Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:02 am

Greetings,

zavk wrote:Yes, and I don't know if I am not making myself clear enough, or if you don't want to get it or just cannot get it. But what I have been trying to highlight so far is the need to pay attention to how conceptual groupings still work today in various subtle ways - especially when this habit of conceptual grouping is hidden by the idea that one has 'gotten over' conceptual grouping - so that we can learn how to better defuse this habit of conceptual grouping. Or at least, recognise that conceptual grouping is necessary for certain strategic purposes, and that they are helpful only to the extent that we constantly allow them to change and transform.

Sorry, I cannot relate to this at all. It feels like some variety of academic activism.

To my way of seeing, healing occurs by means of unity - not by further delineation, conceptual analysis and reductionism. In contrast, healing is holistic and occurs through accentuating and paying attention to that which is common, whereas what you propose seems intent on defining, manifesting and reifying conceptualized grounds for difference and isolation, and therefore for seeing people as numbers encircled on a Venn diagram rather than as individuals.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby zavk » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:43 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

zavk wrote:Yes, and I don't know if I am not making myself clear enough, or if you don't want to get it or just cannot get it. But what I have been trying to highlight so far is the need to pay attention to how conceptual groupings still work today in various subtle ways - especially when this habit of conceptual grouping is hidden by the idea that one has 'gotten over' conceptual grouping - so that we can learn how to better defuse this habit of conceptual grouping. Or at least, recognise that conceptual grouping is necessary for certain strategic purposes, and that they are helpful only to the extent that we constantly allow them to change and transform.

Sorry, I cannot relate to this at all. It feels like some variety of academic activism.

To my way of seeing, healing occurs by means of unity - not by further delineation, conceptual analysis and reductionism. In contrast, healing is holistic and occurs through accentuating and paying attention to that which is common, whereas what you propose seems intent on defining, manifesting and reifying conceptualized grounds for difference and isolation, and therefore for seeing people as numbers encircled on a Venn diagram rather than as individuals.

Metta,
Retro. :)



Did I say that I am not for the fostering of commonalites (and 'reductionism'? have you even read my posts)? But ok, now that you have evoked the praxis-ideal of commonality, let me say unreservedly that I affirm commonality but precisely because commonality ≠ sameness. If commonality is not commonality-in-spite-of-difference, togetherness-in-difference, then, I'd rather not have anything to do with it. You keep your unity to yourself.

And also, I'm not sure about ingenuity or the degree of critical reflexivity in the suggestion that because you disagree/cannot relate/are not prepared to see things from my perspective - that this is indicative of a kind of 'academic activism' on my part. If it is, well, then, perhaps I better pay more attention to myself.

But let me ask: what is being implied by this phrase 'academic activism'? Perhaps the implication that it just 'mere thinking' or a whole lot of 'over-intellectualisation', 'theorising divorced from practice', etc?

I don't know if this is a helpful notion to imply... I have certainly encountered similar sentiments/implied criticism in real life when people's views are challenged, as if one's thinking is ever disembodied or unconditioned by the exigencies of lived experience. I have definitely encountered such sentiments in the thousands and thousands of pages of this very forum itself - where (and who can honestly deny this?) A LOT of time and effort, a lot of energy, is invested in a certain discursive practice that judges, evaluates, and even excludes, people on the basis of how they construct their arguments, whether they back up their claims with references to this or that text or not.

I dunno.... it all appears very 'academic' to me. When does it become a habit, good or bad, of others and not oneself?
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
zavk
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:34 am

Hi zavk,

I can certainly see where you're coming from, and agree wholeheartedly, as I said in my first post on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18667#p262175

It's very easy to play the "they should just get over it" card... It's what used to happen all the time in my country (and still does, of course). However, as the Buddha made clear, denial is an ineffective cure...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby Aloka » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:38 am

.

