) as a reminder of valid teachings and imparted truths in the symbol.
On the other hand, we can jettison other claims and beliefs as baseless. The practice of dharani and magic spells, belief in certain superhuman powers such as levitation and clairvoyance, faith in the literal truth of superhuman creatures such as Nagas and Hungry Ghosts, or very detailed views of the process of rebirth can all be left behind absent showing of some other valid role, reason or reliable proof. (For example, certain states such as those of “Hungry Ghosts” may be retained if reinterpreted and encountered for their psychological meaning, and certain views of “rebirth” can be presented which are perfectly harmonious with modern scientific understanding such as by asserting that we are each constantly “reborn” in each moment, for all phenomena are impermanent and constantly changing. Of course, we might be tempted to recognize the retention of some magical practices and unsupported beliefs purely as “expedient means” because of the comfort they provide and their “placebo-like” effect, a phenomenon has been shown to actually exist and be a recognized in medical science too. Religious stories, no matter how fantastic, do serve to offer comfort to people. Nonetheless, there is thus a certain deception involved which, I believe, should cause us to turn away from such holy lies). We might abandon or remain skeptically agnostic regarding detailed, mechanical views of post-mortem “karma” for lack of proof, yet uphold a general belief such as that “angry and violent actions tend to cause further anger and violence in the world, today and continuing long after our own lives” as a relevant and defensible ethical assertion. We might see the historical Buddha as a human being much as the rest of us (although perhaps a very gifted and special one) to the extent that there is no evidence for any special abilities on his part outside of idealized, hagiographic writings. We might also find a greater “Buddha” which represents that aspect of wholeness and harmony, beyond names and separations, which transcends dualistic categories of the desirous and divisive human mind. Such a vision of underlying wholeness, beauty and harmony does not contradict any modern understanding of the structure of reality, with many a physicist or mathematician, poet or artist claiming a sense of something much the same.
As well, we must not turn away from our obligations to live ethically, avoiding anger, violence and excess desires in keeping with the Precepts, with social awareness for the good of society and this world. Whether one is “religious” or “secular”, “humanist” or “atheist” or anything else, we can and should live in a gentle and engaged way, avoiding harm toward self and others (not two, by the way). We must avoid employment of teachings and practices in ways which merely encourage and facilitate our modern consumer culture, use of military force, misuse of the environment and the like. The Buddhist teachings must be used in ways which nurture peace, liberation and respect for this world.
We don’t insist that others abandon their beliefs in things we reject, and we remain open minded even if skeptical and agnostic or (based on present evidence) unbelieving. However, for our own practice, we reject certain aspects of traditional Buddhism … and all other religions and philosophies … if not meeting the above tests of substantiation and relevance.
+ + +
OF LAY, PRIEST & PLAYFUL “LIEST”
A note on the use of “Liests” in our Treeleaf Lineage …
.
In our Treeleaf community, we are advocating a modern view of Buddhist teachers fully transcending and stepping right through the traditional categories of “lay” and “ordained”, male or female. We thus step right beyond a certain divide that is plaguing western Buddhism. We borrow from Hua-yen, Zen and other Mahayana viewpoints: That one thing may be fully itself, yet fully embody and actuate other good things simultaneously and identically, free of the least conflict. In our “Sangha” Community, we offer a form of “ordination” or “office” that fully flies past the male/female/priest/lay divisions yet allows us to fully embody and actuate each and all as the situation requires. This is not merely some “combination” or “mixture”, but a total realization of one and all, each fully realized in its moment. When I am a married man and parent to my children, I am 100% that and fully there for my family. When I am a worker at my job, I am that and embody such a role with sincerity and dedication. When I am asked to step into the role of hosting Zazen, offering a Dharma talk, practicing and embodying our history and teachings, and passing them on to others, I fully carry out and embody 100% the role of “Priest” in that moment. When in a monastery, I am that, when performing charitable work in the community, I am that. Whatever the moment requires: maintaining a sangha community, bestowing the Precepts, working with others to help sentient beings. Even the names we call ourselves do not matter. In this way, we do not ask and are unconcerned with whether we are “Priest” or “Lay”, for we are neither that alone, while always thoroughly both; exclusively each in purest and unadulterated form, yet wholly all at once. It is just as, in the West, we have come to step beyond the hard divisions and discriminations between “male” and “female”, recognizing that each of us may embody all manner of qualities to varying degrees as the circumstances present, and that traditional “male” and “female” stereotypes are not so clear-cut as once held. So it is with the divisions of “Priest” and “Lay”.We smile and laugh at the sometimes hot debates concerning who are the “priests” (many, these days, themselves married with kids in the Japanese Lineages) and who are the “lay teachers” … and thus sometimes I call us “p-lay”.
In my view, the role of clergy should be that of service and subservience to the community and other sentient beings, both “priest” and “lay” offering aid as the least among equals. Thus, I call us “liest”.
Comment