Buddhism: What Do We Know?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-david-dubois/is-buddhism-agnostic-_b_1425026.html?ref=religion

Our certainty about the things we know varies on a fairly wide spectrum when one thinks about it. We take for granted the reality of things like a desk chair, our food, other people we interact with. But there are things that are believed in that aren’t necessarily fully thought out, such as our ethics, or even contemplated on as to whether they’re necessary, such as supernatural thinking of one form or another. To focus too much on whether something is absolutely or conventionally true misses the point of what I spoke about in “Two Truths, One Path,” . The fluctuating nature of existence necessitates that we take different perspectives on things, but nonetheless maintain a degree of consistency even in the vacillation. Knowledge is more difficult to remain constant on, since it supports every other action we do. We behave ethically due to beliefs about what is good and bad respectively, things are considered mistaken or accurate because of prior experience and evidence considered together logically, and even logic has a basis in what we consider valid and sound. Buddhism in particular is something that many find to be highly lacking as concerns formal knowledge. Everything seems more based in practice, which varies by the individual, be they monastic or layperson or something in between. With this in mind, it comes to the question: does Buddhism make any real knowledge claims, philosophically speaking?

No formal structure exists across all of Buddhism for karma or rebirth, two of the biggest issues in studies of the philosophy, let alone whether Buddha was simply a wise man or a figure that possessed semi divine powers of near omniscience even before he actually shuffled off his proverbial earthly coil. This creates a lot of ambivalence that I noticed early on when first studying Buddhism in a college environment five years ago. Our introduction to Asian religions course focused on Hinduism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion for the most part, so there was more detail put into each of them. A question I recall coming up for Buddhism that reflected issues I spoke about in part with both “Seeds and Fruits, Actions and Results,” and “Rebirth, Not Reincarnation” was how a person’s karma can continue on if the person reborn is not the same as they were before? There are a few answers to this, the one I prefer being that karma is more a state of things instead of an individual person. There is such a thing as individual karma in the sense of one’s own actions and results affecting oneself primarily, but actions and results usually affect more people than we realize in one way or another. And this also solves that issue of rebirth in that karma isn’t co-opted by rebirth’s affecting any individual’s identity, subject to impermanence as they all are, particularly at death. Another answer to how a person’s karma might continue on even if the person themselves is subject to dissipation at death in some sense is that there is a stream of consciousness that is very subtly intertwined with the next rebirth, which retains the person’s memories, thoughts, etc. This, of course, brings up the more supernatural and even superstitious aspects of Buddhism as it spread out from India, though there were those that believed these things even within the founding country of Gautama’s teachings.

There is a tendency within lay Buddhism and even ordained Buddhism to follow the school that affirms Buddha was supernatural in some sense and that many aspects of Buddhism that are confusing should be answered with some form of mysterious and transcendent reality, such as Gautama Buddha being able to read people’s thoughts even in past lives, recall his past lives in vivid detail, not to mention the stream of consciousness spoken of before and the actual reality of the other six realms, particularly the lower and upper 2 where entities of a very unfalsifiable nature, however limited in their overall power, exist (hell beings, preta, asura and deva) I’m not saying this isn’t genuine Buddhism in the sense of it developing within cultures that don’t have opposition to a system as long as it can be incorporated into pre-existing beliefs. This is how Buddhism coexists so well with the animistic and polytheistic cultures that it holds high influence in today. The Buddha was notoriously silent on many of these matters, and unfortunately people take his silence as an ambivalent acceptance of the reality of things that he was emphatically against believing in just because of traditions or the like. This vague sense of “divine wisdom” we get from Gautama as depicted in many accounts of his life is what creates much of the mixed ideas that exist in Buddhism as it modernized and was incorporated into such cultures as Japan’s, where everything was believed to have a spirit in it, including mountains and rivers, let alone people and animals. Resolving the conflicts between them through syncretism is a solution, though it only muddies the waters as to what might be considered even remotely original Buddhism.

