This is a continuing discussion between Gerry Trione and BC.
Gerry
Bhante-
Your insight and perspective on these issues is very helpful for “bridging the gap”. I hope this on-line discussion stimulates others to ponder these issues.
The underlying question seems to be: “How do we remove the many barriers to promoting Buddhism to westerners without corrupting the Dhamma”?
BC
Right.
GERRY
My goal is to “simplify” the core concepts into a “Buddhism package” that attracts those most likely to benefit, with the expectation that once convinced of its efficacy, they will want to dig deeper into the more complex issues.
This implies that Buddhism is not for everyone.
Like “triage”, there are those who are “too far gone” to adopt Buddhism for various reasons, like being deeply into materialism, huge egos, serious addictions, lifetime devotion to a particular religion, or committed criminals. This category would also include younger, immature people who are consumed with fantasy (video games).
The second category who are not likely targets is those people who are already “awakened” and content with their lives, already “Buddhists” in many respects. They practice the precepts unknowingly, as well as the 6 perfections and 8 Fold Path. These are genuinely good people with integrity and wisdom.
The primary target, therefore, is people who have good intentions, but are stuck in cultural habits which contribute to a constant undercurrent of “suffering”, in the form of anger, hate, resentment, cravings, fear, addictions, anxiety and depression, and don’t know what to do about it. They may have tried various “cures”, including “religion”, but nothing has worked. They want help.
Accordingly, I suspect our “target group” is relatively small compared to the others, so I don’t expect a ground swell of interest.
BC
I would agree.
GERRY
For comparison, the Jewish faith is certainly a radical departure from the “norm” of Christianity in the US which 62%, or about 203 million, and Jewish followers are estimated to be 2.5%, or 8 million (westerner Buddhists are roughly 600,000).
From personal experience, Judaism is a generally closely knit group who are disciplined, and actively engaged in their practice which has remarkable results of achievement.
For example, 14% of physicians are Jewish, and 29% of psychiatrists are Jewish. This disproportionate representation suggest a highly disciplined mind set.
I see no reason why a similar demographic couldn’t include Buddhists.
BC
Judaism is certainly a robust culture. Another fact: 25% of all Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish! I don’t understand its ability to survive so successfully as such a small minority in so many lands without being absorbed, even as it has become significantly atheistic. I remember reading that the Dalai Lama was trying to understand the reason for its success in this regard, seein the progressive weakening of Buddhism among the dispersed Tibetan population in India
GERRY
You covered a lot of ground, so I’ll try to respond to the more thorny issues.
You said: Luckily the Buddha gave us a Dhamma that is malleable; he seems to have anticipated the need for adaptation to new contexts.
This is at the heart of my focus: To preserve the Dhamma, but repackage the core concepts in terms of their importance or priority leading to awakening.
BC
We agree on this, though I think explaining the core concepts in ways modern people understand is effective. What needs to be explained is how each teaching fulfills what function. I think the Dhamma can accommodate the modern mindset in this way about 10%. The other 90% requires overcoming modern cultural baggage that conflicts with Dhamma, such as our hyper-individualism.
GERRY
Let’s examine some of the specific discussion points in question:
-Rebirth. As you point out, this is perhaps the thorniest issue, and the reason it is a major barrier is “credibility”; its focus and speculative nature undermines the credibility of the essential “core concepts”.
When I use the word “rebirth”, I’m including the notion of an afterlife (hence my reference to Vedic beliefs in 1,500 BC), which, not surprisingly, has long been the focus of most of the largest world religions.
My view is this is disingenuous since there is no evidence of an afterlife in any religion, other than conjecture, “hearsay”, and wishful thinking.
BC
I think objective evidence of its veracity is a moot point. There is no objective evidence that money exists, yet it serves its function, or football, or God. Moreover, “wishful thinking” is not part of Dhamma, though it may be a common part of folk Buddhism.
GERRY
As someone with an active interest in “Dark Energy”, and Quantum Fields, I suspect there is some sort of “Universal Energy” throughout the universe which “could be” some manifestation of “God”, or Brahma, etc (the Spinoza view). (Scientists are still struggling after many years with the “Unified Theory”, or the “Theory of everything”, but haven’t yet been able to explain “gravity”!).
But, to revert back to the Buddha’s skepticism, “Why speculate?”, it’s not relevant to improving our daily lives.
BC
Exactly my point.
GERRY
Yes, “rebirth/afterlife” provides a “symbolic goal” to encourage our practice to be better people, but does the “deception” justify the goal? My view is no. Better to view rebirth or an afterlife as “maybe”, rather than make it the primary focus, which is the Asian approach.
