Sunday, February 18, 2007

Buddhism and its Value-Added Boost

There’s an email-exchange interview that the great Danny Fisher did with Buddhism-doctoral candidate, Trike bloggist and Trike-contributing editor Jeff Wilson, and posted to his Danny Fisher blog yesterday, that reminds me of the problem I have in making much sense out of the New Buddhism controversy.

People write and think about what’s lacking in Western Buddhism and how pitiful pre-modern Buddhism in Asia might have been, but somehow the discussion never seems to touch what is the only vital issue: what does Buddhism do for people? What difference does it make for individuals or a society that there was Buddhism in people’s lives? Instead, it seems to me, there are these conceptual swirls of dust that deep-thought Buddhologists play with that have meaning only in context with other conceptual swirls of dust and nothing ever connects with the passion play of life.

Without question, pre-modern Buddhism in the myriad ways it was practiced in southeast Asia, or wherever, is markedly different from the Internet-enriched [or, Internet-deformed, if you prefer], scattered-sangha experience of Westerners. As well, the societies in Asia – either long ago or today – are vastly different than iPod-carrying Buddhists bopping around Manhattan or Peoria in their Volvos taking their kids to ballet rehearsals or soccer practice.

But it strikes me that comparing different people’s Buddhism practice cannot begin to have any meaning unless there is an assessment of what the payoff is. What does Buddhism do for people? What is the value-added boost? and what ought it be?

Now, I’m not really meaning to criticize Danny and Jeff. Likely, they are already beyond, beyond, far beyond where I am with my thinking and practice. Perhaps there are Sanskrit terms and mega-polysyllabic nouns in the rich jargon of Bigtime-Buddha-Speak that compare kenshos with compassion, the rewards of chanting with the charms of a really cool haiku. I don’t know. And maybe there’s a unit of measure, called the Jolly, that, like an SAT score, can be used to assess the value of a sutra or a sangha or a saturnine snarl of dogma. I don’t know; I don’t get around much. All I do know is that I believe in “Leave no Buddhist Behind” legislation that might come up with some kind of objective test of what the hell is going on on this great blue spherical future Buddhaland of Bliss.

The great John Ishmael Ford wrote a tremendous sermon for this Presidents Day weekend that alights on the idea of nimbleness of thinking that he attributes to Lincoln’s success as a highly compassionate and successful politician during particularly trying times. This nimbleness idea is perhaps a goal, or, at least, an intermediate goal, that Buddhists could have. It correlates more than a bit, I think, to the idea of being Integral [see the text at the top of the sidebar on this page] that this blog addresses.

Unless Buddhism is transforming people’s worldviews, I don’t know that it is any more worthy a way for folks to spend their time than vid games or solving Sudokus. And, unless assessments of what is put forward as Buddhist practice is measured against transformations of mind, I don’t see that it means anything.

What's the payoff? Where's the beef!?

It seems to me that we all can too quickly fall for the empty calories of a bunch of platitudes that can be embroidered on doilies. "Truth, justice and the American Way" could end up being a Buddhist religious credo -- and would anyone be the wiser if the green tea is still hot and biscuits are tasty?

Jeff Wilson tells us at one point in his interview, "U.U. Buddhism displays the liberal religious concern with direct action to improve the social conditions of other people, a Buddhist application of the U.U. principles: 'Justice, equity and compassion in human relations,' and 'The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all.' Thus you get an engaged Buddhism that respects the individual conscience and appreciates the gift of community."

Not good enough! I want suped-up Buddhists. Super-charged Buddhists. Buddhists that have Hemi V8 engines.

Buddhists be nimble. Buddhists be quick. Buddhists jump over the candlestick.

Technorati tags: , ,

blogmarksdeliciousdiigodiggfeedmarkerfurlgooglema.gnolianewsvineredditspurlTechnorati

8 comments:

ipsosacto said...

"Unless Buddhism is transforming people’s worldviews, I don’t know that it is any more worthy a way for folks to spend their time than vid games or solving Sudokus."

I'm troubled by this concept. It invokes for me images of violence against those who refuse to believe.

Buddhism is a personal revolution. Each individual Buddhist will have an influence on his environment, but to suggest a deliberate, collective effort that seeks to control or otherwise focus such influence violates the essence of Buddhist practice.

There's a reason people laugh at the idea of herding cats. A herd of Buddhists would be just as unnatural.

Tom said...

Ah, so, the great John Hughes. Thank you for your comment.

Generally, you're right. The mostly white zendos and sanghas and the internet-rogue Buddhists are less herdable than cats, or aligators, even.

I'm not meaning to set a fixed prescription of what libertarian Buddhists should shrive for, it is just that things need to not devolve into meetings of the Rotary Club or leftwing political rallies.

But the problem I'm meaning to focus on is how we evaluate what makes for 'a better Buddhism.' If people's way of thinking isn't being transformed, somehow, I can't see in what way it is Buddhism.

In the classic story of Buddha we see him being enlightened under a fig tree. Once motivated to teach, he talks about suffering and relief from suffering. And relief from suffering comes from transformation, not from performance of good deeds or belonging to the mob that has the most-compassionate-sounding dogma.