I'm so sorry if this seems an innapropriate place to post this, but it just came into my mind when reading this thread:


"Dry out that which is past, let there be nothing for you in the future. If you do not grasp at anything in the present you will go about at peace. One who, in regard to this entire mindbody complex, has no cherishing of it as 'mine,' and who does not grieve for what is non-existent truly suffers no loss in the world. For him there is no thought of anything as 'this is mine' or 'this is another's'; not finding any state of ownership, and realizing, 'nothing is mine,' he does not grieve.

"To be not callous, not greedy, at rest and unruffled by circumstances — that is the profitable result I proclaim when asked about one who does not waver. For one who does not crave, who has understanding, there is no production (of new kamma). Refraining from initiating (new kamma) he sees security everywhere.

A sage does not speak in terms of being equal, lower or higher. Calmed and without selfishness he neither grasps nor rejects."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.15.irel.html





:anjali:
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3771
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:53 am

Greetings,

:goodpost:

zavk wrote:If it is, well, then, perhaps I better pay more attention to myself.

If you accept the quote that Aloka provided above, then I envisage that would be beneficial.

zavk wrote:what is being implied by this phrase 'academic activism'? Perhaps the implication that it just 'mere thinking' or a whole lot of 'over-intellectualisation', 'theorising divorced from practice', etc?

Activism = "Or at least, recognise that conceptual grouping is necessary for certain strategic purposes" (i.e. focus on manipulating the outer world of society in preference to manipulating the inner world of yourself)
Academic = Your opening post, laden with such conceptual groupings and classifications, disconnected from individual experience (i.e. loka) except for where you talked about your personal relationship to certain narratives.

Whereas he, "who does not grieve for what is non-existent truly suffers no loss in the world". Your concepts only exist when you manifest them, and by trying to call out "marginalised" groups you're encouraging others accept them, to reify them, and do likewise - i.e encouraging people to "buy into" these unnecessary delineations between people.

zavk wrote:I have definitely encountered such sentiments in the thousands and thousands of pages of this very forum itself - where (and who can honestly deny this?) A LOT of time and effort, a lot of energy, is invested in a certain discursive practice that judges, evaluates, and even excludes, people on the basis of how they construct their arguments, whether they back up their claims with references to this or that text or not.

I dunno.... it all appears very 'academic' to me.

And indeed it is if it has no direct relevance to one's experience/life/practice, which is precisely why I have no interest in "debate".

zavk wrote:in the suggestion that because you disagree/cannot relate/are not prepared to see things from my perspective

I can see it - I just don't think it's efficacious in the context of the Dhamma for the reasons outlined previously.

zavk wrote:When does it become a habit, good or bad, of others and not oneself?

I cannot find it just now but there is a sutta in which the Buddha gives general/non-situational advice saying that whatever contemplations or objects of attention give rise to wisdom, non-aversion, non-greed are good... whereas those that give rise to ingorance, aversion and greed and not good. Hence the importance of mindfulness in knowing this for oneself, so one can act appropriately.

Finally, I agree with Nanavira Thera when he said... "Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha s Teaching. But human kind, it seems, cannot bear very much reality: men, for the most part, draw back in alarm and dismay from this vertiginous direct view of being and seek refuge in distractions." To me, academic conceptualizations of the type promoted earlier are distractions.... i.e. thinking disconnected from the goal.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby chownah » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:01 pm

zavk wrote:..........not to disparage 'Western Buddhism' as such, since I am participating in it too, but merely in hope of encouraging curiosity about the stories of other Buddhists that may be effaced/subjugated/denigrated, even if unwittingly, by the story 'Western Buddhism' narrates about itself.

Ok, then. Consider me to be encouraged to be curious about the stories of other Buddhists as you describe.......so where are these stories? Are you talking about stories from Buddhists alive today or are you just talking about stories about dead Buddhists?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby daverupa » Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:42 pm

A LOT of time and effort, a lot of energy, is invested in a certain discursive practice that judges, evaluates, and even excludes, people on the basis of how they construct their arguments, whether they back up their claims with references to this or that text or not.


I see a lot more energy invested in discursive exclusions & evaluations of arguments than in discursive exclusions & evaluations of people, though I agree that this latter is simply not useful in any way.