The Buddhist perspective on knowledge is not absolute in the grandest scheme, but only in those things that are beneficial to us. To know suffering is as valuable as knowing happiness, and knowing they are both fleeting is even more important. What is worth knowing and being confident, not arrogant, about are ideas that have practical applications in everyday life. Not just in isolated academic discussions, but something anyone can talk about in common language. Even if there isn’t always a structured dogma or official teaching in any sense of the word about such things as the principle of karma, derived in part from Hindu teachings that existed in the same culture with similar ambivalence, it doesn’t mean Buddhism doesn’t have certainty on other things. Life is most definitely dukkha, unsatisfactory in our initial approach to it, the cause of it is a combination of craving and ignorance, one can get over this dukkha approach to life and that is through living the eightfold path. There are also the 5 precepts and other traditions that are commonly held to have value across Buddhism, such as meditation and the virtues of metta and prajna.

To say Buddhism is cryptic and mysterious is not inaccurate, but rejecting it based on a standard of credulity requiring strict Western logic can miss the point of the nondualistic perspective that much of Eastern thought, Buddhism and Daoism especially, presents. Simply viewing things through a lens of “either/or” neglects the “both/and” answers we can see if we consider things differently, though not to the extent of throwing reason out the window. But as there are many sides to a diamond, life has many perspectives we can view it through and find different insights that we might not have discovered otherwise. That’s where Buddhism benefits: it seeks out answers wherever they may come and brings things together without reducing it in scale. The holistic nature of it doesn’t mean we neglect reducing things as is appropriate. It’s always a balance with Buddhist philosophy and practice and to come even close to perfect takes a lifetime, if not more in a sense. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Looking At Eastern Religion From the West

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-david-dubois/does-asia-have-religion_b_1031869.html

http://www.1world1way.com/coach/cultures_east_vs_west.html

As someone who has studied and continues to study religion, I find myself getting trapped in the same patterns that the discipline started from, which are decidedly Western and Christian, only one of which I remotely consider myself. The tendency I refer to is considering more Asian or Eastern religions according to the European or Western standard. Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hinduism, Daoism, Sikhism, Jainism and others all fall under something of an umbrella of systems classified as Dharmic; that is, following a path or adhering to a natural law, which is one common translation of the term dharma in Sanskrit. At least two of the faiths I listed are commonly not even considered religions in academic study: Confucianism and Jainism, mostly because they are centered on human activity instead of the supernatural related to the human. This creates an ambiguity about classification and what you include amongst common lists of 12 for most people involved in the study as a whole. Sometimes Buddhism isn’t even considered, since it’s almost as ambiguous about the relevance of the supernatural. There is also a huge swath of diversity within these religions due to the lack of specificity about a sacred or otherwise central text for the religion itself. There are many examples of relatively important historical texts for a background on any of these faiths: Tripitaka (Three Baskets) for Buddhism, along with the Pali Canon in general, the Vedas for Hinduism, the Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi for Daoism, and the list goes on. But none of those texts are considered absolutely essential for all people associated with those belief systems. All in all, one has to make at least some distinctions between Western and Eastern religion, even though the term is decidedly Western in origin, meaning another term would be required for the kind of precision that would take away the ambiguity that exists in this conversation. But what term would be best?

They very idea of religious studies as an academic discipline originated in Western culture, from a desire to understand religion in more scientific terms. But the basis of what was understood as a religion came from the Abrahamic traditions, which were the most studied at the time, especially Christianity. To believe was to make specific affirmations and to orient to the supernatural. But even with religions that believed explicitly in the supernatural, such as Shinto and Hinduism, there wasn’t the specificity of Christian creeds and so their exotic nature was simplified so as to be more palatable to Western minds. Fundamentally, this created a difficulty with Confucianism, Jainism and Buddhism, since they were more like philosophies and worldviews without the supernatural. So thankfully this exposure to a different manifestation of what we could call the religious impulse of humanity resulted in Western scholars partly recognizing that religion wasn’t limited to a definition that required the supernatural or a sacred text held to be inerrant or infallible. While not everyone has the nuance to see this, it’s at least possible to consider Buddhism and Confucianism as religions in a nominal sense, even though many scholars would contest this on the grounds that you’re stretching the credibility of the term religion to include things that may be better classified outside of that. The term religion itself is subject to some debate in its etymology. On the one hand we have the analysis by Cicero of re-ligare, to re-read or re-examine. This doesn’t possess the more creed based idea of another popular interpretation that religion is derived from the Latin religare, to bind fast. The former suggests a philosophical aspect, whereas the latter has a mystical element in communion with the divine. That aside, the question remains as to the nature of Eastern religion and whether there’s another term that could work in describing it apart from Western religion’s preconceptions and the partly loaded ideas that result.