BC
Why speculate? Rebirth is “deceptive” in the sense that money or football are deceptive. Guarding against this is the point of my advice to “take seriously, but hold loosely.” The important question in understanding Dhamma is “Why did the Buddha teach this?”, not “Is it true?”.
GERRY
There are plenty of incentives to practice Buddhist core concepts without the “carrot” of rebirth or an afterlife.
BC
For the Buddha, rebirth is not a carrot. Quite the opposite. Though that framing does allow provide also the framing for the long-term well-being that comes with progress through practice in terms of rebirth in a heavenly realm. (Why would the Buddha teach that?)
GERRY
Specifically, a life with inner peace, contentment, satisfaction, tranquility, and an absence of stress, restlessness, fear, worry, anger, hate, cravings, anxiety, and depression is a goal which I suspect would appeal to everyone.
What happens when we die is “unknown”, if we are to be intellectually honest. I don’t think “removing” rebirth from teaching the Dhamma is in any way damaging. On the contrary, it is likely to entice people to consider Buddhism.
BC
I would suggest you need to be darn sure about that before removing anything. It would be difficult to put it back later. An opinion is not enough basis. Personally, I’ve come regard (after many years of your persuasion) that removing rebirth is damaging, and yet I cannot claim I “believe” in rebirth. The Buddha described why we need rebirth, but he never argued in terms of its truth. He was not interested in speculation.
By the way, I would regard a fixed belief in rebirth as equally damaging. I know a monk who says that if he did not believe in rebirth, he would not be a monk. If someone proved (presumably scientifically) that rebirth is not real, he would disrobe. That is to put the basis of his whole spiritual life on a very shaky basis.
About whether to remove certain teachings, my methodology in my scholarly work in interpreting Dhamma is never to reject anything. If a teaching does not make sense to my modern, western brain, I always assume that I need to look harder to see what it means. Of course I acknowledge that some teachings actually might be off base, and that some might be later additions that post-date the Buddha. But this methodology avoids cherry-picking to justify a particular understanding, forces me into a very deep analysis of many topics I might otherwise dismiss, and makes it almost impossible for me to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to be careful.
GERRY
Regarding “Karma”, and “merit”, they are linked in Asian Buddhism to rebirth and realms, which is essentially the same unnecessary “barrier”.
To simplify, my view is karma is basically causality, in the sense that our intent and actions have consequences. Do good things, and good things are likely to happen, for others, not intentionally for ourselves.
BC
This is not what karma means, nor what the fruits of karma mean. These together are meant to be the primary basis of practice. Karma is practice, the fruits of karma are the progress we make toward awakening as a result of practice. We play the guitar in order to entertain people (consequence), but also to get better at playing the guitar (fruit, which is also a good thing to happen to us).
GERRY
Likewise, “merit” is not something we should record in a ledger. We do it because it is the “right thing to do”, and not to keep score for some personal gain.
BC
Why not? Merit is the quality of practice in terms of its contribution to developing and cultivating virtue and wisdom. These are not personal gains (the self drops out as we progress), they make the world a better place. The ledger serves to pace one’s practice.
GERRY
Better to focus on the clear benefits of the core concepts like the precepts, 8 fold path, 6 perfections, 5 skandhas, 5 hindrances, and notions of impermanence, non-self, mindfulness, and meditation.
And lastly, depending on who you believe, “Nirvana” is a state of mind of “liberation” from negative thoughts and emotions, and fully enlightened with virtue and wisdom “in this life”. All other interpretations are speculative.
Let’s think of ways to attract more people to Buddhism for its vast benefits rather than try to preserve questionable Dhamma beliefs.
BC
Again, Dhamma is not about beliefs. There are no Dhamma beliefs, at least not in early Buddhism. It is all working assumptions and pointers to what one can see for oneself. I should think that thinking in this way is a cultural bias that comes from later Christianity, perhaps the most belief-based religion (though some would argue against that). The Buddha refused to speculate.
One of the remarkable things about the Dhamma is that the Buddha has anticipated debates such as this. I wrote the following essay eight years ago on what the Buddha says about faith, belief, truth, view, and skepticism. It’s a bit long but worth the read, if I say so myself, for readers who would like to go more deeply into this topic. Nobody seems to think as clearly about such matters as the Buddha.
Take Seriously but Hold Loosely (2017)
We take the teachings of Dhamma seriously because each has a practical function that makes a difference in our lives. If we hold Buddha’s teachings loosely, we have license to interpret them in ways that are most meaningful to us.This is how can preserve the integrity of the Dharma without demanding interpretations that will never make sense to us.
GERRY
Let’s not “sacrifice progress for perfection”.
BC
Let’s not sacrifice Dhamma for speculation.
GERRY
Metta,
Leave a Reply