It's a manifestation of the main problem of ossifying processes into entities in order to have a self-relationship with them; MN 1 discusses this.

Conceptual categories are useful only so long as they are mutable, in a nutshell, neh? Directly knowing a conceptual category in and of itself as such is different than taking it for granted as foundationally real and building on it...
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby David N. Snyder » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:35 pm

zavk wrote:I think we need to be careful that we don't evoke 'post-racial' as some kind of simplistic utopian rhetoric of "Let's not harp on these issues about racial discrimination, ethnocentricity, and what not. Leave it behind us, let's forget about it." It is very easy for those who have not historically been systematically marginalised and persecuted to just 'leave it all behind'.

But what if those who HAVE been systematically marginalised and persecuted respond by saying: "Wait, what? For the longest time, we have been silenced and ignored. Our plight effaced by a rhetoric of 'Oh we are doing this for your own good' We are all really the same. You just don't know how to see it'. No, screw that! Now that we finally have the means and opportunity to speak about injustice and participate in a history you have denied us, you want us to just forget about it? Whose interest is being served by 'leaving it all behind?' What if I tell you that 'forgetting about it' continues to silence us?" What if the privilege if you have accrued at our expense is precisely because you always tell yourself and force it down our throats that 'We are all the same?' We have never been 'the same'? Are you prepared to deal with that?"


I am trying to find something wholesome in your effort, but I don't see the benefit of harping about racial differences in Buddhism. As I mentioned most Buddhists that I have encountered have Asian monks and nuns as teachers who they greatly admire and respect and hold no racist views that I can see whatsoever. How exactly are Asian Buddhists being marginalized and persecuted?

If you are referring to something in the past, then yes, we could write about this in our texts but who is to be held accountable today for those past wrongs?

And yes, I know what it is like to face discrimination. I come from an ethnic group that has been on the receiving end of discrimination for thousands of years and I have personally experienced it too. In my own ethnic group, similar to immigrant Asians (to generalize), we excelled at education and achieved high positions in society, effectively eliminating most of the discrimination.

"Birth makes no Brahmin, nor non-Brahmin, makes; it is life‘s doing that mold the Brahmin true. Their lives mold farmers, tradesmen, merchants, and serfs. Their lives mold robbers, soldiers, chaplains, and kings. By birth is not one an out-caste. By birth is not one a Brahmin. By deeds is one an out-caste. By deeds is one a Brahmin."
(Majjhima Nikaya 98, Vasettha Sutta 57-59)
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8218
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:49 pm

I'm somewhat puzzled by the reactions to zavk's interesting post.
zavk wrote:I share this not to disparage 'Western Buddhism' as such, since I am participating in it too, but merely in hope of encouraging curiosity about the stories of other Buddhists that may be effaced/subjugated/denigrated, even if unwittingly, by the story 'Western Buddhism' narrates about itself.

I took it as a continuation of the discussions we have had about the origins of modern/western Buddhism, the back-and-forth between colonial attitudes and locals, and the way this shaped the way Buddhism was modernized by locals in Sri Lankan, Thailand, and Burma, and interpreted by western immigrants such as Ven Nyanatiloka, etc.

Of course, it is easy to find quotes that suggests that we should just stop worrying and get on with our practice. However, this assumes that we know exactly what that practice should be. A lot of effort is expended here in discussions over what is the real Buddha-Dhamma and what are the cultural accretions, how the Pali suttas compare with the Chinese Agamas, whether or not the Theravada tradition added unnecessary interpretation, and so on. Historical text-critical approaches are discussed and modern philosophical models are invoked in an effort to clarify and understand the Dhamma.

Given this interest in locating and understanding "the real Buddha-Dhamma", and flushing out the "cultural accretions" I'm baffled at the reaction to zavk drawing attention to where some of our own, modern, cultural accretions may have arisen.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby daverupa » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:05 pm

mikenz66 wrote:zavk drawing attention to where some of our own, modern, cultural accretions may have arisen.


I saw zavk asking us to reflect on certain racial/cultural issues in order to continually assess whether there was some sort of cultural/racial hegemony being perpetuated alongside our Dhamma narratives:

zavk wrote:I think this question must posed and reposed as an open question.


