Image via WikipediaRecently I found an interesting blog called Rachel's Musings. This writer is particularly intriguing to because she is scientifically inclined, and interested in Buddhism and mindfulness meditation practice. She has one of those Wordpress blogs that permits you to have separate pages (I wish Blogger would do that); and a couple of her pages are about Buddhism. In one of her pages, she makes a case for the argument that Buddhism is a religion; of course, that question is a matter of debate, and how one answers the question depends greatly on how one defines "religion." And, also, one's answer to the question might have an important impact on how one views the merits of Buddhism; as we know, for some people, "religion" is pretty much synonymous with ignorance, a non-scientific worldview, and even "delusion."
So I have been engaged in a brief conversation with Rachel about this question (which is of great interest to me). [You can find the whole conversation here.]
[FROM DELANY] I agree with many of your points. I’d like to hear a lot more, however, about the conclusions you draw: “Clearly, Buddhism has all the elements of a religion… Buddhism contains the same fallacies of other religions and at the right time, it is just as dangerous as other religions.” I am curious about what you would say are the necessary (and sufficient) “elements” of a “religion,” and in what way Buddhism (broadly speaking; as you note, there are a LOT of subtypes, with different ideas about cosmology, “gods,” bodhisattvas, hell realms, etc.) [necessarily fits the definition]. I am not entirely sure that all “Buddhists” have a set of dogmas (necessary “beliefs”) about “divine” figures or “gods.”
I am... unsure about whether there is anything about being “Buddhist” that necessarily would make a person more amenable to political manipulation (i.e., to recruit people into violent nationalism or partisanism)…
These are important questions to me… I teach mindfulness meditation, have been a member of a (Zen) Buddhist sangha, and am attracted to Buddhism in part because of the absence of... dogma, and its fundamental appeal to experience...
I am very sympathetic to most (maybe all!) of the standard arguments against religion, and even as they may apply to “spirituality,” but I get the uncomfortable sense, in many atheist websites and discussions, that atheism itself is lending itself to a sort of dogmatism, in which there is perhaps a bit too much reflexive rejection of anything that is not yet well-defined or measured (e.g., “wisdom” or “meaning”)… but yet might be [very much] worth further exploration.
****************************************************************************
[FROM RACHEL] What are the elements of religion? I disagree with many that one necessary element is at least one god. I think more important is the requirement of faith in something, whether that something is a god (or lots of them) or a particular teaching is not that important. Faith implies that it is not testable and not verifiable. So, in order to have this faith we need to “surrender the mind” (to quote Hitchens) since there are no facts to rely on.
In Buddhism, the faith requires a belief in the existence of the Buddha and the truth of his teaching (at the very minimum; most extend this to nirvana and karma). Although Buddhism - at least as it is taught in the West - encourages “testing” the teachings, like the usefulness of meditation, that testing, that questioning, does not allow for stepping completely out of the teachings. Buddhists are asked to believe that suffering is caused by attachments, for example; questioning that is discouraged by making doubt a hindrance. (See also http://www.rabe.org/cause-of-suffering/ for more on the “second noble truth”).
The main fallacy that follows from this is summarized in the idea of “blind faith” with its inherent closing of the mind and ceasing of critical thinking. If you want to know more about how Buddhism was used for political manipulation, please check out “Zen at War” and see Allix’ comment below (”Zen at War” talks at length about the the influence of Shinto). There’s also more on my criticism of Buddhism here
****************************************************************************
[FROM DELANY] Thanks, Rachel. Good points. I agree that this matter of dogmatism, or a required belief in something that cannot be established, is a good definition of religion. And I wonder if it might not be true that, within every worldview, some dogmatism can be found?
As to Buddhism: I don’t think that all branches of Buddhism “require” any kind of belief in the historical existence of the human being called “Buddha” to whom all Buddhist scripture and teachings are ascribed. Certainly, though, a person would not accurately be described as a Buddhist if s/he did not agree that the essential teachings are sound. The same, of course, is true within many disciplines; if a psychotherapist comes to the conclusion that cognitive-behavioral therapy is not beneficial for the alleviation of cognitive/emotional/behavioral problems, then that person could not accurately be described as a “cognitive-behavioral therapist.” But that really doesn’t make cognitive-behavioral therapy a “religion,” does it? Whether or not CBT is helpful is an empirical question, and I think the same is true of the essential teachings of Buddhism (and that is something that makes Buddhism attractive to me). The issue you raise about “doubt” being considered one of the hindrances is an interesting one, though. Harder to square that with a “scientific” approach, certainly! It has the flavor of a paradox. I’ll have to give that one some thought.
And, as to science: for some scientists, especially among those who describe themselves as atheists, it appears that reductionistic materialism occupies the function of a dogma; and scientists who are not convinced that reductionistic materialism can ever fully describe some phenomena (consciousness, for example) are often told that they are not truly “scientists.”
It all reminds me of the experience, these days, of being Catholic. The fundamentalist right-wing “traditionalists” enjoy telling the more liberal, Vatican II-type Catholics that they are not REALLY Catholic; and the same sort of thing goes on in many religions, world views, academic disciplines, etc. Certainly it happened within psychoanalysis, with a vengeance. Happily, Buddhists (especially in the West!) are not usually so dogmatic and parochial; I cannot imagine being chastised, in Buddhist circles, for expressing doubt as to any of the Buddhist teachings (including doubt as to whether the “historical Buddha” ever lived as a particular human being who said and did all the stuff that is ascribed to him).
0 comments:
Post a Comment