Since we’ve partly established that religions in the East are either philosophical in nature and thus don’t qualify as well for the Western definition, or are more syncretic and/or eclectic in their approach to the supernatural, the Western ideas about religion are either barely applicable, such as with Hinduism or Sikhism in the connection to the divine, or virtually irrelevant, such as with Buddhism and Jainism that regard the gods as inconsequential to one’s spiritual development. With this in mind, the recognition that there is both a Western and Eastern religion in taking the two popular etymologies into account could complicate things more than if we simplify the discussion to worldviews and approach the subject with the idea that worldviews can have qualities of either side and not require the term religion to describe either of them. The term worldview admittedly creates some difficulties, since it doesn’t preclude the inclusion of various other beliefs that are more non-philosophical in nature, such as politics and the like. But overall it would enable us to present the differences side by side and also admit that there is some overlap. Some worldviews of Western origin might fit Eastern qualities better, such as Wicca. There are also religions that skim the boundary, such as Zoroastrianism, possessing some aspects of Western religion, such as a sacred text, the Avesta, but also reflecting a dualism that isn’t as present in Christianity with God as sovereign, whereas Ahura Mazda is in conflict with Angra Mainyu in a battle of good versus evil. The category overlaps could continue on for a while, but for the moment, we should admit that the classification is imperfect, but effective nonetheless.

There will necessarily be differences between these two forms of “religion” Western religion is more a matter of affiliation to one specific system or institution (Christianity, Judaism, etc), while Eastern religion is more associated with cultural practices and can be eclectic and syncretic in nature. Western faiths have more commonly associated official texts and creeds, whereas Eastern faiths have a lot of overlap and aren’t so strict in your identification with one and another, since they can harmonize with each other very easily in a sense, as Japan did with Shinto, its native belief system and Buddhism as it came from China, which also did the same thing with its own folk beliefs and Buddhism as it came from India. Even with traditions like Confucianism, Buddhism and Shinto to an extent, the behavior of believers is not the same and neither is the regard of the believers to the supernatural itself as opposed to society in relation to one’s beliefs. The Western idea of religion that we take for granted is derived primarily from an Abrahamic perspective that saw other belief systems as religions according to a very narrow idea of what constitutes religion in terms of beliefs related to the supernatural, which would’ve excluded Confucianism in the strictest sense, but also consider Chinese folk beliefs a religion of sorts unto itself. The more fluid and dynamic nature of Asian religion necessitates that you consider it within its own cultural sphere instead of under the Western lens that can push out many otherwise compelling and important Asian religions, even minority ones like Jainism and folk religions like Bon. The world religions class you take in college may give you a starting point for discussion, but it won’t necessarily present the belief systems as very different from those that many students were raised in. This will mean many of them have presuppositions about what a religion is supposed to be which will subsequently be shattered with the sheer diversity of Hinduism alone, along with Daoism and Shinto. The differences shouldn’t be cause for alarm, but an opportunity to broaden one’s horizons and see that religion is not always how we identify our beliefs, strictly speaking. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Religion: Comfort in Certainty or Contentment in Chaos?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/01/prominent-jerusalem-rabbi-warns-of-religions-limits/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/my-take-why-i-changed-from-faith-to-being/

Since there haven’t been huge events in the world that have had relevance to present society, I thought it better to consider religion and faith in general for once this week instead of specific incidents that connect to their study.