Conceptual categories may not be immediately available to awareness, though they might underlie... the cultural-hegemony-anusaya, if you like...
Last edited by daverupa on Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby David N. Snyder » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:06 pm

mikenz66 wrote:I took it as a continuation of the discussions we have had about the origins of modern/western Buddhism, the back-and-forth between colonial attitudes and locals, and the way this shaped the way Buddhism was modernized by locals in Sri Lankan, Thailand, and Burma, and interpreted by western immigrants such as Ven Nyanatiloka, etc.


Yes, that is fine, but this was added to that discussion by the OP:

zavk wrote:If it were not for a longstanding bad habit of 'white' people pointing an accusatory finger at others, constantly yapping about the moral and/or intellectual faults of others in order to pat themselves on the back,


zavk wrote:But what if those who HAVE been systematically marginalised and persecuted respond by saying: "Wait, what? For the longest time, we have been silenced and ignored.


zavk wrote:You just don't know how to see it'. No, screw that!


zavk wrote:What if the privilege if you have accrued at our expense is precisely because you always tell yourself and force it down our throats that 'We are all the same?' We have never been 'the same'? Are you prepared to deal with that?"


zavk wrote:You keep your unity to yourself.


mikenz66 wrote:Given this interest in locating and understanding "the real Buddha-Dhamma", and flushing out the "cultural accretions" I'm baffled at the reaction to zavk drawing attention to where some of our own, modern, cultural accretions may have arisen.


Locating the real Buddha-Dhamma? That is fine. But see this from the OP:

zavk wrote:If one looks into this other story of how the 'West' came to love the Buddha in the nineteenth century, one would find that it involved the same habit of accusing the natives of traditional Buddhist cultures of getting the Buddha's teachings 'wrong' or 'adulterating' it, etc

If it were not for a longstanding bad habit of 'white' people pointing an accusatory finger at others, constantly yapping about the moral and/or intellectual faults of others in order to pat themselves on the back,
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8218
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:55 pm

Hi Dave,
daverupa wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:zavk drawing attention to where some of our own, modern, cultural accretions may have arisen.


I saw zavk asking us to reflect on certain racial/cultural issues in order to continually assess whether there was some sort of cultural/racial hegemony being perpetuated alongside our Dhamma narratives:

zavk wrote:I think this question must posed and reposed as an open question.


Conceptual categories may not be immediately available to awareness, though they might underlie... the cultural-hegemony-anusaya, if you like...

If I understand you correctly, I think we are agreeing with zavk that it is important for us to examine our Dhamma narratives.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:03 pm

Hi David,
David N. Snyder wrote:Locating the real Buddha-Dhamma? That is fine. But see this from the OP:

zavk wrote:If one looks into this other story of how the 'West' came to love the Buddha in the nineteenth century, one would find that it involved the same habit of accusing the natives of traditional Buddhist cultures of getting the Buddha's teachings 'wrong' or 'adulterating' it, etc

If it were not for a longstanding bad habit of 'white' people pointing an accusatory finger at others, constantly yapping about the moral and/or intellectual faults of others in order to pat themselves on the back,

I think you need the whole of the paragraph, where zavk is explaining the irony of how he personally came to the Dhamma and how he therefore has some insight into the various cultural accretions in modern Buddhism:
zavk wrote:As someone who is a certain 'bastard offspring' born on the other side of the bed of colonial history, I have had to come to accept this strange plight of mine. If it were not for a longstanding bad habit of 'white' people pointing an accusatory finger at others, constantly yapping about the moral and/or intellectual faults of others in order to pat themselves on the back, I wouldn't have come to appreciate Buddhism - which has always been a part of my ancestral 'Chinese' heritage, yet I only felt a resonance with it after encountering 'Western' translations of it and the accompanying history of Eurocentric-Christocentric-colonialist attitudes (still persisting today in various guises, btw, including discourses that cloak themselves in the sheepskin of 'Reason') towards a genealogy I at once inherit and betray.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby rohana » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:57 pm

mikenz66 wrote:I took it as a continuation of the discussions we have had about the origins of modern/western Buddhism, the back-and-forth between colonial attitudes and locals, and the way this shaped the way Buddhism was modernized by locals in Sri Lankan, Thailand, and Burma, and interpreted by western immigrants such as Ven Nyanatiloka, etc.