And yet the measurements of what's gainly in the Buddhism realm seems to depend on community, equality, socializing and, often, I think, replacing compassion with friendliness.

Nagarjuna said...

<< What does Buddhism do for people? What is the value-added boost? and what ought it be? >>

What does religious or spiritual practice of ANY kind do for people, and what SHOULD it do? I posted a rather long entry to my blog about this over a year ago, and I am just as uncertain of the answers today as I was then and probably more skeptical then ever that deep religious or spiritual practice makes THAT much of a difference for most of us or for the world.

Tom said...

Nagarjuna,

I'd be interested in knowing which of your posts in Naked Reflections you're thinking of.

Just thinking off the top of my head, I think that for religions other than Buddhism it is easier to suppose what the payoff is: You get into heaven

Buddhism seems a lot the same: wending your way through a series of lives to get a nice condo in Nirvana. But it can't REALLY be that. It seems to me it must have a lot more to do with becoming enlightened, allowing a dramatic, profound change in one's worldview.

But, as with other religions, Buddhism can devolve into being, exclusively, a social club where there are pressures to always be 'nice.'

I'm not opposed to nice. 'Nice' is nice! But if people are rabid in only being nice and insisting that others always be nice, then nothing ever happens. Life becomes as artificial as the Land of the Stepford Wives or North Korea.

So, in religion, I think, there must always be steps that give people every greater maturity and more insight. We must strive for the quantum leap, to become like Jesus or become like Buddha. Not act like them, but access their profound compassion and wisdom.

Nagarjuna said...

Hi, Tom.

Here is a link to the post to which I referred previously: http://nagarjuna1953.blogspot.com/2005/01/integral-spiritual-practice.html

I share your skepticism that Buddhism should be more about posthumous rewards for a life (or lives) well-lived than about "enlightenment" or radical transformation in THIS life.

However, the more I read and hear about enlightenment and transformation, and the more I see of people who are supposed to be enlightened or transformed, the more I wonder if enlightenment or transformation is all it is cracked up to be, or if it is not such a rare occurrence, happening in only the most extraordinarily gifted among us, that most of us would be better-served reading books, going bowling, and playing on the beach than by sitting in meditation or engaging in other forms of "spiritual practice."

Tom said...

I agree, AND HOW, that the so-called enlightened folks of our time are staggeringly disappointing. And for me none more so than Ken Wilber.

Nonetheless, I am bit by the bug and cannot foreswear my interest in getting "The Boost" of taking a big step up in how I encounter the world.

I think what makes me immune to being downhearted by the failures of Wilber and others is the persistant idea that when I get "The Boost" I will know how to handle it. I even think that I couldn't possibly fall into the narcisistic trap that Wilber finds himself in.

As for doing something other than Buddhist practice -- like bowling -- a person can do both: bowl AND practice. So long as you find yourself being aware of yourself and others, that is practice. At the end of the ox-herding pictures, the guy enters the marketplace. The real practice is in the world.

As for your earlier post, "Integral Spiritual Practice,"
judging my your other blogging, I think that you have been bit by the bug, too. You will always be interested in the general topic of spirituality, no matter where life takes you. Relent, Steve! [So, as Lola said to Joe Hardy...] It's irresistible, you fool, give in.

Nagarjuna said...

<< I agree, AND HOW, that the so-called enlightened folks of our time are staggeringly disappointing. And for me none more so than Ken Wilber. >>

Tom, I wonder whether we would find the "enlightened" folks of ANY era disappointing if we could see them alive now as they were back then. It is easy to romanticize the past and the famous saints and sages of antiquity. But why would the depth of their wisdom exceed that of the most spiritually accomplished people of today, especially since the people of today can "stand on the shoulders of giants" of the past and also draw upon the knowledge and wisdom of diverse modern disciplines?

But you are right, Tom, I will undoubtedly always be interested in spirituality despite my lingering skepticism.

Tom said...

I think we would be disappointed by most all of the so-called enlightened folks of the past. But the past is necessarily different compared to our view of what's going on in the present.

As you write, the past is romanticized, because it cannot be touched. It is foggy and unreal and exists behind layers of obfuscating myth that we can't clean up or rectify.

But the past is also more focussed than the present.

Today, we believe we can "fight off" suffering with toothpaste and soft sneakers and vacations to the Barbados and laser eye surgery and everything else. We're in touch with the entire world to some extent so we think we can know everything. We have science delving into everything, pulling out impossible answers and connections.

In the past - it seems to me - life was necessarily more real. If it was cold outside, you were cold. You were familiar with the stars; they weren't lost to you in the glow of a metropolis. Your world was more bounded. Your whole life was lived within a five-mile radius. You were completely engulfed in the life you were given.

I just think that the enlightened in the past were likely to have been genuine and weren't prone to become the extravagant fakes of today.

Also, if the enlightened of the past have been 'touched up' by history, mythologized by their coterie or homies or colleagues, then at least we are being giving the enlightened ideal. The ideal might be rare - or, even, impossible - but it is still the right thing to strive for. And we are still right, and on-track, when we notice that the so-called enlightened of today fall short.

You and I should be grateful that we haven't become cultists, falling for the pitch of the snake oil salesman.