David Hartman, a well known Orthodox rabbi and philosopher, starts his CNN Belief Blog interview by noting what is probably the first thing most people view religion as; something to comfort them, to make them see the possibility of hope in a world that is intrinsically chaotic, unpredictable and varied in the satisfaction we gain in it. But Hartman cautions against this view, noting that religion shouldn’t be seen as a way to bind oneself to something in order to make the proverbial roller coaster of life seem more bearable. Religion may in some way have this function, as a method of therapy and catharsis, a cleansing of the mind and a reorientation of our perspective. But it shouldn’t be seen as a way to transcend life and go beyond suffering and the reality that we experience every day. Religion is not acquiring ultimate answers to give people, because otherwise, life would be perfect. If we just got a solution to the problem of people suffering loss of friends and family, life wouldn’t be in the state it is, with people in some cases becoming so fixated on the afterlife that they eschew any value to life as we know it. Not everyone is a Gnostic in that radical dualism of the spirit and flesh. But even a belief system where we think we have some ultimate revelation about how the world will end is still going a step beyond what it ought to be. Any religion that steps into the human realm and speaks to them as if they’re some messenger of God with just the right answers has turned its followers, laity and clergy alike, into puppets of self delusion. Hartman brings up the example of kids suffering with cancer. Religion doesn’t solve these problems, science does, over time. Religion heals wounds over time as well, albeit those of a more subtle nature. To Rabbi Hartman, religion is that system which enables us to persevere in the face of absurdity, of the uncertain. I would go a step further and say that this system shouldn’t be called religion, but instead something of a fusion of religion and philosophy. By this, I mean that this system, whatever one might want to call it, should involve both principles of ethics and practice following from them. Paul Kurtz, a philosopher called the “father of secular humanism” coined the term eupraxophy, which describes a system that focuses more on ethical behavior than what he called the “transcendental temptation”; what I understand to be similar to what Rabbi Hartman spoke about. We can’t live life thinking we have all the answers, no matter how much we’ve experienced in our own lives. A child could present more genuine ethics in a funeral situation or any such disaster than someone even my grandparents’ age. In a child innocently understanding that when someone is crying, they are upset, they would also consider it appropriate to console the person in a way that may involve words, but may simply involve a touch of the hand. That kind of comfort is something any person can appreciate, even if they also know that it will pass away. Knowing people will pass away is not cause for holding a belief that eventually people won’t pass away. It seems more prudent to focus on behaving well and cultivating good habits of ethics presently instead of hoping for some future where all our problems have been solved. As Hartman said, “I prefer a religion that gives me the strength to live with the unpredictable world rather than denying it,”

Continuing with the line of thought about the terms we use to describe such a system that appears in varied forms, without or with God. Some call it religion, others a relationship; some prefer to call it philosophy, discovering wisdom and fulfillment in life. There’s also belief system or worldview that express a more comprehensive idea, but are also very extensive and intimidating to people who want a basic way to express what their practice of virtue is. And of course there’s the term eupraxophy which is still very much unknown in common parlance. Even the term faith seems too limited, since not every person focuses on their faith in something in the sense that many have come to use the word. To have faith in something nowadays seems to be persisting in a conviction even when there is evidence or experience to the contrary. People who advocate this kind of faith also don’t seem to want a fellow believer to ever backslide or revert to their old ways, or distance themselves from the beliefs they were raised with. I can’t genuinely seem to name any names, not even a particular cousin who has generally harsh criticism of “liberalism” but is also quite liberal with his advice and doesn’t seem to know when to hold his tongue and listen to someone else talk, like a younger cousin of mine in college, not as concerned in his youth about his salvation so much as his education. The generation gap could be accused as the culprit in this case, but it seems like it may be something more along the lines of differences of personality. There are those that are more prone to being fixated on conservation of the past and future without realizing that in many cases, what is done in the present reflects both one’s past and future; the past in what you have learned and grown through before and the future in what you might do and how you might confront the unknown. And there are those that are potentially too invested in the present to the exclusion of considerations of the past or the future; ignoring past mistakes or not considering the consequences of their actions that will happen. A balance needs to be found or at least some moderation of either side. We admittedly need people that are more motivated by either rational or emotional considerations, and even those that contain aspects of both; like a philosopher of religion, considering religion, a discipline intertwined with people’s hopes and fears, through philosophy, more rigorous and structured, though aligned with religion nonetheless in seeking happiness through reason’s lens. Krista Tippet, host of the radio show now titled On Being reflects something of this sentiment. If we are to make a genuine pursuit of understanding what we have in common, we have to at least loosen our grip on, if not let go as reified ideas, those terms like faith and reason and consider them in a more general context before automatically reducing them to our particular contexts in life. Myself, as a child raised Christian, becoming a teen Deist and then finally concluding after college as more of a Buddhist; I am just one person of many that can be observed and approached in, and approach others with, the spirit of hospitality and tolerance. Not gullibility and naivete, mind you, but a deep trust alongside discretion honed over time and experience. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.