That's how I read it too.

I'd say unless you're an Āriya, you already have biases and prejudices, even if you disagree with them on an intellectual level (just as understanding anattā on an intellectual level doesn't stop one from I-making and mine-making). So clearly it's better to understand that they're there and be aware of them rather than denying any prejudices and going on with a 'color-blind' attitude.

In some countries the Buddhist community can be extremely segregated along racial and ethnic lines - and I'd guess sometimes even more segregated by socio-economic lines. And then there are some who openly advocate taking out the 'Asian image' of Buddhism: Merchandising the Buddha.

:anjali:
"Delighting in existence, O monks, are gods and men; they are attached to existence, they revel in existence. When the Dhamma for the cessation of existence is being preached to them, their minds do not leap towards it, do not get pleased with it, do not get settled in it, do not find confidence in it. That is how, monks, some lag behind."
- It. p 43
rohana
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby zavk » Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:46 pm

Thank you to those who are picking up on salient points and the objective of the initial posts and subsequent clarifications.

David N. Snyder wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I took it as a continuation of the discussions we have had about the origins of modern/western Buddhism, the back-and-forth between colonial attitudes and locals, and the way this shaped the way Buddhism was modernized by locals in Sri Lankan, Thailand, and Burma, and interpreted by western immigrants such as Ven Nyanatiloka, etc.


Yes, that is fine, but this was added to that discussion by the OP:

zavk wrote:If it were not for a longstanding bad habit of 'white' people pointing an accusatory finger at others, constantly yapping about the moral and/or intellectual faults of others in order to pat themselves on the back,


zavk wrote:But what if those who HAVE been systematically marginalised and persecuted respond by saying: "Wait, what? For the longest time, we have been silenced and ignored.


zavk wrote:You just don't know how to see it'. No, screw that!


zavk wrote:What if the privilege if you have accrued at our expense is precisely because you always tell yourself and force it down our throats that 'We are all the same?' We have never been 'the same'? Are you prepared to deal with that?"


zavk wrote:You keep your unity to yourself.


mikenz66 wrote:Given this interest in locating and understanding "the real Buddha-Dhamma", and flushing out the "cultural accretions" I'm baffled at the reaction to zavk drawing attention to where some of our own, modern, cultural accretions may have arisen.


Locating the real Buddha-Dhamma? That is fine. But see this from the OP:

zavk wrote:If one looks into this other story of how the 'West' came to love the Buddha in the nineteenth century, one would find that it involved the same habit of accusing the natives of traditional Buddhist cultures of getting the Buddha's teachings 'wrong' or 'adulterating' it, etc

If it were not for a longstanding bad habit of 'white' people pointing an accusatory finger at others, constantly yapping about the moral and/or intellectual faults of others in order to pat themselves on the back,


Gee... reading it like this, this zavk guy seems like a real grade A SOB a-hole! But I guess we are living in a world of soundbites (kinda like what we confront in meditation, isn't it?) Reading the above 'remix' reminded me of videos like this:




Ah well, it's fair game I suppose. :popcorn:

But there's one particular phrase isolated above that I really wish to redress (it's up to anyone else if they wish to read the others in context or not):

zavk wrote:You keep your unity to yourself.


Soundbites are sexy but if we don't get seduced by them we might find that what was written was in fact:

zavk wrote:But ok, now that you have evoked the praxis-ideal of commonality, let me say unreservedly that I affirm commonality but precisely because commonality ≠ sameness. If commonality is not commonality-in-spite-of-difference, togetherness-in-difference, then, I'd rather not have anything to do with it. You keep your unity to yourself.


Don't be dishonest and cowardly in your assessment - even if, especially if, it is uncalculated, as I believe this is. So no offence taken. But if such effects occur, then, that's something to pay attention to.
Last edited by zavk on Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
zavk
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:55 pm

Greetings,

zavk wrote:But ok, now that you have evoked the praxis-ideal of commonality, let me say unreservedly that I affirm commonality but precisely because commonality ≠ sameness. If commonality is not commonality-in-spite-of-difference, togetherness-in-difference, then, I'd rather not have anything to do with it. You keep your unity to yourself.

Perhaps the most significant and important commonality amongst all non-arahant beings is the propensity to experience dukkha.

It is from the mindful awareness (i.e. Right Mindfulness) of this commonality experienced by all sentient beings (i.e. Right View) that wholesome mindstates like generosity and loving-kindness can arise (i.e. Right Effort), along with the intention (i.e. Right Intention) to do good deeds (i.e. Right Action, Right Speech, Right Livelihood).

Find the answer within. (i.e. Right Samadhi)

Is that unity objectionable to you, or do you experince patigha and strike against it, preferring socio-cultural analysis modelled on jati and mana?

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby David N. Snyder » Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:57 pm

zavk wrote:Soundbites are sexy but if we don't get seduced by them we might find that what was written was in fact:



As you mentioned context is everything. My post was in response to Mike's post suggesting that this was a continuation of the historical discussion about the formation of Western Buddhism and where I was just trying to show that race was a theme in your posts. Are you now saying that race was not a topic in your posts?
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8218
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby zavk » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:36 am

Actually, you were the one who first evoked the term ‘race’, not me. Although I can certainly see the rationale for extracting a ‘racial’ thematic in this thread, given that the OP highlights the discussion in Lopez’s book about historical European attitudes towards Asian Buddhist customs and my own reflections about the tensions I feel as someone of a ‘Chinese’ ancestral heritage towards certain ‘white’ attitudes, etc.

Fair enough. I understand that the theme of ‘race’ can cause discomfort, and I don’t want to cause any misunderstanding (as it had in fact happened) that I am reifying racial or ethnic distinctions, my clarifications notwithstanding. But whether there’s discomfort or not – and I presume we all agree that working with discomfort is productive - I think it is important not to misattribute the source of discomfort.

So let me clarify that ‘race’ is really only a subset of the broader theme/objective of the OP. What I am hoping to share for collective reflection is more precisely the taken for grantedness, the necessary situatedness and exclusions of any chosen set of outlooks.

I should have clarified that when I evoke the term ‘white’, I am not referring exclusively to race. But more along the lines of the satirical blog: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/ It’s use of the term ‘white’ is meant to be self-deprecating http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/books/ticking-all-the-white-boxes/2008/11/30/1227979844115.html And as you can see, one need not be racially ‘white’ to be ‘white’. What it points to is a certain taken for granted attitude of comfort and assuredness in such activities and outlooks.

Another way to clarify the main theme/objective of the OP is to think of the analogy of photography or image-making. We have all taken photos. I certainly have. I know very well that if I frame and angle my camera a certain way, I can draw attention to certain details, focus attention a certain way and encourage certain outlooks. Surely, I am not the only to have taken ‘selfies’? Come on? I mean look at my profile pic, it is quite bloody narcissistic, isn’t it?

Anyway, my point is: Regardless of how convinced one is about the beauty of a picture, is it ever possible to frame a picture, to draw attention to some scene or detail, portray oneself a certain way, WITHOUT leaving something out of the frame?
Last edited by zavk on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
zavk
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby zavk » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:37 am

Let me then try to illustrate these metaphors of ‘white’ and ‘framing’ in terms of my own experience.

As I’ve mentioned I have a ‘Chinese’ ancestral heritage. But I grew up in an environment where I was thoroughly educated in English. Because I generally spoke English at home and preferred Western popular culture, I totally sucked at my supposed ‘mother tongue’ of Mandarin. Throughout my childhood, I faced criticisms from peers of being a ‘banana’, yellow on the outside but white on the inside. Yet, my English language capacity put me at an advantage socially. I'd be lying if I say I did not and still delight in my more 'Westernised' or 'white' ways over others.

I also attended a Christian missionary school for six years. Up till my teenage years, I more or less regarded myself as a Christian. As to be expected, Christianity in where I come from is associated with ‘Western’ culture. So even though I grew up being fascinated by certain ‘Chinese’ folklore involving Buddhist themes, etc - not to mention my loving grandmother was a devotee of Guanyin who would seek blessings from the temple for her grandchildren - I was nevertheless taught to regard these customs with suspicion.

I was constantly being exposed to how I am ‘white’ and ‘non-white’ at the same time. How I am necessarily a ‘traitor’ on all sides.

Then I migrated to Australia where I have been living for the past 11-12 years. Throughout my university, work and social life, I have had to deal with the question: ‘Wow, your English is really good for a non-native speaker. Where do you come from?’ What do you mean ‘non-native’ speaker? I cannot think in any other language. What exactly is yours to possess and not ours to share?

It was in Australia where I discovered ‘Western’ translations of Buddhism, and felt a connection with it. I embraced it because it was very different to the sort of ‘cultural Buddhism’ I grew up with. I encountered the same criticisms I had encountered via Christianity: that the Buddhist customs of my ancestral heritage are to be viewed with suspicion. Once again, my inferiority is pointed out to me; once again I am asked to embrace 'whiteness' by disavowing my 'non-whiteness'. Yet, I very quickly began to see that even though ‘Western’ translations of Buddhism have a tendency to portray itself as a more ‘direct’ approach to the Dhamma, it is in fact thoroughly conditioned by certain cultural and historical forces – cultural and historical forces that I am intimately familiar with because these forces have been used to judge me as ‘inferior’ and at the same times have also worked to my advantage.

(I should note that because of my social and cultural capital here in Australia, I am in some ways 'whiter' than certain 'white' people. Race is only very partially relevant in this 'whiteness'.)

So, in other words, I have been conditioned to look through multiple frames, to view the world and life this way or that way. But through the necessary experience of dukkha, I have come to see that every frame, no matter how appealing the image appears, must necessarily leave something out as less worthy of attention. This is the unavoidable effect of the act of framing. Yet, we cannot focus our attention or look in a specific way without the act of framing.

What I am hoping to invite for collective reflection, then, is not so much ‘racial discrimination’ per se. Nor am I presuming to tell people if they have gotten the Dhamma right or wrong, or if they are developing the right insights or not. Note that I have refrained from suggesting that people are caught in aversion, not utilizing Right View, etc. If anything, although this habit of offering advice to correct other people’s Dhamma practice is not necessarily always a problem, it can be a part of the broader issue of I am pointing to: hubris, presumptuousness, taken for grantedness, blindness to the necessary situatedness and exclusions of one’s outlooks.

I am not so much concerned with proving anyone wrong or myself right. But merely to invite people to consider how it may be productive to not simply sharpen one’s focus within a (Dhammic) frame, but to pay attention to the (cultural and historical) process of framing (the Dhamma) itself.

Regardless of how convinced one is about the beauty of a picture, is it ever possible to frame a picture, to draw attention to some scene or detail, portray oneself a certain way, WITHOUT leaving something out of the frame?
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
zavk
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Book: 'Before we loved the Buddha'

Postby chownah » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:37 am

chownah wrote:
zavk wrote:..........not to disparage 'Western Buddhism' as such, since I am participating in it too, but merely in hope of encouraging curiosity about the stories of other Buddhists that may be effaced/subjugated/denigrated, even if unwittingly, by the story 'Western Buddhism' narrates about itself.

Ok, then. Consider me to be encouraged to be curious about the stories of other Buddhists as you describe.......so where are these stories? Are you talking about stories from Buddhists alive today or are you just talking about stories about dead Buddhists?
chownah

Ok, we'll........seems like you are saying that your life is one of the stories.......seems like you are self making big time......are there other stories about other Buddhists alive today or are all the other stories about dead Buddhists?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MisterRunon, Modus.Ponens, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests